Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Romney Not Buying Election As We Predicted... What's Wrong With Him?”

« The Coming Clinton Campaign: You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet! | Main | Ready for Superbowl Sunday »

January 28, 2008

Romney Not Buying Election As We Predicted... What's Wrong With Him?

Hatched by Dafydd

Another bizarre spurt of media madness. Let's just start with the headline:

Despite Wealth, Romney Keeps Fundraising

Hunh? What the heck is this supposed to mean?

Mitt Romney's millions aren't limitless, nor is his willingness to spend them, so the Republican presidential contender has begun taking valuable time from his primary campaign to raise money from outsiders.

Once in Massachusetts the day after the New Hampshire primary, three times here in Florida this weekend and three more times this coming week in California, Romney has scheduled fundraisers to underwrite the expense of his campaign.

Really? You could've knocked me over with a sledge hammer, pally.

This makes no sense at all. Has there ever been a presidential candidate in the modern era who totally self-financed his campaign? Even H. Ross Perot held fundraisers (and so will Michael Bloomberg, if he runs... despite the fact that he would be the richest man who ever ran, at a net worth estimated by Forbes as $5.5 billion in 2007).

That a man worth a scant $150 million - $250 million would choose to raise funds for a White-House run, rather than simply firing off personal checks for everything, could only befuddle a complete political ignoramus. In fact, if the authors read their own story, they would realize how absurd is this idea:

Through Sept. 30, the date for the most recent federal campaign finance reports, Romney led the Republican field with $63 million in contributions. [That includes about $17 million of his own money.]

That's through September 30th, 2007. Had he simply written a check for that much to his campaign, he would have reduced his personal net by at least a quarter and as much as a third. That's not even counting Q4 of 2007, not to mention whatever he would have to spend in 2008.

Back in 2004, President Bush -- the incumbent -- raised $259 million for the primaries alone; after accepting the nomination, he then shifted to public financing (as nominee John Kerry had done a month earlier, after raising $233.5 million for primary season).

Even if Romney bankrupted himself, he wouldn't have anywhere near as much as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will have spent by the convention next year. And why should Mitt Romney spend his last dime, when he's so good at raising money from contributers who are desperate to give him money to defeat the Democratic nominee? (Folks are also donating millions of dollars to Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and even John McCain, Mr. Death to Campaign Contributions himself.)

Given that none of the candidates intends (at this point) to take public matching funds in the general election either (because they come with spending limitations attached), Romney (or any of them) would necessarily have to raise an additional $150 million or so in addition to the $250-$300 million raised for the primaries. It should be obvious to any fool that he cannot self-finance his entire campaign. (Bloomberg could, but he won't; the fundraising acts as a alternative measure of support besides polling.)

AP appears shocked, shocked to discover that Romney isn't simply whipping out his checkbook and buying the election; but that only means that the Associated Press envision Republicans, especially successful businessman Mitt Romney, sort of like the little guy in the Monopoly game: A passel of Phineas Jehosephat Bigbucks with bottomless wallets, lighting cigars with $100 bills... "A hundred million here, a hundred million there; what's money for, if not to spend?"

Amazingly enough, Romney has no plans to leave himself a pauper in his quest for the White House; and neither do the Clintons, the Obamas, the McCains, or the Bloombergs. Fundraising among individual donors is one of the finest examples of participatory democracy: Donating money is a way of exercising our right of freedom of speech. Or didn't AP know that?

Perhaps they've been spending too much time on the Straight-Talk Express.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 28, 2008, at the time of 4:48 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2754

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

"Even if Romney bankrupted himself, he wouldn't have anywhere near as much as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will have spent by the convention next year."

Not to be picky Dafydd, but isn't the convention this year also?

There will ALWAYS be an agenda behind anything written by the AP or for that matter, all of our liberal press "friends" for the remaining electoral process. Whether we (the blogosphere) can keep them in check will be a formidable challenge ahead. Here's another example from the Washington Post today:

"For the first time in four years, he will come before Congress able to report some progress in tamping down violence in Iraq. Yet the public appears to have moved on from the war -- and possibly from Bush himself."

With Mosul becoming the "last stand" for major resistance in Iraq, (and about to be exstinguished), one would certainly think this would be a little more than "some progress".

Watch for the Post, NYT's et all to play down the VICTORIOUS "progress" as the election process continues.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin at January 28, 2008 6:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: eliXelx

So, you're suggesting that having $17,000,000 (a full 25% of his kitty) in loose change lying around MADE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO Mitt Romney's campaigning strategy?

Didn't you see the absolute contempt with which he treated the $10,000,000 or so he spent in SC? It must have been OUR contributions because he certainly wouldn't treat his own money with such disrespect.

When he saw he couldn't win it he just threw it away as noblesse oblige, the inveterate silver-spoon aristocrat distributing largesse.

I wonder if he had his perfumed lace handkerchief covering that aquiline nose.

Only in Hollywood does the profile make the man!

The above hissed in response by: eliXelx at January 28, 2008 7:19 AM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

Dafydd I don't know if you've been waking up crabby lately or what, but your writing has taken on a bit of snarkiness that I find extremely entertaining.

"...even John McCain, Mr. Death to Campaign Contributions himself."

Pure genius. I'm loving it.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 at January 28, 2008 10:32 AM