Wall Street Journal article makes us all look like flaming Idiots.
Submitted by cero on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 12:01
I knew there was something fishy with RP2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=...
EDIT: the article totally misquoted RP2008
http://dailypaul.com/node/9013
my bad :(
»
The same old story
.
The media (and others) are running scared. Ron Paul's growing popularity and successful fund-raising initiatives are not what they had in mind. They continue to try to paint him as a kook, even though there are some good stories now and then.
Writing or calling to any adversarial journalist or newspaper or network won't help much. They are dug in, just as we are. The best use of our efforts is to keep spreading the word to those who do not know about Ron Paul.
Don't be pulled off-task by any mean-spirited journalist. Most all of the big media (and the other candidates) are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and they have an agenda to pursue. Ron Paul is not part of their agenda, so they are going to attack him.
Keep our eyes on the prize. Have faith; we're doing great!
.
all of you who wrote to Amy are chumps
She's paid to do what she did. You wasted all that time. Stop whining to paid operatives and get talking to real people who want to know what you know.
GO!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Get active NOW to put Ron in the general election. ronpaul.meetup.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.
Yep, that article sucked,
Yep, that article sucked, but it does have some truth to it: As Hestia said, being aggressive toward everyone and everything anti-Paul, will have negative effects.
I sent Schatz an e-mail as well, nicely directing her to the Society Of Professional Journalists code of ethics.
With anything in life, once people get in defense mode, nothing good will result.
No offense
I see no reason to be offended by this WSJ story. The writer points to a very real downside to Ron Paul's mass upwelling of fiercely loyal support. I think most other campaigns have nowhere near as many hypersensitive supporters who are itching to (figuratively) rip off the head of anyone who slights their candidate. Afterall, what is there in the others' tired rhetoric to stir anyone's emotions?
I think we should heed the message here. Some few hundred or so of Ron Paul's supporters are intemperate hotheads and make enemies where they could be making friends with a more respectful and reasoned approach. They should take their cue from Ron Paul, who never stoops to bullying or namecalling.
New Hampshire and Ecuador
from a paultard moron
I think it makes them look like childish name callers. I wrote an email, but this stuff is starting to roll right off my back and give me energy, positive energy.
Amy,
Thanks for doing all you can to deter anyone from learning about Ron Paul. Why didn't you bother to tell about him? It is articles like this that upset us and then you wonder why we are such angry people.
We are defending a sweet man who gets a bum rap time after time.
Thanks for nothing,
duff
What happened in my interview for the WSJ article - contact info
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=...
I am David Chesley, and was interviewed for 47 minutes over the phone for this article. Even though I was interviewed over the phone for 47 minutes there was not a single quote from that interview in the article. I estimate that 70% of my conversation with the journalist was about Ron Paul's positions on the issues and why I support him. I also estimate that 30% of my interview with the journalist was pointing out specific examples of coverage in the press that has been completely biased.
The interview was conducted after Glenn Beck called us all terrorists, Sean Hannity refuted his own debate polls, the MSM erroneously referred to us as "weird," "radicals," "extremists," saying that we are "up to mischief," and Soledad O'Brien continued to call RP an isolationist 5(x) in a row after apologizing for calling him an isolationist in a previous interview. All of this I mentioned to the journalist. I could hear the sound of her keyboard and could tell she was not typing in the portion of the interview when I discussed Soledad's biased reporting. As stated above the journalist did not mention any of these points above in her article. I pointed out that most AP polls and MSM news programs have not included Ron Paul even though he has more money than all but one Republican candidate, Guiliani. I informed Ms. Shatz that Romney was actually in the hole by millions of dollars, and had to borrow money for his campaign. The journalist immediately retorted with something to the effect of (paraphrasing here) "Well, yeah but he plans to earn that back eventually."
I pointed out how the MSM polls directly contradict Ron Paul's results in straw polls nationwide, and I mentioned that Ron Paul won more straw polls than any other Republican candidate. Not online straw polls, but real straw polls, and I directed her to these results on Ron Paul's website. She neglected to mention this. I explained to her how the corporate media was attempting to denounce Paul's supporters and turn Ron Paul into a fringe candidate by constantly referring to him as a Libertarian, even though he is a ten term Republican Congressman. I explained all of this politely and factually. Mostly, I explained all of the reasons I support Ron Paul's positions and what those positions are (for brevity will not repeat here). None of this was mentioned in the article.
