Santorum To Collapse Just Like the Others Before Him
by Dave Trotter: Beware
of GOP False Flag Chicanery at the Iowa Caucuses
And now, a
completely obvious prediction: Rick Santorum, the latest
"anybody but Romney" Flavor of the Month, will see his
numbers collapse unceremoniously before the South Carolina primary
– just like Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich before him.
if Gingrich’s conservative bona fides weren’t sufficient for limited-government
conservative voters, even casual scrutiny of Santorum’s record
government spending should prove to be particularly damaging
with the same group. While ensconced in senatorial power, Santorum
for No Child Left Behind, the $1 Trillion prescription drug benefit,
and the Iraq war, for starters. And like Gingrich, Santorum's also
undoubtedly offend evangelicals, upon discovery, is that Santorum
supported the "pro-choice" Arlen
Specter for reelection against the much more conservative, pro-life
primary challenger Pat Toomey in 2004. Some have argued that Toomey’s
credible primary challenge against establishment incumbent Specter
was the precursor
to the rise of Tea Party candidates nationally. Given the chance
to buck the Republican establishment as exemplified by George W.
Bush, and throw in behind upstart Toomey, Santorum chose instead
to scuttle the infancy of limited-government conservative revolution.
should be clear, is an establishment man – just like Romney.
Before he was
summarily ejected from office in 2006, Santorum doubled down on
George W. Bush’s notion of "compassionate
conservatism." In a long-belated response to Hillary Clinton’s
controversial book It Takes a Village, which offends by promoting
secular statist dominion over American children at the expense
of the family, Santorum wrote It
Takes a Family – promoting religious-statist intervention
into American family life – all to promote an eerily similar
"common good," or as others have described it, "Communitarian
is no Tea Party candidate, nor does his record reflect any allegiance
to limited government principles.
course one must also award War
Party credit where it’s due: amidst a cluttered primary field
of foaming interventionist neoconservatives, Santorum’s hyperbolic
mongering over Iran’s infantile
nuclear ambitions distinguished him during the debates – as an even
more enthusiastic warmonger
than most. He’s seemingly never met a potential international conflict
that he didn’t embrace – Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Iran
– and he’s also an outspoken proponent of the domestic police state,
voting for the Patriot
Act, its repeated reauthorization, as well as the formation
of Big Sis.
In terms of
foreign policy and the domestic security state, Santorum presents
no significant differences from Romney – or Obama.
In the general
election against Obama, however, Santorum’s prospects dim further.
As an outspoken, big government "social conservative,"
Santorum stands very
little chance of garnering support from liberals and independents.
His foreign policy views won’t gain anti-war moderate, liberal,
or otherwise independent supporters from Obama, as Ron Paul would.
Considering Santorum’s shrill cries to launch yet another unconstitutional
war with Iran, it’s inconceivable that Ron Paul supporters would
support him as the Republican nominee, if Gary Johnson is available
on the ballot as the Libertarian Party candidate.
none of this matters after Iowa, where Santorum’s timely, inexplicable
surge helped accomplish precisely the GOP establishment’s
Paul not win the Iowa caucuses.
as Ron Paul noted in his Iowa concession speech, only two frontrunners
emerged from Iowa with sufficient
strength to continue to prosecute a successful national campaign:
Paul and Romney. Ron Paul raised $13 million during the fourth quarter
of 2011, $5 million more than he raised in the third quarter and
his fundraising shows no signs of abating.
despite officially coming in third in Iowa, Ron Paul is currently
tied in the delegate
count with Romney and Santorum, with seven "soft-pledged"
delegates each. The Iowa caucus results are non-binding, meaning
that delegates can ultimately support whomever they like, regardless
the caucus results. Paul’s
supporters who volunteered to be Iowa county delegates will
play a direct role in determining how the state’s delegates are
allotted, part of a larger Paul strategy
to force a long nominating process by concentrating on caucus states.
The race is far from over, and Ron Paul will have funds to compete
until the convention.
things go from here?
have proven consistent thus far, making some predictions easy. (1)
Aversion to Mitt Romney will likely continue amongst Republican
primary voters, leading to the incessant rotation of the "anybody
but Romney" Flavors of the Month. (Santorum’s rise as the newest
GOP Flavor of the Month, therefore, portends his imminent fall.)
(2) The GOP establishment will continue to actively organize to
prevent Ron Paul from winning state primary contests.
As a "social
conservative," Santorum isn’t expected to do well in New Hampshire,
and I’m betting that scrutiny of his record will render him obsolete
as an option before South Carolina. So who will serve as the next
"totally unexpected" GOP establishment spoiler, to enable
a Romney victory in New Hampshire and relegate Paul to third? The
likely and obvious candidate is Jon
Huntsman, who skipped Iowa and is already getting mainstream
about "pulling a Rick Santorum."
still uses the same institutionally vulnerable Diebold electronic
voting machines as in 2008, so the odds of GOP establishment chicanery
are even higher than in Iowa. After all, the establishment that
Ron Paul threatens remains firmly in control of the levers and dials
of the pollsters and the voting machines.
indeed serves the role of Romney-enabler in New Hampshire, as the
new-new Flavor of the Month for the soon-to-be deposed Santorum,
expect for him to yield to yet another establishment candidate
by South Carolina. Perhaps Perry makes a momentary resurgence?
If the GOP
establishment has its ultimate wish fulfilled, each primary will
winnow the field a touch further, never yielding a significant victory
to Ron Paul – and more importantly, never forcing an acknowledgement
of the public’s war-weariness
– until in the very end, the "inevitability" of Mitt Romney
is finally "proven" – through an exhaustive process
In this vision,
Romney v. Obama, the establishment presents to the American electorate
the false "choice" between virtual mirror images: banker-owned
warmonger R and banker-owned warmonger D. The military-industrial
complex, big insurance, big pharma, big oil corporatists, and other
crony collectivists will rejoice, regardless the outcome.
people will win more of the same in this story: more war, more debt,
more groping, more surveillance, a former world reserve currency,
and the ruins of a bankrupt
The onus is
apparently on Ron Paul supporters alone to be the monkey wrench
in the establishment machine that prevents Romney’s coronation.
Trotter [send him
mail] is a technical communications manager in Central
Texas. Follow him on Twitter.
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.