Clearly, not C.

Quite likely it's just another brick in the wall..........of a self-built American crypt --and a future monument to "our way of life".

Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/1/2007

I've purchased my last WSJ. Just hope the Bancroft family does something good with the moolah..

Posted by mike_a at 08/2/2007

My hope is that we're now closer to the tipping-point where morals and common-sense can make a comeback in media, the major political parties and government. But the pragmatic me still doubts it.

We desperately need professionally competent government—with mush less corruption—in all areas, especially to institute cost-controlled single-payer health care (overhauling both Medicare and Medicaid), and a similar overhaul of Social Security. Highest-profit health care (or any systemic national problem, such as higher education) is bad when it horribly punishes millions of the most vulnerable young and disabled. We also need a more moral progressive income tax policy that taxes the VERY rich more and the VERY poor less.

Is there something intrinsic in our form of Democracy that hinders having good government? Looking at the record, it sure looks that way.

Posted by Cherbonnier at 08/3/2007

Just renewed my subscription.

The trust-fund babies here at The Nation can whine and whine, but how many of them actually read the Journal anyway? When was the last time they agreed with something on the editorial page?

If you read the Journal for the op-ed page, you are missing the point.

Posted by WallStreet at 08/3/2007

"A view from the trailer park" Well, as we watched Bush promise assistance to Minneapolis one tends to think back to the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans when he also promised help... ummm, what would be the difference? Let's see, money, color, poor. And let us all not forget that this government will never accept responsibility for this debacle as it did not for New Orleans or any other horrific enterprise it has undertaken the past six years. Minnesotans however, may get more financial help as they at least are 90% pale with a tad more money. But this government is trying to fix that problem too by dropping 98% of the people in this country into poverty.... give them another 17 months, they may even meet their goal and if not, by Bush's signing of the presidential order on May 8, 2007, he now can suspend government for any reason and have his asterisk appointed lord high chancellor... then all we need is a crystal night to complete history, along with concentration camps... oh, oh, we already have those, Gitmo, Uzbekistan and various other camps this government utilizes. With the patriot act, our politicians subverting the law at every turn, bankrupting this country and the People, destroying our Republic, eviscerating the bill of rights and the constitution, does anyone else feel like a cow at an abattoir being pushed through narrower and narrower gates until single file we pass under the man with the sledge hammer... will we figure it out in time or will we simply submit and take our turn at the gate? Perhaps it is time to speak out before there is no one left to speak and nothing left to speak about. Bush & Co won't have to continue to invite terrorists to come here, we may all be required to become insurgents in our own country. My hope is dimming as we continue to permit Bush and the rest of the psychotic sociopaths to continue in power and we place our trust in this congress... are we the people now so stuck in the morass of inertia we cannot think of anything constructive to do? My one hope is that people stop expecting Bush & Co to protect them... who is going to protect people from the most egregious terrorist in the world: Bush & Co.? Perhaps once people figure out who the enemy truly is it will make more sense to everyone... hopefully the epiphany will soon shake this country. MJ Richards

Posted by mcjorich at 08/4/2007

Posted by WALLSTREET 08/03/2007 @ 11:08am

TRUST FUND BABY, MOI?...

I wish. (Whine, whine, whine.)

Posted by w_m_bear at 08/4/2007

I don't foresee any major changes to the WSJ's op-ed pages. They've been hard right for a long time. But I do expect that the once-respected business news pages will decrease both in quality and accuracy. I suspect Wall Street will turn to Bloomberg and other business news and away from the Murdoch WSJ. It's doomed to tabloid "journalism" of the sort practiced by Fox Noise Channel (aka the Bush propaganda ministry).

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 08/5/2007

I just love it how people think papers like WSJ and the New York Times are fantastic American newspapers. WSJ is a right wing paper that is bought out by a right wing new owner. The New York Times heralded as a liberal newspaper (yeah once in a blue moon they manage to publish the truth against the government or big corporations) is a joke. I wish publications like the Nation and the British The Independent were the norm here, then I would have said our main news media is fair and unbiased and not controlled by the big corporations and the government, until such time these publications are a propaganda tool serving their masters.

Posted by donya_f at 08/6/2007

Is there an "other"

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/6/2007

most of the major newspapers are left leaning and losing readers by the droves so what is wrong with equal time for the right?if all the news is from the same point of view how will you know what the truth is?i dont trust either party they are out for their own interests and if you think they are working for you wake up!!!!

Posted by WRIGHTWINGER at 08/6/2007

Hey Wallstreet! I can hardly afford my Nation subscription. So, I'm not some rich-kid. Why don't you come down to SA-Town and see how many trust fund babies are down here!

Posted by rlh_1984 at 08/8/2007

My maternal uncle Curtis LaRue McCormick was a "greatest generation" Navy veteran and long-time WSJ subscriber. He died in January at 88.5 years of age. I gave him a year's subscription to The Nation a few years back and he took the time to read it, I think, even though he was constitutionally opposed to governmental largesse and programs smacking of socialism. It was thus his open-mindedness to the consideration of contradictory viewpoints which enobled and distinguished him from the opportunistic and exploitive "sons of privilege" who shrink from "calling the tune" (agenda setting) due to their inability/unwillingness to consciously oblige "paying the piper" (something we verily ALL must do).

Posted by lewwelge at 08/9/2007

Had to go with option "B." Unchecked capitalism is cannibalistic, and will almost always result in monopoly. Murdoch is a cancer, and he's consuming as much as he can. The more he owns, the more money he makes, and the more he "can" own. So, who does he buy next?

Posted by OEST at 08/10/2007

For me it is a "no brainer". It is not only Murdoch getting the WSJ, even though he is the worst. It is anyone having control of that much media, tv, radio, newspapers, etc. No one person should have that much control and ability to project his conservative or liberal views into a conglomeration of media. The media should be as independent of corporate viewpoints as possible and unfortunately this is what we do not have right now and this deal going down has added to this problem much more. The WSJ is a good paper except for the opinion page; now it is Murdoch's.

Posted by Jon4305 at 08/12/2007

The stock market votes last when WALL STREET is hijacked by WAR STREET. America's military coup is in insideous transition and dependance on a war economy that continues to march downward.

Posted by Harold Saive at 08/15/2007

I chose C - He has his puppets at Fox News to do the NeoCon blathering to the uneducated, easily persuaded masses. WSJ readers are smart, and they don't read it for opinio-journalism. For them, it's (and the name explains it) about the world's markets and the U.S. economy. The opinion page already had a conservative slant. Murdoch's an easy target, of course. But it's also apparent - and I knew this when I visited this web site - that many of you know little to nothing about Capitalism. Murdoch spent a LOT of money on this paper. And he knows his audience and of course wants to expand it so he can eventually see a return on his investment. That would not entail alienating your core readership. So as uncomfortable it might make you to see his grubby mitts in so many places, the WSJ is going to remain the same 'ole WSJ. This poll should be followed up with one that asks whether or not you actually READ the effin' WSJ. Socialists.

Posted by T_H_R_O at 08/15/2007