Posted on 10/05/2011 6:20:36 AM PDT by Clairity
Both Hot Air and The Drudge Report are reporting that the Perry campaign will report that it raised a fairly impressive $17 million during the 49 days of the 3rd quarter that the campaign was active.
Ed Morrissey breaks the numbers down:
The pace is even more impressive. Perry had 49 days in which to raise funds, rather than the full 92 days of the quarter, a rate of about $349,000 a day. The final debate in September didn't hurt Perry's fundraising rate, either. In the 42 days prior to the Orlando debate, their rate was $323K per day; in the eight days following the Orlando debate, that escalated to $478K per day. Perry's on-line operation did well, too, drawing in $1.1 million - despite, as my source says, not driving contributions with their on-line ads.
(Excerpt) Read more at outsidethebeltway.com ...
A problem I have with Palin is that she has tried to demonize "big oil" and that is destructive to our economy and jobs. I LOVE big oil.
Who's the Tea Party?
Exactly...Mitt Romney!!!
This part or the article suggests otherwise:
In the 42 days prior to the Orlando debate, their rate was $323K per day; in the eight days following the Orlando debate, that escalated to $478K per day.
“Seeing as how I didn’t have a cat”
Seeing that you don’t have a sense of humor, do not understand sarcasm... Pity.
Virginia Ridgerunner, it's customary to ping the person you quote.
I do wonder what you mean by posting Mr. Robinson's quote like that?
We have always had lively debate and disagreement on FR, as long as it's polite and based on facts.
I've met Mr. Robinson several times over the years at FR events. And, as a long time active member and supporter of FR (and the Governor), I replied to Mr. Robinson that I disagree with his opinion:
posted on 09/25/2011 4:41:06 PM PDT by hocndoc
The Texas Legislature gave the Governor the authority when they delegated the mandating of vaccines to the Executive Branch. He used his lawful authority. They balked, changed the law for one vaccine and only one vaccine, but left his opt out provision alone.
He gave that opt out provision more publicity than all the anti-vaccination advocates ever had - while easing the burden that parents faced.
Governor Perry has fought for control of the border all along. He’s cut spending, protected life and marriage, and knocked the RINOs off their bureaucratic pedestals in Texas."
329 posted on Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:17:48 PM by PSYCHO-FREEP (Patriotic by Proxy! (Cause I'm a nutcase and it's someone Else's' fault!....))
What's wrong with oil money?
That you refer to them as 'big oil' is kinda telling...
The NWO, open border, globalists and crony capitalists would be quite happy and well served by either Perry or Romney.
You have every right to keep believing that... get back to me around the first of the year... he is dead in the water and sinking.
LLS
I would especially like to thank the state of Ohio and West Virginia for letting me in to rape and pillage all the evil profits we are taking from under the ground there. Then we can take our corrupt money and buy up all the politicians in Washington, you know, so we can keep all the money for ourselves! ROFL!
The downside of this is, that there are more and more people being created that are like me. Who are buying nice houses, large chunks of land and SUV’s! You know, that corrupt capitalist kind of individual who wants to live better. And especially the kind who donate to causes they consider good for their well being. (Of the most EVIL kind.) /s
(Do they even have a clue how they come across?)
Usually, "pay to play" is viewed as running in the other direction, where the elected policy maker "requires" payment in order to advocate policies that suit whoever paid 'im.
The person in the position of policy and political power is the one being bought off.
That’s crap. Perry is every bit as bought and paid for by members of the “kingmaker” class as Romney. The real test would be to nominate someone like a Cain or Palin and have Perry and Romney unite behind the nominee along with their money and work to elect a real candidate. Would I expect that to happen? Nope; they will lose the nomination and then will pack up their money and support teams and ignore the nominee. They care about being elected to power, not about the country or the Constitution. Most of our founders gave up or put at risk their wealth and influence to build a country with new ideals but these guys don’t seem capable of giving up their next paid speech or risk anything to try to save the Constitution and the Republic.
I'm not suggesting that Romney would be better, but Cain and others are more interested in a good business climate for all than rewarding donors in a tit for tat scheme.
Perry has a huge problem with this cronyism thing, it has been with him from the beginning, and you can be sure it will be with him if he wins. It also takes a huge issue off the table if he is the nominee against Bambi.
The article doesn't give enough information to reach a conclusion as to public/mass popularity. it could be that the bigger donors were more heavily represented in the last eight days, while the number of small donors per day dropped off.
I don't know which way it went (or if it went as described as a possibility just above), just saying that the daily money rate doesn't tell the daily popularity rate.
The attacks on Perry by other candidates, Bachmann, Rommey, Santorum, and now Cain were hollow, and they will pay the price.
People don't take to vicious one liner attacks, ie Bachmann and the mandated shot, Santorum and the fence, Romney and instate tuition, Cain and the rock. IMO, Perry, though not as eloquent as the MSM thinks he should have been, has logic and reason on his side.
Same with the talking heads. They'll work to maintain the established circles of power. Follow the money; and note too, how 90% of the population is damned scared of radical change. Eliminate the Department of Education? Why, that just can't be! Repeat with any federal bureaucracy.
I agree with your bottom line on Perry. He's with the "in" crowd, and is probably more skilled than most at obtaining personal advantage, working the levers of power, etc. than most.
Fine. Let’s just dispense with this charade and set up a no campaign, no primary run for the nomination, just privately pander to whatever donor groups you can pry money from. Start it on January 1 of the specified year and the one who raises the most money by July 1 is the nominee.
The primary system and buying the nomination is corrupt, does not work well and results in in crap like McCain. It has nothing to do with common people, the Constitution, and choice and everything to do with big money influence, political dynasty and career (mostly criminal) politicians.
No, she hasn’t. She has called out CORRUPTION within certain industries as well as corruption WITHIN political parties. But don’t let that stand in the way of your establishment party-loving hypocrisy.
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.