Caucus system under fire

The presidential caucus system is under attack after embarrassing contests in Iowa and Nevada put on national display missing ballots, endless counting delays and lots of confusion.

The result is Republican activists calling for big change to the antiquated system, particularly to the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses.

“All the candidates are out there slogging around at Christmastime and New Year’s, and then they produce a non-result result and they can’t even get the count right,” said David Norcross, a former Republican National Committee general counsel and New Jersey GOP committeeman.

Norcross told POLITICO that Iowa’s Jan. 3 caucuses were “numbingly stupid.”

“How foolish is it for everyone to go to Iowa the first week in January when there are no delegates selected and they can’t even get the vote right? It’s just a joke, it’s Iowa’s joke on you and all of us.”

Post Continues on

Posted in 2012 Election, Culture, Ethics, Government, Law, Politics, State Government Tagged with: , , , , ,
70 comments on “Caucus system under fire
  1. Raymond says:

    An Amish farmer walking through his field, notices a man drinking from his pond. The Amish man shouts: “Trink das wasser nicht. Die kuhen haben dahin gesheissen,” which means: “Don’t drink the water; the cows have crapped in it.” The man shouts back: “I’m Barack Obama, I don’t understand. Please speak in English. “The Amish man says: “Use two hands, you’ll get more.”

  2. As someone from the Ron Paul camp explains, the reason for the confusion is all due to Republican leadership trying to game the system for Romney. First off, Romney states like Florida (Jewish retired vote), Nevada and Arizona (LDS states), had their primaries moved up to give Romney a steamroller effect. Second, the caucuses were designed to have a beauty pagent vote for the candidates, and then the voters were to go home, instead of staying for the actual selection of delegates. Romney was supposed to have the organization to take advantage of this sleugh of hand. In fact, Ron Paul's organization seems to be taking advantage of it and may have won several delegate counts.

    Still, the caucus system can be done right. It can allow local citizens to come together to decide for themselves how to select delegates, instead of letting the national Judeo-MSM brainwash them as to what they want.

    • stillmoral says:

      Get this straight, Ron Paul is rejected by a vast majority of Americans. He is not wanted. What's he going to do with his leftover campaign funds? Convert them to his own private use like he did in o8? And your Antisemitism is showing, but then again, you support the guy who wrote all those racist newsletters. The people who control the MSM are GODLESS PEOPLE regardless of their surnames.

      Romney however, is destroying the Republican campaign. By now this dog and pony show would have been over if not for his vicious smear campaigns. Gingrich would have had the nomination sewn up as Romney was losing badly to him. Unfortunately, people believed all his lies, distortions and doctored videos. Not even someone as fine as Ronald Reagan would have been able to overcome this filth. And please don't give me that oft quoted, the heart of Conservatisjm is Libartarianism. RR would never in a million years have embraced the lunacy of a Ron Paul foreign policy. All Romney has done is give power to Obama. Mitt Romney will not be the nominee and he has made me not just dislike his politics, but despise him as a man.

      • Sue says:

        This is true Paul's lunatic foreign policy would stop Israel and other countries from taking our money. It would create a more even handed approach to the middle east. Old, young, white, black, religious and non all find solace in his message. He can unite the country if our media gave him any air time. He believes in our country. I agree, this is sheer lunacy.

        • stillmoral says:

          Keep hitting the Ron Paul bong. Does he give them out to all his supporters to keep them in a state of unrealtiy? BTW I notice you completely ignored all the other good stuff I wrote about him.

      • MartinRidens says:

        Wow, such authority. Sounds like you support Gingrich. I disagree with just about everything you've said.

        Once people learn what Ron Paul is really saying, instead of listening to the talking heads on TV, quite a few of them end up agreeing with him and accepting him. His poll numbers have been steadily rising and, unlike the other guys, once someone begins to support Ron Paul very few ever stop supporting him.

