E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPUYALLUP, Wash. -- Ron Paul visited a caucus site about 45 minutes south of Seattle that had lines wrapped outside and across the parking lot here on the day of Washington state's caucus. Organizers said this year there were four times as many people attending the caucus.
When Paul arrived he was asked by a local reporter what he would tell the people who came out to caucus, Paul wryly responded, “Vote for Ron Paul.”
Paul went inside and greeted caucus goers who were waiting in line and walked into the caucus room where Republicans were seated by precinct. The Texas congressman posed for pictures, shook hands and discussed his foreign policy with two different men in the audience, one of them a veteran, who seemed receptive to his ideas. Some caucusgoers could be heard saying, even though they weren’t voting for Paul, it was nice that he visited their community.
When he asked an event organizer how long he had to speak, the man replied, typically it’s 3 minutes for surrogates, but they would give him 5 minutes, since he was a presidential candidate. Paul responded that his staff would let him know when to wrap up and that his speech was, “more or less to say hello.”
“I understand the crowd is very large today compared to before,” Paul opened his speech by saying. “I hope that is good news for our campaign!”
He emphasized the importance of the caucuses and what he believed the ultimate results should be.
“This is an important day," Paul said. "It’s an important day for our country; it’s an important day for your community; it’s an important day for next year’s election; it’s an important day to start the process to make sure that we no longer have Obama [as] president next year.”
Paul went on to say Republican candidates have some disagreements, but could all agree that “it’s a good idea to get rid of our current president and put in a Republican.”
Describing how the Republican Party strayed from its stated goals of limited government and deficit reduction, Paul told the crowd that has caused voters to be “frustrated.”
The Air Force veteran said the country is failing in it’s responsibility of national defense and of taking care of veterans. He also detailed his support from active duty military personnel and stated the reasons he believes they support his candidacy.
“The military knows exactly the fruitlessness of some of these wars that are going on," he said.
Paul closed his speech by acknowledging how the Republican Party is looking for a candidate that can beat President Obama and told them about a recent poll showing him beating Obama in a hypothetical race (though he didn't specify which that is. Most polling has him losing to President Obama and handily).
“I hope you remember that and I’d like to have your support. Thank you very much.”
As he walked to his vehicle in the parking lot, Paul responded to a question by NBC News on how he felt about the reception he received.
“I felt very good about it," he said. "A lot of enthusiasm there, delighted to have a large crowd, delighted they had a lot of Ron Paul stickers, too.”
Paul will hold a caucus results party at 7:00 pm ET at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center at Pier 66 in downtown Seattle, where he hopes to celebrate his first victory of the GOP nominating process.
Leave a Comment:
This will certainly make his cult followers happy! :o)
Kool-Aid anyone? lol
Worked out so well for the Jim Jones worshipers!
I will now collapse myself in 3...2...1...
Hi Feisty,
I actually went and caucused for him, if it wasn't for the Democrats crossing over to vote for Santorum, it would have been a landslide for the good Dr. in my district......
As it was, 50/50 split, Mitts shouldn't have bothered, at least in my district...
Egilman,
What part of your state was strong for Romney? Just looking at the percentages above showing Mitt winning.
For all of the supposed Ron Paul followers we see on other threads, they're certainly not showing up on this one. No wonder he doesn't get many votes, they forget to vote. All I can say is "Go Ronnie go! Go, go Ronnie go!" Make another flavor of the month so we can keep Willard frustrated.
Ron Paul is the flavor of the decade, why arent you noting the vote fraud in Iowa Maine and several other states?
How about the several hundred troops who marched on the whitehouse accompanied by several thousand civilians last month?
Ron Paul is second in delegate, it might take awhile for the main stream media to figure that out though.
Ron Paul took second behind Romney in my Town of Epping NH and took statewide second .
All this in spite of overwhelming media bias and voter fraud
Possible Spam
Uh oh! Our Spam Detection Apparatus has indicated that your contribution might be spam. It's probably just a mistake. Identify the characters below and you can be on your way.
Must be the default response to pro Ron Paul comments , thank you for reinforcing my point MSNBC
Hey fiesty, Health care bill, Patriot Act extension, NDAA, and the flavor of the day.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Your in the minority Chickie
There was actually an exit poll done by a citizen at the 2nd leg dis. that shows the 2nd went to Dr Paul by 10% I don't know where they are getting their numbers from, but what I saw, Dr Paul got the delegates.
In my Precinct, there were three votes for Mitts out of 24, Santorum got 11 and Dr Paul got 10, judging from their issue positions some of those for Santorum I suspect were crossovers.
