Posted on 05/03/2007 10:23:46 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
DRUDGE REPORT
The Reagan Derby
Well, with 47,617 individual Votes recorded as of 12:55AM EST on 5/4/07, The Drudge Report has provided perhaps the most sweeping and comprehensive initial survey of viewer reaction to the first GOP Primary Debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
The Results thus far:
With an optimistic, confident demeaner and a polished presentation, Mitt Romney decidedly overshadowed the erstwhile Front-Runner, Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's primary strength thus far has been his vast name recognition and the sheer momentum of his supposed "inevitability" -- and yet, in terms of viewer reaction, for him to be trailing (by double digits) a former Governor not widely known outside of Massachusetts until this election season demonstrates clear vulnerability on Giuliani's part.
However, the greatest source of comfort to Constitutionalist Conservatives has to be the tremendous upswell of support being registered by the former Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas, United States Congressman Ron Paul -- and that DESPITE receiving comparatively little "face time" from the debate organizers. With viewer reaction to the first GOP Primary Debate already placing Congressman Ron Paul solidly in third place, nine points ahead of his nearest rival and within five points of Giuliani himself, a tremendous opportunity exists for Ron Paul to establish widespread national Name Recognition and garner increasing support for his broadly-appreciated message of Individual Liberty and strictly-limited Government Power.
With the second GOP Primary Debate rapidly approaching, Conservatives can take heart in knowing that the Message of Reagan Republicanism still resonates when presented confidently and forthrightly --and that there's at least one GOP Candidate on the stage who has stood solidly for Reagan Republicanism for thirty years: RON PAUL.
I think he chose his words poorly; perhaps I misunderstood his phrasing. He and I can disagree on that, we're still friends. Regardless, I do think that you're dodging his actual point -- Foreign Wars make enemies of those Foreigners whose civilian spouses and family members are killed as "collateral damage", whereas Domestic Defense protects American Civilians here at home.
Do you intend to respond to him on that, or not?
They're just funny-looking foreign brown people who don't speak English anyway. Their lives don't matter to Jesus. You should know that.
In terms of delivery style, I agree. He was a good communicator. (Not "The Great Communicator," but definitely a good communicator). Said communicator seemed to be offered more time to communicate than others like Paul. He also violated the "don't thank the host" rule that was set at the beginning.
Paul was concise and made the most of his opportunities. He brought the Constitution into the debate, unlike most of the other candidates.
I’m accusing him of carelessness.
We should not make attacks like this unless we know we are killing the enemy...not innocent bystanders.
So, you'd rather see them killed on US soil in larger numbers?
Because that's what's going to happen if we surrender. The US won't be able to protect its borders from the swell of terrorists that will arrive if we surrender to them in the Middle East.
Hell, we can't even stop illegal Mexicans from coming in.
It's so easy to understand: Engage the enemy on THEIR turf, not on OURS. We are having SUCCESS at that, despite what the media and the Democrats say.
Why people cannot see how absolutely disastrous it would be to surrender and walk away is beyond me.
Surrender is NOT an option. Not if you are a true American.
You do not know they were innocent bystanders. You do not know what that pilot saw them doing prior to locking on to them, do you? I do not know either. I would be darn careful throwing accusations around like that.
The debate organizers arranged the debate to give more "face time" to the "Big Three" (Giuliani, McCain, and Romney) than the rest, as I understand it. Romney used his time *very* well, Giuliani basically fumbled along, and McCain sank badly (not good at all, given that I happen to know that he's got the top College Debate Coach in the country on his team -- former LU Debate Coach Brett O'Donnell). Fortunately, Ron Paul made excellent use of his (limited) time as well.
He also violated the "don't thank the host" rule that was set at the beginning.
Sure. A.) he's probably a genuinely polite person; and B.) he probably wants the average viewer thinking "ah, what a nice fellow" even if it means he has to bend a view rules. Smart debating -- even if a little bit dodgy on debate ethics.
I do not believe that increased and EFFECTIVE Border Security, Port Security, and Coast Guard operations would result in Americans being "killed on US soil in larger numbers".
Sorry, I think that would substantially reduce the risk of Jihadists entering the US and committing Terrorist acts here. Matter of fact, I think a few Tens of Billions spent on Border Security, Port Security, and Coast Guard operations here at home would provide MORE Anti-Terrorist "Bang for our Buck" than Deficit-Spending Hundreds of Billions of dollars trying to referee an Islamic Civil War 7,000 miles away, while leaving our own Borders hopelessly undefended the way GW Bush is doing.
I don't understand how any TRUE American could fail to see that.
I did not denigrate our troops. I contrasted the killing of children at home with the misuse of our troops abroad and asked if protecting children was more important than killing civilians.
My point was that the right to life needs to be protected at home, and I believe that was OrthodoxPresbyterian's point.
I admire our troops' willingness to serve, and I am grateful for the way face hardship out of a desire to serve and protect the United States.
LOL!
True. Thank you for the clarifications. :)
I totally agree with you that, on the issue of the God-Given Right to Life Alone, any truly Pro-Life Conservative should be more concerned with Abortion here in the US than trying to referee an Islamic Civil War 7,000 miles away (especially when Foreign Wars DO result in civilian casualties -- like it or not, it's true).... to say nothing of Illegal Immigration, Gun Control, and a host of other issues which are far more important than the continued occupation of Iraq (even if one actually believes that Nation-Building is a good thing!)
No. The US must protect the borders now, not wait until regimes are restructured abroad.
I had hoped to underscore that point with my question about the alternative between pursuing death abroad and preventing death at home. Perhaps with your help we did. Thanks for your time in that regard. :)
So you are not aware that there are already Jihadists in the U.S. and you really believe that a surrender to their brothers in the Middle East would not generate a larger influx?
Why am I debating with a surrender monkey, anyway? Go back to your Kool-Aid; I apologize for disturbing your utopian world with a dose of reality.
I have to say, as a first-time poster here the one thing that got me to finally sign up and join the discussion was watching Ron Paul.
Miles and miles above the other 9. It makes me so angry that the MSM is so fixated on McCain and Giuliani, who are both insults to the Republican Party.
As of now Paul definitely has my vote.
That makes my day!
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.