        • Cliffystones says:

          The more I've heard Ron Paul himself speak, the more I want to shake his hand. He knows exactly what he's talking about. Kudos to Neil Cavuto for having him as a guest several times over the past year. Dr. Paul can explain his positions (which don't fit into "soundbites") and anyone truly listening with half-a-brain will come to realise that he's the only one who cares about our rights and the direction this nation is headed.

        • stillmoral says:

          People have learned what Ron Paul is. That's why he will get nowhere. Only the fools who live in lala land support this whack job.

        • MartinRidens says:

          Again, your insight is profound and the factual supoort you provide is astounding. Stop being a cheap ad for liberal propagabda 101 classes and either STFU or buy a clue from someone with a brain.

        • MartinRidens says:

          That's propaganda 101

        • stillmoral says:

          Ron Paul – From His Newsletter — Regarding Race

          1989 – Cited regarding gays, apparently finding the first paragraph with a focus on racism ignorable,…. I do find the second paragraph exaggerated but accurate to a degree.

          1990 – May, in visual scanning, I didn't find the citation mentioned in the article, but instead at the bottom, warnings of the coming race war,….

          1990 – October issue of Ron Paul “Political Report” re: Martin Luther King (highlighted) and disparaging conservative Jack Kemp (unhighlighted below)….

          1990 – re: proudly signing an ad by “Jews and Christians against another Mideast war” (unhighlighted) and complementing David Duke (highlighted) –….

          1991 – re: race riots (un-highlighted) prior to taking credit for discoveries about Martin Luther King claim announced in the Ron Paul newsletter previously (highlighted)….

        • stillmoral says:

          Ron Paul – From His Newsletter Regarding Gays

          January 1990 – This, to me, is an illustration of needless commentary, saying exactly what the article says. The story about Dan Rather that followed was likely set aside due to the rantings in “AIDSomania” before it,….

          Jan 1994 – Ron Paul claims he is citing a New York Times article, though without any reference to date nor the author's name, etc.,….

        • stillmoral says:

          September 1994 – Ron Paul Survival Report where he sets forth the circumstances to avoid getting AIDS, claiming it only exists in heterosexuals via a “malicious gay,” relying on a false sense of security in being a heterosexual, which many people erroneously assumed was the way to be “immune” from getting AIDS,…. You will note that Mr. Paul mentions the AIDS conference in Japan, couching the cited paragraph as though it was a conclusion and result of the AIDS conference, of which Mr. Paul fails to give any proof of the admission he claims was made by AIDS scientists at the conference, that they lied about heterosexual cases for financial reasons. Though this could be true, I would need some proof.

        • stillmoral says:

          Conclusion – General Reasons These Disqualify Ron Paul and Impeach his Credibility Entirely:

          1) Ron Paul would have to be a complete incompetent to allow these newletters to be written in his name over almost a 5 year period of time (if he didn't write them himself to play on people's fears etc., never thinking he'd ever run for President, which I believe may be the case in this matter).

          2) The focus and persistent attention to race is an attribute we already have in the White House, and I do not wish to experience it from an opposing or other racial perspective, nor do we need this to be played upon in 2012 to gin up the Progressive democrat, ignore the Dixiecrat history, base.

        • stillmoral says:

          3) When you look at the January 1990 article regarding gays, do you see a libertarian who believes government shouldn't be involved, or an anti-gay person who is making every effort to be involved through his commentary, to use his newsletter as a “bully pulpit?” I am not gay, nor do I advocate or think such behavior is right, however, I do not believe that holding to AIDS as being only in the gay community, as well as assuming sodomy is merely an act of male homosexuality, is responsible, particularly as a means to share a “libertarian” statement made by someone else, and, is definitely a sign of the kind of person we do not need in the White House.

        • stillmoral says:

          4) A Tea Partier cannot vote for Ron Paul for this simple reason: it wasn't that long ago that the Tea Party was called racist. The Tea Party, the Constitutional Conservative movement of Founders' Style Patriotic Americans standing up for Individual Liberty, would be crushed. If the Tea Party does not wish to be branded racist as an earned neutralization of their entire political clout that showed itself in 2010, does not wish to have all notions of Sovereignty and Constitutional Conservatism buried under a relentless propaganda campaign of how these relate to the bigotry demonstrated by Ron Paul and by our voting for this man, or bigotry expressed by these newletters of almost 5 years duration, including a portion of the time when he was a Congressman, then we cannot vote for Ron Paul.

