[UPDATE: McCain's campaign just confirmed he has raised $6 million in Q3, more than the $5 million estimated earlier, and will report $3.6 million COH.]
…according to the AP. He loaned himself $8.5 million and is reporting $9 million COH at the end of Q3.
This brings his year’s totals to $45 raised, $17.5 million loaned for a total of $62.5 million.
Republicans
Romney – $10 (COH: $9)
Thompson – $8 (COH: ?)
McCain – $6 (COH: $3.6)
Paul – $5.08 (COH: $5.3)
Huckabee – $1 (COH: $600k)
October 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Wow, 40% of money raised, he gave… thats bad.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I wonder if the personal loans might actually be to Romney’s advantage. Hillary will outspend any Republican not willing to chip in with some of their own money.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am
He is the Primary Fundraising leader, and then he can go back for General election funds when he has tied up the nomination.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I think the loans are a good thing. We can expect him to compete and his believes enough to use a lass mass of his fortune. I don’t mind it one bit.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:12 am
So, Romney now owes himself $17.5M, but can’t even raise $10M in outside funds in a quarter. Heading into the cash-intensive phase of the campaign.
How does he get away with checking the “loan†checkbox instead of the “candidate contribution†checkbox? (He has both options on the FEC form.)
By what dishonesty is he expecting the public to believe such a loan could be repaid? What moral justification does he have for checking the loan box instead of the self-contribution box?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:12 am
He has only $9 million COH, despite raising $10 million and giving himself $8.5? Just how much is he spending?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:13 am
This demonstrates Mitt’s commitment to winning this thing. Raising $10 million on its own would make him competitive, but it’s the size of the loan that surprises. Since the DOW is over 14,000, this isn’t a bad time for him to liguidate some of his mutual funds anyway…it’s all profit. But it’s America that will profit from Mitt’s sacrifice.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Mittbots: I’m not saying it is illegal to check the loan box. I’m saying it is dishonest to the public. It’s clear now there is no means to repay it with outside funds. So why is he not re-classifying it as a self-contribution? There is a checkbox for that. Why are YOU not holding him to an honest standard?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Metro,
Give it a rest. Your obsession with semantics is tiresome.
Awakened,
Enough. If it looks like it’s not enough at any given point, the numbers will go higher.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:17 am
It’s not semantics. THERE ARE TWO CHECKBOXES. Black and white. One or the other.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:18 am
#3 John,
I totally agree. If he was not pulling in these kinds of numbers (donations)
and was lending himself the money that would be a different story, the fact the he is getting this much financial support combined with his personal loans boads well for his campaign. Lets see what Rudy pulls in, my guess is around $11-12 million which would keep
him slightly ahead of Romney, but that is to be expected seeing that Rudy is the front runner. Again, Mitt’s loans are a very positive contribution to his campaign.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Who cares what checkbox he uses? I’m sure he really is hoping he’ll get the money back someday (maybe 2012).
October 4th, 2007 at 11:25 am
#12 Thomas Alan,
I agree 100%. If Mitt wants to “loan” his money to the campaign then all the power to him, I’m sure he doesn’t care one bit what someone from the race42008 messageboard named Metro thinks.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:26 am
If I recall, he did comment on this previously as this way he will be able to decide to not repay
the loans if he should want or to pay them back. whereas the other option leaves him no choice even
if he is in a position to reimburse the amounts to himself.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Thomas Alan: ‘Who cares what checkbox he uses? I’m sure he really is hoping he’ll get the money back someday (maybe 2012).’
Did you see the poll that showed that 57% of the people would definitely not vote for Mitt Romney? Thompson’s was at 54%.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Hey Metro,
Can a self-contribution be “re-classified” as a loan, or does it just go one way?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Ray, the dishonesty of Mitt’s financial statement is there for the whole country to see, not just MetroRepublican.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Abe, I don’t know. How about Team Romney explain to us how they are classifying $17.5M as loan, with only $10M in income in a quarter, and expenses rising?
Any loan application like that would be laughed out of the bank. Does he think the public is that dumb?
