“When Trump won the nomination, much to the shock of the Journal and the rest of the news media elite, the paper’s editorial board was caught in an excruciatingly uncomfortable place: If it supported Trump, it would be asking Americans to vote for someone whose core positions on trade, immigration, foreign policy, entitlement reform, executive power and the national debt were, by the board’s calculations, drastically wrong. But hey, he’s for tax cuts! So he’s got that going for him. And if it supported Clinton, it would be urging Americans to put the Supreme Court into the hands of liberal jurists for a decade or more, while only worsening the tax and regulatory burdens that the board believes are slowing economic growth and tamping down incomes.”Certainly, senior WSJ editorial staff have declared their disapproval of Trump before. But, as Healey also notes, the Journal has ties to disgraced former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes -- booted by the Murdochs after a sexual harrassment scandal exploded in his face -- who is now advising Trump on his debate strategy. Whether this personal connection will damn or endear Trump in the eyes of Murdoch, at this point, is unclear. Decisions, decisions ... -- Dan Wood
Right-wing rags plump for Clinton, but what about the Wall Street Journal?
Talk about being caught between a rock and an unpredictable lying bigot.