Not going to vote for ANYONE who will not fight terrorism on their home turf not ours. ANYONE
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.
Talk is cheap. Voting records speak louder than words.
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don’t police the world. That’s conservative, it’s Republican, it’s pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
Ron Paul
I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we’re fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force.
Ron Paul
When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
Ron Paul
http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/03/ron-paul-quotes.html
How idiotic is that thinking?! Libby got prosecuted by a special counsel who was appointed in a unconstitutionally. Fruit of a Bad Tree (in spades) can not be allowed to be eaten.
I know this isn’t going to be too popular of an idea, but I suspect that the poll was skewed by Howard Stern callers. In my opinion, Stern is skewing all TV polls, just like he did with American Idol. In the minds of those jokers, they probably feel like Ron Paul has the least likely chance of winning, so they called in to screw up the MSNBC poll. But that’s just what I suspect. I’m curious to see what happens after the Fox debate.
Not going to vote for ANYONE who will not fight terrorism on their home turf not ours. ANYONE
It certain does, if Mr. Paul had simply said that in the debate. Unfortunately, he just had to make a little snide remark that Libby should not be pardoned DUE to Libby's record on Iraq. That is certainly not a "constitutional" position, but I guess we can take comfort in the fact Ron Paul didn't really "mean" that and was just airing out his personal "feelings" on Iraq.
Once again, the question is whether Paul "won" the debate and the hearts of minds of votes when he made remarks like that. You Ron Paul supporters really seem to have difficulty with the concept that the person who would make the "best" President in your eyes is not necessarily the best "debator" on stage.
I support Tommy Thompson, and I don't think he "won" the debate, though overall I'd say his answers were better thought that your guy lecturing everyone else on what is "constitutional"
Once again, the great jveritas chimes in with an insult in his very first post on the thread. It is a good thing you have done such fantastic work on translating iraq docs (and I mean that), because if not for that your vile personal attacks and total lack of interest in logical debate would have had you booted from here a long time ago.
I am in full agreement with you, can you really consider it a debate? It had all the trappings of a cheap, paid infomercial which made the candidates look dopey and clearly unimpressive.
I may have missed it, but what part of you link asserts that? It asserted that he goes on truther radio shows, and that he thinks the US will fabricate an incident to go to war with Iran, but I didn't see anything about the collapse of the WTC buildings.
So does Hunter.
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!!
Hunter built the border fence in San Diego. He coauthored the bill that extends it for hundreds of miles. He's long been an advocate for secure borders.
In other words, Hunter backs up his words with action. And unlike Ron Paul, he grasps what would happen if we withdrew from Iraq now before the job is done: a bloodbath of epic proportions that would make the Killing Fields of Cambodia come off as a mere school shooting in comparison.
Really? Perhaps you could point out some legislation in his many long years in congress that he's proposed or gotten into law on those subjects. Has Ron gotten any other congressmen to endorse him yet?
It’s his reasoning that’s disturbing. He advocated not granting him a pardon for something totally unrelated to the criminal proceeding. And the crime was ludicrous as it was. How is THAT Constitutional?
He will be in the Fox debate and now today he'll be in the debate on CNN in New Hampshire. Will be nice to see a candidate instead of Giuliani's 'optimism', McCain's creepy 'gates of hell' with a smile, or Romney's $5000 suit (nothing wrong with being well dressed but when that's all you've got and you just parrot the other two hacks it's not really a candidacy is it?)
In the sense that Ron Paul distinguished himself from the field as holding a different view on our Muslim jihadist enemies, he did well in the debate. Some nominal conservatives do want us to leave Iraq immediately without concern about what happens next. They may be drawn to him as a result of the debate. They will not be enough to give him victory in any state primary or caucus, and his statements assured that he won't pick up enough support to win any primary or caucus. In that sense, he lost the debate.
Bill
Duncan Hunter may not be the biggest fiscal conservative of the lot, but that's only because he was one of those with the primary responsibility of funding our military. Why should I have a problem with that?
Osma Bin Laden claimed the 911 attack on the WTC was, in part, because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. He demanded we remove them...and within 18 months of 911 we had done as he demanded. A coddle?
We cheer as a secular dictator is hanged while the President is in Crawford Tx holding hands with wahabbist Saudi Prince's.
If we secure our borders and limit any and all immigration from the ME we can be secure our safety. And this administration's diplomacy towards axis of evil member NK is lame...Carterish so to speak.
Describe what a victory in Iraq will look like. Sunni and Shia Muslims standing with Turkish Kurds holding hands and singing kumbaya? An Islamic Shia government in bed with Iran is what we have put in place. If nothing else, the nation building ambitions of that creature called the neo con has been discredited by this war.
You'd be wrong on that.
It’s one and the same, as the first terrorist to come across the border with a dirty bomb will make clear.
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.