The WSJ's editorial slant is legendarily rightward, so I'd hate to see them taken as "fair and balanced." Smart, yes, and well written, but maybe not so much with the fair or the balanced.
In this context "Fair and Balanced" is not terribly relevant is it? It's an opinion piece and they are clearly advocating an opinion in favor of off-shore drilling.
In doing so, however, they are also taking a swipe at BO, which has, of late, been dangerous territory for any media outlet.
But in doing so they are also being truthful...there is NO QUESTION that Obama's position on this issue, and many others, is "nuanced." The criticism is, I think, justified.
I'm way late on this, of course, but I really think that to see that compromise is a good thing is not just political pandering, but the way we should finally agree to run this place. If his long range plan to develop other sources of energy can gain some support by an agreement to some short term drilling, why shouldn't he take that stance.
Compromise is just that...giving some on one's ideas to gain some give from others. Things get done that way.
7 comments:
Do you mind saying who you are for?
The WSJ's editorial slant is legendarily rightward, so I'd hate to see them taken as "fair and balanced." Smart, yes, and well written, but maybe not so much with the fair or the balanced.
I was going to ask same question that meeegan asked. Maybe a write in?
As for WSJ - you know they are owned by Rupert Murdoch.
In this context "Fair and Balanced" is not terribly relevant is it? It's an opinion piece and they are clearly advocating an opinion in favor of off-shore drilling.
In doing so, however, they are also taking a swipe at BO, which has, of late, been dangerous territory for any media outlet.
But in doing so they are also being truthful...there is NO QUESTION that Obama's position on this issue, and many others, is "nuanced." The criticism is, I think, justified.
Which criticism, the WSJ's or Wanda's?
Both...
I think the important quote to take into account is questioning if this is just a campaign ploy or not...
Barack would hardly be the first candidate out there to float ideas simply to sway votes during election season.
I'm way late on this, of course, but I really think that to see that compromise is a good thing is not just political pandering, but the way we should finally agree to run this place. If his long range plan to develop other sources of energy can gain some support by an agreement to some short term drilling, why shouldn't he take that stance.
Compromise is just that...giving some on one's ideas to gain some give from others. Things get done that way.
Post a Comment