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.
You guys crack me up.
..I’m sorry, this is too funny...
Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated.
“He could win more than the debate — he could win the election.”
Well, at least the writer ended the article with a sense of humor.
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.
They both won.
Yes, it would be absolutely terrible if Congressman Ron Paul were able to bring over Anti-War and Civil Libertarian Democrats to the Small-Government Republican Agenda.
I mean, Ron Paul's old friend Ronald Reagan tried to attract Democrats in 1980 and 1984 --- and look how badly he lost.
You can still hide behind your borders, if you don’t mind $25/gal gasoline. The lifeblood of Western Civilization flows through a bad neighborhood called the middle east. Japan drops out of sight in 20 seconds without Mid-east oil, and we follow shortly thereafter. Ron Paul can play isolationist all he wants, but the people will live in tents. The Middle East is the big game on the planet and that is unlikely to change for another 50 years. Is is a game where if you fold, the casino roof falls on your head.
Ron Paul will bring our troops home! Of course we’ll need them here to fight the islamofascists in our streets.
That’s odd. I didn’t watch the farce, but those that did said Ron Paul gave the most pathetic performance of all the pathetic answers that were given to the even more pathetic questions.
Does the Ron Paul fan base honestly believe he "won" the debate with remarks like this:
===================================================
MR. MATTHEWS: Do you think Scooter Libby should be pardoned? Dr. Paul, do you want to pardon him?
REP. PAUL: No, he doesn't need a pardon. But he doesn't need it because he was instrumental in the misinformation that led the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in.
==============================================
So the candidate who lectures everyone else on what's "Constitutional" thinks Scooter Libby should stay locked up, not because Libby is gulity of a crime, but because Libby's views on Iraq is different than Paul's. Real "consitutionalist" position there. So much for Mr. Paul's being the candidate of "liberty" and "freedom" in America.
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. As Chuck Baldwin observes, "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." By comparison, Ron Paul skyrocketed.
No, Ron Paul does not believe that Scooter Libby should be granted an extra-ordinary Pardon. Respecting the Constitution, he believes in letting the Courts do their Job.
What's wrong with the Constitution?
Ron Paul’s views have far more in common with Ronald’s Reagan libertarian OPPONENT in 1980, than they do with Reagan.
The one million people who supported Ed Clark “the peace candidate” in 1980 would be far more receptive to Ron Paul’s platform than Reagan’s.
See for yourself. You can read below what they thought of Reaganism in 1980.
Bi-Monthly Newsletter
Joseph R. Peden, Publisher Murray N. Rothbard, Editor
VOLUME XI11 NUMBER 2
MARCH-APRIL, 1980
We cannot discuss the issues which should have top priority in 1980, without also discussing the candiates whom Ed Clark will be likely to face. Until now, with nearly a dozen major party candidates in the race, we have all been properly giving equal weight to attacking each one. But now things are different. Most of the dozen turkeys have dropped out. It looks certain that Reagan will be the Republican, and probable that Carter will be the
Democratic nominee.
I’m therefore going to make a daring statement: the No.1 threat, the big threat, to the liberty of Americans in this campaign is Ronald Reagan. There are two basic reasons for this statement: ( I ) fundamental principle, and (2) the proper strategy for the LP Presidential campaign. Both principle and strategy, as they should mesh together.
First, on the question of basic principle. The No.1 priority for libertarians must always be foreign policy, a policy of peace, of militant opposition to war and foreign intervention. With the primary importance of war and peace as our guide, therefore, we must conclude that the No. 1 threat to our liberties is Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement from which he springs. Reagan’s calm and superficially reassuring personality - a calm and a reassurance that stems partly from siow-wittedness - is
beside the point: for Ronald Reagan is a sincere ideologue of the conservative movement. And for the last twenty-five years, conservatism has been above all and if it has not been anything else, a policy of all-out global anti-Soviet crusade, a policy hellbent for a nuclear showdown with the Soviet Union.
That IS why a Reagan presidency would likely bring about that showdown, and the consequent virtual incineration of the human race. At every crisis point in the last three decades, the conservatives were there, whooping it up for more and more war: in Korea. at the Berlin Wall, in Cuba, in Vietnam. Only recently Reagan called for a “vast” (his word) increase in military spending when we already have enough missiles to destroy Russia many times over in a second nuclear strike. Reagan calls for intervention everywhere, in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, and
demands the blockade of Cuba in alleged retaliation for the
incursion into Afghanistan. And what is more, in the service of this policy of global war and militarism, Reagan would totally “unleash” the FBI and CIA, to do again their foul deeds of harrassing political dissent, or invasion of privacy, or espionage and assassination.
Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement are confident
that, in one or in a series of hard-line confrontations, in a continuing game of “chicken” with the Soviets, they could keep forcing Russia to back down. But if they should happen to make just one miscalculation along the way, and we all get destroyed in a nuclear war, the conservatives would not be particularly dismayed.
They would take this result as final proof that the Russians are monsters. and they would be all too content that, though the world be destroyed, our immortal souls will have been preserved. To say that such a foreign policy is dangerous and catastrophic grossly underestimates the point. The property, the lives, the very survival of all of us depend on slamming the door on Reagan and Keaganism, on keeping the itchy fingers of Ronald Reagan and his
Dr. Strangelove colleagues far, far away from that nuclear button.
This is not to say, of course, that Carter is a great pro-peace candidate. To the contrary, in a political climate where the only voices of opposition are from the pro-war right wing, Carter, whose only principle has been to stay in office, is moving rapidly in a Reaganite direction.
No - there is only one peace candidate in 1980, and thank God he is in the campaign - and that is Ed Clark!
A lot of people have met around the country simply regard Libertarians and the LP as “extreme Reaganites”, as “purist conservatives.” We’ve got to let these people and all libertarian-inclined folk know. and make it clear to everyone else for that matter: that if they were right, that if we were really just extreme conservatives or
ultra-Reaganites, they would then have a darned good point.
But the vital point is this: we are not — repeat NOT— extreme conservatives: we are NOT Reaganites. We regard Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement as our No. 1 enemy.
http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1980/1980_03-04.pdf
"Thompson, Tennessee Tiger"
No, just another 84,000 Americans who have been "turned on" to Ron Paul.
84,000 here; 84,000 there... pretty soon, you're talking about real Elections.
I shall leave you to the falsehood of your vain Imaginations, and content myself with the FACT that Ron Paul was Ronald Reagan's chosen Leader of his Electoral Delegation from Texas.
(and YOU, by the way, WEREN'T).
AMEN!! Duncan Hunter's record on Fiscal Conservatism in Washington is so atrocious... he's been bringing the rest of the Republican Congress DOWN!!
Thank God for True Christian Conservatives like RON PAUL!!
the mainstream media is all about denying the obvious. Ron Paul got a big response from viewers, as recorded by MSNBC poll, but he doesn’t fit into the msm’s framework, so the MSM ignores him. That’s how MSMS operates - they try to create the agenda and ignore anything that doesn’t fit their agenda.
Dr. Paul’s ideas, while good, do not translate well to public policy. That’s the essential trap that many conservatives, upon hearing a truer conservative voice fall into. While conservatism is the essential cornerstone of this country, Dr. Paul would literally have an uphill climb between both GOP’ers and DNC’ers in getting things done. He could as the chief executive, dismantle the IRS and any other department within his pervue (Dept. of Education would be a nice one too), but he would get butchered from all sides from the upheaval it would create without a sound tax plan to replace eliminating the tax code and solely relying on excise taxes. I agree with his sentiments, just not the execution since he really hasn’t asserted a plan for it.
Lip service is one thing, actions are another. His voting record may be conservative, but so what? Would he translate to a good president and not get pinned down as a rampant ideologue? 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. You can have people sign on to it, but after the electorate gives you the thumbs up, you still will have to endure the ravings of a leftist congress. Oh the humanity.
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.