The Establishment Responds To The Santorum Sweep

Loading

Didn’t take long for the establishment spin to begin:

Republican Sen. John McCain downplayed Tuesday’s election results and placed the blame for Mitt Romney’s losses on low voter turnout.

“I think this really was very small numbers of people that turned out and I respect their views, but I don’t believe they are representative of the broad majority of Republican voters,” McCain said Wednesday in an interview set to run on CNN’s “John King USA.” “I really believe that when you have 1% of the registered voters turning out that that’s not a very good indicator.”

This coming from the guy who said:

We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House

But more importantly the fact that only 1% of registered voters turned IS a good indicator that people care little about Romney, nor the choices given to us in this Republican primary. Given all that I am happy that Santorum shocked the establishment. I’m hoping he continues but as Santorum admitted in a email to supporters, the knives are out:

I know what’s coming next. I saw what Mitt Romney and his team did to Newt Gingrich after he won South Carolina. They amassed millions of dollars for his campaign and his SuperPAC – outspending his opponents nearly 5 to 1! This month will be no exception. They’re going to come after us now–because Romney doesn’t have a clear conservative vision for America that he can run on.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
20 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“I really believe that when you have 1% of the registered voters turning out that that’s not a very good indicator.”
lol @McCain. Republican party designs a system with a *lot* of caucuses and complicated procedures so that the influence of the common, less dedicated voter is minimized. Then people who actually give a damn about politics mobilize and use that system and Mr Establishment doesn’t like the outcome. Hey, maybe if people could actually get excited about Romney then we’d *have*more than 1% voter turnout.
Romney’s failure to get out the vote is a little mysterious to me, though. We *know* that in Iowa, he had a phone bank operation; he ID’d his supporters and called them to get them to the caucus. It worked pretty well. So why didn’t he keep doing it in other caucus states (Paul did, and has been beating his poll numbers)? It’s expensive if you don’t have volunteers, but Romney has the money. Did he seriously think he had it in the bag?

Santorum is squeaky clean and principled. The attacks have already started and I believe “Rocy” Santorum is up to the challenge. The true conservative will come out on top. Who cares what McCain says, who cares what his daughter says, who cares what the republican hieracy says.

To bad McCain was not actively campaigning in CO, MN, Mo then he could blame the terrible results on his personal lack of creds.

For the Arizona electorate who have done such wonderful deeds: why O why did you renew McCain’s RINO credentials?

Go Newt 2012… If I can’t have that… go Santorum 2012… if I can’t have that…. I’ll be voting Constitution Party or one of the “others”…. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR romney…

I have to admit I was surprised and pleased that, what with the exceedingly low turnout, Ron Paul didn’t win.

Curt, I think it’s worse than (R)z not coming out because they are not excited by Romney. They are NOT coming out because they are not excited about anyone, and it is getting worse:

% of State Population voting for Republican­s

18.85% New Hampshire
12.85% South Carolina
8.76% Florida
4.19% Missouri
3.97% Iowa
1.29% Colorado
0.87% Minnesota

Snerd

Establi$hment + Bag(R)z = ‘Coalition of the Unwilling’

It is my contention that the $$$ and the base (who the $$$ use but do not allow to come to the decision making table), are so incompatible, it is not possible to have one candidate who represents both, unless they misrepresent themselves … Still wanta have a beer with George “W”hooping deficit Bush … !?

Snerd

Three weeks ago I knew very little about Rick Santorum.

After all the research I now know he is as much a social conservative as any pro-life Democrat. He is also a liar, a back stabber a lover of earmarks and porkulus, and I will not vote for him.

I honestly have to admit I did not attend the Nevada Caucus. I have three reason’s why.

1 As is true with the majority of Nevada voters, I can’t afford the time or money to attend the state convention, which is too far to drive in the desert with my old clunker.

2. At the last two Nevada conventions the establishment Republican machine used various tricks to keep the non-establishment Republican reps from being able to attend the State convention. (Why go to all the trouble to drive miles from home to attend when the establishment machine will just lock you out or try to deny entry?)

3. Nevada Caucuses are disorganized fiascoes that often don’t bother to follow their own rules. In the 2008 caucus: They wasted far too much time explaining “how to caucus”. They didn’t use the procedures they’d just described, and the dumb*sses used the exact same location as the local Democrat caucus (which immediately followed the Republican caucus,). The Democrats had protesters outside, and security allowed them to enter the lobby while the Republican Caucus was still going on, which resulted in the Dems beating on the doors, demanding the Republicans leave, Some forcing their way in as Republican as some smaller Republican precincts goers votes were collected and were leaving. Both political parties also allowed “registering that day at the caucus.” I am certain that I saw individuals who registered that morning at the Republican Caucus, turn right around and attend the Democratic caucus.

The caucus system is yet another reason why I will be changing my party affiliation for GOP to the Constitution Party. If they wont allow their own registered voters to vote in a primary, then to hell with them.

How many times do I have to say it! The scum in D.C is not limited to the left! Entrenched establishment hacks are only about one thing. Their own power. Both sides work closely together on this because nothing else matters! As they fee l the electorate doesn’t give a damn, they will continue to insult our intelligence with the BS such as above. And unfortunately, the majority seems to continue to keep buying it!

@joetote:
I agree with you, except the power really isn’t in Washington’s politicians, but in the $$$ behind and driving policy.

As the (R) nomination process has demonstrated $$$ determines not only whether you can get get to the start line with your message, whether you get your message out, but whether that message is favourable for your benefactor.

$$$ is the power. $$$ determines who’s message gets to play … [Here comes the heresy] …. This is where the Bag(R)z and the Occupiers could both have overlap in their views and message … and dare I say, in their political impact.

