Her fury originated from Musk’s ambitious plan to back conservative politicians in the upcoming November elections. In an effort to increase involvement in his America PAC, Musk stated that he would give away $1 million each day until Election Day to those who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.
This program, which debuted on October 19, piqued the interest of many, particularly in crucial swing states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. Musk claimed that this gift was intended to attract media attention that he feels the mainstream press will ignore, noting, “Otherwise, the legacy media won’t report on it.” Ironically, this tactic worked like a charm, causing Goldberg’s latest meltdown.
“People keep trying to buy the election,” she fumed, launching into a diatribe that exemplifies the liberal view of affluent persons influencing politics. “Billionaire Elon Musk has gone all in for you know who,” she said, referring to Musk’s financial support for Republican candidates. The irony of her complaint about “buying elections” was lost on her, considering the long history of affluent liberals doing so—think George Soros or Tom Steyer.
Goldberg then shifted to a legalistic attack, saying that Musk’s giveaways were somehow illegal and referred to them as a “loophole.”
“Now I thought that was against the law, but apparently they found some new loop stuff that allowed this to go on,” she said with rage. While she professed ignorance about campaign finance laws, it’s worth noting that this activity falls squarely inside the legal framework governing PACs and their fundraising activities.
Adding fuel to the flames, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a guest on the show, inexplicably linked Musk’s giveaway to former President Donald Trump, implying that the billionaire’s activities were a diversion because Trump allegedly lacks a public policy strategy. Walz lamented the lack of an economic plan for the middle class, stating it was indicative of a larger failure to address concerns such as reproductive rights and climate change.
This twisted logic demonstrates the lengths Democrats will go to undermine the legitimacy of opposing viewpoints. Instead of delving into the actual problems Musk is raising concerning First and Second Amendment rights, Walz and Goldberg resorted to conventional talking points intended to elicit indignation rather than substantive discussion.
While Whoopi’s rants may appeal to her audience, they also illustrate a rising concern on the left: the ability of famous personalities like as Musk to rally support for conservative causes.
As many Americans become dissatisfied with the mainstream media’s failure to cover important problems, initiatives like Musk’s reflect a potential shift in how political participation occurs.
Rather of recognizing the novel methods in which people might now participate in politics, Goldberg and her ilk would rather condemn those who threaten the current quo. As the election approaches, it appears that the left’s anxiety over the emergence of grassroots movements and the influence of affluent conservatives will only grow. Meanwhile, Elon Musk remains undeterred and devoted to creating dialogue around the principles that underpin our democracy.
