Rupert Murdoch's New York Post Publishes McCain's Rejected, Error-Filled Op-Ed

The New York Post - owned by Rupert Murdoch - has no problem republishing McCain campaign talking points - even if they’re not totally accurate. Today, the Post published McCain’s NY Times-rejected article in its entirety.

[The laughing liberal]

Very strange that the other NY rag didn't publish McCains Op-Ed piece.

If it had mistakes, then send it back for corrections and make the next printing. Could even have printed it with the errors and let him take the heat for it.

Either way, it shows an arrogant bias and protection of it's chosen one by an organization given special protection under the US Constitution.

[Gail]

The laughing liberal wrote:

Very strange that the other NY rag didn't publish McCains Op-Ed piece.
If it had mistakes, then send it back for corrections and make the next printing. Could even have printed it with the errors and let him take the heat for it.
Either way, it shows an arrogant bias and protection of it's chosen one by an organization given special protection under the US Constitution.

I heard that the piece (I haven't read it) did not express his policies but rather it was just a rebuttal to why he thought none of Obama's ideas would work. In other words, no substance.

[Buzz Flederjon]

This is not fair to Johnny McCain.

He is a war hero! He wrecked five planes and surrendered to the Vietnamese rice growers.

Then he bagged a rich drug- addled babe.

Now he drools in his rice crispies while his diaper is changed.

Give em heck - johnny.

[wyojake]

Wonder why slander and lies should be protected under the constitution but not good journalism? Come on you can do better than that?

[Richard USA]

Buzz Flederjon wrote:

This is not fair to Johnny McCain.
He is a war hero! He wrecked five planes and surrendered to the Vietnamese rice growers.
Then he bagged a rich drug- addled babe.
Now he drools in his rice crispies while his diaper is changed.
Give em heck - johnny.

... Does the rich drug- addled babe, have a sister???

[fly_on_the_windo w]

It's a shame. If Mr. Murdoch is such a stickler on facts, he should have edited President Bush's infamous 2003 State of the Union speech.

[The laughing liberal]

Gail wrote:

<quoted text>
I heard that the piece (I haven't read it) did not express his policies but rather it was just a rebuttal to why he thought none of Obama's ideas would work. In other words, no substance.

It was simply his policies and rebuttal to an Op-Ed piece the same NY Times allowed Obama to publish on the same topic.

The NYT said they wanted something new.

In other words, you can only point out Obama's incorrect positions so many times before it becomes old, stale and unworthy of print.

[The laughing liberal]

Bottom line is:

NYT made a mistake.
Let these guys speak and publish what they want for public dissemination.

More is better.
Gives us more to compare, fact check, and ultimately decide.

[McSame Stain]

Vanity Fair gives equal time to McCain.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/200...

[Pudintain]

The NYT wanted McCain to write it to include his Iraq strategy with a time table. McCain refused of course saying he would not publish a war strategy he may use and he is against a timetable.

[JohnInLa]

Most everyone knows these leftist newspapers are on the verge of bankruptcy…When they're gone it’s going to disappoint a lot of parakeets.

[Buzz Flederjon]

Richard USA wrote:

<quoted text>... Does the rich drug- addled babe, have a sister???

Cindy will be available in a year or so when McSame craps out.

She is a rich MILF - and why she needs Johnny Prostrate is a mystery.

[yes man]

The NYT is rigth they don't has to be like McCain a yes ser man. That is all the education he has. yes man to the rich ,yes man to Bush,yes man.

[x-nutmegger]

What a crock of shyte !

We have an editor who publishes a dissing on McCain's op ed that the NYT refused.

We have an editor who can post the op ed as it is available in the " past headlines" of www.drudgereport.com but doesn't .

Typical media lefty games. Tell us it's loaded with errors but won't let us decide for our selves so we the UNWASHED MASSES of SHEEPLE must rely on our ELITE HANDLERS to form an opinion as we are tooooooo (what)?

