Drudge GOP Debate Poll -- 50,000 votes; Clear Winners are Romney, Giuliani, and RON PAUL

Drudge Report ^ | May 4, 2007 | Orthodox Presbyterian

[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:

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE REAGAN DERBY?

• Mitt Romney -- 35%
• Rudy Giuliani -- 21%
• RON PAUL -- 16%
• Tommy Thompson -- 7%
• John McCain -- 6%
• Tom Tancredo -- 5%
• Mike Huckabee -- 4%
• Duncan Hunter -- 3%
• Sam Brownback -- 2%
• Jim Gilmore -- 2%

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.

[George W. Bush]

today, sheiks are joining us to fight AQ in Anbar:

And next month, they're just as likely to join someone else. Many Americans don't grasp the extreme tribalism and factionalism of Arabs. This is intrinsic to their culture.

Iraq has become a recruiting tool for *US* to find muslims willing to fight A.Q. because AQ has killed more Iraqis than anyone else in the last 3 years.

Strangely, I don't hear DoD or DoS saying this.

Bin laden and AQ have recruited terrorists since the 1980s.

Of course but that was when Osama was a "good terrorist". Back when Osama was a U.S.-sponsored "freedom fighter" against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This is how he got his big start, apparently before his dad died and left him $300 million which he used to start building up Al-Qaeda, spending a good chunk of it on buying good will from Arabs by building schools, clinics, etc.

Then he sent his Saudis to New York on 9/11. Now he's a "bad terrorist". Kind of like how Saddam used to be a "good dictator" but then got greedy (or misread our signals) and invaded Kuwait, making him into a "bad dictator".

It's quite difficult to recall who's good or bad in a given year.

[trisham]

Ron Paul has no chance of winning. I certainly won’t vote for him.

[malibu2008]

Dr. Paul is a staunch pro-life and Sanctity of Life Protestant constitutionalist born in Pennsylvania, and received his MD from Duke University in North Carolina before being in the USAF medical corps in Vietnam.

Like some others of us whose business takes us at times to the Longhorn State , he “wasn’t born in Texas — but got here as soon as he could. “

[WOSG]

“Ron Paul’s position on nation-building in the Mideast has been and remains exactly the same position held by Ronald Reagan, George Schultz, George H. W. Bush, James Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft, and Henry Kissinger.”

same position? LOL, only to someone thoroughly ignorant of these men’s real views on the Mideast.

Not a single one of these other names would have supported the cut-n-run liberal Democrat plan for withdrawal that Ron Paul supported. None of them would have voted ‘no’ on a ‘support the troops’ resolution that the republicans voted for and Ron Paul joined democrats in opposing.

Just admit his position is the same as Pelosi and Harry Reid (which it is) and quit trying to bring in GHW Bush, who Ron Paul ran *against* as a third party candidate in 1988. Quit pretending Ron Paul is a Reagan Republican, when Reagan was an *interventionist* and Paul is an *isolationist*. Big difference and to pretend it is the same insults our intelligence and insults our knowledge of history.

Jeez, the contortions defending Ron Paul on Iraq are almost as bad as the attempt to make Guliani acceptable to prolifers. You can only put so much lipstick on the pig.

[WOSG]

“It’s the most liberal constitution in the arab world.”

GWB, this happens to be true, even though the hurdle is pretty low. There happens to be more real freedom in Iraq’s politics today than in any other country in the region, save for Turkey and Israel. Bloggers are jailed in Egypt, Syria and Iran are dictatorships, blasphemy is a capital offense that is prosecuted in Pakistan, and Christians can practice their religion in Saudi Arabia. Yet in Iraq, bloggers and politicians have freedom of speech and expression, and religious freedom is protected in Iraq’s constitution.

Iraq has more freedom because of the intervention of the US. What a sad thing to not acknowledge the good the US has done for others.

[George W. Bush]

Not a single one of these other names would have supported the cut-n-run liberal Democrat plan for withdrawal that Ron Paul supported. None of them would have voted ‘no’ on a ‘support the troops’ resolution that the republicans voted for and Ron Paul joined democrats in opposing.

More of this symbolic non-binding resolutions crap. Pardon me I'm one of the 99% of the citizenry who just doesn't care about those. Or notice they even occurred.