        • stillmoral says:

          Then again, maybe Americans no longer care about the Constitution, Our Founders, Individual Liberty, nor the reality that all men and women are created equal, that by each Individual's use of their unalienable Rights we rise in our respective sphere of talent and capability, some lucrative, some merely a desire to serve irrespective of recompense, some dishonorable/corrupted (as exist in all systems), and will be more likely a larger segment of society in genuine Freedom. Yes, we might actually have to go to the trouble of monitoring our government, assuming it will not take care of itself, and that we must be engaged; engaged to enforce a term limit with our vote; engaged to file any legal action necessary to mandate or prohibit government from acting inconsistent to how we chartered them by Our Written Constitution, enumerating specific, and not general, powers of a compound republic to serve the Citizens of this nation.

        • stillmoral says:

          Our Citizenship is vast today, embracing many more than it did when the nation was founded of many different walks of life by culture, color, religious belief and even by lack thereof. Individual Liberty is expressed in these differences, it is these differences that testify to the value of our God-Given Freedom, and that is the whole point, isn't it?

        • stillmoral says:

          We already have a divisive Socialist in the White House, one who uses the differences to divide the People at every opportunity he can — to divide the Sovereign, a people whose lives are each enjoyed as they see fit, not as government has corralled them to believe.

          If we wish another 4 years of Barack Hussein Obama and a completely divided America, please, vote for Ron Paul to be the GOP nominee.

        • MartinRidens says:

          OK, good to see you doing some work. Let me give you a hint on doing research though. You need to scrutinize information from conservative sources, follow up on statements made, check your own facts, watch out for opinions masquerading as facts..

          But, when you start going to ultra-liberal sites like The New Republic and Think Progress you have to be even more careful and do even more follow up on the information you find there.

          I would suggest actually reading those newsletters instead of scanning for sound-bites to support your pre-conceived notions. Then do research on the events the articles in the newsletters are referencing. For example, the St. Patrick's Cathedral demonstration. Don't just take the opinion of the editors over at The New Republic because you like what they say. Never stop doing research when you get an answer you like.

          I admire the energy and sincerity you seem to have and wonder, if it wasn't directed by so much propaganda, what a contribution you could make to truly uniting Americans. Just looking at your last paragraph, it seems a divided America is not something you want to promote. I have to ask how the rhetoric of any of the other three candidates promotes unity in America? They aren't even very good at promoting unity in the republican party.

          What can, and will, unite Americans is our love of liberty and using the Constitution to tame the wild beast our federal government has become. The extreme radical left hates Ron Paul even more than the republicans. But, your average everyday citizen whether they've been lied to and believe the republicans or the democrats will respond to the message of liberty!

          Ron Paul 2012 – The R3volution

        • stillmoral says:

          Aside from his racist newsletters, which he can never in a million years disassociate himselft from, I have heard his whacked out foreign policy for myself. I would never vote for someone with a foreign policy worse than Comrade Obama's. Not to worry, he won't get the nomination thank God. Of course you do realize he is teaming up with Romney against Newt and Santorum. That's why he never goes against Romney. BTW, you still haven't addressed the issue of his taking the 2008 campaign money that was left over and converting it for his own personal use.
          How about his serial violation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. He is #4 for bringing home the pork. First he sticks the earmarks in, then votes no, fully aware the bill will pass. Then the old fraud turns and says, " I never voted for an earmark". 25 lackluster years in Congress and only one minor bill he put forth has passed. Real leadership. LOL

        • MartinRidens says:

          Go read the bills he sponsored then ask yourself why they didn't pass. I see almost the exact same words over and over again from those bashing Ron Paul like, "serial violation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution". Makes me wonder if you all just get a sheet of garbage to use and then cut and paste away. That section enumerates the powers granted to Congress.

