Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Wall Street Journal thinks Bush should fire Rice, Rove and Cheney. Tomorrow, Moveon.org will announce that Clinton is a greasy liar; day after tomorrow the world will come to an end   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
43
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

414 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2006 at 4:12 PM (17 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
barkey2006
2006-03-20 1:23:57 PM  
What about Rummy?

/he should be the first one against the wall.
 
Fark It
2006-03-20 1:26:22 PM  
Those smelly WSJ hippies. They probably have pictures of Mao right under their NSYE tickers.
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2006-03-20 1:26:58 PM  
Submitter Do you know why Move.org was founded?
 
lexslamman
2006-03-20 1:32:07 PM  
Submitter Do you know why Move.org was founded?

From a former Moveon.org member, I can tell you that it was founded because the GOP was kicking the Democrats' asses in fundraising year after year, and the Dems saw the 527 loophole as a chance to pull one over on the GOP.
 
NikolaiFarkoff [TotalFark]
2006-03-20 1:39:19 PM  
An Op-Ed page? Surely this writer speaks for the publishers of this newspaper! We must burn the US embassy, all those who dissent!
 
dameron
2006-03-20 1:42:20 PM  
NikolaiFarkoff: An Op-Ed page? Surely this writer speaks for the publishers of this newspaper!

The WSJ editorial pages are one of the most conservative, popular, public spaces in America. They're as close to the heart of traditional Republicans as you can get.
 
flaEsq
2006-03-20 1:44:33 PM  
barkey2006: What about Rummy?

The kleptocrat paper-of-record suggests replacing him with Joe Lieberman.
 
BritneysSpeculum
2006-03-20 1:44:53 PM  
It's not the WSJ, but Fred Barnes. Plus, he is not advocating that anyone actually get fired, but that they just shift themselves around. Most of the problems that Bush now has is Cheney. Cheney would go to defense, but would still be the eminence gris of the administration. Bush acquiesced to him when he was Vice President (a job not worth a pitcher of spit (or more accurately piss) according to James Nance Gardner), why would that change if he were at defense?
 
BooBoo23
2006-03-20 1:45:10 PM  
barkey2006: What about Rummy?

Amen. He should be among the first to go.
 
lohphat
2006-03-20 1:46:52 PM  
WHAT!? And admit an error? No self-respecting Jeebus flagging CEO would admit to error -- they just spin it into win-win success marketing drivel.
 
flaEsq
2006-03-20 1:47:13 PM  
Oops BritneySpeculum is correct, ignore my post
 
NikolaiFarkoff [TotalFark]
2006-03-20 1:49:02 PM  
dameron

That's interesting, because I've never seen them that way. That UCLA media bias study from a few months back concluded:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Maybe that was just the overall content, not necessarily the Op-Eds...but it's surprising to see a newspaper like that at the top of this list.
 
Quackedtheduck
2006-03-20 1:53:18 PM  
The WSJ is right, but if they think the administration would even think about doing that for a minute, they're nuts.
 
lexslamman
2006-03-20 1:56:42 PM  
NikolaiFarkoff

Wow. If that study found the WSJ to be 'liberal' (whatever meaning that is supposed to have in their context) then I think you can throw it right out the window.
 
BritneysSpeculum
2006-03-20 1:56:55 PM  
NikolaiFarkoff
dameron
That's interesting, because I've never seen them that way. That UCLA media bias study from a few months back concluded:
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Maybe that was just the overall content, not necessarily the Op-Eds...but it's surprising to see a newspaper like that at the top of this list.

The op/ed page of the WSJ is obsessively conservative. In fact, Robert Bartley who became head of the op/ed section in the 1970's felt it his responsibility to keep the flickering light of conservativism alive during the bad post-Goldwater years.

That said, I am surprised that the news pages scored so left leaning. Not doubting what you say, just surprised.
 
