Posted on 02/04/2012 10:48:29 AM PST by Starman417
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?
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Mitt and Obama both have low points and absolutely abysmal points, and they’re not quite the same. I’m inclined to hold the GOP more responsible since they are in a position where they ought to know better. The Rats, from Jimmy Carter onward, have made it plain they understand themselves to be just kiddies in a sand box with a bucket of play money. It’s hard to send hell to hell; it’s already there.
Since the week before Xmas, I have noticed a horde of the Class Of ‘98 that have gone around the twist and rode the lightning. Some were backing Willard, many were Paulbots, but almost all of them became condescending and downright mean.
I’m sure that is true. Even those that do know he is Mormon don’t know the political implications of what that means. America would be horrified to know what the aspirations of the Mormon Church are. We have to get the word out while we can still nominate an alternative to Obama.
The problem here seems to be that some very questionable policies, as well as some utterly gagulous ones, are being seen by a large body of willing people as a very mandate of God. These policies are not even close to what the founding fathers acknowledged in their shared Christianity or other bible-derived beliefs. Being “Mormon” is just another name. This s not just a practical danger if it gets enacted. It also will dog Mitt across the south, what some liberals mockingly call “Jesusland” (I wish it was that!) — I doubt Gingrich will let himself get blindsided much longer and hardly utter a public peep while Mitt blathers his lies.
My concern is strictly the political ambition of the Mormon Church and what it means to the loss of freedom in this country. Every move they have made financially and politically since Joseph Smith (who ran for President) has been to overthrow the government and rule from their Church. That they are morally bankrupt is a point well taken, but what do you expect from any cult that has perverted the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is chilling to think what such an organization would inflict on society if they realize what they believe is their Destiny. In the Florida debate they should have questioned Romney a little more on what he meant by his “provinence”.
I don’t know when it was decided (in the grand game of Calvinball) that Florida ought to have its primary in January, not April. It almost looks like Newt had his advertisement production schedule planned out for April. I mean the imbalance of publicity was ridiculous. 200 ads versus Mitt’s 15,000+? Newt (and other rivals nipping at his heels like Santorum) should well have been the “they” which you speak of, asking about Mitt’s “provenance” claims. And maybe they did, but in such a small peep they could not be heard.
True, the historic ambitions of the LDS from Smith onward are valid subjects of scrutiny. Trying to do that publicly in a way that doesn’t get hooted at as “BIGOTRY!” is another trick. A present tense attack (Mr. Magic Underwear is seeing XXX as his divine mandate, NOW) may be the best that can be hoped.
Sometimes we just have to take the initiative and not let the conversation be framed that way. I told a talk radio moderator the other day that we should examine the political aspirations of the Mormon Church’s candidate for the same reasons that we would question a candidate that wanted to institute Sharia Law.
We have to make it crystal clear that we are not talking about their rituals, ceremonies, magic underwear, nor would it matter if they hung from the ceiling of the tabernacle like bats. We just don’t want the Mormon Theocracy they are advancing taking away our liberty.
Interestingly enough, the radio host said I was the “insightful call “ of the day. I’ll be happy if we can just get people to Think and be informed before they vote.
Getting people to take a second look at the LDS may be hard, since their charm offensives within living memory include such “clean living” people as the Osmonds. The content of what they are hoping to institute today does matter. And it’s changed drastically from what the Osmonds projected, if that was ever accurate. The most damning thing seems to be the near flirtation with gay marriage. Mitt was a bishop, darn it. If we were talking about a Catholic bishop or a Baptist elder, say, there would be some stir about it. But he’s LDS? Yawn, goes the public. They shouldn’t yawn.
Thanks. I only got about thirty seconds in before I had to turn it off. Maybe if they played this at Romney rallies it would help Newt.:)
Thanks. I only got about thirty seconds in before I had to turn it off. Maybe if they played this at Romney rallies it would help Newt.:)
I’m with Newt all the way. The battle has just begun. Go Newt.
**************
dittos!
If Florida were split equally between Romney and Gingrich, 25 and 25, Romney would lead 72-55 .....
http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.