Can Ron Paul win the WH if Rand Paul loses?

[klamath]

I agree that the statements on the newsletter aren't really that bad.

But this is what the media will do: It will repeat the following statement 24/7:



That's the exact quote CNN used in '07. I don't think Ron will politically survive that if it's repeated all day every day for a week. The statement is much more damaging than Rand's nuanced statements on property rights.

Well, that's what I believe. I might be wrong and Ron might be elected without hyperinflation, but I think things will definitely have to get worse.

Another wild card is Rand improving his image substantially within a year, and that image improvement translating to Ron.

I think you are wrong on the race thing being the main hurtle for RP. What RP has to overcome is noninterventionism with the republicans and the fear he is going to cut out government handout programs such as SSI Etc with everyone else.
Race baiting works real well whipping up the progressive left and minorities that are the democratic base but it isn't going to fly so well with the independents and republicans after Obama was elected and many people got over their white guilt.l

 

[low preference guy]

He didn't have to change his mind. He never said he endorsed RP for president either in that quote or anywhere else. So there was nothing to change.

That quote was widely used as a genuine and accurate quote of Williams praising RP as a congressman [???????????????????], not as a presidential candidate. Just like quotes by Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan were widely used in the same way. In fact, so was a quote by John McCain. None of those were endorsements of RP for president. Nor did the official campaign ever claim any of them were--that's why that section of the campaign website was called "Praise and Endorsements," rather than just "Endorsements." Anybody who thought that Williams, Friedman, Reagan, and John McCain actually endorsed RP for president was mistaken. Perhaps it was shrewd on the part of the campaign to present things in a way that let people think that. But they never claimed Williams endorsed RP for president. And Williams never did endorse RP for president.

Washington Times:

Mr. Williams' own '08 favorite is Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican and a 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, who last month announced the formation of an exploratory committee.

That doesn't sound like Williams is praising RP as a congressman. Stop making things up.

 

[erowe1]

Washington Times:



That doesn't sound like Williams is praising RP as a congressman. Stop making things up.

What you gave is a claim made by a writer for the Washington Times, not a quote from Walter Williams. Whoever wrote that apparently drew the wrong conclusion from what Williams said.

Could you provide a link to that Washington Times article, so I can see it in context?

Edit: Never mind. I found it:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/feb/8/20070208-115701-1864r/?page=2
I definitely stand by my claim that only the writer himself asserted that Williams supported RP for president. Nothing in the quote he gives from Williams backs it up. that quote is praise, not an endorsement. And given the fact that Williams had said that so recently before RP decided to run, you can be sure that the campaign tried to get an actual endorsement out of him, which makes the lack of one, and Williams' complete silence about Ron Paul and continued cheering on of the Iraq War and the War on Terror during the primaries while those were the issues that put RP most at odds with the GOP, that much more conspicuous.

 

[low preference guy]

What you gave is a claim made by the Washington Times, not a quote from Walter Williams. Whoever wrote that got it wrong. Perhaps they were led astray by the frequent claim by Paulers that Williams endorsed RP just like you were.

Source? Was there a rectification?

 

[low preference guy]

Perhaps they were led astray by the frequent claim by Paulers that Williams endorsed RP just like you were.

They were led astray by Paulers when they just talked to Walter Williams? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[erowe1]

They were led astray by Paulers when they just talked to Walter Williams? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

After I read the article I went back and edited out that line, apparently at the same time you were responding. I originally typed that before I had read the article and saw when it had come out and what it actually said.

At any rate, these facts are clear:
1) Williams never actually endorsed RP.
2) Williams praised RP before he was running, saying something that was well short of an endorsement for president.
3) Some journalist claimed that Williams endorsed RP for president, even though he never did, or if he did, the quote where he did has completely disappeared. That journalist did not present a quote to that effect, nor, as far as I know, is there one out there anywhere else. The same journalist in the same article says that Williams himself had not completely ruled out running for president in 2008.
4) The campaign never claimed that Williams endorsed RP for president, although it did publicize that quote praising, but not endorsing him. If there was some other quote of Williams endorsing him, why not publicize that one too?
5) A bunch of RP supporters have repeated the rumor about Williams endorsing him. So a lot of people just take it for granted.

