4 Feb

Romney’s 9% [Reader Post]

                                       

Now that the Florida Primary is over and we have seen how effective a carpet bombing campaign of negative ads can be, I thought it would be interesting to see exactly who provided the ammunition to each of the combatants. By ammunition I mean money, lots of money. I expected to see what we all knew to be true; Romney has the run of a well-stocked military base’s ammo dump, Newt Gingrich is a kid in the back yard who found his dads stash of illegal firecrackers.

Off to the web site OpenSecrets.org I go. A great place to find all sorts of nifty little facts and figures politicians like to avoid talking about or to crow over. Rooting around like a French pig looking for very expensive fungi, I came upon the numbers for both Romney and Gingrich. There are no real surprises here. Romney took in $56,465,509 far outdistancing Gingrich’s $12,648,565, a 4-1 advantage. Anyone following the Republican Primary knew this was the case even if they were not aware of the exact numbers. Romney supporters are always sure to let you know how much more money Romney has then his opponents. What is amazing is this one statistic. With all the resources Romney has to gather in funds there is one statistic he loses to Gingrich.. It’s you and me.

By “you and me” I am referring to people who do not attend dinners that cost more per plate then our mortgages. We, for the most part, are working stiffs without thousands of dollars to blow on someone’s political ambitions. It’s not that I would not like to be in such a position one day. I would surely welcome it as I think most honest people would agree. The reality is that for most of us that is not the case, and may never be. Still, with what little money we can afford to part with, Romney doesn’t get as much of it as one would think.

Of what the OpenSecrets.org defines as “Small Individual Contributions” Gingrich took in $6,260,961 compared to Romney’s $5,232,273. Not a huge lead that Gingrich has over Romney at first look. What is significant is the percentage of the total amount that these contributions are relative to the total amount of money raised by each candidate. For Gingrich Small Individual Contributions make up 49% of the total rose. For Romney, only 9%.

Armed with this knowledge, one can draw many conclusions and come away with as many questions. I will ask the obvious. Knowing that Small Individual Donors only comprise of 9% of Romney’s total contribution intake, exactly how much influence can the little guy or gal have on the man’s politics? It’s not as if Romney needs us. In fact, if one looks at how the Romney Campaign and the Republican Establishment treat its conservative base, they act as if they have come to the same conclusion as well.

I will assume that I will inevitably be charged for engaging in “class warfare” So be it. But before you do that realize that if a frozen fat guy in Maine armed with Google can see this could be an issue, you can be sure that Team Obama has already planned to make it an issue. And In case you’re wondering (Not for the faint hearted)……..

Obamas total intake so far $124,333,258 of which $58,498,953 came from Small Individual Contributions. A percentage of 47%.

*SHUDDER*

About Michael Henkins

He is just a fat guy in Maine.
This entry was posted in Economy, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Politics, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, February 4th, 2012 at 6:00 am
| 604 views

26 Responses to Romney’s 9% [Reader Post]

  1. Galloway says: 1

    With the $$ facts like this, Romney is the only one that can challenge obummer by being able to raise cash. We may lose anyway, and hopefully keep the house and get a majority in the senate to slow up the marxist .
    I have resigned myself to this because of the facts you show above and the acorn movement for letting the dead vote and the early and often vote, and the media cover for obummer, proven yesterday by the false reporting of the unemployment data. The electorate dumb down has suceeded, obummers approval # should be way down to 30% by now. He’s at 57% chance to win again on intrade.com. 47% appoval on a gallup poll. How this could be is really depressing.
    He is behind the scene with the UN trying to give away our nations propery rights, messing with LOST, and wants to let the UN decide who is put on trial for any war crime they want to pin on us. Take our gun rights away . Press won’t report any of this. Are we screwed or what? Dickmorris.com has this info.

