The Journal has long been a standard-bearer of a very conservative editorial stance, but they're no longer merely conservative. Now they're in another galaxy altogether. This reactionary stance might not come out much in the paper's news coverage, but it certainly afflicts the editorial page.
The Journal is owned by Dow Jones, which was taken over by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation in 2007. This despite the fact that News Corp. already owned another daily paper in the same city - the far-right New York Post. The Wall Street Journal was conservative before the Murdoch takeover, but now it's plumb nutty.
This may be no more evident than in the paper's unsigned rant Thursday about the Senate election in Minnesota.
The Journal's editorial board is such a bunch of sore losers that they whined, "The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact."
Not winning the vote but having lawyers creative enough to find weird ways to count the vote? That doesn't sound like anyone we know, does it? (Cough.) Bush. (Cough.)
Um, Al Franken won that Minnesota election, geniuses. I didn't think anyone except Norm Coleman himself seriously disputed that. Nonetheless, the Wall Streeters sniff that "Mr. Coleman didn't lose" and that "Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election."
They even compare this to the gubernatorial election in Washington state in 2004. Yes, they insist Dino Rossi really won that - which shows you how hilariously out of touch they are.
The Wall Street Journal is known to have a much more respectable news department than its editorial division. Its journalists are probably doubled on the floor in laughter over the paper's editorial harangue about the Minnesota election.
This must be one of few recent instances in which such a respected major paper has taken such an extreme editorial position.
The Wall Street Journal is also the only news site I know of that requires commenters to use their real names - which these days is a major privacy concern. Of course, if I ever comment on their loopy editorials, I plan on using a phony name.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Wall Street Journal goes bonkers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Why is it OK with you for Gore to dispute the election results in Florida in 2000, but Coleman does the same thing in Minnesota and it's being a sore loser? Despite your attempts to revise history, in 2000 it was Gore trying to find "weird ways to count the vote" with selective recounts in Democratic counties. You still haven't given up that fight.
ReplyDeleteStuart Smalley won Minnesota, narrowly, just as Bush did. The only difference is one's a Republican.
PS: The People require you to use your real name or the approved handles "Bandit," "Bathroom Bandit," "Lofty Bandit" or "Bandit73" in all Internet posting.
Maybe it is because Gore won and Coleman lost perhaps?
ReplyDeleteWasn't there some study that proved Gore actually got more votes in FL?? Nobody even disputes he won the national popular vote.
Gore didn't win.
ReplyDeleteThere was an Associated Press member newspapers report that found it was feasible that if a statewide ballot recount by had been carried out, Gore would have pulled closer to Bush and MAYBE even surpassed him. Gore, however, ONLY SOUGHT hand recounts in a few traditionally Democratic counties. He did not seek a statewide count by hand and certainly wasn't interested in recounting ballots in red counties. In desperation, Gore's legal team also wanted ballots with double votes (ballots marked for Gore and a third-party candidate) counted for Gore.
Bush's lead in Florida was affirmed by the statewide machine recount. Gore got more than a half million more votes than Bush nationwide, but lost Florida by a few hundred votes and Bush beat him in the electoral college.