 

[sailingaway]

I agree that the statements on the newsletter aren't really that bad.

But this is what the media will do: It will repeat the following statement 24/7:



That's the exact quote CNN used in '07. I don't think Ron will politically survive that if it's repeated all day every day for a week. The statement is much more damaging than Rand's nuanced statements on property rights.

Well, that's what I believe. I might be wrong and Ron might be elected without hyperinflation, but I think things will definitely have to get worse.

Another wild card is Rand improving his image substantially within a year, and that image improvement translating to Ron.

The huge difference is that Rand actually said what Rand actually said. Mind you, there is what Conway said he said that he didn't say, as well as what the NY Times said he said that he didn't say, neither of which are nuanced and both of which now have a life of their own on the internet. But I think most conservatives have now seen media witch hunts and would look to the youtube or source. Ron didn't write the newsletters and NO ONE CREDIBLE says he did. I DID start supporting Ron after the media blew up the newsletter issue, expected to find fire where there was smoke and found NOTHING. That, and knowing it was the ONLY issue around, is what sold me on him so thoroughly.

Mind you, I research for a living, so I can cut through junk faster than many, I realize it. But I can LEAD people through the junk, too.

 

[low preference guy]

Journalists sometimes paraphrase the people they interview. They don't put direct quotes 100% of the time. The article explicitly claimed that:

Mr. Williams' own '08 favorite is Rep. Ron Paul

If you have a problem using the word "endorsement", fine, let's just use "Mr. Williams' own '08 favorite is Rep. Ron Paul". Williams was never a big enough name so that getting an exact quote with the word "endorsement" would be a big deal.

 

[sailingaway]

I think you are wrong on the race thing being the main hurtle for RP. What RP has to overcome is noninterventionism with the republicans and the fear he is going to cut out government handout programs such as SSI Etc with everyone else.
Race baiting works real well whipping up the progressive left and minorities that are the democratic base but it isn't going to fly so well with the independents and republicans after Obama was elected and many people got over their white guilt.l

I agree those are the real issues. They just use vague references to 'that racist newsletter' issue to turn OTHER people off because of their own agenda.

 

[erowe1]

Journalists sometimes paraphrase the people they interview. They don't put direct quotes 100% of the time. The article explicitly claimed that:



If you have a problem using the word "endorsement", fine, let's just use "Mr. Williams' own '08 favorite is Rep. Ron Paul". Williams was never a big enough name so that getting an exact quote with the word "endorsement" would be a big deal.

But those aren't Williams' words. Yes, journalists sometimes paraphrase, and sometimes they draw their own conclusions and read between the lines of what the interviewee said and get things wrong.

Some other person claiming Williams endorsed RP is not the same thing as Williams endorsing RP. Did Williams ever actually endorse RP? If he did, I'd love to see the quote. I'll definitely stand corrected if so. But if all he said was what that journalist quoted, that's not an endorsement for president, despite the fact that that journalist treated it as one, and it's especially not an endorsement if Williams was keeping open the option of running himself, which the same journalist says in the same article.

I have as much of a problem with saying that Williams' own '08 favorite was RP as I do with saying he endorsed him. Now if you want to say, "There was this one journalist who claimed that Williams' '08 favorite was RP, but the actual quote he gave to back that up didn't actually say that." then I have no problem with that.

 

[low preference guy]

But those aren't Williams' words. Yes, journalists sometimes paraphrase. Sometimes they get things wrong.

Some other person claiming Williams endorsed RP is not the same thing as him endorsing RP. Did Williams ever actually endorse RP? If he did, I'd love to see the quote. I'll definitely stand corrected if so. But if all he said was what that journalist quoted, that's not an endorsement for president, despite the fact that that journalist treated it as one.

Williams' favorite candidate for '08 was Dr. Ron Paul.


Also, I'm pretty sure the neocon Wash Times won't make up the above claim.

 

[erowe1]

Williams' favorite candidate for '08 was Dr. Ron Paul.


Also, I'm pretty sure the neocon Wash Times won't make up the above claim.

How can you be pretty sure they wouldn't when you saw the very article where they did? That wasn't Williams' claim (i.e. it's not a quote from Williams), it was the writer's claim (i.e. the Washington Times made it up). The actual quote they give from Williams to back that up conspicuously doesn't say that.

