RON PAUL, not Mitt Romney, won the first GOP Debate

Renew America ^ | May 8, 2007 | Chuck Baldwin

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Paul, not Romney, won first GOP debate
Chuck Baldwin
May 8, 2007

No less than ten Republican hopefuls in the 2008 White House race participated in the first national GOP debate last Thursday, May 3. Even before the 90-minute debate had concluded, media pundits were declaring that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had won.

Even my friend, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough wrote, "During the debate I was flooded by e-mails from Republican activists and voters who told me Romney was dominating the debate." Scarborough went on to say, "Among those Red State Republicans (who will elect their party's next nominee), Mitt Romney won while McCain and Giuliani failed to meet expectations."

As with most political pundits, the entire focus of the debate centered on only three contenders: Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Romney. In fact, in his post-debate summary, Scarborough's only reference to anyone other than these three names was a fleeting mention of the "Sam Brownbacks of the world."

Yet, when one looks at MSNBC's own poll, a much different picture emerges. According to this poll, there was a clear winner alright, but his name was not McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. It was Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Consider the before and after polls, as they appear on MSNBC's web site. See it at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/

The after-debate poll numbers for six of the "lesser" contenders were almost identical to the before-debate numbers. Almost identical. I'm speaking of Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson. It is safe to say, that none of these men obtained any significant support as a result of their debate performance. However, the same is not true for Ron Paul.

Before the debate, Paul's polling numbers had a negative rating of 47%. His neutral number was 44%, and his positive number was a paltry 9%.

Compare those numbers with those of the three media favorites, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney.

John McCain's pre-debate polling numbers included a negative rating of 40%. His neutral number was 29%, and his positive rating was 31%. Rudy Giuliani's pre-debate poll numbers included a negative rating of 34%, a neutral rating of 25%, and a positive rating of 41%. Mitt Romney's pre-debate negative number stood at 41%. His neutral number was 31%, and his positive number stood at 28%.

Obvious to just about anyone is that Rudy Giuliani took a commanding lead into the first GOP debate. His positive number eclipsed his closest rival by more than ten percentage points. However, everything changed immediately following the debate. Giuliani's positive number fell from 41% to a pitiful 24%. His negative number rose from 34% to 42%. And his neutral number rose from 25% to 34%. Clearly, Rudy Giuliani lost a lot of support in that first debate.

What about John McCain? Once again, his debate performance did not help his campaign. In this regard, Joe Scarborough has it right. McCain's positive rating fell from a pre-debate high of 31% to a post-debate low of 19%. His neutral rating jumped from 29% to 37%.

Remember, media pundits seem to agree that Mitt Romney was the big debate winner. So, how do his numbers stack up? Romney's post-debate positive rating DROPPED from a pre-debate high of 28% to 27%. His negative number also fell slightly from 41% to 37%. And Romney's neutral number rose from 31% to 36%. I ask you, Do those numbers reflect victory? I think not.

Compare the numbers of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney to those of Ron Paul's. Remember, before the debate, Paul scored a dismal 9% positive score. But after the debate, Paul's positive score skyrocketed to an astounding 38%. In other words, Ron Paul's positive number is eleven percentage points higher than his closest rival. Paul's negative number went from a pre-debate high of 47% to a post-debate low of 26%. His neutral number also dropped significantly from 44% to 36%.

Without question or reservation, Ron Paul was the clear and obvious winner of the first GOP debate, at least according to the more than eighty-four thousand respondents (at the time of this writing) who took the MSNBC online poll.

Which leads to another question: Are the media elite watching the same debate that the rest of us are watching or are they looking at something else? I think they are looking at something else. And that something else is money.

They see only the GOP's "Big Three" as having the potential to raise $50 million-plus for their respective presidential campaigns. That means, in their minds, all others are also-rans who have no chance to win and are therefore ignored. And let's face it folks, when it comes to Washington politics, there are only three considerations that even register with big-media: money, money, and money.

However, make no mistake about it: Ron Paul clearly and convincingly won the first GOP debate. It would be nice if someone in the mainstream media would acknowledge that fact.