What they are reporting does not match anything I saw...
Egilman
I think it is in the stage of We are going to count the rest in private. ;-) ;-)
I legitimately feel sorry for you Egilman. Ron Paul has lost Washington. I was hoping for a win that would embarrass the Republicans (a divided party is easier to beat). In any case, I understand how enthusiastic you guys were for him, and I encourage you to vote for Obama over these guys who want to turn this country into a military dictatorship.
Mr. Anon
Over what fascism? Not likely. With extending the Patriot Act, Health care mandate, NDAA, I will write Paul in. If he can have ethics for 40 years, I can have them for one.
Plus, our boys in the military really don't like our commander much. I am afraid for him.
Btw, at Dr Paul's rally in Puyallup after the Caucus, there were over 2000 supporters!
The last 30 or so rallies Dr Paul has had have all been in the multiple thousands, while mitts struggles to get more than a thousand, and Santorum has a hard time drawing over 500....
What does that tell ya.....(speaks volumes to me)
Egilman
Just out of curiosity, are not of his supporters showing up to vote? THe vote totals just don't add up compared to those that show up at rallies.
What happened when it was all done, was they (the party officials) were instructed to put all the materials in an envelope and seal it and turn it over to the State party official. They left nothing behind. what you are getting for returns are what is reported by the State party, not the County parties nor the precinct captains.
All I can say is what they are reporting is not what I witnessed. Add that to the known issues in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado and Michigan, then make your own judgement.....
Seems fishy to me...
See (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Obama_and_fascism). Patriot Act he was forced to extend because of a veto-proof majority in Congress; NDAA, contrary to popular belief, only codified an existing power created by Bush. Obama actually opposed the original bill, but like the Patriot Act he was forced to sign it because of a veto-proof majority. Health care mandate as you will find is not fascist, and likely the founding fathers would have had no problem at all (President Washington did not, see (http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/jan/13/einer-elhauge/harvard-law-professor-says-early-congress-mandated/)).
This is Carl Levin refusing to take the blame for what the President demanded. The ability to detain American citizens which was not part of the Patriot Act.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/
Congress is complicit and accessories.
Health care bill will hit the SCOTUS in the next few months and will most likely be struck down, with a slap in the face to Congress and the Administration.
The point is that our government is violating the Constitution, whether it is Congress or the President, it does not matter. They, instead of dealing with the problems that they should, like our debt and living within our means, are treading on our civil rights because they want to show that they are doing something for their money. We are being ruled and dictated to by the 10% right when right is in charge, and the 10% on the left when they are. That leaves 80% in the middle feeling like we just bent over for JohnnyHolmes
And, We count the rest in private.
I hope when Paul doesn't win the nomination, he goes to the convention, and walks out, with all his delegates leaving not enough for a nomination of another, destroying the Republican party. Then run third party, win the general election and destroy the Democratic party.
We need an America in the middle, for America.
Please look at (http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/12/indefinitedetentionbs.html), in the comments section Milt Shook addresses this well. Levin's statements were taken out of context; Obama opposed much of the indefinite detention provisions. These powers did not originate from the Patriot Act, but other stuff Bush passed that suspended Habeus Corpus.
I would advise you to actually read the politifact article I pointed to. George Washington and John Adams passed individual mandates with congresses made up of many framers of the constitution.
Problems I have with Ron Paul that I would like you to address. If I am incorrect in anything I state, please correct me.
Mr A,
We've been down this road before still trying to bait people into debating your opinions, you must really think we are stupid!
I'll break it down a bit for you.....
Actually, you prove where this comes from, until you provide a source of this position, we are not going to respond as it only represents an opinion, YOURS. You basically want us jumping all over the place to give you points to argue with incessantly over and over. I've told you we are not stupid and will not fall for this favored liberal tactic of keeping debate flowing forever to prevent any real answer.
You raised the issue, prove, or better put, VALIDATE the issue as a real issue, not your opinion.
More proof needed, where does this come from?
Yes he has, and it is all spelled out to the penny on his website and has been up for public consumption for well over six months, your answer is there.
Then by assuming you have made an ass of yourself again he clearly states on his website of cutting SPENDING by 1 trillion, not the deficit.....
This part doesn't make any sense whatsoever?
Wrong, Wrong, Massively Wrong and Completely False. Proof has been on his website for many months now, all it takes is a simple click to get the truth. Lets see your sources on this tripe?
The constitution clearly states that those rights not expressly granted to the government, or reserved to the various States, are the exclusive province of the states to determine. All he is doing here is enforcing the plain provisions of the constitution and it's amendments.
