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.
OK. I’ll send you a quarter for all of those fancy words you used correctly (I assume) in a sentence. Can you translate that for those of us who don’t have a degree in political bullshit?
Insults in place of discourse is the trademark of raging liberals and you fit such a profile. Now go away little mind. I’ve no further time for you.
Could you keep the language clean, please?
Sorry. Does “horsepuckey” work for you?
If see the US as having an obligation to, at American taxpayer expense, use reorganization of foreign governments as a basis for war, you have leaped to the left of the Democrats. What you deem as a "DNC Talking Point" is a criticism of expansive and expensive Republican liberalism. Some call this neoconservativism, when it is really pseudoconservativism. The "pseudo" prefeix means "fake." Redistribution of American earnings to aid Islamic regimes on the other side of the globe is not conservative.
If you see the US as having an obligation to, at American taxpayer expense, use reorganization of foreign governments as a basis for war, you have leaped to the left of the Democrats. What you deem as a "DNC Talking Point" is a criticism of expansive and expensive Republican liberalism.
Some call this neoconservativism, when it is really pseudoconservativism. The "pseudo" prefix means "fake." Redistribution of American earnings to aid Islamic regimes on the other side of the globe is not conservative.
That's not the way it happened in this country...
Just as I thought! You know a bunch of fancy words and that’s about all. Lemme see if I can splain to ya what we’re doin’- The Islamic extremists aim to kill us ‘cuz they wanna be in charge of the world. We don’t want ‘em to be in charge of the world. MOST Muslims just want to raise their kids and have a decent life, just like me. (I ain’t sure ‘bout you.) We aim to give those Muslims a boost by giving them what this country is founded on- LIBERTY. (When people get a taste of liberty they don’t give it up.) Those “moderate” Muslims will fight the extremist Muslims for their liberty. But they need our help. We started them on the road and we need to see them thru ‘til they achieve it. Fightin’ for liberty ain’t something you chicken out of just ‘cuz it gets tough! Now I may not know about “Neo” this and “Pseudo” that but I do know this- America was built by risk-taking, liberty-loving, God-fearing folk who want the best for EVERYONE. And since when was this fight a conservative fight?
Sorry it took me so long to respond- I’ve got carpal tunnel syndrome in my typing finger.
Good one! Not only did you send me to pop-up heaven, you sent me to a 1938 article by a guy who said the “world is lost.” Garet Garrett= Harry Reid!
To paraphrase Winston Churchill- “Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for those other forms.”
“t the very least... he would Veto everything, for eight years.
If for eight years, the expansion of Spending and Taxes simply stopped; if for eight years, the Growth of Government was arrested; If for eight years, no new Federal Laws and Regulations were visited upon the Poluace; if for eight years, the Federal Government grinds to a halt... then Ron Paul shall have acheived the wildest dreams of the youthful William Buckley, and shall have earned his place amongst the Greatest of American Presidents.
If Ron Paul simply stands athwart History yelling “’STOP!”, it is enough.”
And history would point him out as nothing but a contrarian and possibly a bad one at that. Simply saying NO or Stop won’t cut it. I’m not about to watch my country grind to a halt to satisfy Billy Buckley’s little fantasy, because in the end tit for tat on that level is dangerous to the country overall.
You might ought to do the same. You might want to read some of George Washington's warnings to future leaders as well. We are NOT or rather should not be the enforcing arm of the U.N. I don't care what U.N. resolutions are in the so called authorization of use of force. It was not a formal declaration of war not was the stated intent the sole interest of the United States. In other words the act was Unconstitutional. The GOP the DEMs who gave LBJ The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution were wrong. If the Dems were wrong then the GOP and DEMs who voted for this are wrong now as well.
Name me the Republican Congressman who asked for a formal declaration of war against Iraq? Why was the GOP too much of cowards to do it right to start with instead of letting GW Bush turn it into a mess no one can fix? So they like the DEMs could back out politically when it was grossly mismanaged by Bush's Buddies? Same mistake different generation.
Once your brain clears I’m sure you’ll remember that we did not act at the behest of the UN but rather in spite of it. We acted in our own self-defense and may have sought the support of the UN but not its approval.
I do agree with you that George Washington was a President.
So, how is the upcoming GOP Presidential debate on Fox going to be any different from the first GOP Presidential debate on MSNBC?
If we went there it should have been a military mission with a precise expedited military goal.
That is why we have flubbed most military campaigns since WW II....the gulf war had a precise goal...get Sodomy out of Kuwait...we did it and came home....you can argue till the cows come home...i agree with you.
That's the reason indeed. Added to that a certain Republican POTUS in the mid 1970's said go ahead thugs build up terrorist supporting nations we won't have someone come kill you for it. The rise in terrorism over the next few years told the story. True enough Carter bungled Iran but there was one Executive Order as bad done by Ford that let all the Hitler wanna be's in the M.E. prosper. The results we see today even on our own soil.
Yes. Obviously to a lesser extent, though, than you.
Now why don't you answer what was asked:
Do you agree that there was a coverup of 9-11?
Do you agree that the US is going to fake an attack on our forces in order to invade Iran, as Ron Paul stated on the floor of the House?
Please answer the questions.
Please let us know what you think after you’ve had a chance to watch them.
None of the Paul supporters ever bothered to respond to his actual words in those videos. They just changed the subject and moved on.
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.