Martha's a Good Thing: They eulogize Gotti, and they vilify Stewart. Shameful

National Review Online ^ | June 20, 2002 | Larry Kudlow

[xsysmgr]

Does anyone think it somewhat odd and curious that the New York tabloids eulogized the death of organized crime boss John Gotti for page after page, but those very same tabs saw fit to trash successful businesswoman Martha Stewart over a relatively modest stock sale?

Gotti, who pursued a life of crime on a full-time basis, was convicted of murder and racketeering in 1992. He was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole and sent to federal prison in Marion, Illinois, where he remained until his recent death from cancer.

Stewart, a rags-to-riches success story that is as American as cherry pie, runs an award-winning magazine, has penned best-selling books, produces and stars in a Emmy-award-winning television show, writes a syndicated newspaper column, speaks on a national radio show, publishes a mail-order catalogue, and is the CEO of the publicly-held Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. Her work springs from traditional family values and the home pursuits of housekeeping, cooking, gardening, decorating, and entertaining.

Eulogizing Gotti and villainizing Stewart? What's wrong with this picture?

This is what's wrong. Too many reporters and commentators are too quick to express their contempt for a true, American-made success story. They're jealous, and Stewart's an easy target. Attempts to place her in the recent wave of corporate corruption are about as accurate as nominating John Gotti for a Purple Heart.

Martha Stewart has been trying to rid herself of ImClone stock since last October, according to a Wall Street Journal story. After selling 20% of her holdings of the biotech company in a tender offer by Bristol Myers, she gave her broker a stop-loss order to sell her remaining position if the share price dropped below $60. On December 27, the sale of a relatively small 3,928 shares of ImClone was completed for $227,824.

She is cooperating with ongoing ImClone investigations by the U.S. Attorney's Office, the SEC, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The FBI, which busted ImClone CEO Sam Waksal for nine counts of securities fraud and perjury in a 6:30 a.m. arrest last week, has said Stewart is not a target in the ongoing probe.

This is not a Martha Stewart stock scandal, as the New York tabloids keep headlining. This is a story about the Waksal brothers and their family members, people who allegedly attempted to parlay FDA insider communications into an illegal sale of their company's shares.

It's also a story about Erbitux, the cancer-treatment drug that ImClone couldn't land an approval for and a drug that could help millions of people survive the perilous disease, if the FDA would get its act together.

But it's not a story about a highly successful American entrepreneur gone bad. As far as we now know, Stewart has done nothing wrong — except, that is, pursue a successful career.

Much of the media assault on Martha Stewart is personal, and it could be that there's a double standard at work here. Stewart is a woman, of course. Have there been similar media invasions of the private lives of male CEOs? Maybe there's an exception or two, but there's been nothing like the assault we've seen on Martha Stewart. Are the private lives of female CEOs fair game, but not the private lives of male CEOs? Smells like a double standard.

I have never met Martha Stewart, and I don't own any ImClone or Omnimedia stock. I'm also sorry to learn from press reports that Stewart is a Clinton Democrat, while I am a Reagan Republican. So why am I worked up over this? Because I don't think it's fair to wreck anybody's hard-earned reputation with a bunch of innuendos, half-truths, and other snippets of misinformation. Journalists are supposed to have standards. Somewhere in the mix there has to be a telling of the truth.

In a recent press release, Stewart criticized "an enormous amount of misinformation and confusion" about her role in the ImClone mess. She goes on to say that she "had no insider information. My sale of ImCone stock was entirely proper and lawful." Law-enforcement examination of Stewart's cell-phone calls, travel schedule, and various documents bear this out.

I noticed that year-to-date the stock of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO) has dropped 2.7%, which is a better performance than the S&P 500, which has fallen nearly 11%. I also see that the company's share price went up a buck and change on Wednesday. Good. Let's hope this is the beginning of a well-earned recovery.

— Mr. Kudlow is CEO of Kudlow & Co.

[Charlotte Corday]

FWIW, the rumors are that Martha Stewart has all the Hillary character traits (nasty and vindictive) where her co-workers, employees and neighbors are concerned. It would not surprise me that many of the NYC media would travel in circles where those topics would be discussed. And that's the source of the attacks on Martha.

On the other hand, I doubt if too many of the media personalities hang out in John Gotti's old neighborhood.

[MinuteGal]

Larry is a pretty good conservative economist. He's spot on in his article. The fascinating thing to note is how the liberals and leftist media-whores are sliming Martha who is one of their own. The reason is that their hatred for individual success, capitalism, wealth and corporate America trumps the comparatively minor point that Martha is buds with Hillary and contributes to the Dems.

Leni

[Common Tator]

Martha's a Good Thing: They eulogize Gotti,

Martha just needs to die. Then the tabloids will eulogize her too.

Tabloids vilify live people and eulogize dead poeple.

That is what tabloids do!

I don't think the writer knows that Martha still lives.

[Aquinasfan]

Last night O'Reilly said that Stewart was good friends with the ImClone CEO and phone records indicate that they talked the day before she dumped the stock and the day before the stock tanked.

[Common Tator]

Uh huh.

You can bet the people who bought Martha's stock for about 60 bucks a share didn't know it was going to be worthless within days..

I am very successful. That according to you should give me the right to rip you off by selling somehing I know is worthless for a quarter of a million dollars.

What part my right to rip off people who don't know they are being ripped off, is a precious freedom you want preserved.

[MinuteGal]

Your tortured logic escapes me. You've evidently are a member of the madding crowd that's decided Martha Stewart is already guilty already. So be it.

My point, if you read my comment, was how quickly the libs will turn on their own if it serves their greater purposes.

If it's found that Stewart did something illegal, she should be hoist by her own croissant and I'll be the first one to put some butter on it.

Leni

[Paul Atreides]

For one thing, Martha Stewart has a lot of women interested in traditional things; a nice home, cooking for the family, cleaning the house, tending the garden, etc., things the feminazis and liberals hate to see a woman care about. She is also hated by the self-esteem crowd who claims she makes women feel bad.

Why is it women tear other women down? I don't hear any shrieking about Emeril making men feel bad because he can cook so many dishes, or talking about men's fragile self-esteem being crushed because they can't build furniture like Norm Abrams. ALL home-improvement shows are not meant to say "be me, do everything I can do." They are meant to provide ideas for people to use as they like. I really have to wonder about people who will watch something, like Martha Stewart, and come away feeling like a hopeless person. I also have to wonder about people who think she does all of that stuff without help.

[discostu]

Because John Gotti was fairly honest about being a mobster and a murderer and Martha Stewart looks down her nose at people that eat pizza not made with tomatoes they've grown and sundried themselves?

There's lots of reasons to hate Martha. And you're supposed to speak well of the dead, like George Carlin said "sure he was an @sshole, but he was a well MEANING @sshole".

[codebreaker]

[MinuteGal]

I agree totally, Paul. I occasionally catch Martha's shows and have benefitted from some pretty good hausfrauly tips. Some of her product line (neat and unusual colors in housewares, for instance) is the only reason I ever set foot in a KMart.

Personal dislike of her manner and her capitalistic success evinced by liberals and some conservatives appears to be the basis of a lot of vitriol.

No one has to watch her show or purchase her products. If she has profited illegally by insider trading, that's another matter, and I don't think anyone will condone that.

Leni

[Paul Atreides]

I saw an A&E Biography on her one time and, considering her background and the type work she does, you would think she'd be conservative politically. From what the biography stated, she did not earn her living through handouts, she was a stock-broker, her whole manner of making a living is devoted to something feminazis hate and look down on women for liking, etc. When it comes to celebrities, I really have to wonder how many of them actually believe in the liberal causes they donate to.

As an aside, Hillary is reported to be very vicious to her staff and has an attitude of superiority yet, you won't see the press playing that up. Remember how they dubbed Leona Helmsley the Queen of Mean? I have no doubt she wasn't a nice person but, I imagine she couldn't hold a candle to Queen Hillary.

[Common Tator]

Your tortured logic escapes me

You have to be very naive indeed. Martha was playing girl-boy with the guy who floated the don't work cancer drug for big bucks.

She bought stock and took a ride on the up elevator. But just before it falls to the basement she gets off.

Think just a tiny bit. A Drug developer needs money to fund the tests before he files with the FDA. Once the developer raises those funds and expend them, it makes no sense to sell more stock. This guy did big time. The brigth thing to do for an approved drug is to Keep ths stock. When the drug is approved you can sell your shares for a huge fortune.

FDA approval is not Rocket Science. The rules are clear. A drug develper conducts the required tests. He submits the results to the FDA. If his drug passes the required tests it is approved. Companies spend hundreds of millions on research. The FDA does not publish the details of filings .... to do so would be very unfair to the company that spent millions to learn the information in the application. So the details fo the filing are secret. But they are not secret to the FDA or the person or company that filed them. They know quite well if the drug will be approved or not. If their tests can be verified, and the tests show what the FDA requires, the drug is approved. If the results were fake or can't be verified the drug is turned down.

It makes no sense to sell and hype shares before approval. After the approval, the developer could sell his shares for really big bucks.

The only reason I can think of to promote shares while the drug is being confirmed by the FDA is you know it will not be confirmed becuase the tests you did can't be confirmed. That is, they were faked, or in some way faulty. In that case it makes sense to make money before teh FDA turns you down. There is the slight problem that it is against the law.

Lover boy was pushing shares, but Martha only bought a few grand worth. It is safe to asume she knew why her lover boy would be selling shares after FDA filing but before the result. She had to think he was fleesing the suckers before the filing was found defective and so reported by the FDA. Lover boy knew the filing was defective, that is the real reaon they are after him. Martha very likley knew it too.

Only if you know it will not be approved does one have a reason to go out and sell all you can before it is approved.

My first question to the con artist would have been, why are you selling now. I would have known the answer. Surely Martha is smart enought to know the answer too.

You may have been born yesterday but Martha was not. You may think taking advange of buyers by selling them worthless stock is tortured logic, but I betcha the courts don't think so.