Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drudge GOP Debate Poll -- 50,000 votes; Clear Winners are Romney, Giuliani, and RON PAUL
Drudge Report ^ | May 4, 2007 | Orthodox Presbyterian

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.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: debate; duncanhunter; elections; giuliani; liberal; libertariansaredems; paul; presidentialdebate; rino; romney; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 401 next last
To: Allegra
All I said was "Reagan bombed Iranian oil platforms a few times." There's nothing for you to refute there.

So, you then contributed, what, nothing of substance to the debate?

You might as well have mentioned how Xlinton bombed an aspirin factory. Or how Xlinton was a great president because he engaged in a far greater missile attack against Saddam.

Your position becomes sillier by the post.
261 posted on 05/04/2007 10:06:48 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Election Math For Dummies: GOP ÷ Rudi = Hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

“Bush and the neo-cons now stand completely isolated, the pathetic neo-cons pointing at Bush and saying his execution of their brilliant plan was flawed. So, it is quite ironic for you to try to insult us, who represent the views of the Republican party foreign policy consensus, as isolationists. It is the neo-con policy failure of the Bush administration which is truly isolationist because it has isolated us in domestic and foreign policy and isolated us with our traditional allies and isolated us as the new minority party in Congress. And it will hand the White House back to the Xlintons if pursued further.”

I’m not jewish, nor a liberal turned conservative, so the ‘neo con’ crap is meaningless to me, except it serves as a red flag in these forums when used as casually as you seem to be using it.

Second, what ‘insult’ are you talking about, in regards to my comments about Congressman Paul?

Third point. Its been my long held opinion we used Cold War strategies in dealing with Saddam and Son’s in the Gulf War. The notion of ‘containment’ to be exact. That was a serious error in judgement on the part of Bush the Elder in my view. If you are going to war with a dictator, you must remove him from his position, or don’t bother. Had we done so at the conclusion of the Gulf War, we wouldn’t be dealing with what we have today.

If you want to have a civil discussion about Ron Paul, I’m here. But if what you posted to me is your idea of ‘civil discourse’ about Ron Paul, don’t bother pinging me. I’ve had my fill of posters ranting about ‘evil neo cons’ as if its ‘real’.

After the 9/11 kook theory types, the ‘neo cons are all scum, and you are a neo con’ types are the most aggravating.


262 posted on 05/04/2007 10:07:37 AM PDT by Badeye (Hiding the kooks in the biker bar won't help, Sally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
If you are going to war with a dictator, you must remove him from his position, or don’t bother. Had we done so at the conclusion of the Gulf War, we wouldn’t be dealing with what we have today.

No, that is exactly my point. History is proving Bush I and Baker were correct (along with the rest of the GOP foreign policy establishment, CIA, DIA, etc.). Removing Saddam was a mistake compared to the results we have had and will have now. Removing the Taliban was actually a good idea and well-supported by all our allies and by considerable domestic consensus.

My point is to make it clear exactly who are the foreign policy isolationists and exactly who has been isolated by the current policies, namely, those championed by the neo-con segment of the GOP whose failed vision for Mideast nation-building is only too evident.

Badeye, I only flagged you because I thought you might enjoy the debate. Neither you nor OPie were being criticized. I think you've hung around with those Bikers until it's made you a little paranoid. Anyway, FRegards.
263 posted on 05/04/2007 10:17:59 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Election Math For Dummies: GOP ÷ Rudi = Hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I have a confession to make.

I take a fiendish delight in messing with liberals.

I know I really shouldn't do it.

It's so...easy.

264 posted on 05/04/2007 10:19:03 AM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Quiet Down Out There!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

LOL. That “christian” foreign minister was Saddam’s chief apologist. That Christian foreign minister lied at every turn. What was Tariq Aziz’s position on the $25,000 payments to families of palestinian “martyrs” who blew up children in Israeli malls and busses? What was Tariq Aziz’s position on harboring and housing boatloads of terrrosists, including Abu Nidal, in Baghdad. What was this good Christian man’s position on Uday and Qusay raping young women and feeding “dissenters”, including Christians, to packs of hungry dogs and plastic shredders?


265 posted on 05/04/2007 10:23:28 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

“Badeye, I only flagged you because I thought you might enjoy the debate. Neither you nor OPie were being criticized. I think you’ve hung around with those Bikers until it’s made you a little paranoid. Anyway, FRegards.”

Thanks for the explanation, I didn’t insult anyone on this topic in my comments, so it was curious to see that posted my way here.