The public has spoken previously about self-funded candidates: they usually reject them outright.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Metro:
“Mittbots: I’m not saying it is illegal to check the loan box. ”
Riiiight…. You certainly were implying that on the other thread a few days back by stating Romney is a “fraud.”
Most know how to interpret “loans”. Apparently, you do not. You are still trying to spin this into something dishonest, unethical, and amoral. Get a life.
A recent Gallup poll showed that 92 percent of the public find it “acceptable” for presidential candidates to use their own money to pay their campaign costs.
It is his money, Romney earned it. Rudy can loan himself $17M if he wants to as I’m sure he is worth that & more. There is nothing illegal, fraudulent, unethical, dishonest in any way shape or form here.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Metro,
Can’t find the poll right now (I will keep looking), but the public’s perception of a self-funded candidate is completely different from one who raises money but then uses some of his own as well.
In fact, somewhere in the neighborhood of 97% of Americans are okay with a candidate who does the latter.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:37 am
If he is “self-funded” what are Romney’s 100,000 Individual Contributors … I call them more than any other Republican
October 4th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Okay, cwpete beat me to it. There you go.
Self-funded is majorly different than what Romney is doing.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:39 am
“It’s not semantics. THERE ARE TWO CHECKBOXES. Black and white. One or the other.”
I tend to think that loaning the money is intentional and more than just semantics. I haven’t thought about this much, but one possible reason would be to personally recover any unspent funds in the event he looses. Who knows, but could there be possible tax advantages to doing it this way?
Anyway, from my perspective it seems rather trivial.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:39 am
cwpete, not at all. Fraud does not mean illegal. It means dishonest. Or are you now saying adultery should be illegal? How about an honest swipe at me, for a change?
THERE ARE TWO CHECKBOXES. How long are you going to ignore that? There is an HONEST checkbox for the $17.5M.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:40 am
…Why do people donate to Romney? He’ll always give himself a loan to boost him to 18 million or so. If no one donated, he’d just loan himself 18 million dollars.
Why waste your money?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Metro, I agree with you, by the way, but I think your energies would be better focused elsewhere and not on Mitt’s stupid dishonest checkbox selection.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Richard P, that’s entirely plausible. Why hasn’t Team Romney TOLD given us some explanation, such as that?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:40 am
For once I’m in agreement with you, ThatLibertarianGuy.
http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com
October 4th, 2007 at 11:40 am
25 — Metro — Because people don’t really care.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am
here’s my question: When you’re already willing to spend $17 million–nearly twice as much as you raise in the third quarter AND you’re worth a quarter billion, why should anyone donate a dime to your special interest free campaign?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am
TLG, because Mitt is held up as a shining example of moral perfection.
And he’s not doing the ethical thing here.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Not sure how this is unethical?????????
October 4th, 2007 at 11:44 am
MetroRepublican:
If there was any merit at all to your outlandish smear, then why don’t you have your guy Rudy take Romney to court over this alleged “fraud” and “dishonesty”?
There is not any justification for these accusations at all. You’d get laughed out of court in a heartbeat. Admit it, you are just trying to fabricate something so as to smear Romney as a dishonest fraud.
When Rudy guys pull crap like this, I’m significantly less likely to support Rudy.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Who else has 100,000 Individual Contributors (Total) on the Republican side?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Metro, you’re being insane. You’re acting like TLG did a few weeks back when he found out that Romney swore once. Come back to reality man, you’re not a Sampo.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am
If Mitt was ethical ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE he wouldn’t be asking people to help finance something he’s more than capable of financing himself.
Why give money to a multi-millionare when he has more than enough of it already?
http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com
October 4th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Romney has the deepest, strongest supporters. He doesn’t have the wide shallow support that some others have.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:49 am
cwpete, Look, I told you last time, and I JUST told you, this is NOT ILLEGAL. Why are you brining up courts?
