The Wall Street Journal: Standing Up For Poor, Defenseless Billionaires

When Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal there was anxious speculation about what would become of the respected financial clarion. Many critics (myself included) predicted that the paper would devolve into a partisan tool for the advancement of Murdoch’s uber-conservative agenda. Now we have confirmation of the worst of our reckoning.

A few weeks ago, the Journal’s Kimberley Strassel wrote a column complaining about an Obama campaign web page that identified a few of Mitt Romney’s wealthy donors and described their inherent interests in helping Romney to buy the presidency. Strassel’s take at the time was a departure from rational thought as she dredged up delusions about McCarthyism and enemies lists. She portrayed the introduction of Romney’s contributors as an attempt to intimidate them, as if being branded a Romney supporter was in itself an insult from which they must be shielded.

The truth is that Strassel was acting as a defender of the super-rich who prefer to operate in anonymity in order to achieve their self-serving ends. And while criticizing wealthy Republicans was tantamount to treason, she had no such sympathy for the likes of George Soros or George Clooney who somehow deserved the exposure and criticism they endured. Strassel is nothing but a mouthpiece for her boss, Murdoch, who is rushing to aid his aristocratic comrades. That explains how Strassel’s looney observations traveled so briskly from the Journal to Fox News and other right-wing media.

But apparently her article didn’t do the trick. So yesterday she followed up with another piece that sought to shelter one particular Romney supporter from the slings and arrows of outrageousness due to his vast fortune. Frank VanderSloot is the CEO of Melaleuca, an Amway-ish multi-level marketing enterprise. He has been described as an ultra-conservative and virulently anti-gay activist who generously spreads his wealth in pursuit of his politically narrow and socially constricting goals. [For a revealing look at VanderSloot see Glenn Greenwald’s excellent and in-depth essay in Salon].

The focus of Strassel’s new column is her dismay that VanderSloot is the subject of research by presumably Democratic operatives. Once again, the notion that wealthy power-players should be exempt from scrutiny is the core of her complaint. She even begins her article by saying…

“Here’s what happens when the president of the United States publicly targets a private citizen for the crime of supporting his opponent.”

First of all, VanderSloot is not what any objective person would describe as just a “private citizen.” He is a prominent, big-money backer of political issues and candidates and he is the national finance co-chair of the Romney campaign. That makes him a very public person whose activities are relevant. Strassel’s position is that he is off-limits for public discourse despite making himself a notoriously vociferous spokesperson for his conservative views. This is a common stance from the right wherein they assert that they can say anything they want about anyone, including slanderous attacks on the President, but if the targets of these attacks dare to respond they are guilty of intimidation and suppression of free speech.

Just as with her previous column, this one also made the journey from print to television. Fox News committed significant airtime to the story. Megyn Kelly interviewed Strassel in one segment of her program, then came back with another segment pitting a couple of political analysts against each other. Later, Neil Cavuto did a report on the subject for one segment, and returned to “interview” a couple of right-wing, Fox legal contributors. That’s a lot of airtime to devote to protecting a billionaire from having to be accountable for his political actions.

Poor Frank VanderSloot. What a burden it must be for him to have people discover what he’s up to with his campaign spending. And what a blow to his dignity that he should have to answer questions from the peasants he is seeking to control through disbursement of his wealth. It’s a good thing he has Rupert Murdoch, and the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News to cover for him because he surely doesn’t have any means of defending himself. He can now join the Koch brothers who were aided by the Murdoch Machine earlier this year when the Journal gave space to their attorney, Ted Olsen, to make largely the same arguments that Strassel is making about McCarthyism, just because they experienced some push-back for their right-wing advocacy.

It’s startling how thin-skinned these billionaires are. With all of their financial resources, media access, and Washington connections, they still cry like babies when confronted. And it’s pathetic what the Wall Street Journal has become as it seems to be destroying it’s reputation for the sake of a few wealthy patrons.

Advertisement:

47 thoughts on “The Wall Street Journal: Standing Up For Poor, Defenseless Billionaires

  1. Hey Mark, I see you still fail to realize that the 1% will get theres regardless is you want to steal there money.

    http://money.msn.com/technology-investment/post.aspx?post=3e714b17-1107-4a89-8df6-dcad10ecb8ce

    Not only will they find a way to keep what is rightfully theirs, imagine if they take there 10’s of millions of jobs elsewhere and/or raise the prices of there services to make up for what they are losing by being overtaxed?

    These things will hurt the middle class Americans the most (the 50% that pay taxes and are not rich)The solution is for the 49% that don’t pay ANY taxes, to pay there “FAIR” share of taxes. “Most” not all the poor are living the consequences of there choices. Mark you have a descent job right? Well i am sure you worked hard for your job, right? or was it given to you because you are black? (I think you worked hard, Mark!)

    • August, you have to remember that it’s not “fair” that the moochers, losers and parasites aren’t making a “living” wage.

      • you’re the same “dave” who posts on MM, aren’t you. Same soulless cretin as ever.

