Why & How the Iowa Caucuses were Manipulated Against Ron Paul & Favored Rick Santorum so Much (big picture perspective)

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Why & How the Iowa Caucuses were Manipulated Against Ron Paul & Favored Rick Santorum so Much (big picture perspective)

To give credit to the author and cite the source, the following is from the Friday, January 6th edition of the WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF by Joel Skousen.

IMHO, this is excellent and essentially accurate analysis of the dynamics behind the primary elections. This is definitely not something you see covered by the bought and paid for main-stream media. If you've been paying any attention this will make ALLOT of sense.

I agree with pretty much most of it. Looking forward to reading other people's takes on this. Thanks in advance!

JG

---

STOPPING RON PAUL IN IOWA—HOW THEY DID IT

As the Iowa caucus drew near, the establishment GOP and the power that be (PTB) were faced with a dilemma: Ron Paul—that pesky anti-war libertarian Republican — kept rising in Iowa polls despite all establishment attempts to evade, denigrate, and dismiss him. Ron Paul was drawing crowds like a rock star and the nearest candidate in the polls was Romney, who the establishment is also trying to stop. Where could they steer the delegates? The establishment hates Paul even more than Romney and wanted to make sure he didn’t win a primary election in any state. The first blip of manipulation showed up last Friday when the polling numbers showed a “surge” for Rick Santorum, an establishment candidate that had been otherwise going nowhere. The Iowa Republican establishment pulled out all the stops from within to make sure Paul didn’t win. Even still, he came very close. Here’s how they did it.

In the end it was Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum tied for first at 25% and Ron Paul in third place with a close 21.5%. Despite media attempts to crucify Paul as someone to the Left of Obama (Clinton’s old buddy-turned-RINO-Republican, Dick Morris), Paul took it all in stride and told followers he was happy with a top tier third place result. Paul has always been satisfied with slow and steady growth, knowing that all the other candidates who have been flung ahead by the PTB have fallen flat once the voters find out more about them.

It’s one thing to take a candidate new to the race like Rick Perry and artificially boost his polling numbers, as they did last summer (after all, there was nothing to compare him to previously), but Santorum has been in the race from the beginning and never demonstrated more than single digit support, despite a presence in each and every debate. As I said before in the WAB, people don’t suddenly change their opinions about someone without some dramatic incident or change of position that is very popular and unique. Santorum has done nothing spectacular this whole race.

Disgusted, Aaron Dykes of Inforwars.com asks: “What accounts for Santorum’s swift rise to the top of polls in Iowa only days out from the contest when he barely showed a pulse in ANY state, let alone Iowa, among the crowded GOP field at any time in the weeks and months before?” Nothing. It was a total fraud.

In fact Rick Santorum is an establishment insider who is playing conservatives for fools. Sure he talks like a conservative but he’s voted for every expansion of federal power to come along. He advocated for and voted in favor of big government programs in education and transportation and benefits for low-income people while in Congress. Now that he is running for office again, he rails against big government. How convenient.

The real telling issue was his past support for Senator Arlen Specter who, although feigning Republican ideals for many years, was actually a Democrat in action and even a co-conspirator in the JFK assassination cover-up. Rick Santorum played the establishment lackey by backing Specter over the very conservative Pat Toomey who was challenging Specter. That alone tells volumes.

Although Santorum claims to be opposed to same-sex marriage, gay marriage and allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, he supported Specter who switched to his home Democratic Party in 2009 and was a supporter of gay rights, gay marriage and repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military. Specter is also a staunch supporter of abortion rights.

 

Brian Montopoli of CBS news focuses on Santorum’s dilemma: “As he works to build on his momentum and become the consensus conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, social conservatives are taking a second look at the two-term Pennsylvania senator's record.

“There is one position, however, that social conservatives ask Santorum about regularly on the campaign trail, an issue that also comes up regularly on conservative talk radio: His support for former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter in the 2004 GOP Senate primary. Santorum said he made a hard decision [claiming] that [it] was grounded in his opposition to abortion, saying Specter had agreed he would support then-President George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominees no matter what. Specter denies this assertion [One or both are lying].”

The bottom line is that Santorum is someone who the establishment can get to do their bidding and that should be a disqualifier for conservatives, no matter what verbal positions he takes that please them. He’s business as usual in Washington, just like Gingrich and Perry. As further evidence that Santorum is an insider, consider how he got very wealthy after being defeated for re-election. He stayed within the revolving door system of the Washington Beltway:

Businessweek records, “Since his 2006 re-election defeat, the former Pennsylvania lawmaker has gone from being one of the poorer members of the U.S. Senate to earning $1.3 million between January 2010 and August 2011. In 2007, he spent $2 million to buy a 5,000-square foot home in Great Falls, Virginia, according to property records.