Are you saying dishonesty should be illegal?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:50 am
cwpete, you are smarter than this. Why are you smearing me, when you know my position crystal-clear? You are only making yourself look bad.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:50 am
LTG, you really do not need to ask that question. You have been here on this site for almost whole year, if not since day one. Almost for every comment you posted about Mitt, you have been challenged by his supporters. We have argued with you why we think Mitt is a better man for this job than Rudy and everyone else. So, as long as there are people donating to Mitt, he will be ok giving some to himself. The day we stop donating, he will be out of the race. in any case, we cannot deny that until now, he has more people donating to his campaign than any other candidate. I said until now because the number of contributors have not been released by any Republican candidate yet — and with the race is quite messy at this point, things could be shifted around.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:51 am
SGS — Way to not answer my question. Why do you donate to him if he’s willing to just fund himself? Why waste that money..?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:51 am
SGS: ‘LTG’
May I ask why you call him LTG? What does that stand for?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Metro: ‘cwpete, you are smarter than this. ‘
He may very well be Albert Einstein, but I haven’t noticed it, that’s for sure.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:52 am
My real name is “Libertarian — That Guy!” Awakened.
Richard P — “Metro, you’re being insane. You’re acting like TLG did a few weeks back when he found out that Romney swore once. Come back to reality man, you’re not a Sampo.” I totally stand by my reaction. Mr. Pleased-as-Punch is not also Mr. You-F#$%king-Cops.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
TLG,
As one of the 100,000 contributors to Mitt’s campaign, let me defend my decision to send money to him. It’s the right thing to do for the country I love. Is that ok with you? Mitt’s doing his part, and I want to do mine. Actually, it’s ok if that’s not ok with you, just like it’s ok with me if you don’t vote for our nominee. You’re right, Maryland is too clueless for your vote to matter one way or another.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Peter, have you seen the number of grandkids romney has? who is gonna put them all through college? Romney must be judicious in how he spends his billions. And besides, last time i checked rudy was no homeless. The man made like $100 million giving 911 speeches. So where is the money, rudy? where are the loans? if he is serious he must show us the cash.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I consider “fraud” in most cases, illegal. You sure do have a way with words Metro:
Consider the American Heritage Dictionary definition:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/F0302100.html
1. Engaging in fraud; deceitful. 2. Characterized by, constituting, or gained by fraud: fraudulent business practices.
“Are you saying dishonesty should be illegal?”
In this case yes, absolutely. Do you not know that these documents are signed by Mr. Romney and his campaign under penalty of perjury?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Arga, that number is not right in giving speeches. Rudy’s worth about 30M.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I consider “fraud” in most cases, illegal. You sure do have a way with words Metro:
Consider the American Heritage Dictionary definition:
1. Engaging in fraud; deceitful. 2. Characterized by, constituting, or gained by fraud: fraudulent business practices.
“Are you saying dishonesty should be illegal?”
In this case yes, absolutely. Do you not know that these documents are signed by Mr. Romney and his campaign under penalty of perjury?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Dave — ” TLG,
As one of the 100,000 contributors to Mitt’s campaign, let me defend my decision to send money to him. It’s the right thing to do for the country I love. Is that ok with you? Mitt’s doing his part, and I want to do mine. Actually, it’s ok if that’s not ok with you, just like it’s ok with me if you don’t vote for our nominee. You’re right, Maryland is too clueless for your vote to matter one way or another.”
Mitt’s “doing his part”? No, he’s bankrolling his own campaign. None of the other candidates really have the capacity to fund their entire campaign. And yes, I am right about Maryland. At least I live in Western Maryland, where we have Congressman Bartlett, the lone GOP voice of sanity in this poor misbegotten state.
Um, by the way, yes, it’s okay with me. You can do what you want.
But if you didn’t donate 100 dollars, Mitt would have made up for it himself.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Metro:
“cwpete, you are smarter than this. Why are you smearing me, when you know my position crystal-clear? You are only making yourself look bad.”
Get real dude. Who is smearing who? You are smearing Romney & his campaign and I’m just calling you out on it.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Argamenon, 30 million is a tad different than 250 million. Rudy isn’t going to gamble with 25 million dollars of his own money! Mitt can afford that. Rudy can’t!
