Wall Street Journal on Ron Paul

Ron makes the WSJ Online in the wee hours...yes I know I should be sleeping!

The author also notes that in Iowa, Ron outdrew the main event at the ITR/ICA forum.

Graphic from the WSJ. Click here to read the story.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Waaaaaaaaaaaait a second...

In the link to the actual article "gay marriage" is actually listed as "civil unions." Why does the graphic on DailyPaul differ from the actual article?

Not a huge issue, really, just curious how one morphed into the other.

Hey, folks, this is better than what I heard at the RPT this weekend in Ft. Worth where several GOP candidates punctuated their closing remarks basically with "I'm pro-life and hate gays."

Ron pulls from both sides of the fence, we all know that, but that IS HIS APPEAL! As a Consitutionalist he is compelled to support personal freedoms, whether one side likes the other's or not. But the remedy truly is leaving it up to the individual states.

Consider this...

Yes, it shows Ron "against" abortion rights and "for" gay marriage, both line items listed across from each other. Given most people are either "for" them both or "against" them both, I would think this would get a "thinking person" (which I would like to believe the "Wall Street Journal" would have) to read the REST of the article, if not Google Ron Paul to learn more.

It's not a negative, folks. I look at it as more of a "teaser" to get people to read the ENTIRE article, because those two points put across from each other (again, not typical) are going to raise some eyebrows...and hopefully some interest .

I recall a wise man (Jesus) who once said, "Whoever is not 'against' us is 'for' us." Though twisted in modern rhetoric (you are either "for" us or "against" us), this first position is much more inclusive and should be applied to the context of the reporter's entire article...which was predominately a very positive one.

I know we get weary of the MSM's coverage, but don't always look for the 1/2 empty glass, folks :-)

"Pauliticians" Record Misleading

I find this ad to be very misleading. On the topic of gay marriage, I personally oppose it. It is a slap in the face to God. It redefines marriage. A husband and a wife is what we call people when they are married. Husband refers to man, wife refers to woman. What is so hard about that? I do believe it should be left up to the states which Ron Paul advocates because there is nothing in our Constitution and Bill of Rights that says anything about marriage. Many states already have laws on the books stating such things. The exact same thing can be said for drugs. To say he favors such things is very misleading. He is just following his oath to uphold the Constitution, if it is not in the Constitution he and other members of Congress have no authority to pass laws that are not enumerated in the Constitution. If someone were to see this ad, I think it would turn many people off. Instead it should read:

Supports states rights:

Supports states to make their own decisions when it come to matters like marriage, drugs, and abortion. I think you would get a much more positive response.

Oh yes...

That's two good articles: WSJ and the AP.

This bullet list is the result of people who have completely forgotten the constitution and assume the government even has a right in the first place to make such a law about 'gay' marriage. I was recently accused of being anti-gay, because I did not favor a NH state law to allow gays to have civil unions, because it did not include any other family connections and was only written to give gays 'special rights'. In reality, I am not opposed to gays making their own contracts with each other when they co-habitate or any other thing they want to do at all! So I am hardly anti-gay. But you are right -- it's all in the simplistic way this was presented that is misleading because it is based on a fully wrong premise.

The reason the article from KRNV-TV—Reno, NV was removed because the schedule changed and Ron was no longer going to be appearing at that event.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Those bullet points...

I was neutral on the article until I saw the bullet points, makes quite an impression on the reader. It seems like an attempt to pin all the "hot button" issues to Ron Paul in order to stoke the passions of liberals and conservatives. The modus operandi seems to be to take some of the issues that Ron Paul thinks should be dealt with at the state level (and not at the Constitutional level) and box him into a simple "for" or "against" stance. This does not even take into account the Constitution, what it means when weighed against the issues, and why he has voted the way he has. For example, gay marriage: he is not simply "for" or "against" gay marriage. What Ron Paul is "for" is that this topic is not something the Constitution was written to protect or outlaw, and therefore he would vote against any legislation protecting or outlawing the issue. Seems like this simple concept always escapes the media.

We have a long way to go!



I was just going to post the same thing. I send the following to the writer's email address at the bottom of the WSJ article:

In the graphic " The "Paulitician's" Record " at the bottom of the article, I find it incorrect to say he has "favored" gay marriage.

In the words of Ron Paul himself, see the article "The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea"

He specifically qualifies his stance that defining Marriage is NOT A FEDERAL MATTER. Period.


It would be nice if they quit flunking journalism 101

The news media could -- for once -- see through their bias and admit the guy happens to be a DOCTOR. Not only that, an OBGYN who delivered 4K kids but who's still-solvent despite a rapacious lawsuit-industry. Can any of you imagine the "Mr." treatment happening to "Dr." Dean from ANY media organ? Me either...Sigh. The bias, the bias....

Talented writer

The writing and research is very good - outstanding even. The graphic has a couple simplistic bullet points, but at least the source is listed - the Congressional Quarterly's Politics in America; Ron Paul site (I couldn't find it). We should point out the room for improvement to the source and encourage the WSJ to print the article. Getting such a talented writer on our side couldn't be a bad thing. On our side - as opposed to what someone did to this poor guy: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25550_Ron_Paul...

Defend Liberty!

ron paul article

I thought it was a great article considering how hard it is to get any information out there.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Page A4, Saturday edition

It was about as good an article as one could hope to expect from the Wall Street Journal. At least it was not dismissive, which so many pieces in the media tend to be.

Comparatively few people read the journal on Saturday but, hey, it's a pretty good piece and maybe somebody will read it and take note.

In the end, it's good for Ron Paul.

Who picked those bullet points?

Not a bad article, but overall it was ruined by the "bullet points" in "The Paulitician's Record" sidebar.
Are they really that clueless about what Ron Paul is really about?
Or is someone in the WSJ graphics dept out to get him?

Too cool..... did not see your post

I too am up too late googling for the latest on Ron Paul. Posted a thread and then saw you had one too. It was a good article for Ron Paul.... I can hardly wait for this weekend's event in Texas!!