Topic: Ron Paul
The Wall Street Journal’s Attempt to Diminish Ron Paul’s Campaign Why Would the WSJ run an article about another “Dr. No” less than two weeks before the Iowa Caucus?by EJ Moosa
(Libertarian)
Saturday, December 22, 2007
In case you missed it, Friday’s Wall Street Journal ran(12/21/2007) an article on "Dr. No’ on it’s front page by author Sarah Lueck. No, it was not about Ron Paul.
It was about Senator Tom Coburn, from Oklahoma, and how he has caused gridlock in the Senate this year. I expected at the very least a mention of Ron Paul the Presidential candidate, who is better known as "Dr No" from the House of Representatives. No mention of Ron Paul in the entire story.
Google "Ron Paul" and "Dr. No", and there are over 23,000 pages found. Google "Tom Coburn" and "Dr. No", and you will find 620 pages.
You will also find via the Goggle search that on February 12, 2006 that George Will wrote a column titled The Senate's Dr. No.
There is simply no way to not question the timing of this story. Less than two weeks before the first caucus, the WSJ, which has had 21 months to run this similarly themed column to George Will’s, chose to run it now? And not just now, the Friday before the major holiday week of 2007, where any letters to the editor will have the lowest potential readership of the year?
One major difference is that the WSJ version used the word "gridlock" often to describe the results of the Senator’s actions, while George Will did not. There are several other references I would also find less than flattering for a candidate running for any office.
Making it even more confusing for readers(and voters), Coburn also happens to be an obstetrician, just as Ron Paul is.
In the middle of a primary season, the WSJ runs an article on a politician who is not running for reelection, who upon a casual glance, appears like another candidate who is running for president? Is this a coincidence? No. No to the highest degree. It's difficult to comprehend how the editorial board of the WSJ justified front page space for a politician not even seeking the attention, while the most important race in our nation starts January 3, 2008.
If you read the WSJ article on Coburn, you will see the confusion they are trying to generate with Ron Paul.
Looking back at the Wall Street Journal's front page for December, here is what I found:
On December 3rd, they ran a column on Barack Obama.
On December 4th, they ran a column called "Economy Moves to Fore as Issues for Voters". There was no mention of candidate Ron Paul.
On December 5th, there was a column on campaign fundraising. There was no mention of candidate Ron Paul. With Ron Paul's success this last quarter, they failed to mention him? An oversight?
On December 8th, there was a column on Hillary Clinton.
On December 17th, there was a column on Mike Huckabee. There was no mention of candidate Ron Paul.
On December 20th, there was a column on the Iowa caucus. No mention of candidate Ron Paul.
Yet on December 21st they run a column about a Dr No, who is not candidate Ron Paul. And I did not see columns on any other politicians NOT running for an office in 2008.
Please let the WSJ know you are upset about what they are trying to do. This attempt to create confusion about Ron Paul is disingenuous to say the very least. We must also question their motives. This blatant attempt to generate voter confusion is another attempt of Mainstream media to block Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign. And if you were not aware, the Wall Street Journal has been bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. News Corp. also owns FoxNews, and we know that they have been no friend of the Ron Paul Campaign.
Please let Mainstream media know that they will not be successful with these types of media misdirection. With or without them, the Ron Paul story will be told, and it will be told truthfully. Main Street America will not have the wool pulled over our eyes.
I have written the author of the story questioning it's timing. I look forward to the response. Watching the Meetup emails for Ron Paul, I know there are efforts to contact the media and get stories in the major publications. I seriously doubt the Senator fro Oklahoma was seeking this media coverage at this time. I am hoping that a response from the author of Friday's story could shed some light on this for me.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 70 thumbs so far
2007 EJ Moosa, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, December 22, 2007
Last modified: Saturday, December 22, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I say yipppeee ! We need them all to be Dr. No's up there in Washington. Looks like some of them at least have been hearing Ron Paul and starting to get on his wave length. Is this not what Dr. Paul is trying to do? Get them to be aware and to vote no on unconstitutional issues? You go Tom ! We need our representatives working for US. These people have done the right thing by doing what they did especially since Ron Paul works in the congress, not in the senate. Tom Coburn is doing what we the people in the state of Oklahoma want him to do. We call him and he listens to us. Everyone should do the same thing with their senators and congressmen. If your not doing this, then it is you who is not listening to Ron Paul. We want Ron Paul to win, but we are all well aware that he may not. WE have to know how to control our government before it will work the way we want it to. That takes the inititive of calling your representatives. Ron Paul is named Dr. No because he votes No on anything which is not constitutional. More of them in the whitehouse should do the same thing. He who sits idle accomplishes nothing.