“The man made like 100 million…”[1]
[1] – My ass
October 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I have not called anyone here “fraud” or dishonest. Those are “smear” terms in my book.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I think it is smart business to call it a loan and shows that Mitt believes in himself and his message. For a candidate with very little name recognition and huge confidence in his message it makes sense. Some republicans are sitting on their money waiting to see what happens with Fred.
The vast majority of Americans are just starting to become aware of the election. Calling it a loan allows him to repay himself when his message catches fire. In my opinion it shows great confidence in the energy and momentum that is building in his candidacy! The Romeny rally just finished. He showed us how to do it and now we can just keep on moving!
Each candidate brings an advantage to his campaign. McCain brings name recognition from public service… and that is to his advantage. Fred brings face and name recognition from TV experience ….and that is to his advantage. Rudy brings name and face recognition from chance….and that is to his advantage. Mitt brings fabulous experince in business. That experience is reflected in the income that he was paid and now has available to put into his campaign….and that is to his advantage. People paid him big bucks because he is GREAT at what he does!! Which is clean things up and make them work well. So complain if you want this America. Each candidate has an advantage and they all use it. After all how many times has Rudy said 911 so far in this election.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
The real question is, where is Romney spending all of this money?! I saw that he has run 100k ads and noone else is close, but he must also have a huge paid staff.
More important, hf he loaned himself $8.5 mill and has $9 mill COH, his campaign really has only $500k COH. Put another way, he could not loan money to himself, he would have to seek public funds. When McCain was that low the press said he was broke.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
So, you think it’s honest to call it a loan when there is clearly no means to repay it.
In that case, are you willing to have it footnoted to be subtracted from cash on hand, when comparing it to Rudy’s cash on hand with no debt?
Where does this liability enter the balance sheet?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Pablo, Mitt’s total loan to himself is $17.5M. $8.5M was just the latest installment.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Has anyone else noticed that Ron Paul’s fundraising goal is 4 million dollars for this month? He’s gonna fall way short of that at the pace he’s been going. 150,000 in four days is good, but not astounding. 150k x 7 = a little over a million bucks. Yeah, he’ll get a big push at the end, and yeah, he’ll have some bigger donors coming to him, but…
What’s he thinking, raising expectations like that? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
TLG, Your right it really isn’t about the money for Romney, its about support and number of supporters …..
October 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘My real name is “Libertarian — That Guy!†Awakened.’
I don’t get it. How? Where? When?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Pablo — “More important, hf he loaned himself $8.5 mill and has $9 mill COH, his campaign really has only $500k COH. Put another way, he could not loan money to himself, he would have to seek public funds. When McCain was that low the press said he was broke.”
That is the real story.
Mitt Romney is officially the self-funded candidate in the race.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘My real name is “Libertarian — That Guy!†Awakened.’
I don’t get it. How? Where? When?”
How? By existing.
Where? Race42008.
When? Right now.
This is the moment.
Vote for Libertarian That Guy for President.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
500K number is not descriptive of anything.
9M COH – 17.5M total loans = -8.5M on the balance sheet.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
True.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
At what point did loans become a good sign in a campaign? If Clinton or Obama loaned their respective campaigns $10 million, would that be seen as a good sign?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
LibertarianThatGuy: ‘Vote for Libertarian That Guy for President.’
You sure are weird. But I’m one to talk.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I am very weird, and you don’t know the half of it. It’s a reputation that I seem to get no matter where I go.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
That’s $21.5 million spent in Q3! Holy Moly! Probably more than McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson combined. And he’s got single digit national polling (non rasmussen) and sagging Iowa and NH polling.
Romney is $8.5 million in the hole when you subtract donations of the one donor named Mitt Romney.
ASTROTURF! ASTROTURF! ASTROTURF! ASTROTURF!
October 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
TLG – “Mitt Romney is officially the self-funded candidate in the race.”
How can he be when he has the most Individual Financial supporters????
October 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
ASTROTURF! ASTROTURF! ASTROTURF! ASTROTURF!