        • in which bad grammar, is not, I repeat NOT, an indication of deeper flaws.

          • Yup, that’s what i thought…You have NOTHING!

            • in which the conclusion is based on the same flawed evidence.

              This is called the case-closed tactic. But give it credit for including not one but two of the ingredients listed below.

  2. Another question for you Mark. Don’t you think its extremely odd that your beloved president wants to “stop” giving tax breaks for corporations that donate to charities? You do realize that without these tax breaks there is no reason for these corporations to give. This says it all. They care nothing for the poor except they want there votes! and they want them to be dependent on the government ONLY. Churches and Non Profit organizations provide “more” food, clothing, shelter and assistance to the poorest of Americans. If your beloved Dems are all about the poor, then why would they “kill” this vital lifeline to the poorest of Americans? You wont answer, Mark…Because there is no logical explanation of why our government would do such a thing.

  3. By the way…OBAMA is going to be out soon. I am sure its all about the “Racist”. Well my friend, its about his bullshit fleecing of American workers! Romney –> Is the lesser of the 2 evils..PERIOD! BTW, i dont like Romney either, but at least i will get to keep some of the money i make, busting my ass each and everyday!

      • Daphne, you have nothing to contribute to an argument other than your sad little comments. No facts, just BS, go read a book, do some research on what you believe and at least have an intelligent defense. There are dems out there that have great evidence supporting there views. Daphne you strike me as the type of individual that would vote for someone just because of there color and not there qualifications. Meaning, you dont need anything other than color for your choice. Very sad!

        • …from the same script. You could write these comments for them.

    • Nice read Dave, thanks for that info

    • Its crazy how this administration goes after people that are against them, remember Joe the Plumber? I am not saying others haven’t done it either, but as you have read in my other post 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

  4. Hi, Mark. You should have a field day with the stuff above.

    Selective indignation!
    Ancient, never-true talking points!
    Farming out expertise to questionable links!
    Claims of inability (as opposed to unwillingness) to argue bogus assertions!
    Cons high-fiving each other!
    Bait-taking elevated to an art form!

    and that’s just for starters.

    • Hey Daphone, did you dismiss one of the articles because they are Jews? Yah you did! Racist piece of crap. The “New” Black Panther Party needs a receptionist. Yes you qualify!!!

        • See Mark, you supporters are closet “Racist”, like Daphone. Those damn Jews, Crackers, Christians, heterosexuals, are delusional. Right Daphone?

  5. Daphone….Are you scared? Well you should be..lmao..your on scare tactics…muuuaahhh!

    • oops. I forgot one, Mark. Projection. How could I have omitted it when it’s always the first page of their playbook?

  6. August, can you TRY to address the topic of the article for once. I am not going to engage you in endless theoretical discussions on other subjects that we will never agree on. This is something you do almost every time you comment here. It clutters the comment section with things irrelevant to the article. I think that may be your intention.

    This article is not about Obama’s economic policies or tax deductions for charities. It’s about how the WSJ (and Fox) defends billionaires who are capable of taking care of themselves. That makes the Journal a manipulative, partisan rag. Do you have anything to say about that? If not, then STFU, because I will start deleting comments that are off-topic. And that’s not censorship, it’s discussion moderation.

    • I did address the main topic initially. […]

      [Admin: edited for off-topic content. I see the problem now. You can’t actually tell when something is on or off topic. Your initial comment is not remotely about the subject of this article. And saying it is while insulting people does not make it so.]

      • “you buddy Daphone.” Kinda says it all.

        I’m reconsidering my compassion for the dyslexic one.

      • Well unfortunately you are right to a point. The 1% are the aristocratic supporters of the Republicans in your mind. So that first one was in general reference to your beliefs in this article. You moderated my middle finger..lmao

    • say it with me: conflation, specifically lawmakers with donors.

      That was easy.

      • Conflation is what Mark and you do best daily, with these supposed pieces you present to your readers.

        This is what i mean by Daphone = phoney

        • yeah, no longer sympathetic with the dyslexia. Lawmakers are not donors. Abacadabra mid-thought.

    • Oh #6 is none other than Mr. Obama! Aristocratic huh? Moderate that from your vocab there Mark.

  7. Reading the comments from August, I felt like I was at a convention of high functioning autistic people with ADD. All I saw was a series of non-sequiturs with an oddly placed “attaboy” from Dave.

    • Maybe you have issues with comprehension.

      • No, the issue is trying to wade through 35 comments that have nothing to do with the original article, written by people who debate/argue by changing the subject and using pejorative terms for “liberal”.

      • dear dave: love your latest comment at MMFA. You certainly were brutally honest about hating the poor.

        • I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I don’t post anything in that pig slop known as MMFA.

          By the way, if I were you(Thank God I’m not)I wouldn’t be correcting anyone’s grammar or spelling in the future.

          • Yes, it’s a damn good thing. I love when the wrong definition of a term is exposed.

Comments are closed.