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    Mitt Romney wrote a bang-up editorial in today’s Washington Examiner.
    In it was this:

    If I am elected President, on day one of my administration I will issue an executive order directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its [Obamacare] requirements to all 50 states.
    And on day one I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith.

    Mitt’s editorial is one of the best ones I have read about ObamaCare, the Catholics and the rule that would force Roman Catholic hospitals, charities, and universities to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, in violation of their religious principles.

    Hard to seriously believe anyone who falsely claims Mitt is for ObamaCare after reading this.
    What else are they lying about?

    ReplyReply
  3. johngalt says: 3

    @Nan G:

    To be fair, many of the people who deride Romney about Romneycare/Obamacare do so because, on the surface at least, Romney seems to be quite disingenuous when he discusses Obamacare. And it’s mainly due to his defense of his own state’s Romneycare.

    In other words, they do not know if he is lying, and just pandering for votes, even as he personally feels differently about Obamacare than what he says in public, or, if he actually feels the way he says he does. So, it isn’t necessarily that people are lying about Romney, but rather, that he seems to have flip-flopped on this, as well as many other issues, and that leaves many unsure as to what he would really do if President.

    ReplyReply
  4. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says: 4

    Notice he did not say he would repeal Obamacare. Waivers can be lifted at any time. Once the framework for Obamacare is in place, it will be nearly impossible to get rid of. If you think Romney is going to save us from what he implemented in Massachusetts, sucker.

    ReplyReply
  5. JustAl says: 5

    @Nan G:
    We know who’s lying, the question is which time was he lying? Then or now?

    http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/mitt-romney-proud-of-massachusetts-health-care-law/

    http://aboutmittromney.com/gun_rights.htm

    ROFLMAO, I just noticed, the photo of him with guns on his website is a photo of air rifles, not even firearms. Phoney to the core (if he actually has a core).
    Or:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HzYTdM9b5F4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu0zQRUCDlM

    http://www.qstarnews.net/gop2112/articlestemplate.cfm?articlenumber=99

    So, he’s said he’s pro 2nd amendment but proud of the blatantly anti second amendment laws in MA. He’s said he’s in favor of abortion. . . until it suites him to say he isn’t. He’s called himself a “progressive” . . . until it suites him to call himself a conservative (actually hard to find a record of him actually calling himself a “conservative” strangely enough). He’s said what you quoted above yet has said he’s proud of Romneycare which was the very prototype for Obamacare.

    It looks like KoolAid comes in Red as well as Blue flavors these days.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/30/2616236/romney-says-hes-not-letting-up.html

    ReplyReply
  6. Nan G says: 6

    @Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:
    Waivers for all 50 states is the only thing a sitting president can do under the US Constitution to set aside a law like ObamaCare.
    THEN a repeal can go forward.
    That involves Congress, not just a president.
    A 50-state waiver is tantamount to a repeal, however.

    ReplyReply
  7. Galloway says: 7

    Zelsdorf
    In one of the speeches Romney made he said he would give a 50 state waiver. He said, the waiver will give each state time to put their own program together and at the same time if we have both house and senate and WH, we can replace the mandate if the SCOTUS hasn’t struck it as unconstitutional.
    If the mandate is struck down, the law will fail because it is funded through the mandate, and dems forgot to protect the bill with a separation clause , or something, so whole bill may be found unconstitutional by next summer.

    ReplyReply
  8. Snerd Gronk says: 8

    @Nan G:
    Clearly Mitt is not for Obamacare now … but he WAS for Romneycare as a model for national health care, like Obama’s, and that’s the point, eh!?

    (R)z got a a choice between former a lefty pretending to be a righty (roboticly pretending one might add) , or an insider pretending to be an outsider, or a bunch of also-rans who can’t even get on the ballot in many states. And then there’s Herman, endorsing ‘the poeple’, then endorsing Colbert who ridicules the right, then endorsing the Newt (the serial harrrass-(R) endorsing the serial adulter-(R) … )

    Sorry NanG, but the ‘pa(R)ty’ has become a joke. There might be a good editorial allegedly written by somebody, but it has little impact on the imagine of the Clown car offe(R)ing … amidst the real process of the Establishment anointing its choice.

