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.

Ron Paul: Against Iraq War.
MSNBC: Against Iraq War.

John Leland 1789: Against “Iraq” War.

But being against the “Iraq” War doesn’t mean any lack of patriotism or republicanism. It also doesn’t mean that we are against a war, or against going after our enemies, being actually at war with them.

We are FOR WAR against those who attacked and those who are now planning to attack the United States of America. Some of them were or are in Iraq, so Iraq is not immune from seeing operations inside its borders. We are also not opposed to taking out national leaders, even heads of state, in the war against terrorist enemies.

But we believe Congress should declare war as per the Constitution, even if it is against an enemy not having the name of a specific country.

That war should have definitely been declared by Congress, UNANIMOUSLY, in 2001, and the first resources should have gone into an intelligence apparatus the like of which has never been seen.

The intelligence should have been expected to take some months, but with such accuracy and SECRECY (CNN completely in the dark) that Bin Laden would have been on the tip of a smart bomb while thinking he was in hiding. But there would have been nothing wrong, either, with turning the Afghan-Pakistani border into deep dry lake if necessary to get Bin Laden and his buddies.

The News Media should have been treated as if we were on a war footing and in combat territory on U.S. soil. The enemy should never be able to use CNN, FOX, MSNBC or any network to calculate the planning and execution of the war (which they have).

AFTER PROPER DETAILED AND TOP SECRET (MEDIA SILENT)INTELLIGENCE our strategic and tactical forces in bombers, missiles and fighters, along with special forces units, should have been used as if we were at war with one specific nation, and expecting civilian casualties. This in a variety of nations at the same time.

We should have been bombing and obliterating hundreds of 25 square mile plots in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and this year every time reasonably good intelligence (electronic and human) indicated ANY training facilities or terrorist activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Suadi Arabia, Egypt, or anywhere else in that region (or even in Mindanao, Philippines and Indonesia).

All nations should have been getting the DAILY message that the United States is at war, and any nation who allows Enemies of the United States to operate on their soil is subject to seeing military operations on its soil without prior notice, including the incineration of large tracts of land and properties if necessary.

And we should never have had to ask the UNO for anything! NOTHING!!

War should have disrupted a sufficient amount of international banking that no terrorist organization could put their hands on any money. This even if it required some sacrifice from the commerce community in the United States. WE ARE AT WAR !! IF WE ARE AT WAR, LET'S GO TO WAR! Let's quit calling it the "Iraq" war. And let's t not settle their civil war. I'm for letting the Sunis kill the Shiites, and visa-versa, frankly, as long as they do it on Iraqi (or Muslim)soil. If they can't come to their own senses, we will never bring them to their senses. They will only hate us more, and continue to kill each other and blame it on us. IF WE ARE AT WAR, LET'S GO TO WAR! My hat is off to both Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin.

Could you explain to me why we should care if a bunch of Sunnis and Shias kill each other off?

Consider the geopolitical ramifications of what would happen if Iraq descends into a bloodbath, shortly followed by Iranian control, should the United States withdraw. Consider that the true enemies - Iran-backed terrorists capitalizing on long-standing hatred between the formerly-oppressed Shiites and the formerly-Saddam backed Sunnis of Iraq - are those who follow the words of the Koran to the letter, to the point where all moderate Muslims are considered heretics worthy of extermination. Do you really think the Iraqis that truly want peace for future generations are interested in the words of those who kill them and their children via suicide bombs?

One last thing: consider that we are talking about a region of the world that has been mired within the reign of madmen for millenia. The lone exception is the nation of Israel, and they're under attack day by day. Consider that a vast majority of the Muslim populace are illiterate and uneducated, easy playthings for cunning warlords who despise Israel and Western Civilization (we should now; the liberal public education system has been doing a fine job indoctrinating lots of children these days). Do you have any idea of what could happen if a Western-backed, STABLE democracy - also an ally of the United States - was fully implemented into that hotbed of terrorism? The potential ramifications of a free (I use that term relatively, compared to most of the Middle East Muslim governments) society? We can see some effects now in Afghanistan. We're still at work in Iraq. Pulling out now, before the country is as stable as we can get it, would be disastrous for the Iraqis, for the moral spirit of America, and for our image as the world's lone superpower: what ally would dare trust us anymore, if we surrender after a less than 5,000 deaths in the field of battle? Don't get me wrong, but we've dealt with far more staggering losses in SINGLE battles within previous wars. As has been said, war is Hell, and we engaged in war. Now the only two acceptable paths are victory through a stable Iraq, or surrender without victory, complete with a disgraced United States and a weakened Iraq ripe for the plundering by Iran and other interested parties.

Were it me, I’d put a wall up by where the Kurds live and let those scumsuckers have at it.

On some level, I agree with you; the Kurds - with some help in part due their geographical closeness with democratic Turkey - have come a long way. If there were any sect I'd want to be allies with, it'd be them. But alas, the elected Iraqi Constitution and the elected government did not call for a separation into three states. Perhaps in the future, the Iraqis will do so of their own free will. But let's refocus on the now.

But why is it our business to keep them apart?

It was made our business when the elected Bush Administration decided declaring War on Iraq and Saddam Hussein - using intelligence that most of the world agreed was true - was in our best interests, along with ensuring the creation of a new, democratic government. The American people elected him again 2004, and we have that policy still in place.