        • stillmoral says:

          Paul is a usurper as he takes PORK that is outside the Article I section 8 enumerated powers. he votes against bills that he asked committees to put in his ear marks for PORK – what a simple deceiver is he?

          He who steals a little steals with the same wish as he who steals much, but with less power.

        • stillmoral says:

          Paul’s positions fall apart when you ask one question however…. How?

          I’ll demonstrate using a few issues based upon Ron Paul’s campaign talking points from his campaign site. You don’t have to believe me — you can read Paul’s official positions for yourself. I’m just helping you see through the rhetoric, to the reality.

          Abortion – Ron Paul is on record as opposed to abortion. He is also on record as opposed to outlawing abortion, which of course allows abortions to continue. His reasoning is that abortion is not a federal issue, but rather a state issue. – Really?

          Most of what our federal government engages in today is not a federal issue assigned to D.C. via the constitution, abortion included. However, a true constitutionalist does not use a Tenth Amendment argument to run from constitutional reality and responsibility.

        • stillmoral says:

          Every true constitutionalist knows that the Declaration of Independence established the fundamental foundational principles upon which all else was erected, and that LIFE is the very first “unalienable right” in our Declaration of Independence. This means that protecting the sanctity of innocent life is indeed a matter of utmost constitutional concern and authority.

        • stillmoral says:

          Constitutionalists also know that the authority to make law was given exclusively to congress, not the courts, and thus, that Roe vs. Wade actually has no bearing on the legal status of abortion, as it could not “make law.” Abortion is the taking of innocent life, not in self-defense, which also happens to be the definition of murder. As congress has made no law legalizing murder, including in the form of abortion, Ron Paul’s position that this is not an issue for the federal government is incorrect and unconstitutional.

        • stillmoral says:

          Paul is right to say that government’s first job is to protect the people’s rights. As a doctor, Paul confirms that life begins at conception. Abortion is a constitutional matter because LIFE is an unalienable constitutional Right. Why is Paul focused on liberty as a fundamental right, but not life, without which there can be no liberty or happiness? The protection of innocent LIFE is of utmost constitutional concern and authority and every true constitutionalist knows it.

          Immigration – Ron Paul is on record as opposed to amnesty for millions of illegal migrants currently living in America and ongoing illegal immigration. He is reportedly for securing the borders and enforcing our immigration laws. So am I…

        • stillmoral says:

          But Paul is also on record as opposed to deporting illegal invaders, which means they stay, in some form of amnesty, aka reform. Constitutionalists concerned with the equal enforcement of our laws understand that capturing and deporting illegals is the only way to enforce our immigration laws.

          Paul says that our immigration laws are unfair. Apparently, he is not aware of the fact that America has the most lenient immigration laws on earth and that if we used Mexico’s immigration laws, we wouldn’t have an immigration problem.

        • stillmoral says:

          Paul says that as president, he will eliminate all taxpayer-funded freebies for illegals. That means public schooling, health care, food stamps, welfare, government housing and college grants, all of it. However, many of these freebies are offered by the states, as in California. How will Paul use the Oval Office to mandate California policies regarding state benefits for illegal immigrants, keeping Paul’s firm pro-Tenth Amendment status in mind?

          Once again, Paul attempts to walk a tightrope between appearing concerned with illegal immigration without actually addressing true enforcement of our immigration laws, opposing amnesty while insuring that millions of illegal invaders will remain in America under some form of amnesty, under the guise of reform.

        • stillmoral says:

          The Economy – Paul is on record for smaller government and less taxation. So are all the other GOP candidates and most Americans. This is an easy one for everyone, until you ask the question, how?

          Nowhere in Paul’s campaign does he address the reality that it is largely government employee labor unions that are bankrupting both Federal and State governments, with huge unfunded benefits and pensions that no other American taxpayer enjoys. Nowhere does Paul talk about all of the European nations currently folding under the weight of excessive government labor unions, or the well-known socialist international labor stranglehold on America, including in education.

        • stillmoral says:

          But Paul does attack evil corporate America, private sector industry responsible for private sector employment and the private productivity that made America the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth. What is Paul’s idea of economic liberty?