Of course the article could be seen as an obvious attempt to quell dissent, and curb enthusiasm for Ron Paul. Some people are suggesting that based on this article and the views of a small opposition that seeks to suppress our message, that we must all quiet down, be polite, and watch what we say... Please remember, when you are fighting for your liberty and freedom there is no rule that says you must be polite about it. The Bush administration was not very polite to lie and have 665,000 innocent people killed in Iraq, and neither was the media polite to support this war, which is nothing short of an imperialist holocaust committed under false pretenses. We do not all have to be careful what we say, etcetera. That is a joke. We must be ourselves and speak our minds.
Anyway, I am not surprised by the article, and as I thanked Ms. Shatz over the phone for providing coverage to Ron Paul, I thank her again here. Remember, she has corporate bosses to answer to, namely Rupert Murdoch, who outright supports Hillary Clinton. Murdoch sends daily memos to his journalists with talking points see the movie "Outfoxed." It is not Ms. Shatz's fault that circumstances have forced her to work in a media environment where the message is entirely controlled by the military/industrial complex. I must have faith and believe that she has good intentions, or is merely trying to earn a living. She was afterall, a pleasant person to speak with. I am proud of what I was quoted for writing in the article, because what I wrote was true, and not a blatant attempt to mischaracterize any group of people or to misrepresent the facts. As I promised you all, I am providing her contact info for you to thank her for the article, or use as you see fit.
Best,
David S. Chesley, Esq. :)
www.myspace.com/daveche
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson (an 'incendiary comment' provided by the member of an 'anti-government fringe group')
Her message to me:
I’m working on a story about Ron Paul and his online support and saw some of the things you’ve been posting on DailyPaul and MySpace. I’d like to talk to you for the story, if you have a few minutes. When would be a good time for me to contact you?
Thanks for considering the request,
Amy
======================
Amy Schatz
The Wall Street Journal
w: (202) 862-6631
c: (202) 422-2689
amy.schatz@wsj.com
======================
Great post
This is a great post. Thanks for sharing it with us and providing the links.
It's evident thet "they" do not give one hoot about the truth. Your interview was probably a set up and they just waited for one comment from you that they could have used in a negative manner against RP or the supporters.
You failed them and and only championed Ron Paul. I'll bet after she hung up from talking to you that she felt she had wasted he 47 minutes too.
Good job! Your interview should be a lesson to all of us.
P.S. to my above post.
This also should be a lesson to ALL OF US. The other side IS INDEED monitoring these pro-RP sites. They hate us and will only look for negative examples and exploit those examples to no end.
Be very careful of the "ammo" we hand them.
Yes now my local media is
Yes now my local media is even coming to the Daily Paul to use comments from this site in thier articles and of course they pick only the ones that are negative. That is why I always post on here positive things. They will use our negative comments against us...
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library"
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library"
It's not that bad...and it mentions dailypaul.com!
Mike
Ron Paul is my HERO!!!
"Fire Team for Freedom" on RonPaulRadio.com
Mondays and Wednesdays 10pm EST
or mikeandjake.com
Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com
I have been guilty of
I have been guilty of attacking ANYONE who criticized Dr. Paul, but I forgot that Paul would never take that approach. He charms and educates with kindness so it leaves no room for the other party to really say much but to admire him. That is why I think Hannity was nicer the second time around to Paul, and Cavuto also seems to have turned around.
We don't want to feed them just what they are looking for. Aggressiveness and paranoia. The "they are out to get you" may be true but never comes across very well to outsiders looking in.
An approach that may work would be, "hey I read your article and I respect your opinion, but I wanted to possibly give you some food for thought and hopefully change your mind," OR "What can I do to change your view on Paul supporters"?
I mean, how many people liked to be attacked even if you are wrong? Most people don't want to admit they are wrong so knowing that how can we get them turned around? Again, kindness, understanding and then educating them with facts, evidence and wisdom.
That's my two cents.
www.ronpaul2008.com
www.teaparty07.com
www.ronpaul2008.com
who reads that crap
only greedy Gewlianii's read that trip nobody that will vote for Ron Paul will read it
That's an untrue stereotype.
That's an untrue stereotype.
.
.
Another unfair representation equals another dollar
Another dollar in the Tea party coffee can.
I know, coffee, tea. mixed metaphors. LOL
I have a set amount for the Tea Party.
On top of that is a collection of dollars. I put one in the can whenever I see an unfair representation of Dr. Paul. It's my "Ron can win" can. :)
Everyone should have a "Ron Can Win" can. :)
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
It's the other way around!
The Wall Street Journal just proved itself as a fluff paper. Since Rupert's purchase, the WSJ wil increasingly become marginalized because of it's bias and agenda. I don't and won't ever support the WSJ!
The American Revolution 2.0 will not be televised... It will be downloaded!!!
=====================================
"The greatest mystery of all is truth." - Me, 2009
Oh No! Say it ain't so!
