Was The New York Times Rejection Good for McCain?

News today that The New York Times rejected an op-ed piece submitted by John McCain on Friday made big news. This is especially offensive journalism by the NYT given the fact that they ran an Obama piece just days earlier. It was perfectly timed with a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Jordan and allowed him to lay out his Mid East foreign policy on a national stage.

The Grey Lady didn’t agree to give John McCain the same opportunity, issuing a rejection with strict conditions required for acceptance. In this case, the conditions that needed to be met meant a rewritten McCain piece that framed his issues as the NYT saw fit (i.e. discussion of definitive timelines for withdrawal). I’m sure the editors at the Times didn’t change a comma for Obama.

And yet, as an ad guy, I can tell you that all of this is actually good for McCain. The media impressions he’ll gain from the rejection will far outweigh the Monday circ of the NYT op-ed page. The recent campaign for Trojan Condoms is a perfect example. A brand with a small budget gained over 200 million media impressions by getting its ad rejected by CBS and FOX. A few million bucks on late night TV could never touch the attention garnered by airtime on The Colbert Report, The O'Reilly Factor, and VH1's Best Week Ever.

The rejection will only work to galvanize the Right and, if the campaign is smart, become part of the McCain campaign theme. I’m not so convinced, however, of this campaign’s political IQ.

Just Beat It ... Again: A Response to the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal

My well-intentioned friend, the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal, recently posted a piece about the evil Republican joy of torture. BCPL listed 5 reasons he’s against the use of any "enhanced" information seeking techniques:

1. Immoral and inhumane
2. Universally illegal (under the Geneva Conventions, UCMJ and US Law, among others)
3. Ineffective
4. Counter-productive, making us less safe
5. Inconsistent with American values

At the end of last year, I posted a few thoughts on the subject; inspired by the previous evening’s Democratic debate. You’ll see that while I don’t condone torture for torture’s sake, there is something to be gained from “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The ticking bomb scenario may be mostly academic, but it’s a necessary discussion none-the-less and ultimately separates those who support a reasonable security measure vs. those who are dogmatically demented by liberal ideology.

Here’s my take again:

The United States must not be in the business of torture. However, to be brutally honest, I believe there are more important things to care about than whether or not a few EVIL ANIMALS WHO SEEK TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE get roughed up a bit by their American captors. The main points against it (what it may do to our moral standing in the world; it makes us less safe) seem a bit naive -- these Islamic Crazies were killing women and children way before Bush and Cheney took office and began "ruining" America's international good will.

Further, only three terrorists were actually subjected to waterboarding, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind operations chief of 9/11. His interrogation was conducted not to extract a confession but in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when further attacks seemed likely and intelligence about Al Qaeda's operations was limited. The CIA Director testified that these interrogations saved lives. To put it bluntly, I'm not losing any sleep knowing that bad guys like KSM are being thoroughly questioned.

Maybe the BCPL should be concerned about more important issues, like the fact that Iran may have nukes soon and Obama only wants to sit down and have a little chat about it.

"Get off my back!"

The Highlight of the 2008 Campaign

A Re-rebuttal to the Commie Pinko's Obama Comments

Below is the list of arguments made by the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal in rebuttal to my previous Obama post (see below). Here's my re-re-buttal.

Look out for the EVR ripping the commie pinko liberal a new ass on his blog shortly.


EVR argument #1

Obama is not a post-partisan politician.

Commie Pinko rebuttal

You can't expect BO to be his own man because he's too new. Also, just look at his time spent as a state senator and you'll see he's bipartisan.

The truth

I actually did look at BO's record. It is the ultimate example of a man legislating as politcal operative. Check it out.

When the phone rings at 3 a.m., do we want a president whose favorite vote seems to be, "present"?

EVR argument #2

BO's premise that his good judgement overrides his lack of experience is flawed: This country needs a man who makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and not what is politically expedient.

Commie Pink rebuttal

Look how far that argument has gotten us with the devil, W. Also, both McCain and Obama combine principled leadership with politcal strategery, just look at the littany of flip-flops on each side.

The truth

McCain is an imperfect candidate and at times seems to buck the party line just to tweak the GOP's nuts, but he's a man with convictions. He's proven time and again that he's willing to do tough work that won't make him popular (i.e. Immigration reform, Campaign Finance reform, the Gang of 14 vote on judges, etc.). He pissed me off by voting against the Bush tax cuts, and even used very liberal language to rail against them ("lining the pockets of the wealthy," etc.), but his main motivation for the "nay" vote was that he felt that any tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts. In my mind, a bad vote that will be used against him, but a vote made in the name of principle none-the-less.

BO, on the other hand, has now pivoted from former positions on: an immediate Iraq pullout, the D.C. gun ban, the terror suveillance program, unilateral action on NAFTA, and public campaign fincancing. Obama seems to be promising a third Bush administration with all of these right wing views!