Don't get me wrong, I wish we had done a few things differently. I wish that we had less PC ROE. I wish that our media weren't such traitorous scum that they ignore all good news and focus on the bad, painting a horrific picture that's not equal to reality. I wish the Democrats weren't power-hungry, treasonous fools. I wish the Republican Party as a whole had been more conservative and had more spine and more courage against the Dems and the MSM. But wishing is just wishing. By 2009, there will be a new Administration, and most likely new changes. Perhaps we will withdraw from Iraq before the job is done. Perhaps we might allow our troops to fight as they should fight in a war: with all they have. Heck, the Iraq War might be OVER by 2008. We just don't know. Bush still has less than 2 years to go.

Hasn’t helped us any, nor made much headway in settling their centuries-old disagreements...

Catholics and Protestants still carry some resentment against each other, but they've come a LONG way since the days of the Reformation of the Church, followed by a bloodletting of grand proportions between Catholics and Protestants in Medieval Europe. But Western society evolved differently than Middle Eastern society; the ideals of Christianity and the radical (back then) ideas of philosophers and idealists such as John Locke led to an advanced, more civil, more moral society; the remnants of that Europe that split away due to discontent with the local governments (such as the monarchy of Britain) eventually would form America, the greatest country on Earth.

Meanwhile, Middle Eastern society has been retarded for centuries still, due to powermad warlords and corrupt religious figures who care more about spreading by the sword to expand their power, the welfare and livlihood of those who follow them be damned. For if the Muslims had the same opportunity and the same education as most Americans, would you doubt that most of them would revolt in a heartbeat (Oh wait, some Iranians are revolting now...wonder why.)? They would dearly love - men and women (ESPECIALLY women) alike - the opportunities we have. But they have been indoctrinated to hate, hate, and hate some more from a young age. And that is a crime so heinous that it should be looked upon as one of the grossest of evils mankind can produce.

It’s just making us more enemies on BOTH sides.

To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. Short-term, yes, that is true...long-term? Can't say for sure. Depends on the success of a democratic Iraq. Depends on whether the people desire individual freedom enough that they are willing to go through the hardship required. It takes a long time to move past a lifetime of oppression; being under the thumb of a tyrant for most of your life will tend to remove any tendency to take any risk. Imagine it from the average Iraqi's view: you see an America, divided and arguing against itself about whether to help you and the rest of Iraq. You see terrorists attacking your fellow Iraqis daily. You see an international community almost ENTIRELY dedicated to seeing that you don't obtain freedom. And you have just come out from years of oppression, where you learned that it is easier to survive by complying with the rule of tyrants than it is to stand up for what you want. Couple in the "HATE AMERICA!" propaganda being pumped into your ears daily by al Jazeera, adding to your distrust of the Americans' capability to free you and your countrymen.

Sounds depressing?

That's what I imagine the mindset of the average Iraqi is like. Not a pretty sight, don't you agree?

Plus costing OUR kids’ lives and tons of taxpayer dollars we can ill afford.

Let me focus on the tax dollars portion first: a simple solution to this would be to lessen the amount of money being sent to welfare programs and to restructure the tax system. It's up to the Administration (be it Bush or the next one) to implement this, so this is where Americans let their voices be heard. Work to vote and elect conservatives who WILL lessen the socialist programs of our government. Then we can worry less about the tax dollars going to our war-fighting efforts. It would take effort. Lots of it. But so is anything worth fighting for. We held Bush's feet to the fire on Miers and other things. It's not unthinkable to think future Administrations can't have the same done to them (though electing someone who would pursue such measures anyway - a la Duncan Hunter - would be far less strenuous, you know?).

As for our soldiers...well, let me ask you one thing.

Why are they still volunteering?

Why?

Is it possible that they think this is a cause worth fighting for? That the people they see daily in Iraq want freedom, and are worth freedom? The tree of liberty must often be watered with the blood of tyrants to show how strong the very idea of freedom is...and she must often be fertilized with the blood of patriots who wish to see her grow strong.

Saddam, Al Qaeda, and the terrorists backed by Iran are the tyrants. Much of their blood has been shed already. New targets will arise in the new future, in my opinion.

Our men and women in the Armed Forces, who volunteered willingly, are the patriots. And I applaud their bravery and courage to fight for an ideal so many in this world are losing faith in: that freedom and liberty is something worth sharing and nurturing to all of the people in the world, and that sometimes sacrifices will be made to ensure that freedom does live on.

I’ll be looking for your answer.

Here's my final answer.

I'm just a 19-year old conservative man. I'm just a sophomore in college with a major in Mathematics. I'm still naive. I'm still lacking in the wisdom of my peers.

And I can't tell the future.

Only history will be the ultimate judge. Ultimately, history will tell whether or not the experiment that is a democratic Iraq succeeded or failed. Ultimately, history will determine whether the United States was made stronger or weaker, either by standing by Iraq till the end, or by abandoning her in her hour of need.

But I do know this.

On September 11, 2001, less than two dozen men hijacked airplanes with box cutters, killing 3,000 American lives. They vowed more attacks, with the support of those who would see that the United States fails: Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and all those who supported Saddam, al Qaeda, and the Taliban with weapons and other forms of aid.

We responded.

We are still responding.

We are fighting them over there, instead of over here.

Soldiers who volunteered to fight are dying, instead of citizens like those on Flight 93, who did not choose to be hijacked by those seeking to do harm to our country.

And to think our enemies will not capitalize on America's retreat - as advocated by the Democrat Party and Ron Paul - is shortsighted, considering the nature of our enemy, and the weapons they seek to use.

Does my answer satisfy you?

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.