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.
Geez, is that all?!
Well, I guess he's OK then.
Interesting Side Note: "Truther" radio shows are used to discuss and disseminate paranoid "Truther" theories, re: 9/11.
Sort of what makes them "Truther" radio shows in the first place, actually.
But you knew this, of course.
A. He goes on truther radio shows. Assuming that's true, my guess is that Paul will go on any radio show, so that doesn't really bother me. B. He thinks the US will fabricate an incident to go to war with Iran. Well, not sure, but if we are planning to go to war you can bet we would try to at least provoke them into attacking first. C. He thinks the government was in on the WTC buildings collapse. This is a big one, anyone who believe that is a total nutjob. I would renounce my support of Paul if he believes that. OF course, it is not there at the link.
A nice way of getting around the fact that you posted something about Paul that you can not now back up.
Or, do you believe that any time anyone goes on a radio show it is proof he believes everything the host believes?
I am absolutely right in my assessment of the Ron Paul supporters. They are a sad story and they are extremely delusional to think that Ron Paul a defeatist and a traitor who wants to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq has any chance in the "real" world of winning the Republican primaries for President. They keep mentioning a stupid MSNBC poll hit by a majority of left wing lunatics to bump up Paul numbers. Let us get real here.
Here is a link to a video by Student Scholars For 9/11 Truth where Paul promises to talk to Dennis Kucinich about setting up a new investigation to look into 9/11.
Ron Paul meets Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(the discussion is at the very end, about 1:30 left, after his speech)
Are these the same people who claimed the Gulf of Tonkin incident was just a government plot to enlist public support for our war in SE Asia?
Washington, D.C., 1 December 2005 - The largest U.S. intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, today declassified over 140 formerly top secret documents — histories, chronologies, signals intelligence [SIGINT] reports, and oral history interviews — on the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. Included in the release is a controversial article by Agency historian Robert J. Hanyok on SIGINT and the Tonkin Gulf which confirms what historians have long argued: that there was no second attack on U.S. ships in Tonkin on August 4, 1964. According to National Security Archive research fellow John Prados, “the American people have long deserved to know the full truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The National Security Agency is to be commended for releasing this piece of the puzzle.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm
Ron Paul didn’t win Jack Sh!t. His chances are the same now as they were before. Zero.
Sorry, meant to ping you to post 86.
... answering what was, at base, a profoundly intellectually dishonest query on your part, actually.
Or, do you believe that any time anyone goes on a radio show it is proof he believes everything the host believes?
Plainly, you have either never actually listened to a "truther" broadcast, or else are simply being disingenuous (and not all that cleverly, either). "Truthers" do not seek out, encourage or even so much as allow for the presentation of "non-Truther" (i.e., sane) viewpoints on their programs. It's All Tin Foil! All the Time! -- period, full stop, end of sentence.
They give you air time: they agree with what you have to gibber on the topic. And RP's demonstrable willingness to do precisely that irrevocably marks him as just another twitchy, unblinking, black helicopter-dreading cartoon character -- this season's designated Buchanan, or Perot.
Good for a giggle. Nothing more.
And Ron Paul is the RIGHT Candidate for the anti American terrorists.
You know, I honestly don't know what's worse, his agreeing to a new 9-11 investigation, or his glowing praise of Dennis freakin Kucinich.
The man's insane.
Enough of this Ron Paul crap. Perhaps he can explain why he was only one (of two) republicans in the House to vote FOR an Iraqi withdrawal bill. Oh, and he joined 169 other Democrats to do it. He keeps great company, no?
Because he thinks that we shouldn't be meddling in Iraq on principle, and, that it does not do us any good. That every day we are there, it is just more US soldiers dying.
Now, I am not saying he is correct, or even that I agree with him.. I don't really. But, you asked for an explanation, and there it is.
The man's insane.
I spent the entire first half of my life (a quarter of a century) growing up in the Deep South.
Any damnfool crazy (or desperate) enough to genuinely believe, in their secretmost heart of hearts, that RP's bug-eyed conspiracy mongering, re: "the truth" behind 9/11, might have even so much as a micro-chance of finding favor with the majority of unabashedly patriotic conservative voters in places such as (for instance) Nashville, or Louisville, or Atlanta, is in for the coronary thrombosis-inducing shock of their politically whey-faced and unsuspecting lives.
"Bubba" don't play dat. ;)
Iraq Petition Presses for Withdrawal of U.S. Troops
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-iraq.html
BAGHDAD, May 11 — A majority of Iraq’s parliament has signed a petition for a legislative timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, several parliamentarians said today.
Officials in the Sadrist bloc said that 144 of parliament’s 275 members — including Sunni and Shiite Arabs and at least one Kurd — had signed the petition.
The petition mirrors the demands by some Democratic lawmakers in Washington for a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
The anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr sponsored the petition
For some reason, whenever Ron Paul was shown during the debate...I kept thinking of Pat PAULsen. The whole package somehow fit.
KDD, do you believe that Paul should get together with Dennis Kucinich and sponsor another investigation into 9-11?
I was born and have lived in the deep south for over half a century and I think you have been TrappedInLiberalSeattle so long that you have taken on the characteristics of the leftists you hob nob with there. You certainly do not speak(write)as a southern gentleman would...rather you shriek like one of those San Francisco gay pride anarchist loonies.
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.