Ron Paul Treachery in Iowa?

A friend of mine asked me this morning, knowing that I am committed to Ron Paul for president, what I thought about the Iowa caucus results from a couple of nights ago. In a way, I am surprised at how well he did, based on the regular undermining that he received at the hands of the Establishment media. But in a way, I'm also surprised that he didn't do better. There might be a reason for that--one that involves more underhandedness.

In the early going, Ron Paul was the leader in Iowa Caucus entrance polling numbers, as reported by CNN


But in the final results, he came in 3 or 4 percentage points behind Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

It was said that 31% of the people who decided on the day of the caucus who they would vote for chose Santorum? Really?  I don't really believe it, but I suppose, considering how many hits you can find on google by typing in 'Rick Santorum surge,' that maybe that many people were stampeded into voting for the angry evangelical.

But here's something both interesting and highly suspect. Who knows how many venues this happened in, but read this account of what happened in at least one Iowa polling location:

Ballot counting, if not feasible before the entire congregation gathered, should be done in the presence of at least one registered observer from each of the campaigns, with a clear process for disputing the count and a procès-verbal signed by all all witnesses. That did not take place, and in fact the voting process was also highly suspect: ballot papers were handed out willy-nilly to anyone with the proper colored pin on his shirt. Then someone came around with what appeared a trash bin to have everyone toss his ballot into, like a church collection plate. In fact the ballot box should be in a fixed location with the lid clearly sealed in wax or other security device in place. That way a pair of eyes could be on the box at all times.

For such an important event, one would think balloting would be safeguarded quite a bit more than this.  The article continues:

Had an election with the above flaws been conducted anywhere overseas where the US is critical of the government in power, say Russia or Iran, the US State Department would have cried 'foul' and demanded new elections.

Not so when the one disadvantaged is the one who speaks out most consistently against the government itself.

Ron Paul hasn't gotten a fair shake in any presidential voting event that he's been involved in--in 2008 or 2012.  Whether it's fabrications and slanderous lies about his supposed racism or viciously inaccurate sound bites about his foreign policy views, or being ignored by everyone except for PBS, Ron Paul is doing remarkably well against the Establishment onslaught.

Next up is New Hampshire.  Thank heavens for entrance and exit polling. Those numbers are much more difficult to doctor, because they are conducted by a variety of organizations.  In New Hampshire, though, they have Diebold electronic voting machines, which are much easier to tamper with. I guess it's a good thing that entrance and exit polls are conducted manually.