          Paul says he will eliminate all federal income, capital gains and death taxes, which account for roughly 60% of the federal revenue stream — while not mentioning payroll taxes, which account for about 36% of federal revenues and fail to fund the related 60% of the federal budget which is social spending.

        • stillmoral says:

          Not one penny of social spending is “constitutional.” Paul assaults national security and military spending, but not the social spending responsible for our economic demise, now representing 60% of all federal spending.

          Constitutionally speaking, only about 7% of the current federal revenue stream was constitutional prior to 1913. I’m in favor of repealing all 1913 Amendments. Is Ron Paul?

        • stillmoral says:

          Paul says “end the Federal Reserve,” which was also formed in 1913. But he does not say what we should replace it with — A Soviet-style government banking system?

          He says the dollar is a “fiat currency,” which is technically true in that every government sanctioned currency is a fiat currency. That’s the definition of fiat currency, an official currency sanctioned by government as a means of exchange. Contrary to Paul’s use of the term, it is not a dirty word.

        • stillmoral says:

          He says we should return to a gold standard, knowing that America does not have the gold to back up even 30% of the currency currently in circulation and not recognizing why we left the gold standard to begin with. It was not stable… Is there any faster way to crash the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy? Even Obama will crash it slower than that.

        • stillmoral says:

          He says we don’t know who owns the Federal Reserve, but we do. It is owned by its member banks, about 3000 of our nation’s 8000 private banks.

          He says we don’t know who runs it, but we do. It is run by a government appointed Board of Governors.

        • stillmoral says:

          He would refuse to raise the debt ceiling again, but has not addressed how to end deficit spending and until we do that, the debt ceiling will continue to rise.

          National Security – First, Paul doesn’t call it “national security,” he calls it national defense, indicating his non-interventionist belief that America can defend itself without engaging an increasingly dangerous world, or using preventative measures.

        • stillmoral says:

          Paul does not recognize the threat of Radical Islam that has existed in this world for centuries and now exists on our soil. When he has been forced to address the threat of Radical Islam, he blames America for the terrorist operations that have been part of Islam much longer than America has existed.

        • stillmoral says:

          Paul takes a solidly passive view of national security, promising to respond to attacks rather than prevent attacks on the United States. Explain that policy to those left behind after the attack.

          Paul opposes The Patriot Act put in place to deal with the fact that we have allowed terrorists to live among us. But he does not address what to do about the terrorists living among us or discuss how he will prevent an event worse than 9/11. He doesn’t even acknowledge the very real threat that exists at terror training camps on our soil today.

        • stillmoral says:

          I am not in favor of the Patriot Act either, but I am also not for allowing terrorists to live among us, another reason why we should be deporting illegal invaders instead of opposing amnesty while also opposing deportation.

        • stillmoral says:

          Despite the fact that Iran is currently producing nuclear power and long-range missiles, Paul does not see Iran as a potential nuclear threat. Despite Iran’s repeated promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, Paul thinks Israel is the problem and should be left to defend itself alone.

        • stillmoral says:

          I can keep going here, issue after issue and in the end, I can use reality to debunk the constitutional-sounding rhetoric used to promote Ron Paul.

        • MartinRidens says:

          This is hillariuos

        • stillmoral says:

          Eisenhower issue

          Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, The Politician, "Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes." He went on. "With regard to … Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason."[44]

          The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician.[45]

        • stillmoral says:

          The sensationalism of Welch's charges against Eisenhower prompted several conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and the intellectuals of William F. Buckley's circle, to renounce outright or quietly shun the group. Buckley, an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as "paranoid and idiotic libels" and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the Birch Society.[46] From then on Buckley, who was editor of National Review, became the leading intellectual spokesman and organizer of the anti-Bircher conservatives.[47] In fact, Buckley's biographer John B. Judis wrote that "Buckley was beginning to worry that with the John Birch Society growing so rapidly, the right-wing upsurge in the country would take an ugly, even Fascist turn rather than leading toward the kind of conservatism National Review had promoted."[47]\\certified EXTREME

