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.
Perzackly.
Expect to see various permutations of the "guilt by association" routine, and be ready to call them out for what they are.
Paul is right. It’s time to get us out of Vietnam #2. There is a civil war going on over there and it will be a mess no matter when we leave. Bring our troops home, defend our ports and borders, and use the money saved on Iraq operations to pay down our near 9 trillion dollar debt.
I’m still curious to know what you mean by “expansionist foreign policy?” Is the U.S. claiming new territory?
You are a real sad story OP. When I see your incredibly stupid posts, I just keep laughing, your delusions are shocking. To think that a defeatist and traitor like Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination for President is a very sad state of mind.
At 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.
If Ron Paul thinks Scooter Libby is NOT GULITY of the crime for which he was sentenced, then the "Constitutional" position is certainly NOT to lock innocent people up "[The President] SHALL shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons" Article 2, Section 2... unless Mr. Paul is following the Constitution of Communist China or something, a person who exposes liberty and freedom doesn't let innocent people get locked up when there is a constitutional way to free them.
Sorry, the Constitution explicitly gives the President the power to grant pardons in all cases except impeachments.
Paul also said an income tax is "Unconstitutional". Untrue. The Constitution also now allows an income tax since the 16th amendment was passed in 1916. It used to be "unconstitutional" to tax income PRIOR to that time, it no longer is -- just as banning guns is no longer constitutional since the 2nd amendment was passed. I think what Mr. Paul meant to say is he'd like to repeal the 16th amendment so an income tax WILL BE unconstitutional in the future.
Sorry, just because Ron Paul calls everything on the planet "unconstitutional" doesn't make it so. The Ninth Circuit court also likes to proclaim everything "Unconstitutional". The Constitution itself explains what is constitutional, not Ron Paul.
Ron Paul can denounce the existence of the U.S. Supreme Court as "unconstitutional" tomorrow if he wanted to, that wouldn't make it so.
If he doesn't like certain powers being granted in the Constitution, then he should work to repeal them -- not pretend they don't exist.
At the point that we engage in the Folly of Approving Foreign Constitutions (particularly those which enshrine Koranic Satanism as the Official Religion of the State), I should say that our Ancient Policy of Neutrality has been violated.
Yes, yes, to each his own.
I suppose you'll continue advocating the endless Bankrupting of the Republic.
As I said... to each his own.
Ron Paul just voted WITH THE DEMS to de-fund our troops. It’s outrageous, and it’s time for Ronnie’s constituents to understand that he is making them LESS SAFE.
The BOR is more of a clarification than an actual amending of the Constitution. Most of the Founders considered them redundant, and already being implicit in the Constitution proper.
And...Obama won the dem bebate...NOT hilllereee.
It appears that Ron Paul has accepted the Judgment of the Courts, and believes that Libby deserves no extra-ordinary Pardon. And that settles that.
Ron Paul is a whack job.
Here’s a viable unbiased measure of who actually “wins” a debate, at least with the folks who put their money where their mouth is.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1828433/posts?page=37#16
The day after the debate — CHANGED nomination probabilities, per Intrade contracts:
Rudy Giuliani 29.9% (-2.1%)
F Thompson 16.3% (+1.2%)
Mitt Romney 17.5% (+2.2%)
Ron Paul 0.4% (+0.2%)
.
.
Today’s posted changed values:
2008 Republican Pres Nominee(Others on Request)
2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI -0.4
2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN -0.5
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F) -0.1
2008.GOP.NOM.ROMNEY -0.7
2008.GOP.NOM.GINGRICH -0.1
2008.GOP.NOM.HAGEL -0.0
2008.GOP.NOM.HUCKABEE +0.0
2008.GOP.NOM.RICE +0.0
2008.GOP.NOM.BROWNBCK -0.1
2008.GOP.NOM.PAUL +0.0
2008.GOP.NOM.HUNTER +0.0
2008.GOP.NOM.CHENEY +0.0
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(T)-0.1
2008.GOP.NOM.TANCREDO +0.0
Yes, he does. That is why I will vote for him.
That's cute, but unfortunately you're getting your elections mixed up. Paul was a Reagan delegate in 1976, when Reagan lost the GOP nomination. Ed Clark, the Libertarian nominee, was Reagan's opponent in 1980. If the one million libertarians who agree with Paul's foreign policy had supported Reagan's ideas, they would have voted for him. They didn't. They voted for Clark in that election. Nothing you say or do will change that FACT.
Paul's isolationist platform has far, far more in common with Ed Clark's isolationist platform. In the words of Ed Clark's libertarian supporters, Reagan's platform represented "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."
If you'd like to dispute that fact and claim that Paul's platform somehow resembles Reagan's above policy, feel free to do so. In the debate I watched, Paul denounced such a platform as 180o degrees away from his own beliefs and made his opposition to Bush following such polices a centerpiece of his campaign.
He sure is!
Ain't it great?
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.