Again I ask for proof of what you claim here instead of opinion?
More opinion, how about using and providing some proof?
He hasn't said anything about ending any and all involvement with the world, in fact he will expand our dialogue in the world, increase trade and improve the value of the Dollar, he will not expand our military involvement in the world and will be a success without any losses. You can certainly believe me, anyone is foolish enough to attack us, watch out, because Dr Paul will unleash everything our military can bring to the table given what the situation requires.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that!
So here I am again, asking you to provide one iota of proof for your claims, we are not going to even try to argue your opinions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "proof". I'm just stating what Ron Paul himself said he would do. I have been hesitant to go to any candidate's specific website, as I don't want to help them win.
Federal Regulations: I got my information here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/22/9633112-how-air-conditioning-prostitution-and-raw-milk-could-give-ron-paul-problems
Note: Ron Paul appears to have been hesitant to mention this on his website. If he has come out and taken back those statements, please say so.
Taxation: The problem is $1 trillion in cuts won't create a balanced budget. In fact, with the massive revenue decreases that Paul intends to create, he'll actually raise the deficit. I understated the level of massive Tax Cuts that Paul intends; looking on his website, he wants to remove income and capital gains taxes completely, which will eliminate pretty much all revenue (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/).
Medicare: Paul has stated repeatedly that Medicare/Medicaid and even Social Security are unconstitutional (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/15/166363/paul-ss-medicare-slavery/). Paul also seems to fail to mention this on his site.
Social policy: For his actual quotes, see (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ron_Paul). The first and fourth amendments clearly protect privacy and personal expression. How is banning a certain type of sex not in violation of that? Same with contraception and abortion. In any case, if Ron Paul actually cared about that kind of personal liberty, he would fight for legislation or a constitutional amendment to keep government out of people's personal lives.
Foreign policy: Ron Paul has gone as far as to say we should not give foreign aid to natural disasters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/02/ron-paul-2012-tsunami_n_1179774.html). Yes, it would be nice if individuals were to donate themselves, but not everyone is charitable enough to do so. Ron Paul has also said that we should withdraw from things like NATO and the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#International_organizations). How is that supposed to help America's diplomatic role in the world?
Here's the poll he mentioned, from earlier this week:
Hm, the link didn't show up for some reason. Just do a google search for: Ron Paul Rasmussen Poll
http://tinyurl.com/6lqferl
It was a Rasmussen Reports poll that showed Paul ahead of Obama 43% to 41%.
In the same poll, Romney had 44% to Obama's 44%.
Most polling has Paul statistically tied with Obama.
It seems I missed that - could you post the link to substantiate your claim?
Thanks in advance!
here ya go Feisty.
hope you got it this time
Here ya go what? There's nothing there. Oh well, not surprising. Guess it goes with the territory.
Hey Feisty, hope you like my new av. It's my buddy, the original teabagger, Buford T. Justice. "I got you now you sumb-tch!"
It's not showing the link I pasted, but if you google "Rasmussen poll Ron Paul leads Obama" you'll get it.
http://tinyurl.com/6lqferl
Ron Paul bests Obama, if they dont show the link google it like I did
So, the GOP's #4 loser is looking for win #1? I have a feeling he is not going to find it in Washington.
As much as I respect Obama, Romney's concept on Afghanistan is quite correct.
I truly love how people only hear what they want to hear. The Rasmussen poll yielded a number based on a poll of 1000 "Likely Voters". I actually studied statistics and polling in college, and this number is far too low to yield a truthful representation of the attitudes of voters. Plus, you have to take into account that these 1000 are only made up of people who answered the phone. Rasmussen does phone polling. I don't know about you, but I tend to ignore unknown numbers on my phone, and so do most people. To really understand these numbers you have to see also the statistics on the type of person likely to take a phone survey. So the poll saying Ron Paul bests Obama is complete and utter tripe. Almost all phone polls are.
On a related note, the person who said he hopes Ron Paul decimates the Republican party by "taking all the delegates" and winning the popular vote from the Libertarian platform makes me giggle. This is not Ron Paul's first rodeo. And he's been thrown from the horse many a time. In 1988, he won .05% of the popular vote in the election. That's less than 500,000 votes. However, I'm all for it, because if Paul was on a third party ticket, the people voting FOR him would be taking votes AWAY from the Republican nominee. Anyway, while there is a grassroots movement for him, he would not do any better this time around. Just like Santorum's followers, you guys are the lunatic fringe. Definitely not the "80%" of the country. I know, like most people who only think of themselves, you think that your opinion is shared by everyone, and if it's not, then anyone who doesn't think like you are morons and evil. Yes, I am a liberal, but I actually do hold conservative beliefs in certain areas. What Ron Paul wants for our country would lead to anarchy. And while that may be fun to watch, it would destroy our country. We are too large a union to go back to state rule. The Constitution was written to be a part of a government that oversaw about 2.5 million people in 13 colonies, all of which were very close to each other. It is an outdated document in a place that has 317 million people in it now.