    • azwayne says:

      The entire system is idiotic at best, it is propaganda covering party controlled picking of candidates, but people give money thinking it makes a difference. Hugest waste of good money in the country. First time is idiocy, starting to disrupt a years ahead of election is beyond pure waste. Selecting party representative should be done in september after ALL candidates get ONE month on equal tv and media. then these caucuses are joke, but the real problem we need to find honest people with capability of counting ballots halfway accurately. Would be huge improvement. Current system election 2 years campaigning then another election, votes and publicity all campaigning this is congress, president is 4 years campaigning, one month is enough for all.

  3. paulc says:

    I recently attended the local caucus here in Minnesota. The caucus gives an opportunity for individual expression concerning candidates and resolutions that a primary vote never facilitates.

    Keep the caucuses–they are a part of a representative republic, not a hysterical democracy,

    • FlaJim says:

      What you describe is precisely the problem with the caucus system. One smooth talking proponent for one candidate can sway many voters in a single precinct instead of having voters examine the issues in advance and formtheir own opinions and express them in a secret ballot in primary election.

      Questions decided by commitees or caucuses lead only to skewed results that represent only consensus and compromise, not principled decisions.

  4. Charlotte Juett says:

    And if they ever get around to having the last county caucuses and having the votes counted, once again the RNC will have to eat its words and Ron Paul will have won Maine. But they probably won't count them until after Arizona.


    Want to get rid of something? Dump the electoral vote and stay totally with the popular vote.

    The electoral vote is just a corrupt as any politiciqan.

    • dingbat36 says:

      I see. now you suggest that the founders were corrupt? The elector system is written into the Constitution!! Perhaps you are more like those on the left who pick and choose what they like (and don't) in our founding documents.

      • azwayne says:

        The constitution described voting at a time of very limited communication, I think we have progressed a little. The electoral system was designed so all people didn't yhave to meet in one location to vote. We do have other capabilities today. And they would certainly be more fair.

        • stillmoral says:

          I have some reservations about changing the electoral college system as many LIBERAL have tried for decades to go to a popular vote which would give the big blue states a huge advantage in national elections.

    • Cliffystones says:

      Popular vote? Have you noticed most of the "populace" lately? There are many folks who would screw up a "popular vote" for dog catcher, forget about Commander-In-Chief.

      I like the saying "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote!"

    • Don DeHoff says:

      Seabee, you want New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and California, controlling what is good for the other 45 states? Think ahead sir.

  6. dolores tamoria says:

    Elections are TOO Long, Cost TOO Much and are becoming TOO Corrupt. With present day technology we don't need to spend all that money it's absolutely obscene. The Peoples Vote Is what Counts. The Caucuses should be based on a better way of determining the number of delegates and not beauty contests for potential Candidates. One really good debate on THE ISSUES each months for 6 months should be enough.

    • azwayne says:

      You are 100% correct, but I think about 3 months is more than enough, really we can't judge a person's abilities after 3 or 4 appearances?? September, look at what incumbents have done, look what newcomers can express in several debates, don't allow propaganda machines, biased media to sway uneducated sheeple. Put it all in public, we're already paying for PBS and NPR why not make them put on america's business?

  7. ricbee says:

    Sure the caucus system sucks but what is the alternative?

    • El Loco says:

      The alternative is primary elections with voter and party affiliation verification. Then Democraps, who vote early and often, can't select the Repub nominee.

    • azwayne says:

      Think outside the box, first the two party system needs killed. allowing the corrupt leaders to control the government is ridiculous. They have the system under total control. Ther is really ONE party Corrupt politicians, the ones that rule the population and take all they can get away with. We have many systems that can quickly collect and tabulate voters desires. Mostly by computer useage. Get people, corrupt party lemmings out of the process. Corruption bounds, Get the money OUT of politics, ALL possible. If we gave the media thru pbs and npr people would receive all fair equal , no propagnda media. If anyone is not interested enough to watch and learn they shouldn't bother to vote. Now legal votes should be identifiable, is it really thay difficult to identy legal citizen voters?? Yes end all party controlled atrocities.