Quit pretending Ron Paul is a Reagan Republican, when Reagan was an *interventionist* and Paul is an *isolationist*.

You mean our glorious intervention in Granada? Or are you referring to how we cut and run out of Lebanon, Reagan explaining what a profound mistake it would be to become involved in nation-building in that region (he was right too)?

[WOSG]

Good rant.

“Ron Paul isn’t some freakish cross between Moses, Superman and Ronald Reagan.”

he’s more of a William Proxmire, Jesse Helms, George McGovern, hybrid.

[WOSG]

Iraq is going badly for *somebody*, but it aint the US:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p01s04-wome.html?page=4

[malibu2008]

. . .Reagan was an *interventionist* . . . Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist but does describe his foreign policy as "non-interventionalist" . . . especially if national security is not at issue, such as in the current Sunni-Shite Civil War.

[WOSG]

“None of them would have voted ‘no’ on a ‘support the troops’ resolution that the republicans voted for and Ron Paul joined democrats in opposing.”

“More of this symbolic non-binding resolutions crap. “

It was not symbolic, not all such votes, especially the one in january, and Ron Paul put his heart and vote in with Kucinich and other leftwing anti-Iraq-war extremists.

Look, you can assert that Ron Paul is right and Hastert, Boener, Hunter, McCain, Bush, Lieberman, etc. are wrong, but don’t insult our intelligence with this bogus association with GHW Bush, Reagan, etc. Just because there was one single tactical withdrawal from lebanon, you blow that up into the whole reagan doctrine. Yet Grenada invasion was the *real* Reagan doctrine.

I know. I read the Libertarian CATO stuff back in the 1980s and they NEVER LIKED REAGAN’S INTERVENTIONS. They never like Reagan’s build up of our military, his MX missile, his support for anti-communist insurgents, etc.

“You mean our glorious intervention in Granada?”

Well, that certainly would be one example of something that Reagan did which Ron Paul claims he would never do - no war declared and we went and toppled a Govt solely because we proactively perceived a threat. Reagan/Grenada and GWBush/Iraq are not much difference except the GWB/Iraq scale is so much bigger.

but not just that. Reagan was supporting anti-communists in Afghanistan, in Nigaruaga, in Africa (UNITA) our bombing of Libya in 1986, our support of Gemayel govt in Lebanon that went beyond the marine presence (even after we withdrew, we were bombing shiite/hezbollah targets etc.), our sales of saudis, our sharing military intel with Iraq to contain the Iranian threat, our support of Solidarity in Poland and various attempts to undermine the Soviets via military aid, “Radio Free...” etc.

“Reagan was an *interventionist* and Paul is an *isolationist*.”

I stand by that statement. Viewed in whole context, G W Bush is no more interventionist than Reagan was, but GWB was given the worst attack on our soil to deal with. that has forced our military into action. And so he has acted, very well overall. We toppled the Taliban, we captured and killed 100s of terrorists via afghanistan and other places, and we toppled saddam.

Things are not going badly. Snap out of your moonbat defeatist mindset for a minute and look at the big picture. We were not hit again since 9/11. the govts we wanted toppled are gone. The new democratically elected Govt in Iraq is getting established and Iraq’s secuirty forces get better month by month. Niether Afghanistan nor iraq are paradise, but neither do the people want to turn back from democracy, and the terrorists have zero support from the people, meaing local forces are working with us to kill terrorists. A win/win. The only reason the Democrats are desperate for a withdrawal date within the next year is that by 2009 WE WILL HAVE SECURED THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ WHERE THEIR OWN FORCES CAN DEFEND IT AND WE CAN RAMP DOWN TROOP LEVELS WITHOUT IT LEADING TO DEFEAT.

God forbid G W Bush leaves a nearly-successful intervention to the next President ... SO who will have the gumption to finish the job *RIGHT* so the price we paid so far wont be in vain? It wont be a Democrat. Will it be Ron Paul? He’s too busy gloating about how we shouldnt have gone in 4 years ago, that he forgets to tell us what he would do NOW... No, I forogt, he has told us - He will do exactly what Harry Reid would do. BFD, if America wants a defeatist cut-n-run artist they will get the real thing in Hillary/Obama. (And dont give me the cr*p that it is hopeless, and that’s the only answer, that is ignorant babble that ignores every lesson of military strategy).