In addition, someone in the mainstream media should ask why Ron Paul did so well in post-debate polling, because I predict that Paul's upcoming performance in South Carolina on May 15 will be equally spectacular. He may even emerge from that debate as a serious challenger for the nomination. I personally hope he does.

Ron Paul is the only candidate on the Republican ticket who would seriously challenge the status quo of the neocons currently running our country into the ground. He has a voting record unlike anyone in Congress.

As has been reported by many, Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, has never voted for an unbalanced budget, has never voted for a federal registration on gun ownership, has never voted to raise congressional pay, has never taken a government-paid junket, and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government. Furthermore, he voted against the Patriot Act and was one of only a handful of congressmen that voted against the Iraq War.

Furthermore, it was Ron Paul who introduced the Sanctity of Human Life bill in Congress, which, had it passed, would have granted federal protection to every unborn child and would have nullified Roe v Wade. In addition, Ron Paul is one of the biggest opponents to Bush's push to integrate the United States into a trilateral North American Community. Ron Paul also supports ending the Income Tax and dismantling the Internal Revenue Service. In short, Ron Paul is big-government's worst nightmare.

All of the above became obvious to voters during the six-plus minutes that Ron Paul had the national spotlight. That is why his poll numbers surged following the debate. Imagine what could happen if Paul is given more time to articulate his constitutionalist agenda. He could win more than the debate — he could win the election.

---

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985, the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence. While he originally planned on a career in law enforcement, Chuck "answered the divine call to Gospel ministry" and decided instead to attend Bible school. He ultimately earned his Bachelor's and Master's degrees in theology, and was later awarded two honorary doctorates in the field. He is the host of "Chuck Baldwin Live", a daily, two hour long radio call-in show on the events of the day. In addition to writing two books of theology — "Subjects Seldom Spoken On" and "This Is The Life" — he has edited and produced "The Freedom Documents," a collection of fifty of the greatest documents of American history. In 2004, Chuck was the vice presidential nominee for the Constitution Party. Chuck and his wife Connie are the parents of three children and grandparents of six.

[TomB]

RK, did you have a chance to look at that video yet?

[carenot]

Thank you for the link.
He is right.

[TomB]

Thanks for posting this. I've always like Ron Paul.

Make sure you watch these videos:

Congressman Ron Paul warns of a contrived incident to provoke war with Iran, a "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident, January 11, 2006.

Student Scholars For 9/11 Truth meet presidential candidate Ron Paul. The Congressman promises to talk to Dennis Kucinich about setting up a new independent investigative body to look into 9/11.

Ron Paul gives an interview with 9-11 truther Alex Jones

[TomB]

He is right.

Do you mean you think (and agree with Ron Paul) that the collapse of the WTC buildings was part of some vast governmental conspiracy?

[death2tyrants]

“...not secular Iraq...at least Iraq was secular before we went in there.”

I’ve heard many Saddam apologists refer to him and his nation as secular. When Saddam refers to Jews as ‘dogs’, writes ‘Allahu Akbar’ on the flag, and fires missles at Israel, these are regarding as ‘secular’ acts by the Saddam apologists.

“He demanded we remove them...and within 18 months of 911 we had done as he demanded. A coddle?”

I don’t think most would consider the transfer of troops from SA to Afganistan to hunt and kill Al Qaeda, an act of ‘coddling’ Al Qaeda. We had troops in SA to defend against Saddam’s potential for aggression. The purpose of having them remain there would be? (The idea of a Ron Paul supporter criticizing the Bush Admin. for removing troops from foreign soil is in and of itself amusing).

“An Islamic Shia government in bed with Iran is what we have put in place.”

Yeah, a puppet with an opposing foreign policy.(Iraq’s gov wants us there, Iran doesn’t).

[KDD]

(Iraq’s gov wants us there, Iran doesn’t)

No they do not.