More Obama Myths to come soon ... plus rebuttals on the Billyburg Pinko Liberal's posts. Stay tuned...

A New Blog Format

Dear EVR readers,

We're trying a new format here for a while. A fellow New York resident and friend has just started a new blog across the Williamsburg Bridge in Brooklyn. He's a tried and true New York commie pinko bastard and we're going to try a little point/counter point and see if we can make things interesting leading up to the election.

I hope it proves stimulating, fun, or just downright nasty.

Here's where he can be found:

The Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal (good lord!)

We'll do a bunch of linking to make it easy to toggle between our discussions.

Thanks for reading.

The East Village Republican

The Myths of Barack Obama

The presidential campaign is entering the hot summer months and things are about to get good. Most people think Barack Obama is sitting pretty with up to a 15% lead, depending on the poll. I live in New York City and from here, it feels like it’s a one candidate race. I saw someone in the East Village yesterday wearing a shirt that said, “McCain Who?”

Now it’s true that whether or not you like Obama, agree with Obama, or trust Obama, he’s the one with all the momentum. The whole damn media has a collective erection for the guy right now … including Arianna Huffington and Markos Moulitsas (of Daily Kos), neither of whom have a penis.

But this is all good news for John McCain and the Straight Talk Express. The main reason is that McCain is best when he’s playing the underdog. This is when his true personality shines through: a sharp, witty man – the kind who you’d follow into battle. This is a man that you want leading the troops in a nasty prison camp and this is a man who you want picking up the phone at 3 a.m. when Iran’s development of nuclear weapons comes to pass.

But more than anything, I hope he can be the type of candidate that’s able to make the argument that he can lead on the critical issues facing the country. If he can’t, it’s no one’s fault but his own – Obama has some huge holes in his glossy sheen and a candidate who can’t exploit them isn’t ready for the Oval Office.

Beginning today and running through the election, I am going to list the arguments that expose these holes. Below is a list of a couple of key myths about the inimitable Barack Obama that McCain must exploit. More will follow, including discussions about taxes, foreign policy, health care, and other relevant items presented over the next few months:

Myth 1:
Barack Obama is a post-partisan politician

Truth:
Obama has consistently toed the Democratic party line in his few short years in the Senate. From judges to medicare to immigration to the Iraq War, the Illinois Senator has been a strident party loyalist. Not one major piece of legislation has his name on it; not one tough battle has he fought in the senate; not one stand has he made against his party; not one politically unpopular decision has he made. This is in sharp contrast to Senator McCain, who has proven to be THE post-partisan candidate on judge appointments, campaign finance, immigration, taxes (though i especially hate this one), and more. This country needs a man who makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and not what is political expedient.

Myth 2:
Barack Obama may be inexperienced, but he has good judgment

Truth:

Obama’s big claim to fame is that he may not have any of the necessary experience (either political, business, executive, etc.) to run the nation, but, unlike Bush, Clinton, McCain, and everyone else in Congress at the time, he was against the war from the start. This has provided the platform from which he can state that experience is less important than good judgment. It’s the basis (besides the fact that he’s extremely well spoken) of his entire candidacy.

But here’s the thing: if, in retrospect, you want to criticize the war, the intelligence, or the execution of war/post war strategy there is room for valid dissent. But, in March of 2003, given the uncertainty of American security, given our failure to connect the dots to 9/11, and given the intelligence that the entire globe supported, how could anyone NOT have supported the Iraq War effort? Imagine if Obama was president at the time. Imagine if the world’s intelligence was correct. Imagine if a dirty bomb or any other WMDs found their way into the hands of the very same people that had the audacity to fly airplanes into buildings. Imagine if all of this happened and our president, in a post-9/11 world, did nothing about it. In this scenario, our president would deserve to be put on trial as an accessory to war crimes.

More to come...

Vice, Comedy, and 9/11

Check out this "comedic" 9/11 video from VBS.tv, the online broadcast network brought to you by the ultra hip folks at Vice Magazine. They're really pushing the edge at Vice these days with jokes about herpes right next to good ol' "if we don't do 'x,' the terrorists win" repartee. Yep, real cutting edge.

The true crime about this video isn't just that it makes light of the hellish murder of almost 3,000 innocent Americans. The true crime is worse: it's just not that funny. If you're going to joke about September 11th, you better make it funny or shut the f*ck up. A bunch of spoiled, hipster cynics made this video and I wonder if they'd feel as tickled about it if they lost loved ones when the buildings came crashing down.

This sentiment reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry's dentist friend converts to Judaism, which Jerry suspects is a ploy to tell Jewish jokes with immunity. Jerry goes to the dentist's former priest:

Jerry: I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he's converted to Judaism just for the jokes.

Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person.

Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.