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. This is what Ron Paul stands for. This is an impossible and contradictory ideal. You cannot live in a country with any form of government and actually believe in this. Further, you cannot want to be the leader of that government and not be a hypocrite. Ron Paul believes this ideal, yet he wants to force his way of thinking on everyone else in the country. Please tell me how this works. He should be fighting for the dismantling of the government, not fighting to be a part of it. And as a last note, I don't want to live in a country whose leader is as selfish as Libertarians demand you be. Thankfully, I will not have to worry about that this time around. Unfortunately, the only thing I have to worry about is people starting to relate to Mitt Romney.
Actually, I think you should worry about a little bit more. There are signs. China and Japan, instead of using what is the global reserve currency, the US dollar, they are trading directly. Because of the threats from the US, Iran is selling its oil for gold, rather than the US dollar. It is an interesting listen.
http://www.crisis3.com/
Nothing about your reply related to anything I said in mine. The US dollar is only the reserve currency because the majority of the world's countries trade with us. We are seeing countries AVOID us being their reserve currency because our economy is tanking, and they can no longer trust us. So I'm not sure I see your point, other than that I should worry about how the rest of the world thinks we're a laughingstock? If I were Iran, I wouldn't sell for the US dollar either. Or China, who will own us in 25 years. I'm going to focus my concern on my government becoming an oligarchy if any of the GOP candidates win the office. Not that I am unduly concerned about that, really.
China is reducing its US debt, and has been. And heads in China sees us as a bad credit risk. You can google it. Did you even listen to the link. Who, of all the not broke countries are we going to outsource our debt to?
You, and most of America are fools.
Comments like this are what scare me as well as they sound threatening, the to big to fail mentality. Khylira, you should chose your words more carefully. Comments like that resemble a central form of government which leads to a dictatorship or totalitarian rule. Judging what happened in Germany, Russia, China and many other countries to name a few, I have no desire to go this way. However, since I'm an old man and will pass on some wisdom, be careful what you wish for heh heh.
And as with some others, I'm not sure if Mitt's claim is valid as I live in Washington State. The amount of people who voted, well, I'll take a line from another article about Russia's Putin, "voter fatigue has set in" among many people. They are getting tired of repubs and dems heh heh.
And finally, as for isolationism, I prefer that idea much better. We can still be isolated and have trade. There is nothing wrong with taking care of our own people and still have trade with others. It would also give America control of who we trade with and what we trade for. Example, if China refuses safe food controls, then we can stop any trade without harm to ourselves as we can trade for food with those who will obide by our food safety standards. As it is now, I refuse to buy food from foreign countries as I deem their food safety standards are considerably lacking. The proof is in the pudding so to speak heh heh.
if we have trade than it's not isolationism it's non-interventionism which is what Dr. Paul stands on.
You leave us alone we'll leave you alone, but if you make the mistake of messing with us we will come in kick your ass and go home, there will be no more nation building.
I certainly agree that defense spending needs to be drastically reduced, as does US troop presence in the world. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a diplomatic role with our allies. Ron Paul proposes withdrawing from the UN and NATO, which have prevented any major wars from happening since WWII. In the case of Israel, we helped create the country, so we have a moral obligation to protect it. In the case of Iran, we must keep the option of war on the table, because if we take it off then they will think they are able to do whatever they want.
Remember that because of this breed of "non-interventionism", Hitler (sorry, I had to pull a Godwin. I'm using this as a legitimate historical example, though) was able to take over Poland and France unopposed. England, the United States, and the Soviet Union only got involved after they were attacked. If they had taken steps in advance to prevent this stuff from happening, the war may have been stopped before it even began and we wouldn't have needed to kill hundreds of thousands in our nuclear bombs.
no. WE are the UN and NATO, I don't care how many other countries are in it, do you ever notice that no one else will do crap unless WE say we'll support you? Why do WE, the youngest country ever, have to play policeman of the world?
Being military in one form or another my entire life I totally see what you're saying, The only time we've ever "stopped a war" was when we didn't go forward with the "cold war" It would've been catastrophic for all of us.