    Snerd

    ReplyReply
  9. johngalt says: 9

    @Galloway:

    It’s not just the individual mandate either. There is more than just that that makes the entire bill unConstitutional. The very fact that the law allows the Executive Branch to FORCE an entire religion to go against it’s teachings on abortion and contraception violates the First Amendment. And there are other items making the bill unConstitutional.

    It is hard to believe that anyone that purports to be for the “rule of law” can support such an abortion of a bill, regardless of their particular political leanings. Of course, that leads to the perception, true or not, that ALL liberal/progressives have no interest whatsoever in “rule of law”.

    ReplyReply
  10. Nan G says: 10

    @Galloway:
    You may have touched on Obama’s secret plan: ObamaCare is declared unconstitutional in June 2012.
    The election is Nov. 2012.
    Obama can run on getting it right this time.
    Whether he intends to bother with it or not is irrelevant to his getting votes from his promises.
    Obama just got some bad news today.
    Of 420 uncommitted voters (not to be confused with Independent voters) Obama only has a 20% job approval rating.
    In head-to-head matchups Obama loses to Rick Santorum!
    These are Likely Voters, not uncommitted ones.
    Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is at 45% while President Obama 44%.

    ReplyReply
  11. Galloway says: 11

    All you anti- Romney people need to settle down. If he is president he can stop what damage is being done to our dollar . Stop bernanke from adding zero’s to all the bank accounts of all obamas chicago buds, start repealing the health care law. Get rid of Dodd-Frank regulation- open up drilling everywhere. Stop EPA power grab. etc. Start reversing all obama did. Romneys healthcare deal was 200 pages i think Nan had this info. Obamacare is 2500.

    We have 4 years if Romney wins, to pick another better conservative or leave him in if he does well. Obama has to be stopped now, the dollar, the country cannot take 4 more years. We can work on a better Presidential nominee after we get that idiot out of our WH.

    I have to take that back he is not an idiot he and his minions are brilliant, they have taken the US down in less than 1 presidential term. Another terrible thought, 2 supreme court justice are probably getting to old to make another 4 years, if obama has 2 picks we are in deep trouble.

    ReplyReply
  12. johngalt says: 12

    @Galloway:

    Most of these “anti-Romney” people you are talking about are more than likely going to vote for Romney in the general, assuming Romney wins the nomination of course. Now, it may just be that most of them only vote for Romney as an “anti-Obama” vote, just as many voted for McCain in 2008 as more of an “anti-Obama” vote.

    The reason many people are against Romney at this point is because of his past record, as Governor of MA, his past words on defending Romneycare, and it’s because of that that people are very, very wary of him as President. People just don’t think that he can, or will, preside over the country using conservative principles.

    You mention what Romney “can” do, but the real question is, will he? And these “anti-Romney” people you mention just don’t think that he will.

    ReplyReply
  13. JustAl says: 13

    @Galloway: “Romneys healthcare deal was 200 pages i think Nan had this info. Obamacare is 2500.”
    That’s great. . . a more efficient stateist.

    What, exactly, makes you think he would actually increase drilling or stop EPA?

    ReplyReply
  14. MataHarley says: 14

    @Galloway: We have 4 years if Romney wins, to pick another better conservative or leave him in if he does well.

    Right… because that’s so common and easy? Galloway, there’s only been one elected incumbent POTUS that was denied the nomination for a second term in US history – Franklin Pierce back in 1857.

    There were three Veeps that rose to the POTUS position after deaths/assassinations that did not get the party nomination for a second term, but they were never elected POTUS to begin with. Again, all circa 1850-1880.

    Fact is, dumping an incumbent is no easy task, and about as common as unicorns. You get Romney now, you’re stuck with him in 2016.

