Hahah, I can just picture Rupert Murdoch saying "Dammit, if reverse psychology isn't working, try reverse-reverse-reverse PSYCHOLOGY!!"

Wow. Just Wow. I'm the first to point out Obama has some flaws, but being too close to GWB is not one of them. How could they say this about Obama and NOT McCain? This is, perhaps, the most retarded article I've ever read.

Photographic proof of this contention.

Great. Now I gotta scrape all those O's off of my cat.

I guess this can be seen as both an insult to Democrats and Republicans.

Obama is Bush's third term. McCain is Bush's third term. I guess we may as well give Bush a third term.

/Not really.

Wow. The right wing is TRULY in "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" mode.

Oh- BTW- you know a news source is not credible when it leads a paragraph with: Back in the day

Given how badly the Bush Administration has farked so many things up, either candidate is going to spend at least half of their first term digging out of the Bush hole. The only difference is that McCain appears eager to keep digging lower.

Modderator:Oh- BTW- you know a news source is not credible when it leads a paragraph with: Back in the day

News source? Opinion Journal?

Obama is playing the cards he needs to play in order to win. When he wins, he will be playing from a new deck.

mypalmike:Obama is playing the cards he needs to play in order to win. When he wins, he will be playing from a new deck.

So is that the "change" that he is talking about?

mypalmike:Obama is playing the cards he needs to play in order to win. When he wins, he will be playing from a new deck.

That's very Machiavellian. I had always associated that "say anything to win" tactic with Hillary. I'd rather he be honest about positions with which I disagree than to lie just to tell me what I want to hear.

Let's see.

Nothing on wiretaps
Amnesty for immigrants
Nothing done on Social Security
No solid commitments on getting out of Iraq
No honest answers on NAFTA
No promises on undoing the tax cut

Yep, sounds about right to me.

WSJ, it used to be a good paper. I suppose for non-political articles it still is. Sad

This is from the Rove playbook.

1.) Find your weakness
2.) Attribute it to your opponent

Unfortunately, this one fails the "giggle test"

it's still an excellent paper. the opinion page is totally separate from the reporting sections. it's supposed to have opinions.

and it has ones that are pro-business (obviously) and generally conservative republican. it's a refreshing change of pace, especially if you consider that the opinion pages of similar national papers skew democratic and liberal.

RobsterCraw:WSJ, it used to be a good paper. I suppose for non-political articles it still is. Sad

WSJ still has its uses... like lining bird cages, or house training a puppy. The Financial Times is taking over their niche as the business paper of note.

RobsterCraw:WSJ, it used to be a good paper. I suppose for non-political articles it still is. Sad

The news reporting has always been good, and probably will continue to be even in the Murdoch era, since the WSJ's subscribers will always want to be able to rely on the quality of their reporting. The opinion section--where this drivel is found--has always been ridiculous, and only idiots take it seriously. What's really fun is when the opinion pieces are directly controverted by the news on Page 1, as they frequently are. It's like the opinion writers don't even read the news section of their own paper.

Sheesh... if I wanted in depth political commentary I would read Playboy.

Obama's adopting a few planks. He's not stealing the whole platform.

Wow, just wow!


//speechless

George W. Bush:

Was too inexperienced to be President
Arrogant
Not smart enough for the job
Lacks integrity
Tried to develop a cult of personality
Used drugs in his youth

Barack Obama:

Is too inexperienced to be President
Arrogant
Not smart enough for the job
Lacks integrity
Tried to develop a cult of personality
Used drugs in his youth

If it fits

Cyberluddite:It's like the opinion writers don't even read the news section of their own paper.

Well, to be fair, they'd need a time machine to do that.

biatch say what. The only time he's let me down is the FISA debacle. (And when hopes are this high, there's nowhere to go but down) And even then we're throwing a shiat fit on the MyBo website so he knows we're not ok with it.

McCainDemocrat:George W. Bush:

Was too inexperienced to be President
Arrogant
Not smart enough for the job
Lacks integrity
Tried to develop a cult of personality
Used drugs in his youth

Barack Obama:

Is too inexperienced to be President
Arrogant
Not smart enough for the job
Lacks integrity
Tried to develop a cult of personality
Used drugs in his youth

If it fits

Lest we forget:



A troll alt in my Fark? It's more likely than you think.