I believe removing Saddam and Son’s was the correct thing to do post 9/11. I also believe the administration lost its focus in Iraq upon winning the 04 election cycle, and played ‘not to lose’ til after the 06 election cycle ass kicking.

Bottom line is ‘we are here’. You can argue if it was the correct decision or not til the cows come home, it doesn’t change the fact ‘we are here’ and cannot afford to lose this fight.

If we cut and run now, we will get hit again here at home. It will embolden those that killed us by the thousands on a crisp fall day six years ago.

I suspect you realize it as well as I do.


266 posted on 05/04/2007 10:43:31 AM PDT by Badeye (Hiding the kooks in the biker bar won't help, Sally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: pissant
LOL. That “christian” foreign minister was Saddam’s chief apologist. That Christian foreign minister lied at every turn.
BR> Care to show me the WMD that Colin Powell promised the U.N. we'd find in Iraq?

Pot, kettle.

How naive can a person possibly be about an SoS or foreign minister or diplomats in general. Remember the old saw about diplomacy being warfare by other means? It's still true. These folks, whether Saddam's mouthpiece or Bush's (or Xlinton's or Chirac's, etc.), are not in the business of truth. If you think Foggy Bottom is the Ministry Of Truth, well, I'd love to offer you the opportunity to invest in some nice swampland in the Everglades.
267 posted on 05/04/2007 10:45:16 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Election Math For Dummies: GOP ÷ Rudi = Hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Bottom line is ‘we are here’. You can argue if it was the correct decision or not til the cows come home, it doesn’t change the fact ‘we are here’ and cannot afford to lose this fight.

Conventional wisdom. Certainly, the prevailing thought on the region. I don't necessarily agree.

If we cut and run now, we will get hit again here at home. It will embolden those that killed us by the thousands on a crisp fall day six years ago.

Much like betting on Fear Of Pelosi to hold Congress in '06 or the likely GOP error of relying on Fear Of Hillary to hold the White House in '08, I think this line of thinking has serious flaws.

There are far more devious ways to insure that Iraq doesn't pose a danger to us. And we could destabilize Syria at the same time. Of course, fully arming all sides and maintaining an equal balance of power in a civil war would seem cruel to some folks. Alternatively, we could partition it, heavily garrisoning the Kurdish north. Cynical as this would be, it would not threaten our oil supply.

At some point, the Bush strategy may actually work. It would a Good Thing even. But that is not our central policy goal, at least, one would hope we haven't fallen into the hands of Wilsonian utopians (God help us). I'll give Bush some more time to make it work but I hold little hope for its longterm success. The effort to succeed would be far more comparable to that which was required to make Japan a western country. We're talking full occupation for at least two generations, probably longer, given how barbaric Islam's influence truly is (see Churchill on this matter). I don't think we're that committed to Iraq.

It is a genuine error to believe that the State Department and the foreign policy community hold any particular regard for human rights or democracy. They've said so repeatedly for decades for anyone who pays attention to them. Those goals are harmless and even charming to promote provided they do not interfere with what is known as "the national interest" in CFR circles.
268 posted on 05/04/2007 11:00:29 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Election Math For Dummies: GOP ÷ Rudi = Hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Rep-for-real; OrthodoxPresbyterian
No, these are the Ron Paul fantasists who've been singing his praises on this website for 12-plus years. The same folks who think a Paul/Keyes ticket will solve all our problems, when in actuality it's a non-starter.

Some of those votes are also people who recently became interested in supporting Paul after he began his campaign this year, like me.

269 posted on 05/04/2007 11:12:50 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
The second Article of the Iraq Constitution:

This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.

Of course in some areas, Christians are being persecuted by islamic radicals. Just like shia marketplaces are being blown up full of old ladies shopping, and Sunni families are being slaughtered by Shia deathsquads. We are getting a good handle on the worst offenders and the Iraq military and police are starting to show signs of real progress. If we cut and run before the Iraqi gov't can enforce its laws and constititution, we will not only hand over a victory from the jaws of defeat to the terrorists, we will condemn these Christians and their offspring to a life of hardship, sorrow and death. Saddam's history of "supporting" Christians in that country is a farce. As long as complete and total allegiance was made to him, he let them live. Kinda like the "appoved" Christians in China.

270 posted on 05/04/2007 11:18:41 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; pissant; The_Eaglet
Full Text of Iraqi Constitution

Article 2: First: ISLAM is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

BY OFFICIAL DECLARATION, the Iraqi Constitution DECREES that Christianity is a Second-Class Religion and that Christians shall have Inferior Treatment under Law (if a Satanic Religion is recognized as "a fundamental source of legislation", and Christianity is NOT so recognized -- then, BY OFFICIAL DECLARATION, Christianity and all Christians are subjected to Inferiority Under Law -- by definition, they enjoy lesser legislative Prerogatives than "first class citizens", i.e. Moslems).

