Paul, Not Romney, Won First GOP Debate

2007-05-08
By

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:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/

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.

3 views

  • thurston861

    I have taken direct action that I hope will lead to a surge of support from the Eastern NC and Camp LeJune area.

    I am sure that Marines cannot wait to die for a REAL America again.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    Ron Paul is an idiot. But he does have a small cadre of rabid adorati’s who will flood any such internet based poll with worshipful praise.

    In his moment of glory, his answer about Iraq, he was wrong. Wrong about why America voted in Nixon; wrong about why America voted in Ike.

    Nixon was elected by the pro-Vietnam War crowd. He was not elected to end the war as Paul claimed and anyone who was around then knows it. The antiwar/stop the war crowd were the Democrats. Ever heard of McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, and Hubert Humphrey?

    No sane, historically knowledgeable person would support Ron Paul, and certainly no one but a few on the fringe take him seriously.

    He’s from down here and we think he’s a joke.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    Oh yeah, and anyone who points to an on-line poll seeking to prove how right or popular his side is, is an even greater fool.

    I always thought only Democrat extremists ever tried to prove the popularity of their vision by slamming online polls…I guess I was wrong. It appears looney Libertarians do as well.

  • red pill

    Will:
    Libertarians are nothing more than democrats who are unashamed about keep their own stuff and want to be left alone, thinking they can take care of themselves (but still don’t know how things work). Note there has never been an actual “libertarian” gov’t in the history of humankind. THAT should be a big clue about the utility of ‘libertarian’ politics….

    0

  • thurston861

    Strange how both the CCN adn MSNBC Polls, by competing companies tracked about the same.

    Will, that is strike 2 for you.

  • Menck

    Strange that a pol who has a genuine record of acting like he actually believes in and conducts himself like the Constitution and its principles matter should be so quickly pilloried and lampooned.

    I am not to be confused as a Ron Paul supporter, but this is the man’s record, after all.

  • thurston861

    Yes MEnck, record and facts be damned, apply invective.

    The Weapons of the Marxists Materialists (Feminists).

    Will has spots under his cloack.

  • thurston861

    So where did the rest of the Republican hopefuls stand on Family Values? Meaning “Stick it to Men”.

    That is the question, for there is no reaso to vote for someone who is contributing to the problems here.

    Clear Media Conspiracy
    Against Ron Paul
    By Carl F. Worden
    5-8-7

    … (The) conspiracy to ignore and marginalize presidential candidate Ron Paul is not a theory. In this case, a jury would have to conclude a conspiracy against Dr. Paul by the corporation-controlled media exists.

    First, MSNBC reported that Ron Paul scored the highest positive votes in both Republican debates he attended. That means he beat out Romney, McCain and Giuliani. There was no mention of these poll results in the major media.
    Dick Morris, political pundit and former Clinton buddy, wrote an opinion piece that appeared in many media publications 5/7/07, in which he claimed John McCain had won the debate, and I could find nowhere in his piece that Ron Paul had even attended.

    CNN’s Glenn Beck, an alleged conservative (my fanny) ran a tiny clip on his show that tried to make Ron Paul look like a blithering idiot. He then went on to ask, “How did this guy get in the debate at all”?

    Even WorldNetDaily, a prominent, conservative Internet news provider, has largely ignored Ron Paul’s candidacy.

    When a candidate wins two debate polls in a row that are reported by the likes of MSNBC on its own web page, that is news, especially since the winner of both polls allegedly had no chance to win the nomination. The media normally jumps on that kind of news, because people in America love underdogs, but not this time.

    No, this is a concerted effort.

    Please review below what Representative Ron Paul stands for, and far more importantly, what he has done. Among other things, Ron Paul is the only congressmen who got up and demanded Congress declare war before attacking Iraq.

    Carl F. Worden

    About Ron
    Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record

    He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
    He voted against the Patriot Act.
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.

    He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

    Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
    Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill.

    Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren.

    While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.