And they said they wouldn't change their editorial viewpoint after Rupert took over. Sigh. He's so dreamy.

/love is never having to say you're full of shiat

So shouldn't the headline be, "Wall Street Journal endorses Obama"?

Nabb1:That's very Machiavellian. I had always associated that "say anything to win" tactic with Hillary. I'd rather he be honest about positions with which I disagree than to lie just to tell me what I want to hear.

Me too.

I want to vote for the guy. I don't want to have to hold my nose to do it.

you gotta be shiattin' me.

SilentStrider:you gotta be shiattin' me.

Apparently not.

Remember when News Corp (almost typed "Crap", whew) bought the WSJ and there was supposed to be a panel of moderators imposed to prevent obvious political slanting?

Yeah, neither do I.

So the right wing has come down to the "I know you are but what am I" defense already?

Yikes


/If you like the way things are now, vote for McCain
//McCain vs McCain on his support for GW (link)

It get harder and harder to tell the difference between the WSJ and the Onion with each passing day. Oh Wall Street Journal, remember where you were a respected news source, heck, remember when you were a news source?

I will give them this, Obama is changing, He's throwing his base under the bus for the center the ones who we all know voted for Bush twice.

Well his slogan is change so i guess i shouldn't be too upset. I just thought he meant policy not himself.

McCainDemocrat:
George W. Bush:

Was too inexperienced to be President
Arrogant
Not smart enough for the job
Lacks integrity
Tried to develop a cult of personality
Used drugs in his youth

Barack Obama:
Hillary Clinton
Al Gore
Bill Clinton

Is too inexperienced to be President
Arrogant
Not smart enough for the job
Lacks integrity
Tried to develop a cult of personality
Used drugs in his youth

If it fits

FTFY

/sorry...couldnt resist
//its like taking candy from a retard

They just threw Obama under a Bush.

Congratulations, WSJ, you've just succeeded in adding 28% of the nation's populace to Obama's voter base!

Is this all a part of Operation Chaos?

Not All That Much://its like taking candy from a retard

I lol'ed.

It was a sad day when Murdoch bought the WSJ. All of their journalistic integrity and credibility went right out the window. I guess that's obvious, but it still saddens me.

"He's still the Obama Americans don't know."

Wrong. We've seen this movie before.



We think it's worth the price.

Personally I think Bush has done a wonderful job. We seemed like whiny liberal pansies under Clinton, and the rest of world might have liked us, but they didn't take us seriously. Thanks to our current glorious leader, the world now fears us, and thinks we're f-ing crazy. You get a lot of mileage off that. You never know who we'll goddamn explode on next. Watch your back, Albania.

The only thing that could make this empire better would be four more years of the current administration.

Personally, I think Bush is too soft. We could be controlling the majority of the world's land right about now, if we just had a leader who had the balls and God's vision. But at least Bush is a step in the right direction.

The people who write for the opinion section of the WSJ are presumably intelligent people.

So when they write an article like this, rife with absolutely ridiculous comparisons, cherrypicked information, and direct contradictions, is it supposed to be taken as anything other than an attempt at the manipulation of stupid people?

As a follow up question, do they laugh the entire time they're typing, or do they just smirk a little?

So does this mean that the 23%ers are going to vote for Obama now?

This article is the sort of thing the right has been doing for months and it drives the GOP strategists crazy (at least the smart ones).
If the message is, "he's too liberal for America" then you won't help yourself with "He's just as bad as George W. Bush."

DrowningLessons:Personally I think Bush has done a wonderful job. We seemed like whiny liberal pansies under Clinton, and the rest of world might have liked us, but they didn't take us seriously. Thanks to our current glorious leader, the world now fears us, and thinks we're f-ing crazy. You get a lot of mileage off that. You never know who we'll goddamn explode on next. Watch your back, Albania.

The only thing that could make this empire better would be four more years of the current administration.

Personally, I think Bush is too soft. We could be controlling the majority of the world's land right about now, if we just had a leader who had the balls and God's vision. But at least Bush is a step in the right direction.

I loled.

Wow.

So, the WSJ still subscribes to The Big Lie. That's useful...