Posted on 05/11/2007 3:15:42 PM PDT by 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:
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.
Neither is it our responsibility to redisribute the earnings of hard-working Americans (and future earnings to pay interest payments on borrowed funds) and send them to Iraq.
Then the American people will vote someone else in then. Either way, I expect that someone will try to correct the deficit in the next Administration...if it’s a conservative that is.
Duncan Hunter is a Conservative who advocates Victory, giving further meaning to the lives and money spent in pursuit of freedom for people who previously had none.
Ron Paul is a Conservative who advocates withdrawal, rendering the lives and money spent worthless.
Our enemies can be democratically elected too you know. And much of the new Iraqi "democratic elected government" has close ties to Iran and some of it's leaders have engaged in terrorist acts against the West in the past themselves. You trust them?
If Dennis wins, he can hire Paul to run his Dept of Peace.
Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance. And, as a retired military mom, and a realist who understands the critical importance of the WOT and Operation Iraqi Freedom, I will sleep well tonight knowing that Ron Paul will NEVER become President of the United States. He may be pro-life, but only when they’re in the womb.
We’ve got real slim pickings, I will admit. It’s just a very volatile and violent area.
As said, history will be the ultimate judge.
They should not be elected at our expense.
Faith in democracy is based upon the principle that free people will continue to vote for freedom. Your argument that “Our enemies can be democratically elected too you know”, while technically true, has not been proven by history. Liberty can only be overcome by violent revolution, not by election.
The mission completed. No WMD in Iraq.
Saddam dead and gone.
Now about using our young men as disposable policeman in the aftermath is something only a globalist neo con would embrace. The American people will never stand for a protracted police action. If that were the primary goal of going into Iraq the American people were not clearly informed of such.
I mentioned Hamas...how about Hitler? There are others.
Your ignorance of the goals Bush stated when we entered Iraq, and the reasons we entered is only matched by your ignorance in using the meaningless term “globalist neocon”.
Tripe.
"The mission completed.
No WMD in Iraq.
Saddam dead and gone.
Now about using our young men as disposable policeman in the aftermath is something only a globalist neo con would embrace. The American people will never stand for a protracted police action. If that were the primary goal of going into Iraq the American people were not clearly informed of such."
AMEN.
Dismissed. LOL!!!
When we found there were no WMD, the goal became the "liberation" of the Iraqi people.
Now that Saddam is gone, the goal is to to "fight terra"...perpetually.
Thank you for making the argument FOR American intervention. You won the battle but lost the war.
You need to go back and read the reasons why we really went into Iraq and stop parroting the DNC talking points.
I’ll let Hunter speak for me.
“Sometimes we have a difficult mission, but it is very clear to us since September 11 that if we do not change the world, the world is going to change us. For Americans who wonder why we have not been attacked over the last several years, why there has not been another September 11, one answer is that we have kept the bad guy off balance. We pursued them in caves, in mountains, at 12,000 feet high where they thought we would never get to them. We have gotten them in safe houses where they thought they were totally safe, and we have pursued them to places where they never dreamed we would be able to find them. Because of that, we have kept them off balance, and we have kept them in a position where it has been very difficult for them to organize another attack against the United States. The idea that we can somehow pull back into the United States and not pursue this war against terrorism and everything will be fine is a very erroneous idea. The men and women of our Armed Forces who are undertaking this very difficult mission in Iraq are accomplishing the mission. The mission is of great value because we have discovered in this century that when we have brought freedom to countries, those countries have not been a threat to the United States.”
The Democrats are speaking out against liberal interventionalism? This shows that the leftward drift led by the pseudoconservative Republicans has become a leftward leap.
Which U.N. resolutions have yet to be implemented?
In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in.
Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq --G.W Bush Jan, 2007
Psychologists refer to this condition Hunter references as "magical thinking,"; and it's something one normally does not encounter in anyone over the age of seven or eight.
Excellent posting.
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.