[McCloud-Strife]

Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Check
Terrorists being beaten back in Iraq instead of your living room? Check
Fighting Terrorists over there with the military instead of here with cops and fire fighters Double Check

Let me put it in terms you can understand.
Why did we invade Africa in 1943? Nazis were there.
Why did we invade France in 1944? Nazi's were there.
Why did we invade Iraq? Terrorists are there.
Why are we beligerent towards Iran and Syria? Oddly enough Terrorists are there.
Why are we not pounding the crap out of Pakistan and Saudi where a whole mess of terrorists are? Their govenments are to some degree are playing ball with us. Afghanistan did not, Iraq did not, Syria does not, Iran does not.

This is not a war on Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Iraq, it is a war on terror; terrorism, not individual citizens from a particular region.
We left Saudi Arabia after it became redundant for us to be there. Not because Bin Ladin made us go. We were there to make Iraq behave... which you may have noticed they are not much of a threat to the Sauds any more

Read what I write before you put words into my mouth.
Fight them there, not here, on the ground of our choosing not theirs. You cannot build a wall high enough to keep them out. Once they get here and set up shop, unless we get lucky it's game over. Over. OVER.

[TomB]

I have no problem with an independent investigation into 9-11?

Why should I?

Because its a farce and lends credence to the "truthers" claims?

Do you agree that there was a coverup?

Do you agree that the US is going to fake an attack on our forces in order to invade Iran?

[KDD]

I guess the new generation boogie man is the "terrorist".

In my day it was the "communist".

At least our boogie man had armies and air forces and 40,000 nukes pointed at us. The new generation boogie man that scares the pee out of the new masculine generation of men lives in a cave...

[383rr]

Ain’t that the truth.

[KDD]

Has the United States ever staged or reported a “fake attack” on our forces to stir up popular sentiment for a war on anyone?

Do you agree our government has a history of cover ups?

[Rodney King]

no.. im in bed, and dont want to disturb my wife with video, but I promise i will tomorrow morning.

[death2tyrants]

The link you provided simply redirects me to the start of the thread. I don’t see any opposition to the unanimously approved UNSCR 1546, which mandates the multinational force at the Iraqi Government’s request. Perhaps you posted a wrong link.

[KDD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

BAGHDAD, May 11 — A majority of Iraq’s parliament has signed a petition for a legislative timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, several parliamentarians said today.

The petition mirrors the demands by some Democratic lawmakers in Washington for a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of American troops from Iraq

[FreeReign]

I guess the new generation boogie man is the "terrorist". In my day it was the "communist".

So you don't think that Al Qaeda is in Iraq?

At least our boogie man had armies and air forces and 40,000 nukes pointed at us. The new generation boogie man that scares the pee out of the new masculine generation of men lives in a cave...

Al Qaeda killed a few thousand of my neighbors. If they ever get access to WMD they would do much worse.

You call Al Qaeda a boogie man. I think you're not right.

[billbears]

Here's a link for you. Full story on the Iraqi Parliament voting to require a timetable. Guess that's not what the Bush administration wanted them to go back to work for.....

Iraqi Parliament Drafts Law Setting Timetable For U.S. Troops To Withdraw

Top this off with the news just up on Drudge of 100,000 barrels of oil missing a day and Brown revisiting British deployments, I'd say this whole thing about what US supporters want may be a moot point.

[Boxsford]

I realize that this is one important area I do not argee with Paul. Still, I like his voting record. I’ll look at the videos when I get a chance. Thanks for posting them.

[death2tyrants]

Did you read the article?

From the article:

[The withdrawal would only take place if the Iraqi security forces became strong enough to ensure that an American departure would not create a security vacuum or make the sectarian conflict worse, the petition’s sponsors said.]

This differs from the absurdity of some dems and people like Ron Paul in the sense that it takes conditions on the ground into account. How does this differ from Bush’s policy?

[BigTom85]

What territory are we claiming?

Afghanistan.. Iraq.. next is Iran.... Do you honestly think tha we will be leaving the mid-east any time soon? Hells bells NO we won't!

The major 'contractors' still need more time to milk out the government contracts.. and plus... we need to secure the massive amounts of oil (which is legitimate as our economy depends on it).

Ok, let me put on the flame suit.

[DugwayDuke]

“Now, you may disagree with him on the Effectiveness of Foreign Wars...”

Can you please explain why it’s better to fight a war on our territory rather than on our enemies territory.