Wall Street Journal and Insipid Editorials

I have been reading the Wall Street Journal lately. I find it rather informative compared to the local newspaper's business section (my grandparents get the San Diego Union Tribune and another county paper--thus, I get them as well). Of course, that is to be expected. What is also to be expected is a much more right leaning perspective, albeit the San Diego Union Tribune is one of the only major Republican leaning newspapers in California. But I am amazed at how right leaning some of the articles can be. For instance, this article on how "the treatment of Bush has been a disgrace."

I find it entertaining that the first evidence of disrespect Mr. Shapiro points out is an offense by 12,000 people in San Francisco. That is one of the most liberal, if not the most liberal cities in the entire country. Of course most people who live there are going to dislike a President who not only seems to shrug off their economic difficulties, most likely prolonging them, but who also stands in direct opposition to what many of them believe in (i.e. social self-determinism).

But, furthermore, Mr. Shapiro seems to think that quoting several comments from George W. Bush's speeches gives insight into Bush's true political sentiments. President Bush does not write those speeches himself. Many politicians, especially Presidents, have professional speech writers. I am guessing those Americans who dislike Bush do not do so because of the speeches he gave encouraging prosperity and unity. I think they may dislike the dismantling of the public military in favor of funneling that money into the private sector. I am presuming those Americans dislike the egregious abuse of prisoners in, oftentimes, recalcitrant prisons. They probably do not appreciate Cheney's connections to Haliburton, and his belief in being part of both the executive and legislative branches. There is much more including, but definitely not limited to, his handling of New Orleans during Katrina, his assurances that Iraq had connections to al Queda and WMDs, his blubbering incoherence and disdain for intellectualism, etc, etc, etc.

I do not mean to put down the entire paper. I enjoy it immensely. Actually, there are plenty of opinion pieces in the paper that I agree with almost entirely (such as Just Say No to Detroit). I just do not understand the sometimes extremely right leaning editorials. I am all for the fiscally conservative (something I am guessing most of the readers here would agree was not a strong suit during Bush's presidency), but when it comes to socially destructive ideas (whether on the left or the right), I just cannot bite. I do not see how writing an editorial on how disgraceful the American people have been contributes to the understanding of the current predicament. Perhaps an editorial searching for the reason the American people are upset would have been better.