[WOSG]

Someone who want us out of the UN, wants us out of all interventions, etc. is called an isolationist. It’s a distinction without a difference.(Non-interventionist=isolationist).

“especially if national security is not at issue, such as in the current Sunni-Shite Civil War.”

Our national security is certainly at issue when you consider the huge impact the difference between defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq or losing (or cut-n-running) from AQ in Iraq would mean for the war on terror.

There was a terrorist attempt to foment a civil war, documented in intercepts between Bin laden and Zarqawi, and terrorist acts like the Feb 2006 samarra bombing sparked alot of sectarian violence, but it never succeeded in creating true civil war; most Iraqis support the Govt, and the govt’s hold has only gotten more secure in past 8 months. what remains is an insurgency that is failing:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p01s04-wome.html?page=4

Iraq is asking us not to adandon them, to help :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301548.html
“We remain determined in spite of our losses. Spectacular attacks may dominate foreign headlines, but they cannot change the reality that Iraq has made steady political, economic and social progress over the past four years. We continue to strengthen our nascent democratic institutions, pursue national reconciliation and expand Iraqi security forces. The Baghdad security plan was conceived to give us breathing space to expedite political and economic development by “securing and holding” neighborhoods across the capital. There is no quick fix, but there have been real results: Winning public confidence has led to a spike in intelligence, a disruption of terrorist networks and the capture of key leaders, as well as the discovery of weapons caches. In Anbar province, Sunni sheikhs and insurgents have turned against al-Qaeda and to the side of Iraqi security forces. This would have been unthinkable even six months ago.”

Also, from ITM:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
“Early afternoon today news came in that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, chief of the so called Islamic State in Iraq has been killed in Ghazaliya district in western Baghdad.
Uncertainty about the identity of the killed senior terrorist was soon in place, while the Iraqi interior ministry insists it was al-Baghdadi, US officials think otherwise, they confirmed that a senior al-Qaeda operative name Muharib Abdul Latif al-Jubouri was killed though.”

[WOSG]

“Iraq has become a recruiting tool for *US* to find muslims willing to fight A.Q. because AQ has killed more Iraqis than anyone else in the last 3 years.”
“Strangely, I don’t hear DoD or DoS saying this.”

Then you haven’t been paying attention. I linked the article where this is happening, where Anbar tribes have joined the fight against local AQ elements directly ...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p01s04-wome.html?page=1
“Like dominoes, tribes reeling from a campaign of killing and intimidation by Al Qaeda have been joining, one by one, the US-led fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq in this Sunni Arab province. Last month, US Gen. David Petraeus told Congress that violence was down significantly here and that the tribes were key to the transformation.”

[LegendHasIt]

Good stuff. While I was aware of most of it, few others have heard the words, much less understand them.
Thanks for posting.

[George W. Bush]

Just because there was one single tactical withdrawal from lebanon, you blow that up into the whole reagan doctrine. Yet Grenada invasion was the *real* Reagan doctrine.

So, other than Grenada and Lebanon, what were the other Reagan interventionist episodes? Let's stick with events where there were more than one thousand U.S. soldiers on the ground in combat.

[Mr. Silverback]

B-Chan and WOSG, long time no see. How y'all doin'?

Though it is true that Paul has a good pro-life record, be sure to check out Malibu's posting history before you believe a word he says. Looks like a seminar troll to me.

[Miztiki]

I like much of what Ron Paul has to say.

However, I’m not at all comfortable with what appears to be his idea of handling the threats we face today.

I have a question for you. Does Ron Paul understand that we face an evil ideology? If so, what would be his plan to keep us safe from it?

This is the age of advanced weaponry that can be delivered from thousands of miles away with the push of a button. The most airtight borders cannot keep us safe from religious fanatics who think they’re god has ordered them to destroy our “sinful” way of life and replace it with Sharia.

And 9/11 taught us that, if you’re determined enough, you don’t even need traditional weapons. Planes flown into buildings get the job done pretty well. Others sinister plans are in the works, I’m sure.

So how does Ron Paul propose to fight against and protect us from this evil ideology?

[Miztiki]

We are not handling Iraq properly.

That said, I understand why we are there.

