The Wall Street Journal, overall, is an excellent newspaper. But the editorial page, which is managed separately, can be, well, a little nutty at times. I had somehow missed this
particular example of WSJ editorial nuttiness, as related by Paul Krugman in the NYT today ("The Treason Card
Does anyone remember the editorial that The Wall Street Journal published on Sept. 19, 2001? "So much for Florida," the editorial began, celebrating the way the terrorist attack had pushed aside concerns over the legitimacy of the Supreme Court decision that installed Mr. Bush in the White House. The Journal then warned Mr. Bush not to give in to the "temptation" to "subjugate everything else to the priority of getting bipartisan support for the war on terrorism." Instead, it urged him to use the "political capital" generated by the atrocity to push through tax cuts and right-wing judicial appointments.
? They really published this? On Sept. 19, 2001
? Guess I missed it because like most of America I was too busy comforting friends and relatives who lost loved ones at the WTC, tracking down my NYC friends, or simply dazed with the vicarious trauma.
Beyond the foulness of anyone openly considering taking political advantage of an event that claimed 3000 lives, not eight days after the fact, there is an added element of loathsomeness here because the WSJ is, in a way, the paper of record of lower Manhattan. I mean, the Wall Street Journal lost subscribership
in that tragedy.
Where this same editorial board gets off accusing the New York Times of acting treasonously for breaking the bank data sifting story
, I just don't know.
Labels: 9/11, Bush, Krugman, New York Times, Wall Street Journal