  8. El Loco says:

    What's wrong with a primary system that allows rampant electoral fraud? How else can the Democraps select the Repub candidate?

  9. ricbee says:

    I agree with azwayne,it is really a one-party system"The Corrupt Political Class". We must get rid of them.
    I hope the "Tree of Liberty" does not have to be watered by blood.

  10. Lyle says:

    Monday evening Gayle and I joined up with the Ron Paul caucus training event in Snohomish, WA in order to find out what it would take to be part of the electoral process.

    The next morning we had the day off and as we drove up the road on our little weekly outing, Gayle told me that she had trouble sleeping because she couldn’t get her mind off of the previous nights meeting.

    She told me that although she was aware of the nation’s plight and of the ongoing shenanigans of congress, etc., she was still stunned at what she had learned about the shady dealings of how caucuses were run.

    Although Gayle has worked for the government and has seen a lot of shenanigans, she said that this was over the top and a very rude awakening and that she is now seriously alarmed at what is going on in American politics and our system for electing our leaders.

    The establishment knows that the vast majorities of Americans are ignorant of how caucuses work and most could really care less and would just as soon place the burden of choosing a candidate with the other folks that run such things. They will simply vote for whoever the establishment offers up for the course.

    The truth is caucuses are run much the same as how Congress is run with all of the tricks and chicanery to go with it and the establishment is there with every trick available in the book to try to get their “Manchurian Candidate” on the ticket.

    So it is vitally important that we recruit as many folks as we can to show up at their caucus location on March 3rd and use their vote to ensure that a real candidate is placed on the ticket and Washington state has a real good chance to get Ron Paul on the ticket but we need every single person that we can get there to make certain that it happens. It will not happen without sufficient support.

    It is also very important to go to a caucus training meeting before you go to the caucus so that you know what to do and to know who to vote for. Other wise it is possible that you might inadvertently vote for the wrong folks. Know in advance and be prepared.

    This is our chance to beat the establishment at their own game and it is vital that we do because it would be the worlds biggest fiasco and mistake if we allow our hard earned freedom, that was bought by the blood and hardships of our forefathers, to simply go down the tube because we were to busy watching football to go to a caucus and vote for our freedom.

    Our primary Goal is to get Ron Paul elected to the White House as our president even though there are some that still believe the dribble coming out of the mainstream media and from the so called “non partisan” polls that would have you believe that Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance. That drivel is intentional and they don’t want you to know that Ron Paul is actually doing quite well and has a lot of support. In fact if the media were to do its job, heaven forbid, Ron Paul would be far in the lead and it would be a landslide event.

    We feel that if Washington succeeds in giving him the nod and support, other states that follow will see that “Yes you can vote for Ron Paul and make a difference” and follow suite. Ron Paul is very electable in spite of what the mainstream media and the not so “nonbiased” pollsters would want you to believe and would stir the masses into action come election time.

    In the event that we do fall short and Ron Paul does not get a chance to run against Barrack Obama, (heaven help us all and yes he would definitely win should he be given the chance), we still need for Dr. Paul to get a very strong support even if he does not succeed in getting the nomination.

    The reason is simple; whoever gets the final nod will have to throw Ron Paul a bone and the better he comes out in the primaries and caucuses, the bigger the bone that they will have to throw and we need him in a government position that would give him a chance to keep the president on a promising course, bring down the size of government, put the brakes on spending and to safeguard what freedoms remain.

    How much is your freedom worth?

    Is it worth spending a few hours at a caucus and sending the right people to Washington?

  11. SEAN MURRY says:

    Stay with the electial vote.

  12. Stephen Russell says:

    Realign the Primary Caucus system to those States with the most Populaiton.
    IE do Maine Last, Iowa last etc & begin Process in CA NV TX NM.
    Then Iowa, Then SC or do so by Regions.
    Do more online.
    If CA has Most populaiton by Census, then CA goes first.
    Iowa should cover the Midwest
    SC for SE US etc.
    Make changes