[JohnInLa]

This election should focus on content of character. And at this point in time Obama's content of character amounts to what his elite euro-socialist contributors desire.
It started going downhill for Obama when he could not stand up as a man and remove himself and his family from the presence of his preacher and mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a man who habitually butt-spewed anti-American racist filth over his entire church congregation.
Obama had 20 years to stand up and leave such a demented environment but only when Rev. Wright became a liability for Obama's bid for president did he separate himself...That's 20 years too late, that's self-serving and that's not a man fit to be president.
President GW Bush stood as a man and confronted alcohol that was destroying him and his family. John McCain stood as a man and confronted war and captivity. Obama never stood for anything and that's why he’s content to lay The United States Of America at the feet of his euro-socialist contributors.
Once again his demons are holding him down, he does not possess the integrity to fight back; integrity comes from the ones soul not from Harvard, Barry.
The United States of America fought wars even on its own soil to defeat the demented racist anti-American sentiments of those along the lines of Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers and Father Phleger. If left up to people like Obama who could not and would not stand there would be no United States Of America.
Electing someone president who could not and would not politely stand up as a man and confront Rev. Jeremiah Wright simply by removing himself and his family from such obvious filth is as silly as it sounds.
Allowing a community organizer and junior senator with no military experience and who voted against the mission the in Iraq and later voted against the surge to be placed in charge of The United States Military and Iraq and Afghanistan is as silly as it sounds.

[wyojake]

JohnInLa wrote:

This election should focus on content of character. And at this point in time Obama's content of character amounts to what his elite euro-socialist contributors desire.
It started going downhill for Obama when he could not stand up as a man and remove himself and his family from the presence of his preacher and mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a man who habitually butt-spewed anti-American racist filth over his entire church congregation.
Obama had 20 years to stand up and leave such a demented environment but only when Rev. Wright became a liability for Obama's bid for president did he separate himself...That's 20 years too late, that's self-serving and that's not a man fit to be president.
President GW Bush stood as a man and confronted alcohol that was destroying him and his family. John McCain stood as a man and confronted war and captivity. Obama never stood for anything and that's why he’s content to lay The United States Of America at the feet of his euro-socialist contributors.
Once again his demons are holding him down, he does not possess the integrity to fight back; integrity comes from the ones soul not from Harvard, Barry.
The United States of America fought wars even on its own soil to defeat the demented racist anti-American sentiments of those along the lines of Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers and Father Phleger. If left up to people like Obama who could not and would not stand there would be no United States Of America.
Electing someone president who could not and would not politely stand up as a man and confront Rev. Jeremiah Wright simply by removing himself and his family from such obvious filth is as silly as it sounds.
Allowing a community organizer and junior senator with no military experience and who voted against the mission the in Iraq and later voted against the surge to be placed in charge of The United States Military and Iraq and Afghanistan is as silly as it sounds.

Unfortunately John it will be based on sick bile like you spout not on the content of character.

[Stuipd Citizens]

OH Johnny boy the world Loves Obama, give it up! DId you see the troops screaming for him over there today, priceless!

[JohnInLa]

Yes indeed, Obama stands by his vote against the surge on the grounds there's no way to know if the "plan" to put pressure on the Iraqi Government would have worked. Obviously the traveling clown needs immediate mental help...The self-server ignores the only option that would and did succeed, he ignores the blood, sweat and tears that made the surge succeed. In short, Obama is one sorry self-serving SOB.
I've never seen a more pompous candidate for President Of The United States who habitually lays a turd on the table and calls it an answer all while pathetic trinket promised lemmings applaud. It is very hard determining which is the bigger lowlifes…It really doesn’t matter, they deserve each other.

[JohnInLa]

Stuipd Citizens wrote:

OH Johnny boy the world Loves Obama, give it up! DId you see the troops screaming for him over there today, priceless!

If you weren't so stupid you'd know there's 150,000 US Troops in Iraq. What you saw was a photo op with very, very few soldiers...By no means does it indicate any consensus...I hate to rain on your parade you incompetent corpse.

[JohnInLa]

wyojake wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately John it will be based on sick bile like you spout not on the content of character.

Unfortunately wyojake, you lack the content of character to respond with anything beyond the poop stuck between your little socialist ears.