Ron Paul: Here's why I'm not winning primary states

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas speaks at a rally in Spokane, Wash. on Friday, March 2, 2012.

/ AP

SPOKANE, Wash. - Rep. Ron Paul on Friday told a crowd here that the reason he's not winning primary states is because "changing a hundred years of history takes a little bit of time." But the Texas congressman said he "expects to do real well here" in Saturday's caucus.

Paul, who has yet to win a state, is seen trailing GOP presidential rivals Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in several polls coming out of the Wolverine State. But the process, a nonbinding caucus that selects its delegates after the straw poll, has tended to do well for Paul in the past, thanks to his core of loyal supporters.

"I know we've always had good support here, we always have enthusiastic crowds," he said following a rally at the Spokane Convention Center that drew around 1,000 people. "The system lends itself to the people who are energetic and will participate, so I'm cautiously optimistic, but I have no number that I can give you."

Responding to a recent Associated Press article calling him "desperate" for his first state win, he said, "I never feel desperate about it ... and actually, our strategy is that you can come in second and third a lot of times and start accumulating [delegates], and even some places where we weren't first, we're gonna come in first with the number of delegates in some of these states, because we know how the system works."

But earlier this week in Michigan, where Paul had said he hoped to reach the 15-percent threshold in order to secure delegates, he fell short by several percentage points - a result he called "a disappointment."

He also joined Santorum, who is challenging the final delegate allocation in the state, in questioning what he said were "some strange things that go on" during vote totaling.

In addition to Washington, Paul will spend the days leading up to Super Tuesday campaigning in Alaska and Idaho.

Full CBS News coverage: Ron Paul

28 Photos

Ron Paul on the campaign trail

[nancy_naive]

Why you're not winning?

Aside from being crazier than a feret on fire, you've accomplished NOTHING in your time in Congress. Every Ron Paul sponsored bill goes into committe and DIES, because even your own party won't release one of your wacko bills to the floor for a vote.

[Tichobar]

Oh boy, look another ******-drinking establishment sycophant with an opinion.

Like you puds offer any solutions.

[nancy_naive]

That IS the problem... neither does Ron Paul.

[WalterCronkiteJr]

Ron Paul isn't winning states because 90% of his supporters are independents, unaffiliated and can't vote in the primaries. They are free-thinkers who arrived at their support for Paul without help from the mainstream media (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc. all the same).

Look at national and state polls vs. Pres. Obama. You might be surprised who's winning. That will never be reported on air but you can read it at Rassmusen, Gallup, etc.

Without Paul in Congress in 2013 to be a voice of reason, I'm scared to think of what might get passed without us hearing about it.

[JulianAlien]

Gee,I thought it was because of the vote fraud,in every State so far.

[josephle2k]

Our government has been operating without a moral compass for decades and without a moral compass, the rule of law is meaningless.

Neo-conservatism, which follows the philosophy of Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol, along with the modern-day liberals who accept the principle of authoritarianism, provides no moral leadership. And most people in Washington, though influenced by both ideologies in various forms, may not be devout followers or even aware of their influence.

There are no neat categories in which members of Congress can be placed. The Obama administration, though continuing many of the policies of the neoconservatives of the previous administration, is not as visibly run by the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute. But it makes little difference.

The prevailing attitude in Washington has evolved because there has been no moral compass or respect for the rule of law or individual liberty.

Regardless of what party is in power, social welfarism, government regulation of personal nonviolent habits, and foreign military entanglements never change, despite the campaign promises regarding the Constitution or freedom. Policies are dictated by prevailing attitudes and influenced by the ideology of the establishment that supports unlimited government. So-called conservatives' support for preventive wars and so-called liberals' support for social welfare policies always prevail in the moral vacuum that exists. Everything that happens in Washington is done in defiance of the moral precepts that undermine individual liberty.

Without a moral foundation to government policies, the purpose of government no longer has any resemblance to the intent of those who settled our country and rebelled against the tyranny of King George.