Yes we need more Dr No's. But for the right reasons(constitutional) and not the wrong reasons(an individual's moral beliefs).
To generate confusion for the voters by introducing a Dr. No that shows videos to staff on the dangers of sex, while not discussing Ron Paul at any point, has the potential to confuse voters. Voters confused about the beliefs of a candidate will likely avoid that candidate.
Typical garbage and attempted deflection from the MSM. But these turkeys haven't had anything to do with Dr. Paul's success anyway. By the way, this is 2007, not 2008...and you have a double "for for" in front of it.
Consider that one reason voters might decide against Ron Paul is that he is too extreme and isolated among his peers in Congress. This story about a member of the US Senate taking an heroic stance against profligate waste as a "Dr. No" might actually help Ron Paul by making his stance against unconstitutional bills seem less outre.
By now, Ron Paul is at near-100% name ID in early primary states so I don't imagine this WSJ piece will confuse many early voters. If he does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will have a big bump in ID nationally.
I am a wall street journal print subscriber, and completely and totally have no more appetite for their crap newspaper that spins faster than a top on crack. They are way beyond reporting the news and are actively trying to shape opinion.
This wasn't the first time, and it's the last for me. I'm not renewing my subscription, and I'm changing the remainder of this subscription to postal delivery so they can pay more to have it delivered.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, verbally and financially. I read the piece in it's entirety. The title of it is, One Man Gridlock: Meet Tom Coburn, Senate's 'Dr. No'
You complaining is silly. There is nothing in the article that has anything to do with Ron Paul. And that's ok. It's not about Ron Paul. The reason they wrote it is because Tom kept them working for long hours the night they were to dismis because he votes no frequently, places holds on votes and delays the process.
This type of whining is what makes the msm think Ron Pauls' supporters are a bunch of loons.
Those in the MSM, are doing a good job to distinguish truthful journalism and pre-determined scripted untrue news. They have made it easier for us to differentiait who are complicit with the establishment, and therefore, they cannot be trusted anymore for independant coverage of news from people they used to be trusted as the "Fourth Estate". This year, more than any, has been so obvious that you have to be so naive to not have seen this remarkable difference. From lies to deception, the MSM's have stopped at nothing to try to discerdit Dr. Paul, which I like to call him "the Untouchable". His record on issues, his votes, his empty closet of skeletons, his honesty, his qualifications(banking & financial services, foreign affairs, medical knowledge, constitutional commitment, 6 milion dollar in 1 day, not one cents from special interests, his 20 years for actually working FOR the people, his logical and common sense responses, among Republicans, he was the only one not to vote for Iraq War, and he was right, he predicted the economic crisis that would come with the actual monetary system, married for 50 years with 18 grand-children, 4000 babies by his hands, voted against Patriot Act, and I could go on and on. Besides being the most qualified, his track record is impeccable, has reached the young and new voters, with an amazing power, and can make the Republicans lose with the click of his fingers. The Republicans would probably prefer a Democrat to win than Dr.Paul, atleast it will remain under establishment control. Despite all sides against Ron Paul, he continues to rise in the polls, fundraising, debates, etc., as a Gentleman. Kudos. My humblest respect to Dr. Paul, how he manages to remain a Gentleman with all those lies and attacks is not easy. No other candidate, D or R, comes close to Dr. Paul's total package in all areas for becoming the next President. Not even in the vicinity, as most polls will show. If America will have a clean and efficient voting procedure, then the winner is logically Dr.Paul by a wide margin.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 EJ Moosa, all rights reserved.