    During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

    Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

    Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another colleague observed, “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.”
    May 05, 2007 Ron Paul Wins MSNBC Debate Poll
    Highest Positive, Lowest Negative
    In the MSNBC.com rating window of 72,419 votes at 8:10 PM EDT, Friday, May 4, Ron Paul not only had the highest positive rating:
    32% Paul
    30% Romney
    26% Giuliani
    21% McCain
    14% Huckabee
    9% Brownback
    9% Tancredo
    8% Hunter
    8% Thompson
    6% Gilmore

    …but he also had the lowest negative rating:

    29% Paul
    35% Romney
    37% Huckabee
    40% Giuliani
    42% McCain
    43% Gilmore
    43% Hunter
    45% Thompson
    45% Tancredo
    46% Brownback
    Posted on May 05, 2007 at 10:57 AM | Permalink
    May 04, 2007
    Press Release
    Ron Paul Wins MSNBC Debate Poll
    Ron Paul steps into national spotlight
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    May 4, 2007
    ARLINGTON, VA ­ Congressman Ron Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last night held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Dr. Paul received 43 percent, beating the second-place finisher by five points, and crushing the rest of the field.
    “Last night, Americans met Ron Paul and loved what they heard,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul’s message of freedom and limited government resonates with Republicans hungry for a return to their party’s core values.”
    “Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the GOP race. Americans saw that last night,” continued Snyder. “The campaign looks forward to further debates and opportunities so even more Americans will discover Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace and prosperity.”

  • conservativation

    Like him or not, Conservatives lose major credibility in the intellectual honesty department, and indeed in the intellectual department overall when they lemming like walk behind sound snippet candidates like the major three. Worse, while I hate to use the word change because it is over used, which of the 3 top candidates is going to even give the appearance of TRYING to take new positions or boldly oppose old ones. Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul, very different men, VERY “outsider he box” thinking.

    Libertarian puritanism is a bit naive, but there are some of their positions that are inarguably correct constitutionally and conservatives reveal a great deal of inconsistency when speaking to those matters. Not only will we not fix social security, for example, under one of the top 3, we won’t even do more then hear about it a bit in the egneral election. I would like to say it sounds arrogant to just bash Paul, but actually it sounds sad to see gorown men embrace empty suits and sound bites with such vigor, repeating vacuous phrases and cliches uttered by the top 3 as if they have actually make a statement with substance.

    I live down here with Will, and I won’t be included in the “us down here” that completely dismiss Paul. In fact, being involved in the local republican party at the precinct level for a number of years in a county neighboring Harris (where Houston is) a lot of my colleagues in the county feel the same way as I do about Ron Paul. Notwithstanding it’s accuracy or lack, an opinion about Nixon likely wouldn’t be that big a deal, even if it was wrong, if it was uttered by McCain or Romney would it Will? It would be interesting to see the direct challenges to Pauls positions, in detail, Will in a column from you, explaining away any constitutional claims he may make. I may not favor running away from the war, in fact Im very opposed, but I have a hard time debating substantively SOME of Pauls contentions on it. Its just not good enough to say “No sane, historically knowledgeable person would support Ron Paul, and certainly no one but a few on the fringe take him seriously.” We get frustrated at the left for banality like this in their attacks, the expectation because the superior intellect has rendered so and so inadequate the rest of us must fall in line, then we see our side doing exactly the same thing. Thats why we will get the government we diserve. Thats why Republicans will drift left, election after election at the Presidential level.

    I do not support Pauls ultimate bid for the White House. I’m glad he’s in the race though.

  • red pill

    Ron Paul is no doubt and especially when compared to his collegues, a righteous dude in touch with traditional American ideals. He’s just getting no traction whatsoever, although it may be the Libertarian association what’s greased his wheels. The other aspect is that if nobody bankrolling the back rooms and handing out cigars has any dirt on him, he can’t be controlled and as such is a potential liability to the established powerbrokers. Likely the fastest way to politically advance is to make ones bones and play along, knowwuddaImean?……

  • Menck

    The man seems to possess legitimate integrity as a principled politician — which naturally disqualifies him for the position, in the view of most.

    Pitiful, isn’t it?

  • jomama

    Will Malven:

    What branch of the government do you work for?






Search