Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Adelson’s Newspapers on Trump: Everything is Fine

As the GOP establishment scrambles for the lifeboats in the wake of Donald Trump’s disastrous campaign, Trump’s biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, is moving full-steam ahead, writing big checks and mobilizing newspapers owned by his family to support Trump, even as the candidate careens toward a massive defeat.

Lobelog

The GOP establishment is scrambling for the lifeboats as Donald Trump’s campaign fails to engage in any meaningful corrective action following the release of a 2005 audio recording of the real estate magnate bragging about sexually assaulting women. The tape, alongside a stream of women coming forward to offer their own accounts of the GOP nominee’s unwanted sexual advances, has even led two “big money donors,” according to NBC News, to send emails asking for their money back. But Trump’s biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, is moving full-steam ahead, writing big checks and mobilizing newspapers owned by his family to support Trump, even as the candidate careens toward a massive electoral defeat.

On September 12, Adelson and his wife, Miriam, each wrote $2.5 million checks to Future45, a pro-Trump super PAC, according to FEC filings. Eleven days later, the couple both made another set of $2.5 million donations, bringing the couples funding of the super PAC up to $10 million.

As news of the tape broke on October 7, journalists sought comment from the Adelsons but the couple kept their silence. Indeed, the Adelsons’ support came about as the candidate abandoned a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in favor of Sheldon Adelson’s position of a “binational state,” as one Trump aide told supporters.

Media Reframe

Trump’s demeaning statements about women and the airing of sexual assault allegations against the GOP nominee have had little impact on the Adelsons’ decision to throw their money behind his candidacy. In fact, newspapers owned by the Adelsons are actively pushing back against the women’s claims and seeking to frame Trump, despite dismal poll numbers, as a competitive candidate in the final weeks of the campaign.

Israel Hayom, the pro-Likud Israeli newspaper owned by Adelson’s family, attempted positive spin with the headline: “Trump scandals have minimal effect on his campaign, poll shows.”

The October 16 article, bylined by “Israel Hayom Staff,” claimed that “Trump has suffered minimal damage from the wave of scandals involving his treatment of women,” and focused exclusively on a Washington Post/ABC poll published on Sunday that showed Clinton holding a four-point lead over Trump. That was one of the most positive polls for Trump. Monday’s RealClearPolitics’ average of polls finds Clinton with a 6.4% lead.

Perhaps even more misleading was an Israel Hayom Sunday column by Boaz Bismuth that repeated Trump’s campaign rally rhetoric about a media conspiracy to destroy Trump’s candidacy and sinister secrets being withheld about Hillary Clinton. He wrote:

However, on Nov. 8, there will actually be a U.S. election featuring two candidates, one of them Trump, and the other, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who, according to reports, also has skeletons in her closet (perhaps even an entire cemetery, according to WikiLeaks.) But her problems, it seems, should be hidden. There is an ongoing concerted effort among American media outlets today to take down Trump.

Bismuth also sought to cast suspicions on the women’s claims based on the timing. He wrote:

Trump’s major problem is, of course, the fact that the claims from women are surfacing now, immediately following the release of the tape from 11 years ago. The timing is perfect, even if Clinton’s supporters claim that it is entirely coincidental.

Stateside, the Las Vegas Review Journal, which Adelson bought last year and sought to conceal his ownership, rushed to Trump’s defense in an October 10 editorial. The Review Journal’s editorial board argued that it was hypocritical of Hillary Clinton to even mention Trump’s audio recording in light of Bill Clinton’s checkered past with women. They wrote:

Do not mistake: Donald Trump deserves the harsh condemnation he has endured in response to the video released days ago on which he is heard bragging about how his wealth enables him to take sexual advantage of women. Voters can judge the issue for themselves. But it’s also worth noting that if every private comment is to be resurrected for public scrutiny, no human can ever be safe from the preening mob’s hollow shame and scorn.

And for Hillary Clinton to even broach the subject is the height of hypocrisy, arrogance and deceit.

Three days later, the paper published another editorial, this one attempting to shift the focus away from the recording of Trump bragging about groping women and towards WikiLeaks’ disclosures of Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta’s, hacked emails. The editorial concluded:

How do we know where Hillary Clinton’s private positions end and where her public positions begin? Given her penchant for prevarication, what should voters believe? What “private” positions will she eagerly jettison to curry favor with special interests? What “public” positions does she have no intention of honoring and are simply voter chum designed to attract support?

It all comes back to the same issue: Can anybody believe anything Hillary Clinton says about anything?

Against the Current

The Review Journal’s steady flow of pro-Trump editorials wouldn’t be so unusual if other major regional newspapers supported Trump’s presidential campaign. But they aren’t. USA Today, which never endorses candidates in the presidential race, declared Trump “unfit for the presidency,” and the Dallas Morning News, which hasn’t endorsed a Democrat for the presidency since before World War II, endorsed Clinton, saying “There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.”

Adelson’s media properties—alongside Breitbart, which is partially owned by the Trump-supporting Mercer family—appear increasingly out of step with public opinion and are falling back on conspiracy theories about the Clintons. They are also dredging up decades-old sex scandals about Hillary Clinton’s husband and selective interpretations of polls to frame Trump as a desirable, or even competitive, candidate.

The Mercers and the Adelson are putting more than their millions behind Trump. They’re increasingly responsible for the only positive media attention for the Trump campaign as the election draws to a close and the candidate’s serial mistreatment of women sends his poll numbers into a death spiral.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share