Snerd

I wouldn’t so much mind the political attacks on Santorum (or anyone else for that matter) if the ones doing it weren’t so limp-wristed when it comes time to attack Obama. Eesh, a sorry state that members of a party show more vitriol to their own than those in the opposite party.

@Satin Doll: Yes, Santorum is not really my cup of tea… he’s more or less in the mold of Huckabee, a reliable social conservative without a good fiscal record. Unlike Huck though he’s done a better job of marketing himself as an all-around conservative.
That said, more power to the social conservatives if they can stick a thumb in the establishment’s eye. They’re obviously not from my wing of the Republican party (I’m way off on the libertarian fringe) but I can see some parallels between the way the social conservatives and the libertarians are treated, i.e. as captive votes to be used by the centrist Republican establishment. So while I’d rather have Paul I’ll be happy to offer sincere congratulations to the Santorum camp if they manage to throw Romney’s campaign down a well and get the nomination. Not that I expect Santorum to go anywhere against Obama, but the socons certainly deserve a turn in the limelight if they can manage it.

@Ditto: I don’t understand what attending the state convention has to do with attending the caucus. You can caucus without becoming a delegate, indeed most voters at the caucus obviously don’t become delegates.
As for the disorganization, it apparently was the same this year. But it still looks like the odds of your vote getting counted were over 98%, i.e. unless you just find the stupidity and chaos offensive, it doesn’t seem like much of a reason for not going.

Do people like Santorum? I am very curious if conservatives see him as Presidential.

@ OP

This coming from the guy who said:

We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House

This is the kind of ridiculous distortion of truth that only impedes any honest attempt to ascertain anything resembling truth. Far be it from me to defend John McCain, but to disparage him for what I consider the high water mark of his campaign, is ridiculous. When confronted with a misinformed partisan claiming Obama was an “Arab”, rather than pander to the kind of Muslim-baiting that’s all too common on the Far Right, McCain did the right thing and set her straight. The fact you’d present that quote so completely out of context is childish. Then again, you publish Alec Rawles theories on Muslims, so I guess it’s not such a surprise.

I hope y”all are not quitter, okay I recon it’s THE FULL MOON.
I also reckon that VALENTINE DAY IS GOING TO COST YOU A LOT,
BUT THINK OF THE POSITIVE after even if your pockets are empty, think about
the WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT OBAMA, and then the sky’s the limit, what a party we’ll have,
I can’t wait, so cheer up Y’ALL It’s coming. don’t listen to negatives sneak around here.

@bbartlog:

It is not just the chaotic and stupidity of the Caucus organizers that discouraged me from attending, but ALSO the underhanded dirty tricks and establishment machine control AT the convention.

http://blog.globaltoad.com/?p=663
http://www.lvrj.com/news/18312799.html

As much as I hate to use a Wilkipedia entry, this one accurately another dirty trick that was played prior to the 2008 Convention:

On January 17, Ron Paul’s Nevada campaign representatives warned state GOP officials that thousands of caucus goers had been given incorrect information on where to go to caucus. Party officials addressed the problem with a message on the Nevada GOP website that morning, two days before the caucus.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Republican_caucuses,_2008

2000 Nevada Convention: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCC/NV-R.html

“There is, once again, no formal system of allocating Nevada’s National Convention delegates to presidential contenders. It is quite possible that all 17 delegates will be chosen by the State Convention as a whole, although- in the past- Congressional District Caucuses, consisting of the State Convention delegates from each of Nevada’s 2 congressional districts have met prior to the State Convention to choose the 3 National Convention delegates assigned to each congressional district, leaving the State Convention as a whole to choose the 11 at-large (6 base at-large plus 5 bonus delegates) delegates from Nevada to the Republican National Convention.”

I.E. in 2008, (as was in 2000,) “the majority ruled.” If you can keep opposition from attending, or get them out of the room… The rules have been changed for the 2012 Nevada Convention to require award of delegates proportionally. Then again, there has been past legal but dirty tricks by Ron Paul supporters at past Nevada Conventions.

The only way to get a true representation is to allow the previously (not election day) registered party members to vote for the party’s nomination and then award delegates proportionally. A caucus result is never representative of the membership, but only of the attendees.

Republican Sen. John McCain downplayed Tuesday’s election results and placed the blame for Mitt Romney’s losses on low voter turnout.

When was it decided that the members of congress would decide who runs on the republican ticket instead of the people.

In the Mail Online article it said that McCain said “We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.” He also said that he thought that Obama would would made a good president and that Obama was an honorable man. It made me wonder who he was campaigning for.

If I were Santorum, I would tell the republican voters to vote for me because McCaine doesn’t want me.

Rocky Santorum is being cast as a big spending, big government, war hawk. Look at his record people. He is consistant and conservative. Ask Paul about earmarks and he will say they are a means to get funding to the people he represents. Rocky represented his constituents. He is smart on foriegn policy and is not blinded by political correctness. His fiscal policies look interesting and should do some good. But folks, until Congress is changed and the big spending lifetime politicians of both parties are replaced, we’re stuck in the same mud hole. I feel that Santorum will stand up for our conservative principals and will exercise his veto power to keep Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, and other big government scoundrals in check. We can’t continue to make the same mistake by nominating soemone we feel will be moderate and appeal to the independents and who won’t be so conservative on social issues. Bull poop I say, it’s time to stop settling and start winning back this country. Vote for Rocky Santorum, he’s the best choice we have and the most conservative.

Sid
hi
you gave me a thought, why not nominating their second man or woman now to make the voters aware of what kind of government they could fell to see, if they elect the man,
I think it would clear the doubts of the perceived weak flaws and also the attacks from other who are giving the
pressure.
just a thought of mine
bye