    Romney’s advisor, Norm Coleman, has already said that the act will never be repealed in it’s entirety. And, in fact, Romney would want to keep “what’s good”.

    Romney – the godfather of the mandate and who still supports a mandate at the state level to this day – is likely to view what is “good” quite differently that the rest of us who vehemently oppose him. In fact, considering the major objection for the majority of citizens, and the lawsuits, revolves around the very mandate that Romney supports, running him as the candidate is a complete abomination of everything many of us stand for.

    Any one who believes that forcing citizens to purchase a product using the Commerce Clause and “general welfare”, simply because they breathe air, is unconstitutional at the federal level, but just dandy at the state level, scares the tar out of me. Constitutional rights do not stop at state borders.

    So nope… sorry. I won’t “settle down” and sell out my core principles just to change the rugs and paint job in the Oval Office, and get another believer in mandated healthcare in power. In my opinion, a choice between Romney and Obama is about as inviting as a choice between arsenic or rat poison with dinner. I’ll wait for Rubio in 2016. Maybe by then, there’ll actually be enough principled conservatives, not for sale, and the GOP will be forced to run a genuine conservative or lose their base.

    @johngalt and @JustAl, considering that Romney is still a believer in AGW and calls it alarming, joined protestors in front of coal plants as Governor, and with Ted Kennedy halted the Cape Wind farm (not because it was expensive energy, but to protect the property values of the wealthy denizens there), I wouldn’t trust him to do whit on drilling. After all, as a believer in AGW, how could he possibly compromise his principles to do so?

    Oh yeah… what principles?

    RedState compiled a PDF of the many faces of Mittens. To figure out where Romney’s principles lie, you need to get up and check the time on the clock, then see which way the political winds are blowing.

    This guy would cave in to my 8 year old granddaughter….

    ReplyReply
  15. anticsrocks says: 15

    @Nan G: There is some question as to the Constitutionality of simply issuing waivers.

    Obama thru the HHS has been doing this since Obamacare was passed and signed into law, but the idea that doing this places one branch of government above the law remains.

    Constitutions, however, could take different paths. Although the U.S. Constitution followed the state constitutions in simply assuming that suspension was part of the legislative power, it did nothing to authorize delegation of the suspending power to the executive.

    Even more strikingly, no American constitution, state or federal, allowed dispensation, let alone its delegation. Nor should this be a surprise. The power to dispense with the laws had no place in a constitution that divided the active power of government into executive and legislative powers. The dispensing power was not a power to make laws, nor even a power to repeal laws, but rather a power to relieve individuals of their obligation under a law that remained in effect. It thus was a power exercised not through and under the law, but above it.

    Of course, after a violation of a statute, the executive could refrain from prosecuting the offender or even pardon him. Until the legislature changed the law, however, neither the legislature nor the executive could simply tell a favored person that he was not bound by it.

    Waivers can be used for good purposes. But since the time of Matthew Paris, they have been recognized as a power above the law — a power used by government to co-opt powerful constituencies by freeing them from the law. Like old English kings, the current administration is claiming such a power to decide that some people do not have to follow the law. This is dangerous, above the law, and unauthorized by the Constitution. – Source

    ReplyReply
  16. johngalt says: 18

    @anticsrocks:

    antics, your post #15 is the perfect addition to my post #9 above. The liberal/progressives believe that the only real challenge to Obamacare’s unConstitutionality is the individual mandate. They do not realize how riddled Obamacare is with just plain bad law, and how much of it cannot be reconciled with the Constitution. Of course, they will never admit to it being such, and instead will continue to attempt defense of the indefensible.

    ReplyReply
  17. anticsrocks says: 19

    @johngalt: Thank you jg. Every time I hear Romney talk about stopping Obamacare via waivers for every state I get worried.