The Wall Street Journal doesn't support the one candidate running for president who wants to abolish the federal reserve. I'm shocked.
We should boycott the WSJ publication for the smear campaign
The overwhelming amount of RP supporters are some of the finest Americans in this country. What they complain about is basic free speech. We have a right to complain when we disagree. They have a right to disregard our emails and delete them too. Yes, we are well organized, so what?
Those other campaigns wish they had such loyal supporters.
Contact: WSJ Analysts, FCC
The name of the game is money.
Analysts that follow Dow Jones (DJ):
Appert, Peter Goldman Sachs
Atorino, Edward The Benchmark Company
Janedis, John of Wachovia Capital Markets, Llc
Quadrani, Alexia of Bear Stearns
Sakellaris, George of Garp Research & Securities
FCC Complaints:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html
I canceled...
...my subscription to WSJ, daily and weekend additions, as well as Barron's about two months go. I feel cleansed. I now read the Financial Times and the Economist. It's OK if they screw up. You can expect that from foreign publications, but when your local reporters get it so wrong, they don't deserve a penny of your hard-earned wages. Goodbye Rupert. You'll never see me again.
Plano TX
thank you note to Amy
I just wanted to drop you a thank you note for the article bashing Ron Paul supporters. The more negative press we get, the better.If you just ignore us no one knows we are out here by the thousands. But when you insult us and tell half truths, your readers start wondering. Next thing you know they do something you haven't done. They research Ron Paul and find out what an amazing person he is. Then they research some more, then they start telling their friends and family. So in essence, my dear, you have become a promoter of sorts.
By the way, he is running to support your freedom of speech as well as mine.
Again, Thank you!!!
Well said!
Well said, very well said.
Rupert Murdoch need I say more?
Of course the WSJ is against freedom and liberty. They are now owned by one of the most evil men on the planet Rupert Murdoch, he is all of the world tyrants rolled into one. This is a fight for our lives so get out and fight.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=airborne373
Join PyraBang the peoples search engine.
My e-mail to Amy
Amy,
Why don't you and your cohorts write similar articles about the supporters of other candidates and see what kind of reaction you evoke. Most probably, it will be a mooted response, because the so-called popularity of other candidates is mythical. However, among the smattering of responses you’ll get, there undoubtedly will be a few “hateful” ones. It’s basic human nature. If you care deeply about someone or a cause, you find it hard to turn the other cheek when the person, the cause, and adherents are smeared.
Consider, Mona Charen (never heard of her before), who wrote, “He [Dr. Paul] might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.” You think that’s fair? You think we should take such venomous reporting lying down? Glen Beck said on CCN that Ron Paul supporters are domestic terrorists. I challenge you. Write a story about Rudy Giuliani’s cross-dressing activities. (Search You Tube if you have no-idea what I’m talking about.) I know you won’t take up the challenge, because you’ll rather mess with the supporters of a minor-candidate.
How does a minor candidate raise $4.3 million in one day from 40,000 donors, half of which were new donors? How does a minor candidate draw 5,000 people to a rally in Philly?
[I then proved her with straw poll results and sites that track internet data on candidates.]
Are we spamming the straw polls?
Other than the poll data, which leaves me to doubt their authenticity, I don't see any other candidate with Paul's grassroots support - not even close.
More than a month ago, I canceled my subscriptions to WSJ (daily and Saturday editions) and Barron’s. I figured if they are so bad at covering other new items as they are at covering the GOP candidates, then their publications aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. There is no objectivity and independence in your reporting.
For example, you write: “Some blogs have booted Paul supporters for leaving incendiary comments.” Why don’t you go to those blogs and quote the incendiary comments of other supporters? You’ll soon discover it is a non-issue, but the way you describe it in you report it makes Ron Paul look bad and that’s your main concern.
Here are a few posts I quickly garnered from these blogs:
[I provided her with true anti-Paul incendiary comments.]
Again, you write, “They have also been frozen out of Internet surveys and accused of electronic ballot stuffing; Dr. Paul rarely loses online straw polls even though he barely registers in national telephone polls. His supporters argue that they win online polls because there are more Paul supporters and they're better organized.” Why don’t you add, that in GOP straw polls that are held all over the country Ron Paul invariably wins. These results correlate well with the online polls, which vindicate Ron Paul’s support despite what his critics say.
I could go on, but you get my drift. Ron Paul’s support is real and it is broad-based. Your reporting follows the line of all your fellow lame-stream media friends who cannot find a speck of dirt on Ron Paul, so your only other option is to direct your attention at his supporters, but in a biased and one-sided manner.
