Replies

This editorial misses the point. First, the editorial purpose in rushing to the defense of Mr. Obama who has been humiliated by the fiasco in Copenhagen is inexplicable. Why is the Wall Street Journal defending the president in such a matter? Is not the New York Times well enough equipped to take care of that chore? Why did the Wall Street Journal resorts to such unpersuasive arguments?

Second, the editorial says it will not participate in the "pounding" the president is receiving from his critics for, "somehow shirked the pressing issues," thus trivializing the objections as mere cavils that the president has wasted 24 hours when he should be working on healthcare or taking cognizance of the "dismal September jobs report." It is not the time devoted to Copenhagen (we are aware of the communication capacities of Air Force One); it is the diversion of the national attention from the economic calamity which has befallen us. It is the elevation of style over substance, the substitution of bread and circuses for responsible governance.

Third, the editorial distorts the criticism of the president for squandering prestige of the White House in a quixotic effort. Any fledgling Foreign Service officer knows the president does not put his prestige at risk, the president of the United States of America comes for a photo op to seal the deal. The editorial misses the point when it dismisses the criticism as follows:

... investing the prestige of his office in getting the games, as no President has before, but then Mr. Obama is more closely identified with Chicago than other Presidents have been with other bidding cities.

The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal should be grown up enough to know that it is no justification for a president wantonly to squander the reputation and prestige of his office because the given cause has biographical significance to him. The question is, does the cause itself have significant interest to the nation?

That question is the proper focus of an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. About half the people in Chicago who oppose the welcoming the Olympics to their own city. They oppose it because of the outrageous corruption and their government with which Barack Obama has been so intimately associated. That is the proper subject for an editorial in the nation's leading newspaper of finance and news. But the editorial could find not a word to spare on this subject.

Which brings us back to our initial question, why is the Wall Street Journal carrying water for the president?

“That question is the proper focus of an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. About half the people in Chicago who oppose the welcoming the Olympics to their own city. They oppose it because of the outrageous corruption and their government with which Barack Obama has been so intimately associated. That is the proper subject for an editorial in the nation’s leading newspaper of finance and news. But the editorial could find not a word to spare on this subject.”

You nailed it right there, nathanbedford!

The IOC had to also be very aware of the corruption and crime in Chicago and Illinois. I’m sure they thought the Obamas’ quick stop at their meeting was just nothing more than window dressing. The Obamas never mentioned what could be done in Chicago to accommodate an Olympics (infrastructure, lodging, access to venues, suppression of the flagrant criminal elements, etc.). ....They didn’t have time to mention those things, because they only talked about themselves... as usual.

That also included Michelle’s gaffe about sitting on her father’s lap and cheering on Carl Lewis in the Olympics. DUH! She was 19-20 years old when Lewis was in the 1984 Olympics!! ..........The Obama handlers are so lame and never research factual data but just tell the Obamas what to say and the clueless duo does what they are told.

Buh-Bye Obamas! You’ve both embarassed the US enough!

“Which brings us back to our initial question, why is the Wall Street Journal carrying water for the president?”

American “journalists” are poodle-walking, purse-swinging wimps. In the 1970s, I knew a writer for a major newspaper who landed at Normandy with the 82nd Airborne. He was tough, intelligent, had a wicked sense of humor and wasn’t afraid to take on crooked pols.

He’s long retired and took with him all the star qualities of what made a good reporter. I’m hoping our current crop of young vets can pick up where he left off.