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

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:

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.

Full story on the Iraqi Parliament voting to require a timetable.

From your link:

The story you link to is pretty weak. It mentions some al-Sadr supporter saying that he believes he has enough votes to force a timetable. And the remark is not even quoted.

Yer got something better?

“What’s the point of being president (outside of being commander-in-chief & judicial appointees) if you can’t get your agenda off the ground.”

What’s the point of electing presidents and legislators if they refuse to enact anything remotely resembling your agenda? Name one government program cut in the last twenty years by compassionate—or any other—conservatives?

I’d rather not waste my vote again, thanks. My vote will be cast for a constitutional conservative, whether the GOP nominates one or not. And an awful lot of people agree with me...but sadly, many of them are so depressed with the lies of the ‘right,’ they don’t even bother voting any more.

I suppose you'll continue advocating the endless Bankrupting of the Republic.

Keep up the good fight, Orthodox. There are plenty of folks on FR that see things the way you see them.

The Bush-bots and GOP loyalists on here are having a hard time accepting that the Republic is in serious trouble.

Our taxes are abusive, we are in debt, our governemnt spends way too much, we are trying to be the 'world police', out foreign policy is mainly aimed at nation building, the word 'banned' is in our newscasts almost daily... the list can go on and on. We all need to face it.. Bush is a failure. He had his chance to be one of the best presidents in history. However, sometime in 2005.. he dropped the ball.

This migh tbe a bitter pill for the Bush-bots and GOPers to swallow... but the Republic is in trouble. We need REAL conservatives running the show. Rudy, Romney, and McCain are all one in the same- professional politicians. This country is no longer of the people, for the people, and by the people-- it has morphed into of the elite, for the elite, and by the elite.

Whether you like it or not, this is how it is.

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?

That's quite a leap there. How did you read THAT into my statement?

Supporting our democratic allies is not the same as claiming their land. geesh...

We run 2 of the 3 countries that I mentioned. Once we leave them, all hell will break loose. It makes no difference if we leave tomorrow or in 10 yrs from now- whats going on now in the mid-east is like childs play compared to what will probably happen in the future. I hate to say it.. but it's hard not to have a grim look on things.

We did all we could do for iraq... they had the elections and chose their system of governemnt... they need to take control. We have 130k plus/minus troops in Iraq along with a couple of hundred thousand contractors... It's time to start pulling out. Theres nothing else to do there. Our troops can't be the 'Police Department' forever in Iraq.

Funny thing about the new FR poll. Looks like more non members voting for RP than members....again.

It looks like Ron Paul can attract votes beyond Republican political activists. That is what it will take to win the presidency.

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

That's quite a leap there. How did you read THAT into my statement?

So then you do think that Al Qaeda is in Iraq. But you also think that we should withdraw from Iraq now? How can you square those two beliefs?

And for what it's worth, I think there are far more Al Qaeda in Pakistan then Iraq. Probably more in Saudi Arabia too for that matter.

We give both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan lists of Al Qaeda to kill. Both countries oblige. That is a fact.

So what's your point?

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.)

Who decides when this will be???

Why, the Shia Muslim dominated Iraqi government of course. Iraq has made Islamic Shria law the central tenet of their constitutional law. Think about for a moment. Was it really in our best interests to replace a brutal secular dictator with an equally brutal form of Islamic law? A government actually linked to the Iranian government. What a mess the neo-cons have created.

In a debate of 10 people, more than one can win. Each has different goals. Romeny’s goal was to take the lead of the top 3. He won that, he did well. Paul’s goal was to distinguish himself in order to try to build a following. He did that, he won

I appreciate that positive analysis of the accomplishments of the candidates.

144 members of Iraq's 275-seat parliament signed a draft law that would set a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

Not sure how you see a majority signing a draft law as 'weak' but hey whatever it takes you to continue believing.....

And for what it's worth, I think there are far more Al Qaeda in Pakistan then Iraq. Probably more in Saudi Arabia too for that matter. What countries do you think the Al Qaeda in Irag is coming from? Iran? Doubtfull, as Al Qaeda is a Sunni creation. Iran is Shia. The two different factions hate each other. And us.

Great post, exactly right. Sadly, it will not get the attention it deserves on here. You will probably get a handfull of "Oh, so you want to cut, run, and surrender!!?!?!" replies instead.

With that being said, Iran presents a whole other set of problems. Trying to be diplomatic with them sure as hell is not going to work. Going to the UN is useless. It's a tough situation... Sending in troops right now would not be a good idea either... we already have out hands full with Iraq. Plus, I belive the Iran Military would fight a lot harder than the Iraqi's did in 2003.

Ah, the whole world is going to hell... and most of the American public is too busy worrying about Paris Hilton going to jail and Rosies latest stupid comments.

I used to be on Chuck Baldwin’s mailing list, but all he did was spew anti-Bush pap, practically calling him the anti-Christ, so I asked to be removed. Yeah, I’m really going to give any credence to what this whack job says.

I'm not going to deny that Romney proved himself the Best Debater amongst the "Big 3". I'm a former Debater myself; I know what I saw.

But that doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul came out of nowhere to dominate the Post-Debate metrics.

Mitt Romney had the style. Ron Paul had the substance.

“We run 2 of the 3 countries that I mentioned. “

OP, thanks for your research.

The ruling government of Iraq is dominated by the psychopathic gang of murderers known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Islamic Al Dawa Party, who are the very same Islamic Terrorist Parties which bombed the US & French Embassies in Kuwait, and murdered 241 United States Marines in Beirut in 1983. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, of the Al Dawa Party, was the Bureau Chief of the Al Dawa Party's terrorist "Jihad Office" in Damascus in the 1980s and was thus heavily responsible for Al Dawa operations in Beirut, while parliament member Jamal Jafaar Mohammed of his ruling coalition is one of the "Kuwait 17", still under a Kuwaiti death sentence (in absentia) for his direct involvement in the vicious attack on the US Embassy in Kuwait! Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate calling for an immediate END to all Military and Financial support for the criminal Islamic Terrorist thug-regime of Iraq.

This bears repeating. We need a president who cuts off the supply lines to the terrorists while protecting the pockets of taxpayers.

Mitt Romney had the style. Duncan Hunter had the substance.

Fixed.

Ron Paul is of great substance, to be sure, but his Libby answer was souring.

We do? This would directly undermind the soverignty of the respective goverments and would put the U.S. in violation of UNSCR 1546 and UNSCR 1386. Do you have evidence that the U.S. is in violation of said agreements? Or is this a false allegation against America on your part? Where is your evidence of wrongdoing? Perhaps you are taking lessons from the traitor Ron Paul, who lies about our foreign intervention by declaring it illegal. Would you like to debate the legallity of our multinational intervention abroad?

We went into Afghanistan with the intent of going after Bin LAden and his group. Totaly justified.

As far as Iraq goes, we went there with the intention of enforcing 'umpteen' (between 15-20) useless and bogus UN resolutions. The US has NO business enforcing UN resolutions. We should NOT be a member of the UN. We should NOT fund the UN... and we shure as hell should NOT enforce their bogus resolutions. The UN is not a body of government and has no real power- they only have the power that they invent.

As far as the US being in 'violation' of whatever resolutions you mentioned.... again, the UN is meaningless. The US has no business enforcing their resolutions. America protects America- America does not protect the UN.

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.