The people who planned 9/11 (OBL and his nasties) are driven by a religious, fanatical ideology. They literally want their beliefs forced on the whole world. Al-Qaeda has clearly stated that they want to install the Islamic Caliphate - an Islamic government of sorts, with Sharia law being the rule of law for everyone.

He and his ilk prey on people in the Middle East who have no hope for their future, or for the future of their families. They are born and raised under oppression and corruption. They have few freedoms. They are lied to from the cradle to the grave via schools and state run media. They don’t have access to outside information like we do, so they are misinformed, uninformed, and outright brainwashed in many instances.

Way too many are dirt poor with no hope of moving up, not by being a good, honest person anyway.

What it boils down to is that they don’t have much to look forward to or live for.

So Osama bin Laden and people like him offer these people hope - a hope of Paradise and 72 virgins and all that.

They spread lies about the US and Israel in particular, and the West in general. The leaders of these failed countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and many others find this to be convenient for them because it points the focus away from their own failed leadership and directs their people’s frustration and anger towards us instead.

15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

So we are facing an evil ideology. That ideology is most rampant in Saudi Arabia, and places like Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, etc.

What do we do about it? We can have airtight borders and inspect all incoming shipments but that wouldn’t have prevented 9/11, and it won’t prevent whatever they are cooking up now.

So what do we do? We can’t literally blow away 1/3 of the world. The fallout would blow this way and hurt us as well. It’s just not physically possible.

We can’t blow away just one or two or even three dangerous countries either because that would incite the rest of them.

So what can we do?

That’s what Bush meant about “draining the swamps”, although he’s terrible at communicating what he has in mind. (I’m not much for words either, but bear with me.)

If you have a mosquito infestation then swatting them won’t work, and spraying them won’t work. You’ll never completely get rid of them either. The best thing you can do is “drain the swamps” and get rid of their breeding grounds.

That’s what we’re trying to do in Iraq.

Why Iraq?

Well, because the general populace in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are so extreme, and their rulers barely have them under control.

Iraq on the other hand, has a relatively educated population with less extremism than in neighboring countries. They are more into the 21st century than their neighbors.

The plan was to bring freedom to Iraq. With freedom generally comes prosperity and a hope for the future, something most in that region don’t have now. Iraq was supposed to be the shining city on the hill, showing the neighboring peoples that they, too, could have something to look forward to besides their current lot of corruption and oppression and hopelessness.

Had we been successful (or if we are able to become successful) in making Iraq that shining city on a hill, then that would spread around them. Freedom is awfully powerful.

This is getting long but if we can help make Iraq successful then the people around them will want that too, and then they will be too busy having a life to come onto our soil and hurt us. They won’t be interested in flying planes into our buildings, or being suicide bombers, because they would have too much to lose.

Right now they have nothing to lose, and Paradise to gain. We need to try and change it so that they have something more to pin their hopes on than a false hope of 72 virgins. The only way we can do that is to try and give them freedom - freedom to find out that they’ve been lied to by their state run media - freedom to question what is in the Koran and learn that they are being brainwashed - freedom to read the bible if they want - freedom to work and make an honest living and provide for their families - freedom to complain about their leaders and change laws with their votes...

We face an evil ideology that has already hurt us and is planning to hurt us even more, and they have alot of support.

What other viable solution to the problem is there?

[The_Eaglet]

Reagan bombed Iranian oil platforms. A few times.

And bombed Khaddafi, missing him but killing at least one of his brood of children.

That's not occupation and nation-building.

No points for you. Marque and Reprisal are time-honored American traditions. Ron Paul did in fact introduce legislation to proceed with those as well. Too bad the clueless GOP congresscritters didn't listen. We might still hold a majority if they had done so instead of buying into the liberal internationalist neo-con snake oil, thinking themselves a conglomerate of foreign policy experts.

That is an important distinction. Thank you for making it.

[The_Eaglet]

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.

How could people claim to be conservative and support the sponsorship of an anti-Christian regime in Iraq from money confiscated from American taxpayers' incomes FUTURE federal revenues due to deficit spending and the resulting interest burden?

[The_Eaglet]

Did you expect an Arab country to NOT have islam as its official religion? Pull your head out.

Not with my Tax Dollars. This kind of spending is more unconstitutional liberal nonsense that needs to be stopped.