October 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
^ Hello, my name is Sampo.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
sampo is right, just a little histrionic.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Dude, what a pathetic conversation – Mitt is the top fundraiser, probs. Plus, when he chips in his own money, he CREAMS Rudy. Why don’t we discuss what Rudy has raised? The upward trend of Romney trumps the argument as to Romney spending so much. Romney’s spending is not in vain, as well as his fundraising, so lay it to rest.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
He doesn’t have that many kids
October 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
If I were a Romney hater, I would be very worried to know the guy has the most powerful ground game and hundreds of millions in the bank. He won’t need that money, but remember, it’s there.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘I am very weird, and you don’t know the half of it. It’s a reputation that I seem to get no matter where I go. ‘
This sounds strangely familiar.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Metro’s obsession with mitt hating is at a new low. what a non issue. If you want to pick on nitt picky things like this with romney, others should be allowed to make such lame arguments on behalf of giuliani.
the facts are clear. romney is not a self funded candidate. to this point, he has raised more money from contributors other than ANY OTHER GOP CANDIDATE, and has had MORE different supporters donate to him than ANY OTHER candidate. so the whining about him giving himself money is meritless.
People give to Romney because they believe he ist he best guy for the job, the same reason people give to other candidates. You can talka bout polls and support, but much of rudy’s supoprt comes simply from name recognition as being american’s mayor. Despite that, it has not translated into more individuals who like him enough to actually give him money. Romney’s fundraising strength shows a lot of people are very committed to him, enough so as to give him their own hard earned money.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
“Akin to a nightmare.” Why would Mitt have said that?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
pablozed
that is teh difference between mccain and romney. Mccain couldn’t afford to spend all that money. Romney could. Romney didn’t put himself in taht position that mccain did.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
jrcutler wins for stupidest statement of the year — maybe ever? “Plus, when he chips in his own money, he CREAMS Rudy”
Yes, and when Ron Paul doesn’t have to compete against other people in the polls, he totally obliterates the opposition!
October 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Galt, more small contributions = Mormons.
More raised than any? Let’s see what Rudy has.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
John Galt — “the facts are clear. romney is not a self funded candidate. to this point, he has raised more money from contributors other than ANY OTHER GOP CANDIDATE, and has had MORE different supporters donate to him than ANY OTHER candidate. so the whining about him giving himself money is meritless.”
No it isn’t! It gives him an unfair advantage even though the undiscerning eye can’t see it (ie; the unsuspecting Iowa voter bombarded by Mitt’s millions), in the same sort of way that your screen name makes one initially believe you’re a person of reason.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Akin to a nightmare.
A nightmare? A? Try 17,500,000 nightmares?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
HAHA, “in the same sort of way that your screen name makes one initially believe you’re a person of reason.”
Best post of the year! Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Metro, Are you implying that Mormons don’t count some how?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Abe, when some investigative journalist quantifies the Mormon contributions and volunteers that dominate Mitt’s campaign, yes, they will count… just not as you’re hoping.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
74, I fail to see the difficulty in raising arbitrary figures of money when you’re willing to spend $17.5 million to do it.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Gotta run. Hopefully Rudy’s #s are out when I get back.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
The link shows Guliani’s #s not romneys where can i see the article on romney
October 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
It took 78 posts but we finally reached the bottom of the deck and brought out the “Mormon” card. Good work Metro — well done.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Rudy’s numbers have been released. He raised 11 million with 16.5 million cash on hand.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Here’s the article: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S2HUN00&show_article=1
October 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Just so we’re clear. Romney raised $10 million and added another 8.5 million of his own funds. Giuliani raised 10.5 million for the primaries.
Metro, that’s an urban legend you are perpetuating. The “Mormons” are not responsible for Mitt’s success. I’ve seen you claim this over and over WITHOUT any substantive data. You claim large percentage populations in the states where he is leading when in fact, they hover around 1% Mormon. Mormons are very independent people. They elect Democrat Senators and Congressman in the sate of Utah. My two best LDS friends: one is voting for Obama, the other for Thompson. Many people in my church have not even heard of Romney yet or are very unaware of him.