Why is it "our job" to take care of (using Hitler) Poland or France? Shouldn't they make sure they can handle their own? OR if they want our help shouldn't they at least pay us or help pay for it? Our entire existence as a country we've been able to do it ourselves, yes in the beginning we got some help, but we've paid that back in spades.
Pre-emptive war is never a good war, look at vietnam, iraq, afghanistan and everything in between.
I'm sorry Mr. Anon, but we're tired, bone weary tired, and I can't see us being able to do this much longer, we are the greatest nation on earth because our hearts are so big that we want to save everyone, we just can't do it anymore.
I don't think this is the case. If it was, we would have had NATO intervene in Syria, but Russia and China intervened. The United States is one of the most influential nations in the UN and NATO, but that is fitting. If we had consulted our allies before barging into Iraq, we wouldn't have had an 8 year long war.
I see what this disagreement between us is. Your argument is based on the United States' moral duties, while mine is based on a kind of utilitarian ideal. However, I still say that the United States has a moral obligation to support our major allies such as England, France, and Israel that we can't abandon. There's also the case of whether a dangerous country, if left alone, could develop into something dangerous to us, as did Germany and Japan during WWII.
I certainly agree there have been cases where pre-emtive war failed. That's why we don't need to go into all-out war in order to support our allies. John McCain recently proposed sending aid to Syrian rebels in the form of weapons, which would have negligible costs. Libya took minimal US costs and was successful within months.
I'm essentially proposing a return to "speak softly and carry a big stick". During Bush, the policy was "Yell loudly, and when a dog barks, shoot it".
GOOD
Nice going, Ron Paul, you deranged old coot. You've virtually guaranteed a RINO will get the nomination now.
Let's get this straight, whack-job. You, "Mr. Limited Government" spent millions and millions of your fanatics' money to destroy all the rightwing candidates in the GOP primary, but never said a word against Romney in any debate or in any ad until this week when you barely touched him.
And you trashed Gingrich, the guy who balanced the budget for 4 years, 3 years by on-budget standards.
And you trashed Santorum, a guy who checks almost every box on the rightwing agenda, including being there for balanced budgets in the 90's, against abortion, etc etc.
But you never attacked the big government liberal 1 time November through February, when it mattered. The guy who signed Obamacare into law, in his state. Obamacare, that would be the biggest BIG GOVERNMENT program in 40 years.
Mr. Ltd Govt never attacks the worst big government guy, that makes a lot of sense.
Were you ever running a real campaign or are you just Mitt Romney's secret lover?
All the damage you did to the real rightwingers is really helping you in your two way race against Romney in Virginia, now that you've consolidated support behind him:
NBC poll from today, Virginia primary: Romney 69%, Paul 26%. You trail by 43.
Nice going, you crazy old piece of trash. Thanks for putting in the biggest RINO of them all. And that makes sense that you wouldn't attack the guy who installed Obamacare in his state...because you're such a "small govt" guy, right.
Nobody's fault but your own Chesty, maybe you shouldn't have spent so much time talkin @!$%# eh? The rest of us REAL supporters will still vote for Dr. Paul.
I love seeing you Republicans attacking each other! Please continue!
In all seriousness Ron Paul did attack Romney for Romneycare, and he did so multiple times in his ads. Paul and Santorum clashed a lot in social issues, while Paul and Gingrich clashed on foreign policy. But Paul also attacked Romney for his so-called "big government"-ness.
Thank you Mr. Anon it pains us Paul supporters to be "Republicans" this go round, it makes me gag every time I see his name near any of the others, Santorum, Romney, Gingrich are freekin warmongering whores, unfortunately most people refuse to look past that horrid R next to his name and actually pay attention to what he's saying.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the other Republicans seem to completely ignore him. They never seem to address his foreign policy ideas, despite constantly claiming it is Obama who wants to "eliminate the military". And when they go to fiscal issues, each of them tout themselves as "the only real conservative", when in actuality Paul has proposed much larger cuts and much larger tax breaks.
Again, I don't support Ron Paul, but I like watching him destroy his fellow candidates in debates. I hope Ron Paul stays in the race and reveal more of the GOP's hypocrisy and corruption.
Paul will be listed as an independent candidate for the general election so vote independent...all of you... conservative, liberal, independent...vote for him and change the world...
No he won't we all have to change to R's *gag* or we write him in
I am not a prayer but if you are, start praying for write in's!!! So our weather sucks Fitz, its cold again :( !!
Sorry TFG that's my fault :( my friend from Iowa is coming to visit (the person who kept me from going completely bat@!$%# crazy while we were stationed there) guess us Texans are trying to make her feel at home in anyway we can ;) But the rain is good and we're supposed to have warmer weather this coming week!