Posted on 12/04/2014 7:42:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin suggests that The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial page is in decline thanks to its “thin-skinned” editorial page chief editor Paul Gigot, who has routinely published material undercutting Texas Senator Ted Cruz.
Paul Gigot, the chief editor of the WSJ’s editorial page, “is an amnesty radical who’s thin-skinned and often sophomoric,” says Levin in a Facebook Note, and “[h]e uses the paper’s opinion pages to carry not a conservative message but the corporatist water – bailouts, subsidies, debt increases, amnesty, etc.”
According to National Review Online, Senator Cruz met “with Wall Street Journal editorial writers last year and laid his cards on the table. ‘I don’t really care what other people write about me, but I really do care about what the Wall Street Journal writes,’ Cruz said, according to a source in the room at the time.”
That’s not all Senator Cruz had to say. “Cruz maintains that the tension is one-sided. ‘I’m a big fan of the Wall Street Journal. The Journal’s editorial page has long been the most important space in journalism, a thriving intellectual platform that provides space for ideas to compete.”
Evidently Senator Cruz was wrong. This “intellectual platform” just might not be a “space for ideas to compete,” as it seems clear that the WSJ “routinely attempt[s] to diminish his potential as a presidential candidate, with critical asides woven into pieces on issues to which Cruz is only tangential,” says National Review Online.
The WSJ reportedly suggested that Senator Cruz’s actions during the government shutdown last year would harm Republicans in the 2014 midterm elections and that Senator Cruz and Senator Mike Lee were more concerned with getting their faces on TV than actually solving problems.
National Review Online also reports that “[t]he tension between Cruz and the Journal goes back years now, to his meeting with the editorial board when he was a Senate candidate in 2012.” Apparently one person at the meeting suggested that Senator Cruz “came across as a bit of a know-it-all.”
But Levin says, it’s not Senator Cruz that is the problem. No, it is the WSJ editorial page chief editor Paul Gigot, “an amnesty radical who’s thin-skinned and often sophomoric” that is to blame for the estranged relationship between the WSJ and Senator Ted Cruz.
“[Gigot] has also smeared the Tea Party, attacked talk radio, etc., with unsigned editorial opinion pieces. [He] has cost the editorial page much of the prestige it once had among many conservatives since his appointment as its chief editor.”
And Levin didn’t stop there. Implying that Paul Gigot is nothing short of faux conservative, Levin finished his rebuke of the WSJ chief editor saying this:
“[Gigot’s] editorials reflect his predictable role as a mouthpiece for the GOP establishment. Thus, the praise for Jeb Bush and his ilk while mocking Ted Cruz.”
Really sick. Low info voters to the right of center, busy economic conservatives, trust the WSJ. We’ve got absolutely nothing.
There is no way we could get a candidate like Cruz effectively in front of the American people. He will always be hidden or camouflaged behind the GOPe message, never able to shine.
When I was teaching university-level econ courses, I required my students to read the editorial page every day, with a quiz each Friday, just to make sure. I wouldn’t dream of doing that today.
I do not like this Paul Gigot.
His spineless ways have got to go.
The “stupid” in this country know
More common sense than Paul Gigot.
That’s the optimism I come here for.
You came here for optimism, then you should have loved 2011, 2012. A veritable Echo chamber of how we would of course be winning.
I want the palinization of Cruz STOPPED!!!! I want a brilliant conservative to debate Hillary. Pumping sugar up our butts has not worked here. I want to do what extremely little I can to stop what is already happening NOW. It has to be soon.
On the other thread to you, my post was better and less coldly pessimistic.
I always hated Gigot from the time I first saw him on TV when he supposedly represented our side in those McNeil/Lehrer Hour Friday night debates with that lib Mark Shields back in the day. Gigot is pure GOPe and when I would hear him debate Shields he never hit back with any force and in most instances would agree in principle with his lib adversary. That’s when I realized that not all Republicans share conservative principles. Thank you for pointing this out. I’ve always picked up a WSJ from Starbucks on the weekends. I’ll save my $3.00 and get a coffee instead from now on.
The WSJ has always been bad (ie liberal) on immigration, infamously calling for open borders for years and helping to sabotage the mid 90s effort to reduce immigration. So you can’t blame Gigot for the Journals leftism on immigration; he’s just continuing the tradition.
I agree though with Levin’s assessment of Gigot.
Me too. The Friday crossword puzzle and the Saturday book reviews.
Don't worry, Ted, you da man.
Good old Mark. Always calling it like he sees it and speaking ( well sometimes yelling) truth to power. Good for him
I canceled my subscription to the WSJ after 30 years, when the published a picture of Romney the day before the election showing him in a sweat shirt with the lettering blocked such that it said “loser”.
I subscribe to the WSJ and love it and read it daily.
Compared to the NYT, Wash Post or the others it is far superior.
It is packed with interesting articles almost every issue.
I mostly agree with the editorials, too.
Every publication has weaknesses.
I didn’t notice it is trashing Cruz. I hope that doesn’t continue. Cruz is the best.
Bulls!t...
The editorials can be brilliantly written. When you agree with them, they are a delight.
Again today we are told not to “take the bait” as Obama wants us to. Continue to do the hesitation step until we have more power. I think Obama would really, really HATE to be impeached. The GOP-e are the ones taking the bait.
Not paying $3, though. Delightful editorials once in a while are not worth it. My newsdealer pointed out, “They raised the price fifty percent!”
Ideology.
The Wall Street Urinal editorial page has been notoriously open borders for decades not years. They had a legendary editor in chief ___ Robert L. Bartley___ who each year wrote an editorial that was 100% open borders. The editorial would state — let anyone come here who wants to. Bartley was good in other respects. He croaked a few years ago and of course the WSJ continued with the libertarian style open borders on its editorial page
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB994028904620983237
From July 2001____
One of the WSJ open borders editorials from that era
Me too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.