Quackedtheduck
2006-03-20 1:59:08 PM  
BritneysSpeculum

The truth favors the left these days. In order to be right leaning on the news, you have to lie or obfuscate.
 
dameron
2006-03-20 2:03:50 PM  
NikolaiFarkoff: Maybe that was just the overall content, not necessarily the Op-Eds...but it's surprising to see a newspaper like that at the top of this list.

The WSJ's content in and of itself can range widely, however the editorial pages are the kaaba of American conservatism.
 
lexslamman
2006-03-20 2:04:07 PM  
Quackedtheduck

I don't think the truth favors left or right - it favors the TRUTH.

Maybe the definition of 'left' that is widely accepted after being pushed hard by the right wing of the GOP is actually closer to 'moderate' in actual political terms.
 
Quackedtheduck
2006-03-20 2:05:33 PM  
lexlamman

That's why I said "these days." And yes, I agree completely.
 
Mr. Clarence Butterworth
2006-03-20 2:08:20 PM  
Holy smokes....

The WSJ editorial staff is only second in conservatism to the staff at The Weekly Standard.

I don't mention NRO because they suck...
 
Mr. Clarence Butterworth
2006-03-20 2:11:36 PM  
An Op-Ed page? Surely this writer speaks for the publishers of this newspaper!

Newspaper and magazine editors answer directly to publishers, who pony up the cash, and read their publications very carefully.

This should be fairly obvious.
 
TDonaghe
2006-03-20 2:12:12 PM  
Why do conservatives who differ with the administration hate America?
 
truth_is_stranger_than_fishin
2006-03-20 2:16:06 PM  
Quackedtheduck
The truth favors the left these days. In order to be right leaning on the news, you have to lie or obfuscate.


see fox news for example
 
Weaver95
2006-03-20 2:16:58 PM  
Do you know why Move.org was founded?

To shill for the socialists?
 
Quackedtheduck
2006-03-20 2:18:18 PM  
Do you know why Move.org was founded?

As a paper tiger for the Right to point to when they want to get their people outraged?

/I really wouldn't be surprised if they were backed by some rightwing thinktank, god they stink.
 
Weaver95
2006-03-20 2:21:36 PM  
/I really wouldn't be surprised if they were backed by some rightwing thinktank, god they stink.

Actually, a significant portion of their funding comes from overseas sources. Beyond that, it's speculation. But if I were a hostile foreign power and wanted to weaken US resolve or just plain muddle with interal affairs - you could do worse than to just fund the hell out of the radical US lefties. It's scummy and underhanded but entirely legal.

Be that as it may, it's getting BAD for the Bush adminstration. That Dubai port deal cost him a LOT of support, and he's done nothing to shore up his base.
 
TDonaghe
2006-03-20 2:28:24 PM  
Let's all just hope and pray (or just hope) that the Republicans nominate someone sane (McCain) to run for prez in 2008 against Hillary. If I have to choose between Frist or one of their other whackjobs against Hillary, I'm not sure what I'll do. The Democrats will not nominate anyone capable this year, so it's up to the Republicans to provide the lesser of two evils.

Can they do it?
 
flaEsq
2006-03-20 2:30:11 PM  
TDonaghe: Let's all just hope and pray (or just hope) that the Republicans nominate someone sane (McCain) to run for prez in 2008 against Hillary

Yow, a couple of questionable assumptions in there
 
Quackedtheduck
2006-03-20 2:31:53 PM  
Weaver95

Could well be. On the other hand, all our totally insane contingent does is sit around, smoke pot, and sometimes dress up in funny costumes and march around a little. Your loony contingent wants to toss out the constitution and replace it with Leviticus. You'd think if you were a foreign government, you'd fund the hell out of our nutcase righties.
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2006-03-20 2:53:15 PM  
lexslamman

Ummmm, no.
 
barkey2006
2006-03-20 3:07:20 PM  
TDonaghe: against Hillary.