The fact that they're neocon is irrelevant. At that time, RP was a little known dark horse candidate whose views weren't widely known. He wasn't famous for being a noninterventionist, as he came to be after some of the debates. That aspect wasn't what Williams praised him for, and Williams himself clearly doesn't agree with it. It looks to me like the interviewer asked Williams about people who were looking like they were going to run for president, and the only really positive quote he got from Williams about any of them was that one he gave about RP, which, again, is conspicuously not an actual endorsement. And so he filled in that RP was Williams favorite as his own editorial detail.

I suppose if you want to be factual and paint it in as positive of a light as possible you could say, "There was this journalist who interviewed Walter Williams in Feb. 2007, before RP was running for president, and before his noninterventionism became such a big deal in the debates, when Williams gave a very positive quote about RP and the journalist believed that at that point in time RP was Williams favorite potential candidate, even though Williams didn't formally endorse him at that time and never mentioned him again after that."

I would have no problem with that.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

erowe1 is right that Walter Williams never endorsed Ron. I happened to hear Walter on the radio the other day. He was defending some principled free-market positions in a very educated way, not caving in even on child-labor laws. It was like listening to a Mises Institute seminar except broadcast on national radio, with hostile callers. He also strongly defended nullification/secession, and the radical libertarian position on discrimination (have at it! none of Big Bubba Gov't's business) and Rand Paul in connection with that.

http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056

It *is* too bad that someone so intelligent and so good on most domestic issues can be so wrong on war. But, such is life. low preference guy, if he is a listener to Walter, and if Walter is usually as good as he was a few days ago, probably finds it hard to reconcile that someone who talks like that, defending absolute private property rights and the Constitution, how could he *not* support Ron Paul? Well, the war propaganda machine is powerful.

As far as the liberty movement being "dead" if such and such campaign doesn't work out: get real! You think the trajectory of history is determined by some Diebold voting box? If so, as Ernest Hancock would say, "you haven't been paying attention!" The ideas of liberty and the movement in support of them have never been so alive. Those who were infected by the message by the Ron Paul campaign, it's not as if they're going back to conventional political views. No, they're becoming more radical and more educated as time goes by. Ideas are what matter, ideas drive history.

 

[low preference guy]

How can you be pretty sure they wouldn't when you saw the very article where they did? That wasn't Williams' claim (i.e. it's not a quote from Williams), it was the writer's claim (i.e. the Washington Times made it up). The actual quote they give from Williams to back that up conspicuously doesn't say that.

Why would they paraphrase AND quote the same thing? Were people dying to know who was Williams' "favorite", with a direct quote that had the word "favorite"? Are you part of the "Ron Paul wasn't Walter Williams' favorite '08 candidate" religion?

 

[low preference guy]

How can you be pretty sure they wouldn't when you saw the very article where they did? That wasn't Williams' claim (i.e. it's not a quote from Williams), it was the writer's claim (i.e. the Washington Times made it up). The actual quote they give from Williams to back that up conspicuously doesn't say that.

What's your source that they "made it up"? That's a pretty strong accusation. Were you in the room?

With your standards, we can just assume that they also made up the Williams' quotes. After all, it's just a text quote, not a recording.

 

[erowe1]

What's your source that they "made it up"? That's a pretty strong accusation. Were you in the room?

With your standards, we can just assume that they also made up the Williams' quotes.

No. I read the article. It's right there in black and white.

 

[low preference guy]

No. I read the article. It's right there in black and white.

It says they made it up? Where?

 

[erowe1]

It says they made it up? Where?

All the words that are not in quotation marks are the writer's own words.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

All the words that are not in quotation marks are the writer's own words.

LOL. That is the convention.

 

[erowe1]

In fact, the more I think about it, the more the fact that this article is out there makes Williams' silence about Ron Paul since that time deafening. The way Ron Paul supporters are, I have no doubt that Williams got flooded with emails begging him to endorse Ron Paul and to say more good things about him in his columns and when he filled in for Rush. And all they got in return was utter silence about RP, interspersed with the occasional column or radio tyrade on foreign policy that was diametrically opposed to the views RP came to be most associated with over the course of the campaign.