I never imagined that I would see the day when a proven Constitutionalist like Ron Paul would be subjected to hatred on Free Republic -- and so-called "conservatives" would rise up to demand we spend EVER MORE American Lives and American Treasure to prop up a SATANIC Islamic Theocracy in Iraq. Truly, I never thought I'd see the day.

"Woe to them who call evil good..." - Isaiah 5:20 KJV

Amen!!

271 posted on 05/04/2007 11:32:12 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Did you expect an Arab country to NOT have islam as its official religion?

Pull your head out.


272 posted on 05/04/2007 11:35:39 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

“Nah, I’d say it’s probably a lot of Conservatives who still care about the Constitution”

Speaking of conservatives who value the Constitution, what ever happened to areafiftyone?


273 posted on 05/04/2007 11:41:59 AM PDT by TET1968 (SI MINOR PLUS EST ERGO NIHIL SUNT OMNIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pissant; George W. Bush
Did you expect an Arab country to NOT have islam as its official religion? Pull your head out.

Not with my Tax Dollars.

You think it's somehow morally acceptable to spend American Tax Monies to prop up a Government which officially establishes Koranic Satanism as its Official Religion?

Your "Realpolitik" is hatred against Jesus Christ. Pull your head out.

274 posted on 05/04/2007 11:45:44 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: TET1968

Honestly don’t know. I took a break for a week or so, and I don’t know what happened to him.


275 posted on 05/04/2007 11:46:38 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

Then better quit driving your car. You’re personally giving cash to the Saudis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis to prop up “koranic satanism”.

It is morally acceptable to defeat the enemies of this country, regardless of who they are. Commies, dictators, leftists, Islamists, nazis.


276 posted on 05/04/2007 11:57:00 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Designer II

I was asking for information. If you are a Ron Paul supporter, and you attack me for asking a question, you are not encouraging me to give further consideration to his position.


277 posted on 05/04/2007 12:28:17 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: pissant; George W. Bush
Then better quit driving your car. You’re personally giving cash to the Saudis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis to prop up “koranic satanism”.

Balderdash.

There's a huge moral difference between buying goods and services from a Democrat shop-owner, and Voting to put that Democrat shop-owner in political power.

One transaction (the Economic Means) grants him no Power of Coercion over anybody. The other transaction (the Political Means) grants him Power of Coercion over everyone in his jurisdiction.

The bottom line is -- you're attempting to justify pro-actively granting the Power of Coercion to a demonstrably Satanic Government. You know it's Anti-Christ, and so you're grapsing for "moral equivalency" straws like some kind of situational-ethics Liberal.

But in your heart, you know it's Anti-Christ.

It is morally acceptable to defeat the enemies of this country, regardless of who they are. Commies, dictators, leftists, Islamists, nazis.

Saddam has been defeated and killed. His sons have been defeated and killed. The stated Military Aims of the 2003 Ultimatum have been accomplished, and we won. Already.

Now, at this point, four years later -- No Theory of Morality propounded by any Christian Denomination on earth can every justify pro-actively granting the Coercive Political Power of the State to a demonstrably Satanic Government. If a Satanic Government takes power after we leave, we are Biblically innocent of its rise to power. But if we pro-actively grant the Coercive Political Power of the State to a demonstrably Satanic Government -- then we are indeed guilty of volitional collusion against Christ.

As I said: you're attempting to justify pro-actively granting the Power of Coercion to a demonstrably Satanic Government. You know it's Anti-Christ, and so you're grapsing for "moral equivalency" straws like some kind of situational-ethics Liberal.

But in your heart, you know it's Anti-Christ.

278 posted on 05/04/2007 12:31:36 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian

You are grasping at straws here feller. The US isn’t in the business of defining religions of the world as satanist.


279 posted on 05/04/2007 12:35:29 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I care every bit as much about the constitution as Mr. Paul. Just not a pacifist. You get hit, you punch back hard.

Ron Paul agrees. The reason that he is against the War in Iraq is because we went into Iraq with the motive of enforcing UN resolutions(and supposedly to find WMD). Ron Paul is 100% against the UN and speaks against the US enforcing 'international UN resolutions'.
280 posted on 05/04/2007 12:47:01 PM PDT by BigTom85 (Proud Gun Owner and Member of NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 401 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson