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.
RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for Tax-Cutting fiscal conservatives.
RON PAUL is the ONLY 100% Anti-Terrorist candidate.
RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for National Defense and Foreign Affairs.
RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for the Bill of Rights.
RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate on Illegal Immigration.
RON PAUL is the ONLY socially-conservative Candidate defending the independence of the Christian Church against Federal "Faith-Based Socialism".
"I got to know President Reagan in 1976 when, as a freshman congressman, I was one of only four members of that body to endorse then-Governor Reagans primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. I had the privilege of serving as the leader of President Reagans Texas delegation at the Republican convention of 1976, where Ronald Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president for his partys nomination. I was one of the millions attracted to Ronald Reagan by his strong support for limited government and the free-market. I felt affinity for a politician who based his conservative philosophy on '...a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.' I wish more of todays conservative leaders based their philosophy on a desire for less government and more freedom." Ron Paul, Remembering Ronald Reagan
I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008, I'm Voting for RON PAUL! |
Once more unto the breach, dear friends; once more unto the breach.
Chuck Baldwin, now there’s a man whose opinion is valued...
Ron Paul is no Duncan Hunter.
Check your FreepMail.
You now have a copy of the first 100+ sign-ups to the Great Ron Paul Ping List on Free Republic. Rally the troops whenever good news presents itself, and always be willing to add to our numbers.
Best, OP
Of that I have no doubt. MSNBC viewers are mostly an anti-war bunch who'd naturally support Paul's anti-war views. Of course those same viewers probably strongly disagree with Paul on just about everything else....
It wasn’t a debate, it was sound bite casting call.
Idiotic and reprehensible.
This is not the way to elect the President Of The United States.
His presence in the country alone was all that is necessary to win it and here are some examples:
AWESOME FACTS ABOUT FRED THOMPSON
* Fred Thompson has blasted more people in the face with a shotgun than even Dick Cheney.
* The masked executioner of Saddam Hussein: Fred Thompson.
* Every night before going to sleep, Osama bin Laden checks under his bed for Fred Thompson.
* Fred Thompson took over what was Al Gore’s Senate seat, thereby dramatically reducing the Senate’s carbon footprint. Fred Thompson then created carbon offset offsets by wastefully burning hippies.
* Fred Thompson reconsidered running for reelection after 9/11 but later decided to handle things on his own. He was soon seen entering the Middle East with a bottle of tequila in one hand an a handgun in the other. They’re still counting the dead.
* Fred Thompson once ended a filibuster by ripping out a Senator’s heart and showing it to him before he died.
* The actual cause of global warming: Fred Thompson’s burning rage.
* Fred Thompson once stood on our south border and glared at Mexico. There was no illegal immigration for a month.
* Scientists predict that when Fred Thompson dies he’ll explode taking out the five nearest planets before collapsing into a black hole.
* If you purchase a weather radio, it will wake you up with an alarm to warn you when Fred Thompson is pissed off.
* Webster’s Dictionary defines “conservatism” as “how closely one’s views resemble those of Fred Thompson.”
* Fred Thompson’s sense of strategy is so great that he can checkmate you using only a pawn and a knight.
* When terrorists get to the afterlife, they’ll find that none of their seventy-two women are still virgins. Why? Because of Fred Thompson.
* Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? Out of fear of Fred Thompson.
Ron Paul has an isolationist mentality...
MSNBC: Against Iraq War.
There's a surprise here?
Ron Paul is the man of the hour....
This is amazing... All of a sudden MSNBC web polls (with their primarily liberal audience) is the "trusted source" for truth.
I guess when you're grasping a straws to make a point, a short one will do.
Correcto. And like it or not, the world's only Hyper Power can not shrink into some hidy hole and make believe it's 200 years ago.
More like man of the minute.
Look at it this way, When Paul drops out his supporters can still help out by supporting Dennis Kucinich.
Sorry, but Duncan Hunter won the first Republican debate.
Funny thing about the new FR poll. Looks like more non members voting for RP than members....again.
If this were peacetime, Mitt Romney could be very persuasive. He actually understands what it takes to grow an economy in an imperfect world.
If this were a libertarian utopia, Ron Paul could be very persuasive. His idealogy is pure even if it isn't very realistic with the hand we've been dealt.
But given that this is wartime, I'll take the candidate who I feel is mean a**ed enough to take on islamofacism and their allies in the enemedia and win. A former army ranger and paratrooper who also has a decent grasp of conservative issues. Last time I checked, there was only one candidate that fit this criteria.
If "Fred" decides to "get in", I understand you might choose to support him.
We must always do that which we believe to be Right.
(However, as long as Fred's taking to make up his mind -- we may all be able to support Ron Paul for Two Terms before supporting Fred in 2016!)
I disagree with him on some things when it comes to national security,
Let's see...Ron Paul is: Pro-Border Security... Pro-Port Security... Pro-Coast Guard.... Pro-Missile Defense... I suspect that the TRUTH is, you TOTALLY AGREE with Ron Paul on National Security!
Now, you may disagree with him on the Effectiveness of Foreign Wars -- but I say, even IF an Expansionist Foreign Policy DOES "work", let's protect our own Borders First and go from there!!
As always, JMHO.
Best, OP
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.