    I am certain that if he wins the nomination and somehow beats Obama and issues those waivers, the ACLU or some other leftist organization will file a lawsuit claiming those waivers are unconstitutional.

    Oh the irony, if it weren’t so important to the future of our nation, it would be funny.

    ReplyReply
  18. Michael Henkins
    there is another way to skin the dead cat, I think GEORGIA will find it, in it’s own time and place,
    simply because he has to go, no alternative considered by anyone.
    surely, you don’t want to skin that cat for food intake, nor for fur, I notice a truck park in front of the ditch and threw a dead cat in it, and the crows came and pick it up one piece at the time until he was no more,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  19. Steven says: 21

    @Nan G: As much as I would like to see him do it, that would be a blatantly un-Constitutional act. Congress would have to pass a bill amending the act.

    ReplyReply
  20. @ilovebeeswarzone: You know, I have no clue what you just said means. I don’t think its your fault though. I am a bit slow. (Not hungover)

    If you are referring to the Anyone-But-Obama, which I think you are, then my reply is we’ve been there and done that multiple times. Every election that has a democrat opposing a Republican that theme is used by the establishment to gloss over the fact that their chosen nominee is less then ideal and they lack a solid coherent argument. The GOP/NRC and its supporters drag out the “If you don’t vote for our guy, your voting for the democrat!” Personally anyone who trots out that crap I immediately tune out. Its not worth another breath or kilobyte arguing. Its an equation they have concocted thinking it to be true and thus ignore any reason, no matter how sound it is, you give them.

    Having gone toe-t0-toe with other Republicans/Conservatives on other websites I can tell you that I believe a good portion of the dug in deep animosity to Romney is not based on total dislike for the man himself, its those who defend him and their tactics. Watch Ann Coulters latest pro-Romney rant. Its another prime example Romney’s supporters become so obnoxious that people transfer their outrage at the pundit directly to Romney, who they are trying to help. And after all the demonizing and patronizing the pundits unloads at the unwashed they have the gall to demand party unity.

    In sales its usually not good practice for the sales associate to kick the prospective buyer in the nuts and then begin to tell them why buying their product from that store is a great decision. At least up in Maine it works that way.

    ReplyReply
  21. Michael Henkins
    thank you for answering, yes you figured it right,
    sorry for not having been more precise,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  22. neverends says: 24

    The turnout in states Romney wins tells us a lot…down in NH, down in FL, down in NV. That tells me that there are going to be a lot people sitting at home on election day – and that will give Bamie his re-election. At that point, the republican establishment and their support of Romney can be blamed for the total collapse of the USA because Bamey will make sure he finishes the destruction in the second term. The republican party will go the way of the Whigs but it won’t matter because it will be too late!

    ReplyReply
  23. neverends
    I just finish watching HUCKABEE SHOW, and one of his guest was talking about the big unit where hundreds of people are on the computers getting in touch with for example FACE BOOK DIRECTLY and telling about what they found out about them and asking for their votes, just like intimidating them to force their votes, and the guest was saying the only thing they are focusing on is the day of election, nothing else,
    so HUCKABEE SAID if the candidate think it will be easy, they better get ready for more, because
    the other side will be extremely prepare, and also the most high- tech never encountered before, that guest
    visited the place himself, and said one of them mention that they are so advance this time, the 2008 will look like ancient history compare, they probe the internet all over,
    that is where OBAMA IS BETTING ON WITH HIS MONEY
    ON THAT DAY ALONE, HE DON’T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE

    ReplyReply
  24. Galloway says: 26

    @JustAl: You have a good point there., but i see romney as one that can be reasoned with, if the people want these issues done away with , changed or whatever. i think romney being a businss man has had to learn to work with groups of people to get things to run efficiently in all his businesses, he will defer to congress , work with congress unlike the pretender in the WH now. I see him more willing to do what we the people want done.
    The epa thing will stiffle business and i think he will be a businessman for the country 1st. All his past dealings seem to prove this out.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>