2008 June 30 Monday
Romney VP Appeal: $60 Million Cash Quick To Get
Money raising ability makes Mitt Romney a front-runner to become John McCain's vice presidential running mate.
McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days. One close Romney adviser said it could even be $60 million.
But even with Romney and a large pile of cash McCain will still lose.
He's got some other big pluses. But McCain's campaign fears Romney will turn off southern Christian voters in states that Obama might run strong in.
Romney’s other advantages, according to people involved in McCain’s screening process:
— He is squeaky-clean and fully vetted by the national media.
— He has presidential looks and bearing and immediately would be a strong campaigner who could be trusted to stay on message.
— His family’s Michigan roots would help in a swing state that went Democratic in 2004.
Romney probably also poses another problem for McCain: A sufficiently accomplished history that Romney can probably think for himself and possibly try to disagree with McCain when McCain tries to do nutty things.
Obama can count on very high black turn-out and a much higher percentage of the black vote than previous white Democratic Presidential candidates could get. That puts him in a strong position in southern states with large black populations.
Suppose McCain goes with Romney for the cash. That won't put McCain in the lead for cash. Obama the fund-raising all-star has such an amazing track record on getting cash that he's is turning down federal matching funds so he can tap even larger sums from the private sector.
Obama has trounced McCain in fund raising, raking in $287.4 million to McCain's $119.6 million.
Obama is so flush he turned down about $85 million in federal matching funds, and he's so golden that his flip-flop from previously saying he would take matching funds was a non-issue.
People who fear Obama will be a socialist take note: He might be willing to be rented by the wealthy. This will place limits on his redistribution of wealth to the poor. Though this sort of influence-buying tends to corrupt markets and corrupt markets cause enormous damage.
Update: Obama might end up raising over a half billion dollars total by the time he's elected President.
Mr. Obama’s advisers said Thursday that they believed he could raise $200 million to $300 million for the general election, not counting money raised for the Democratic National Committee, if he were freed from the shackles of accepting public money.
So let me get this right, the Republican wants a taxpayer subsidy but the Democrat wants private equity?
Well, the Nordic countries, which has high economic redistribution, have lower corruption when measured by corruption perception index. (According to IQ and Global Inequality, corruption is negatively correlated with national IQ.) I suppose you agree that redistribution is a lesser evil than the government doing favors for the rich. And yes you are indeed correct; Obama has the potential to be bought by special interest. He is a human and he can be influenced by reciprocal altruism (i.e. having the capacity to do political favors for money.) However, economic redistribution is much more likely if he gets most of his campaign donations from people who contribute less than $200.
But of course there is only one correct form of government: a government that benefits me the most. Randall doesn't benefit from illegal immigration so a government tolerating it would be considered bad (although his reasoning invokes utilitarian principles, but he is not advocating anti-immigration policies from a utilitarian perspective), but for a plutocrat who wants cheap labor, then such policies are morally acceptable. Rawls' original position forces one to take an unbiased perspective and evades that problem if practiced.
It appears that it’s all down to Alaska Gov Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, and team Romney fears Palin now has the best shot, so Romney camp is mounting a blogosphere-wide assault via Politico.
The tip-off that Politico is just a “promote Romney” piece is that it mentions EVERY NAME in the next two tiers of Veep prospects EXCEPT SARAH PALIN!!! — even names far more unlikely than Palin (since Romney camp knows Palin is the ONLY ONE who tops — I’ll say tops by far — Romney as McCain’s best pick).
Bottom line, Romney and Politico fear Palin most — as do the Dems and the MSM. (By the way, the Dems and MSM do not fear Romney the most — which says a lot.)
AOL, prime on-line pro-Obama/pro-Dem player, is now carrying the Politico piece promoting Romney buzz.
Clearly AOL wants McCain and the GOP to lose the general elction — hence they gladly promote Romney (no mention of Palin).
Also, CNN had Romney — kind of out of the blue — attacking Obama. Again, CNN, wanting McCain and the GOP to lose, gladly promotes Romney (to attempt to avert the Palin threat).
All the media buzz which will surround Palin — essentially free to McCain — will be worth millions and millions of dollars of PR (more money than Romney could provide anyway).
McCain's not gonna pick Romney. He's smooth, articulate, several inches taller than McCain, and looks terrific for a guy who's over 60. He'd overshadow the candidate, and maybe not even provide a boost with conservatives. To me, all it would accomplish is to remind me why I dislike McCain so strongly.
Where does Obama get his money:
Might be surprised...
"As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at OpenSecrets.org.
People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.
Real estate professionals have given Obama $5 million, compared with $4 million for McCain. Medical professionals have given Obama $7 million, compared with $3 million for McCain. Commercial bankers have given Obama $1.6 million, compared with $1.2 million for McCain. Hedge fund and private equity managers have given Obama about $1.6 million, compared with $850,000 for McCain.
When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.
When he is swept up in rhetorical fervor, Obama occasionally says that his campaign is 90 percent funded by small donors. He has indeed had great success with small donors, but only about 45 percent of his money comes from donations of $200 or less."
But McCain's campaign fears Romney will turn off southern Christian voters in states that Obama might run strong in.
Anyone got the margins for those states handy? I'm finding that hard to swallow. I'll (insert non-fatal, unpleasant act here) if McCain/Romney don't take my home state (SC), for example.
From reading the PowerLine blog entry "Barak Obama's Patriotism", it appears to me that
Obama has made yet another gaffe. (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/020877.php)
See the paragraph at the end where Obama says this nation is in its 4th century. Any
schoolchild should know better than that. What is Obama's excuse?
No amount of money is going to replace basic competence.
Well if you count the founding of America as starting at the first British landing in VA (which is what my little sister is taught in school in Virginia then he is correct, as they often consider the founding of Jamestown as the founding of America as we know it, yes that is not actually correct and Virginia-centric thinking, but that is what she is being taught, especially this year, the 400th anniversary). I'm almost certain that is what he was thinking.
In any case, it doesn't matter Greg because most Americans don't care, and I would be over 70% can't tell you the correct date of 1776. What do you think? You a gambling man? Hell, I bet that if you asked, over 50% of Americans can't tell you the second president of the U.S., when the civil war started, what Reconstruction was, who fought the war of 1812, etc. Most people, the vast majority of Americans are quite ignorant of history in this country let alone internationally. Coming to this blog often reminds me of that though. LOL
Oh something else I'm sure Randall is proud of:
The PowerLine blog Author called him out on the "first lines" of the Declaration of Independance thing, but calling this our fourth century was just a subtle way to pad our American egos. The 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st are good enough to qualify as four to me- this is really just an issue of semantics. The author knew that's what Obama was referring to; personally I think hes just reaching with this one.
I wrote "Any schoolchild should know better than that" based upon my own experience. I don't
consider it to be especially difficult concept to master. "Any schoolchild" may be a bit
too much perhaps, but I don't consider myself to be especially gifted. I had to learn this
stuff while I was in school, and it isn't that hard.
If this was the only mistake that Obama made, assuming that you consider it a mistake, which I
do, then it wouldn't matter. Anybody can make a mistake, but Obama is making several of
them. It isn't just this one, but others. The mistakes aren't trivial either. If the mistakes
were only trivial, it wouldn't be worth mentioning.
As for whether or not most Americans caring or not, that's what political campaigns are about,
or so I thought. If nobody cares that a presidential candidate knows history, then perhaps
somebody ought to point it out, and convince them that it does matter. It matters a lot,
in my opinion.
The link you cited isn't relevant. Why include it?