“Santorum’s financial rise was powered by consulting contracts with fuel producer Consol Energy Inc., faith advocacy group Clapham Group and American Continental Group, a Washington consultancy, as well as media engagements. ‘If he’s claiming he’s not an insider, this is the thing that insiders do -- after public office they cash in,’ said Kent Cooper, a campaign finance expert and former Federal Elections Commission assistant staff director.”

As for Santorum’s sudden surge, the only thing that changed about this candidate was that GOP leaders on the national level conspired with the GOP establishment in Iowa to make sure Ron Paul got no extra votes beyond his faithful cadre of followers. The kingmakers did not want Ron Paul to benefit from the growing perception that he was leading in the polls.

A caucus system produces a much higher percentage of activists than an open primary where all voters are invited to participate—thus a bit harder to manipulation as many caucus delegates already have fixed positions. But still, at least a third of caucus participants in the Republican Party are conservatives by gut feeling only and not well schooled in the arguments. These are those that are concerned only about beating Obama, no matter how it is done, and without carefully considering what we’ll get instead. These are the votes that normally flow to the perceived leader (Romney).

The PTB knew that they couldn’t convert the Paulites to Santorum, and the pro-Romney votes were also pretty solid. So, they concentrated on the conservatives with evangelical tendencies who would not switch to support a Mormon candidate like Romney. Then the media drummed up the issue of Ron Paul’s position against foreign aid (even to Israel) knowing that this would elicit a negative reaction from Christians who have been fed the line that “Israel can do no wrong because God is behind Israel.” While God may be behind the Biblical doctrine of Israel’s return to its consecrated homeland, He certainly does not endorse the unrighteous policies and moral habits of Israel’s globalist leaders who masquerade as Right-wing conservatives (just like Republican leaders in the USA).

Santorum’s drum beating militarism is the perfect attraction for conservatives who can’t see the ulterior motives behind US intervention and unconditionally supporting Israel’s government.

Paul voters have solid intellectual, libertarian roots and can’t easily be persuaded to vote for another unless equally as principled and persuasive. But non-thinking Christians who base their conservatism on some generic notion of small government, militaristic patriotism and restoring Christian values in education can be fairly easily duped by wolves in sheep’s clothing who promise them the world (and always betray them once in office).

Few Christians understand the conspiratorial nature of the battle we are fighting in America and Israel and the necessity to elect someone who will directly fight against the establishment instead of going along with the globalist interventionist agenda. Only Ron Paul qualifies, even though he is reluctant to admit to conspiratorial evidence in government affairs (though privately he understands some of it). To say so publicly would be political suicide.

In Iowa, there were about 20-25% of caucus participants that were undecided. The Republican leaders decided they would concentrate on two forms of pressure to make sure these undecided didn’t vote for Ron Paul: 1) Create a false surge for Rick Santorum and promote his credentials that appeal to Christian conservatives. 2) Use fear tactics at the caucus meetings to ram home the message that if they voted for Ron Paul, Iowa would become the laughing stock of the nation and that the National GOP leadership would deny Iowa its coveted slot as the first primary in the nation.

They did all this with some degree of success. But it wasn’t enough. They had to fudge the voting results. However, the bane of all election manipulators are the entrance or exit polls, usually done by college students working for extra credit in political science. These are hard to falsify without students becoming aware of a conspiracy to commit fraud. This restricts manipulation of the results to within 5-10% of exit polls lest people get suspicious.

In Iowa the pollers use entrances where people are not all arriving at once, making it easier to do polling. These polls all showed Ron Paul leading both Romney and Santorum. The reversal of the end results were not totally attributable to GOP leaders in the caucus making threats about a Ron Paul win. They had to falsify some votes.

First they manufactured a reason for counting the votes in secret: the media announced that Occupy Wall Street was threatening unrest and that possibly the hacker group Anonymous would infiltrate the recording. All this to justify taking the vote count into secret chambers somewhere at GOP headquarters in Des Moines. I don’t believe there was any threat at all. However, this ruse did provide the Iowa GOP the suitable excuse to take the vote count away from the numerous volunteers who had assembled to make sure everything was done in the open.