The majority of Americans today expect to be taken care of by the government. They care little about where the government will get the resources to satisfy all the needs that might arise. Certainly there's little concern expressed about the morality of a welfare state associated with massive economic intervention. Those who are on the receiving end of the government transfer system, whether it's the wealthy, the poor, or the middle class, don't want to be bothered with the question of whether or not the whole system is based on a moral principle. It would never occur to them that theft and violence are used to carry out these policies.

The transition away from the original notion upon which we were founded, that government was to be strictly limited to the protection of individuals from out-of-control government authoritarians, has been going on a long time. Washington responds to the noise that the voters make and the demand for ultimate security and an economic safety net for all has overwhelmed the cries by some who ask only for their liberty.

The time when government was held in check by the limitations placed in the Constitution has long been forgotten.

The erosion started early, and it could be argued that even the Constitution itself weakened this principle that was embedded in the Articles of Confederation. In spite of the early erosion of personal liberty, it was in the twentieth century that the moral compass guarding our liberties was completely cast aside.

What moral system should government follow?
The same one individuals follow. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet. Do not foster vice.

If governments would merely follow the moral law that all religions recognize, we would live in a world of peace, prosperity and freedom. The system is called classical liberalism.

Liberty is not that complicated...

[thetharms]

Paul isn't winning for one reason, and one reason only: because America has become a neocon fascist nation, because the majority of Americans no longer support freedom, nor desire to be free. We've seen no general uprising, al la the Middle East in response to the bailouts, the TSA, the NDAA, or the most recent move to outlaw public demonstrations. Why? Because the average American, like the average German a 80 years ago, is more concerned about the latest cultural trend, about getting a handout, about government giving them something, about conforming, about going along with the crowd, than they are about opportunity, right or wrong, or about the rights of others.

[ladyang]

truth hurts! so sad, but true - all of it.

[Kookyronpaul]

This is why he's not winning the primaries: http://www.kookyronpaul.com

[ladyang]

There are a number of reasons:
1. You turned out to be a romney mouth piece.
2. Your message is old and playout.
3. You're too old and needy.
4. You played yourself when you switched to republican.
5. You backed down from running as 3rd party candidate when you realized your son's short hairs are caught in the gop'd net.
I could go on but I think all your supporters (both of them) get the jest of it!

[Kookyronpaul]

You are uninformed, a liar, or both.

[foolsallaroundme]

**** YOU ****

[blaine87]

If lucky enough for all, he won't have to win a state to run in the general. Santorum, and Gingrich will steal enough to help Pauls' caucus strategy make him king maker come convention time. Unless of course, Santorum and/or Gingrich finally show their part was simply to gain enough anti-romney votes from the duped generation to only give them back to romney in a final political scam for the bought finale election of a country. I hope tho they don't steal enough(or paul wins states), and Paul being of principals and no candidate worthy of his support the GOP is declared dead 4 years ahead of the millinial phase out of the social policy/culture war thats been undermining true republican values for 40 years which is set to end in 2016 when the youth become 31% of the voting public. If he can't be found in the general, it's a much bleaker picture as youth unemployment will continue to inch towards arab spring/greek percentages under bank/debt controlled economic stagnation. Although then in the streets by exit polls, and military contributions to candidates(not to mention age/social views/education all being the same) many like minded ppl will meet, and w/ ron paul on the tongue the rEVOLution being prevented by the media, and repub establishment will commence in full.

[jimatmadison]

Way to deliberately miss the point, Paulbots.

Mr Paul has accomplished ZERO in enhancing Congress. By being a complete nonentity in Congress, Mr Paul is as much to blame for their current state as anyone in DC.

If Mr Paul was actually good at his job, and had good ideas, Congress would, theoretically, be a more representative and effective body.

As it is, he's as useful as a potted fern.

Maybe that should be his campaign slogan - As Useful as a Potted Fern

[Lauracore]

Yeah because this idiotic Congress is going to listen to one guy and magically transform themselves to do good for Americans. Congress' approval rating is close to ZERO.