Hillary isn't going to get the nomination. The DLC (Republican lite) sucks and isn't as powerful thanks to their great job helping Kerry out, and that's the only faction Hillary has going for her. Everyone else knows:

"Hillary for prez" is a Rovian wet dream. Fox News is salivating at the thought of all the damage they can do. Limbaugh would go into a foaming at the mouth frenzy of slime and smears.
Hillary is too polarizing...she'd have people just voting against her and not "for" whoever is running against her.
Hillary would get all the media attention focused (negativly) on her. It would be investigation after investigation. She'd constantly be fighting off allegations and attacks. She'd never have a chance to focus on policy.

The progressives have a real chance this time, and let's hope they are up to the challenge.
 
heap
2006-03-20 3:33:12 PM  
NikolaiFarkoff: That UCLA media bias study from a few months back concluded:

you mean the study conducted by a pair of conservative think tank wonks using a horribly flawed methodology?
 
ifarkthereforiam [OhFark]
2006-03-20 3:50:39 PM  
Sure, the press and politicians would be cynical about Mr. Bush's bold moves,.....

Have you ever noticed that no matter what Bush does, it is always described as bold by the conservative press?

Today in breaking news President Bush encountered a 3 syllable word and boldly pronounced it.
 
The Onanist
2006-03-20 4:09:52 PM  
heap

you mean the study conducted by a pair of conservative think tank wonks using a horribly flawed methodology?

Yeah...that one.
 
milk_plus
2006-03-20 4:26:24 PM  
She was National Security Advisor when we had horrible terrorist attacks and so-called bad intelligence going into Iraq so they promoted her to Secretary of State and now we are reviled the world over.

It's not that I think she's incompetent, I believe she may be a saboteur.
 
freidog
2006-03-20 4:40:36 PM  
TDonaghe [TotalFark]

Let's all just hope and pray (or just hope) that the Republicans nominate someone sane (McCain) to run for prez in 2008 against Hillary. If I have to choose between Frist or one of their other whackjobs against Hillary, I'm not sure what I'll do. The Democrats will not nominate anyone capable this year, so it's up to the Republicans to provide the lesser of two evils.

Can they do it?

No. And neither can the Democrats. The primary process ensures only by pandering to the party base can you get a run in the big dance. At least with party backing.
And even candidate who speaks to the party base (like say Howard Dean) can't get anywhere because the 'old money' that backs politics shuns progressive and controversial thought (on both sides of the aisle).

2008 will probably mark the 3rd consecutive presidential election I'll be dissapointed to find Collin Powell not running.
At this point, I'll settle for any honorable man who wants the job. A good man I disagree with is preferable to politician who tells me what I want to here. But politics, as it is set up weeds out honorable men.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-20 5:21:19 PM  
2wolves: Submitter Do you know why Move.org was founded?

Yes, I do.

Next!
 
Thrag
2006-03-20 5:24:16 PM  
Not Rummy too? He should be first to go.

I was reading a BBC article on the war the other day and they were quoting a US Army Major General who retired recently who had been in charge of training Iraqi forces saying that Rummy was incompetent and largely responsible for the failures of the war.
 
Gsm136
2006-03-20 5:27:57 PM  
Thrag
The major General then got a job at the Department of Obvious Statements.
/Smells a monty python refrence coming along
 
Paschal
2006-03-20 5:41:06 PM  
"Fool me once . . ."

/see end of article
 
DavidDCC
2006-03-20 5:42:35 PM  
Pretty bad when the WSJ turns on you after buying their loyalty with the dividend tax cuts.
 
Gsm136
2006-03-20 6:03:47 PM  
The fooled Can't Get fooled again
 
ZipBeep
2006-03-20 6:52:06 PM  
An Op-Ed page? Surely this writer speaks for the publishers of this newspaper! We must burn the US embassy, all those who dissent!

It's Freddy "The Beadle" Barnes, fool! He's as right wing as they come. He just wrote a book sucking up to George Bush.

/And he's not advocating getting rid of anybody - just moving them around, so they can be incompetent in a NEW area.

/Smacks of arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.