So, instead of being public and audible to all in attendance (as happens in most caucus meetings), the results were only tallied among the Republican elite who, by open admission, had vowed not to allow Ron Paul to win. These intentions surfaced on BreitbartTV.com as one anti-Ron Paul GOP leader (Dee Dee Benki) told Brietbart how the GOP were going to stop people from voting for Paul. Here’s the link to the interview: http://www.breitbart.tv/republican-strategist-iowa-gop-will-not-allow-paul-to-win/

Aaron Dykes of Infowars.com then declares: “It is no secret that all the stops have been pulled to minimize Paul’s media visibility throughout the campaign trail, with many top GOP figures and media commentators going so far as to pre-script a plan to ignore Iowa in the event that Ron Paul won the caucuses, in order to prevent the Congressman from dominating the national stage. Did the GOP establishment succeed in sabotaging Ron Paul in the Iowa caucus vote as it vowed to do?

Fudging the vote in New Hampshire: the mechanism is being set in place to alter the vote in New Hampshire if necessary. This year New Hampshire has decided it will be optional to record how many people come in to vote so there may be no way to completely match up how many came in vs. actual vote count.

Even with Paul’s third place finish in Iowa, his star is rising significantly in New Hampshire. People are no longer embarrassed to say they are supporting Paul, especially since three local newspapers have endorsed him.

 

THE BROKERED REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

Many people don’t realize that a fairly big sea change took place in 2008. There was so much dissatisfaction with the winner-take-all primary system that most states changed to a proportional delegate system—allocating the number of state delegates in accordance with the percentage of votes each candidate wins in the primary. This is much more fair, and allows smaller candidates to broker their delegate support in exchange for concessions of major candidates who don’t yet have enough delegates to win the nomination.

Pawel Krzywulski reports on how Ron Paul is going to end up a major player even if he doesn’t win the nomination outright. “I watched the caucus last night on-line on Fox's and New York times websites. As usual there were some typical comments from the people at the Fox desk - also many fair and decent observations among them - but one in particular caught my ear. One of the commentators - a former Democratic pollster - suggested that one of the reasons for this relative peace between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul is the fact that in a brokered convention Ron Paul's delegates might be a crucial asset for Romney.” Romney will need to appeal to other delegates to reach a majority, very few of the evangelical delegates will be willing to go over to Romney. Paul’s delegates are viewed as his best bet.

The vote manipulation in Iowa could lead to something akin to what happened in Nevada when June rolls around and it’s time to pick actual delegates who will represent Iowa at the Republican National Convention in Tampa Florida. If WAB readers remember, the Nevada GOP leaders shut down the convention when it became clear that Ron Paul followers had a majority in the audience and were going to elect Ron Paul delegates. It was illegal as hell, but the courts refused to overturn the GOP’s desperate move.

"Technically, the Iowa vote was a straw poll, determining no delegates, but setting the tone. The only actions that actually could make a difference in electing delegates to the National Convention favored Paul [who has more volunteers and activists than any other candidate]. Nobody will be watching in June, unless this election gets much more exciting, but Ron Paul might send more Iowa delegates to Tampa than any other candidate [These delegates will do all the brokering at the national convention].

“‘I think Ron Paul just won Iowa,’ declared Mark Hansen, Ron Paul's Pottawattamie County coordinator. Here at a bar serving as the unofficial county headquarters of the Paul campaign, Hansen had just conceded that Paul would not win the popular vote in Iowa, but he also pointed out that after the straw polls, the precincts appointed delegates to the county conventions in March -- and that in every precinct in Pottawattamie, at least, two or three Ron Paul supporters volunteered to be delegates, and few other candidates' supporters volunteered.”

What the Ron Paul Movement means nationally: Daniel McCarthy asks, “Does the Future Belong to Ron Paul?” The following is very good political analysis.

“Five years ago, no one, not even Congressman Paul, would have imagined that 21 percent of voters in a hotly contested Republican caucus would support the Texas congressman’s brand of antiwar, constitutional conservatism and libertarianism. Paul didn’t just improve on his 2008 showing last night, he’s brought his philosophy from an asterisk in the Republican Party of George W. Bush to as much as a fifth of the vote in the GOP of 2012; there’s a fair chance he’ll win 20 percent again, or close to it, in New Hampshire.

“More significant than the overall percentage Paul claimed last night, however, is the 48 percent he won of the under-30 vote. This augurs more than just a change in the factional balance within the GOP. It’s suggestive of a generational realignment in American politics. The fact that many of these young people do not consider themselves Republican is very much the point: Paul’s detractors cite that as a reason to discount them, but what it really means is that the existing ideological configuration of U.S. politics doesn’t fit the rising generation.