Sincerely,
Plano TX
Letter to Amy
Amy,
I find it funny that your focus is on the supporters rather than the candidate's platform. I don't care who is running for office, nor does the nature of the political contest matter, one will always be able to find those that are "out of the ordinary" in their actions and activities in support of their candidate. With the Ron Paul campaign, this is doubly true. I think what is interesting is that you make no effort to try and understand the ire of these individuals about whom you write. You make no comment on the validity of their concerns over the treatment of, and deliberate marginalization of, Dr. Paul in the mainstream media. You simply point to them as "representative", in some way, of the totality of the individuals behind the Ron Paul message. This is false, misleading, and a further perturberance to the very people that you seek to debase in your article. Anyway, it won't work. The days of MSM "talking points" swaying the electorate are in serious jeopardy.
Your ill-disguised "article" may fool or beguile those Main Stream Media sound-biters that surely vote, mostly without a scintilla of understanding of the ramifications of their actions. However, it will not effect those who take a passionate and active roll in their political or societal education, especially in the face of the content that is now at our fingertips. It will not sway their loved ones who trust and believe in their passions, even with little understanding of the issues. Your problem (read MSM), is that you are also beguiling yourselves in the process. You all seem to want to point to and interview Don Black rather than a Lawrence Lepard or a Peter Schiff as if such concentration will somehow "wake" everybody to some perceived invalidity of Dr. Paul's stance rather than educate them about the follies of the Federal Reserve system and the inevitable collapse of the dollar. You regularly omit Dr. Paul from your polls or design the polls to elicit your desired responses and it's not hard to see why.
Amy, the internet has changed the playing field and your polling of 2004 George Bush primary voters (of which I am one) is hardly "representative" of the demographics of this campaign cycle. Things have changed, the people have awaken and they are quite pissed off. Your control paradigm has melted away seemingly without your knowledge. The fog of societal, and certainly party, obedience has melted away to be replaced by a clear understanding of the political and economic power structure that has this country so firmly grasped in its talons.
Tell your editor, or whatever force that directed you to write this drivel, that I said that you had better get used to a new paradigm. Tell him the a shock to the system has already occurred, tell him that your editorial direction is out of touch with the pulse of America...especially as the shills for stasis that you apparently are. Tell him to wake-up and push back against the powers that control him. Tell him to read Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry. Tell him we're fed up with the governmental assault on Liberty and we're about to change things drastically. And Amy...grow some balls...become the journalist you trained to become, not the static shill that you now are. What you wrote is below you.
Your Fellow American,
Melgesman
"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death". Thomas Paine
"...there is no doubt that it (socialism) could not possibly have affected us so widely and so deeply as it has, had it not been heavily financed". - B. Carroll Reece
Yea,
what he said.
Melgesman
Sweet!!!!
Plano TX
Thanks for your comment
Maybe she'll listen?
"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death". Thomas Paine
"...there is no doubt that it (socialism) could not possibly have affected us so widely and so deeply as it has, had it not been heavily financed". - B. Carroll Reece
I agree
when they can pick a handful of supporters and use them as an example for all of us tells me one thing the MSM is scared and knows that Ron Paul is a very viable candidate and most likely will win the nomination.
I look at these articles and remember when Huckabee just less than a month ago hired online hired bloggers,yes hired bloggers for his campaign now I am seeing these articles about Ron Paul supporters are now coming out of the woodwork against the Ron Paul campaign.
Something here smells like a rat from Arkansas and I wouldn't put it past the other rat's from New York,Massachusetts,Arizona and Tennessee, they don't want there agendas they have planned for our country to be exposed as what Ron Paul is doing.
Just face it the MSM is a major part of the problems our country is facing and they are being exposed and the American people know it and they also know who they support to be our next President, Ron Paul.
We are in a battle but as long as we defend and promote the policies of Ron Pauls campaign Freedom & Liberty we will win, but to lower ourselves out of our message will help the establishment win out once again.
"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "
some of you...
You have made it your life's passion to get RP elected have taken great offense to this article and other articles like it. It is an insult to your hard work and you are justified to get upset.
Dr. Paul is squeaky clean, there is nothing to discuss about him, except a few hyper-active online supporters. You do what you have to do. It isn't as if some one's mind will be changed based on this article. The official campaign is doing all it can to reach the every day, non-internet savy voters. His on-line supporters are doing their part to get his name out in every on-line poll they can find, among other things. I think we can all agree that polls are a very poor way to decide who is winning.
I don't think the article grouped everyone together as "flaming idiots" but it did draw attention to the fact that there are some very agressive supporters. Nothing new there.
"Make fun buddy..." - Ron Paul