Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is alleged to be a serious publication. In a May 12th piece in said publication, we find out how serious and full of....wisdom.....Murdoch's
From a piece explaining what Obama needs to do to win the general election......
First, and obviously symbolically, he must start wearing the flag lapel pin. He simply cannot afford to raise doubts about his patriotism.
To this wise and very serious (and obviously patriotic) writer....when Barack Obama doesn't wear a lapel flagpin, he "raise(s) doubts about his patriotism." Presumably, if the Wall Street Journal wasn't such an objective, non-biased, publication it wouldn't be able to bore down and find such key, timely, and non-trivial suggestions for Obama. By starting off with "first", the WSJ writer is seeking to help Obama with the priorities of Americans. If any publication out there represents the priorities of the American people and not just a handful of very rich Americans.....it certainly would be the Wall Street Journal.
Yes, it's only symbolic. However, without those symbolic trivial trinkets of "patriotism", "doubts" are "raised" "about his patriotism." This WSJ writer, naturally, because he's wise and has his finger
More substantively, he must also unabashedly support measures that reflect and emphasize his commitment to traditional American values.
I just love it when Rupert Murdoch employees or contract "content" writers tell us Americans about "traditional American values". Just love it. The reason? Well....I get mixed up at times about "traditional American values." I keep reverting back to non-Wall Street Journal examples of American values of the traditional kind. You know, power residing in the people not the powerful, liberty and justice for all, separate AND equal branches of governmental power, freedom to worship and freedom FROM religion......you know.....traditional American values like those.
The Wall Street Journal piece brought me back to my senses.....
Mr. Obama must also demonstrate concretely that he is sympathetic to the victims of crime -- in ways that go beyond the abstract rhetoric of his March 18 speech on race relations in Philadelphia. He needs to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that he understands American concerns about law and order, and that he puts public safety at the top of his priorities. To be sure, there is an increasing role for rehabilitation in the criminal justice system. But Mr. Obama must emphasize first and foremost that he is on the side of law-abiding people.
Make no mistake here. This WSJ author is not trying to race-bait white voters, like Ronnie Reagan and other "traditional values" GOP'ers have done in past campaigns....Willie Horton, Cadillac driving welfare queens. The WSJ is much too serious, unbiased and objective to resort to such ugly tactics. A traditonal liberal, not to be confused with a "traditional values" American, might read into these highly unbiased words something like....."We're not sure whether Obama, the black candidate, will be sufficiently ruthless and authoritarian in arresting and locking away, you know, blacks, I mean criminals." Surely a misinterpretation of the patriotic WSJ writer's intended meaning.
And because it is the Wall Street Journal (or not) who repeatedly came down on the side of Constitutional law and order during the reign of Bush/Cheney, (the veritable epitome of law and order), there's no reason to think now that the purist, patriotic publication is working off of some (gasp) double standard worksheet.
Symbolic flagpins, locking blacks up in significant numbers....so far. Traditional American values.
On foreign policy, Mr. Obama must refute the presumption that he is not fully committed to the war on terror, or that he believes every problem can be solved by negotiating with the leaders of rogue nations. He must reassure people that he understands diplomacy has its limits. Part of this reassurance should consist of a speech that Mr. Obama should give on the subject of what Ronald Reagan called "American exceptionalism" -- still a core value for most Americans, and particularly swing voters. Our role in the world, and our unique democratic experience, make us a nation that has to be prepared to stand alone if absolutely necessary. Link
I wonder who is "presuming" that Obama is not "fully committed" to the Decider's political code phrase "war on terror." I'm puzzled at who out there thinks Obama "believes every problem" in foreign policy can be solved by negotiations. It isn't, like, Obama.....he doesn't believe that, nor has he ever said that. I suppose it could be the 28% Bush dead-enders....but the Wall Street Journal certainly wouldn't be biased towards that 28%....their focus readership is closer to the 6% at the top of the American economic pile. Maybe the 6% are the ones "presuming" and "believing" stuff that's not close to being true. The Wall Street Journal, naturally, is just trying to do their job, even though in this instance I don't know who the writer is talking about......and it couldn't possibly be simply "Republican voters".....that wouldn't be good enough for a non-biased protector of truth....like the WSJ.
And then....there it is.....the patriotic, objective, non-biased, fair-minded view of the United States....."American exceptionalism". What a purely objective phrase, huh? Not simply a non-biased, fair-minded "traditional value", mind you, but a "core value". This "core value" of "American exceptionalism" means, I'm guessing, that there's a group of "traditional values" Americans who believe America is a singly exceptional nation in a world full of second class countries. It's not clear whether the rest of the world's citizens hold to that, you know, "value." And I don't think the Wall Street Journal did a poll on how exceptional the last 8 years have been, either. Perhaps they will follow up later.
So what do we have here for "American traditional values? The "values" Obama needs to focus on to, according to the brilliant and non-partisan Wall Street Journal, win the presidency?
1) Wear lapel flagpins.
2) Committment to lock up more blacks.
3) Fighting the "presumption" that Obama doesn't want to surrender to Islamic exttemists.
4) Quitting believing in something he doesn't believe in.....thinking "every problem" can be solved by talking.
5) Give a speech on the objective, non-biased and internationally helpful American "core value"....American exceptionalism.
Now I can see why Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal. At first, I had mistakenly thought that Murdoch was only gathering up a worthless, establishment-right rag to continue his assault on empirical and objective reality. But now, I've been enlightened. He purchased the WSJ so Americans would never lose sight of their cherished "traditional values".
About This Blog