“They’re not Republicans, but they’re voting in a Republican primary: at one time, that same description applied to Southerners, social conservatives, and Reagan Democrats, groups that were not part of the traditional GOP coalition and whose participation completely remade the party. There’s more at stake here than the future of the Republican Party, though.

“The style as well as substance of Ron Paul’s movement is radically different from the 1990s right, and the substance itself is different not only in terms of what Paul’s supporters want but what their priorities are [this coincides with what I have always said: Ron Paul is building the counter-government revolution and this will live on even if Paul fails to win]. The old pillars of politics don’t go away — communism still mattered a great deal in 1970s, and culture-war issues still matter today — but weight shifts to other structures over time. Paul has inaugurated such an architectonic shift.”

 

The long term battle against Romney: Ultimately, the PTB are confident they can stop Paul. But to stop Romney, who has the charisma, good looks and presidential demeanor to attract a lot of apathetic voters who don’t care too much about issues outside of economics, the PTB need someone to attract the evangelical Christian vote.

Laurie Kellman of the AP sets the stage: “Prominent conservative leaders want their rank and file to quickly get behind a single presidential candidate, fearful that persistent splits will help Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination. The former Massachusetts governor narrowly won the Iowa caucuses when conservative voters divided their support among several challengers, and the worry is that the same thing will happen in South Carolina, Florida and beyond if Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry all stay in the race. ‘Conservatives are still divided among a number of different candidates, but the field is winnowing, said former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer. And, he said: "I certainly think that Senator Santorum is in a good position to inherit a lot of that support."

 

“‘There is movement, even members of Congress who are weighing this now who are looking to make a move,’ said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who said he's spoken with more than eight leaders with conservative constituencies, including lawmakers. He declined to name them but added: ‘I do think you'll see growing momentum toward Rick Santorum.’ Indeed, interviews with a number of leaders, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid, indicated that Santorum was emerging as the preferred alternative to Romney, though a few still are watching Gingrich. Not one mentioned Perry, who announced he would reassess his campaign in light of a fifth-place showing in Iowa only to say a day later he would press on in South Carolina.”

What happened is that Perry suspended his campaign and went home. But then he got the proverbial “phone call in the night” from Republican kingmakers who told him to get back in the race. Why, if this portends splitting the evangelical vote? Precisely because Rick Santorum has as much insider baggage as Newt Gingrich and the false surge they have created for Santorum might not last. If they can’t resurge Gingrich, they might try a resurge of Perry. They try anything to stop Romney.

“Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who is a favorite of evangelicals and the tea party, took the opposite route, abandoning her bid after coming in last in Iowa. That's left her backers up for grabs and looking for someone to rally behind.”

True. Bachmann was a sincere conservative and that is why the establishment didn’t promote her in a surge. True, she got talked into several neo-con positions in favor of attacking Iran, but still the establishment doesn’t want people of principle and true religion in the White House. They might see something that causes them to turn on their establishment advisors.

While conservative pundits keep saying “It's unlikely to be Romney,” he has staying power simply because all the rest, except Ron Paul are actually less conservative than Romney, and far more compromised in terms of their former insider relationships.

The AP finally comes down to the crucial point: "‘You'll eventually come down to one conservative and Governor Romney,’ said Newt Gingrich, ‘And he [Romney] will continue to get 25 percent. By definition at some point in that game somebody is going to start getting a lot more votes than Governor Romney.’ [as they start to collect religious conservative votes after one and two of the three remaining phony conservatives start to drop out].”

I still predict that Romney will win the nomination and that the PTB will engineer an Obama reelection to make sure a non-insider doesn’t get into the White House. This week’s show in Iowa demonstrates they have a lot of power to manipulate the outcome of any election.

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Gosh, I thought by the eve of the New Hampshire Primaries...

This post would get would at least get a couple responses and observations.

I guess people enjoy watching and participating in rigged elections.

Virtually every reasonable and non-biased poll has Ron Paul running a strong and clear #2 in New Hampshire with roughly 20% of the vote in most polls while most of the other candidates (not names Romney) are struggling to even reach 10% in most polls. Lets see if anything is done to change that by tomorrow. Who's going to get the next artificial lift? Santorum again, a rebirth for Gingrich or a similar out of nowhere emergence (like Santorum in Iowa) for Hunstman. maybe even Perry.

I suspect Huntsman is going to become next flavor of the week upstart candidate despite not even getting 5% of the votes in most polls up until just recently. 

In Iowa, just before the caucuses, Paul was #1 or at worst neck and neck and a close #2 in most polls yet somehow finished a strong and relatively close #3 but a good notch well below where most of the entrance polls showed him finishing.

We'll see.

JG

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments