Posted on 12/04/2014 7:42:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin suggests that The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial page is in decline thanks to its “thin-skinned” editorial page chief editor Paul Gigot, who has routinely published material undercutting Texas Senator Ted Cruz.
Paul Gigot, the chief editor of the WSJ’s editorial page, “is an amnesty radical who’s thin-skinned and often sophomoric,” says Levin in a Facebook Note, and “[h]e uses the paper’s opinion pages to carry not a conservative message but the corporatist water – bailouts, subsidies, debt increases, amnesty, etc.”
According to National Review Online, Senator Cruz met “with Wall Street Journal editorial writers last year and laid his cards on the table. ‘I don’t really care what other people write about me, but I really do care about what the Wall Street Journal writes,’ Cruz said, according to a source in the room at the time.”
That’s not all Senator Cruz had to say. “Cruz maintains that the tension is one-sided. ‘I’m a big fan of the Wall Street Journal. The Journal’s editorial page has long been the most important space in journalism, a thriving intellectual platform that provides space for ideas to compete.”
Evidently Senator Cruz was wrong. This “intellectual platform” just might not be a “space for ideas to compete,” as it seems clear that the WSJ “routinely attempt[s] to diminish his potential as a presidential candidate, with critical asides woven into pieces on issues to which Cruz is only tangential,” says National Review Online.
The WSJ reportedly suggested that Senator Cruz’s actions during the government shutdown last year would harm Republicans in the 2014 midterm elections and that Senator Cruz and Senator Mike Lee were more concerned with getting their faces on TV than actually solving problems.
National Review Online also reports that “[t]he tension between Cruz and the Journal goes back years now, to his meeting with the editorial board when he was a Senate candidate in 2012.” Apparently one person at the meeting suggested that Senator Cruz “came across as a bit of a know-it-all.”
But Levin says, it’s not Senator Cruz that is the problem. No, it is the WSJ editorial page chief editor Paul Gigot, “an amnesty radical who’s thin-skinned and often sophomoric” that is to blame for the estranged relationship between the WSJ and Senator Ted Cruz.
“[Gigot] has also smeared the Tea Party, attacked talk radio, etc., with unsigned editorial opinion pieces. [He] has cost the editorial page much of the prestige it once had among many conservatives since his appointment as its chief editor.”
And Levin didn’t stop there. Implying that Paul Gigot is nothing short of faux conservative, Levin finished his rebuke of the WSJ chief editor saying this:
“[Gigot’s] editorials reflect his predictable role as a mouthpiece for the GOP establishment. Thus, the praise for Jeb Bush and his ilk while mocking Ted Cruz.”
My husband was a business college econ major in college in the 70’s and that is when he started subscribing to the WSJ. When I pointed out the editorials were not econ-logical anymore and Gigot on the WSJ tv show had alarming opinions, he scoffed;even when we heard Levin’s opinion yesterday.
We’ll see. As for myself, I only read it for the fashion, food and decor ;)
I stopped reading it in the late 1990’s.
Gigot spent about 10 years on PBS News Hour pretending to be a Conservative.
I had no idea he had been promoted to Editorial Page Editor.
From about 1970-1995, I learned almost everything I knew about Conservatism from the WSJ Ed Page and National Review Magazine.
Today, both of them are politically useless.
Ditto.
I’ve been a WSJ subscriber for decades. I do recognize the editorial slant toward cheap imported labor and corporate handouts.
When Robert Bartley was editor of the Journal editorial page, I was a biting conservative section. When Bigot (the token “conservative” on PBS! news hour, it became boring and pro Amnesty. I stopped reading and switched to Investors Business Daily.
He did, I haven't watched it for years.
He needed a dentist and a set of balls, but with a name like gigi gigot, maybe not.
From time-to-time, there’s still a nugget or two, but not enough to warrant a daily reading of it.
I figured I didn't need to pay for editorials that insulted my intelligence and demanded that I give up my freedom and hard work to support people who broke into my house (country) demanding that I care for them.
Then I saw a government more than willing to look the other way for crimes being committed each and every day by illegal aliens and those who abetted them, for which I would serve long prison sentences (i.e. stealing IDs, using stolen IDs and selling stolen IDs to others!!!)
Nope, each time I read or hear an entitled person tell me how I just need "more compassion toward others."
I do have compassion, that's why I donate and serve the poor and underprivileged but I have no "compassion" for those people who demand my money to care for those they designate as "deserving." I also do not respect who want my relatives, who aren't doing so well themselves but don't look to government to care for them, yet get tax bills to pay for illegal aliens that the government desire to live among us.
You will notice, these privileged few at the WSJ, NYT and others, never move illegal aliens into their homes, provide parking space on their property for mobile homes to house illegal alien families nor do they turn their multi-million dollar condos into "housing for the poor," only in my town is "qualified for affordable housing."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.