Harry Reid is LDS and I can’t stand him. You try to explain away Romney’s success because of this ficticious, robotic herd of Mormons that walk in lock step. That urban legend is really far from reality. I’m going to keep calling you on it. sampo’s motivation is obviously bigotry. He/she is on a mission because God needs him/her to fight against Romney for him with lies and deceit. You appear to be part of that same mindset. Knock it off with the mis-information. I’m tired of you mis-characterizing people from my religion.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
according to 88, and assuming Rudy has no debts, he spent 13 million in q3.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
RUDYBOTS!
If the day ever comes in America when a candidate for office isn’t allowed to donate to his own campaign Freedom will be dead and America won’t be America. If it wasn’t for the severe restrictions on the right to free speech passed at the behest of John McCain and Fred Thompson, with the support of Rudy Giuliani, those of us who want to see Mitt become president would have been able to donate far more than the pitiful $2300 the McCain/Thompson/Giuliani law allows and Mitt wouldn’t have to contribute so much to his campaign, and we wouldn’t be having this ridiculous conversation.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Where is the links to Romney’s numbers all the links above are Guliani’s numbers
October 4th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I’m very happy to say that I gave money to Romney in the last quarter. It’s the first time I’ve ever given to a candidate. And I’m not a LDS, so it’s not just Mormons that are giving him money.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Shawnie,
As a fellow member of the Restoration, I applaud your efforts to set the record straight. Some of us who post here are Mormons, and most of us who are are for Romney. On your test yesterday, I scored 97% harmony with Mitt politically, and I know myself well enough to know that he would be my candidate even if he was a Jehovah’s Witness. While your match with Mitt was in the 70′s, it was still a better match than it was with any other candidate. I.E., we would support him regardless of his religion, and I suspect that the same is true for the other Mormons for Mitt here. Regardless, some of those posting here who are for other candidates, are indeed motivated in part by religious prejudice. They will never acknowledge that we have minds of our own, capable of ratiocination and lateral thinking. Don’t let it get to you. And keep up the good work.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“Galt, more small contributions = Mormons.” Where does this data come from? Lame. thats like saying rudy’s contributions come from the mob.
“More raised than any? Let’s see what Rudy has.” Yes, lets see. it looks like teh same amount as mitt. wow, very impressive for america’s mayor.
“HAHA, “in the same sort of way that your screen name makes one initially believe you’re a person of reason.â€
Best post of the year! Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave.”
yes and most libertarians are rolling around in their grave by someone with teh name ‘thatlibertarianguy’ supporting rudy giuliani. Rudy is no libertarian, lets get that straight. I am quiet sure libertarians do not support 9 justices deciding that the constitution have this magical umbrella or rights one of which is abortion and that these nine judges have the right to impose that view on a whole country. I can go on as well.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
giuliani only raised a couple hundred thousad more than mitt given that some of his 11 million is general election funds.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
You go, Shawnie!!
October 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
As I’ve said before, Mitt is the man!
October 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“Lame. thats like saying rudy’s contributions come from the mob.”
Well, John Galt is now either comparing Mormons to mobsters or saying that Rudy is getting contributions from the mob.
So it’s clearly us Rudy guys who are the irrational ones.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Dave — “RUDYBOTS!
If the day ever comes in America when a candidate for office isn’t allowed to donate to his own campaign Freedom will be dead and America won’t be America. If it wasn’t for the severe restrictions on the right to free speech passed at the behest of John McCain and Fred Thompson, with the support of Rudy Giuliani, those of us who want to see Mitt become president would have been able to donate far more than the pitiful $2300 the McCain/Thompson/Giuliani law allows and Mitt wouldn’t have to contribute so much to his campaign, and we wouldn’t be having this ridiculous conversation.”
Romney can do whatever the hell he wants. The 1st Amendment doesn’t mean “anyone can say and do whatever they want and ANYONE WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT SHOULD SHUT UP.” I can criticize it all I want. He can do it, but it doesn’t mean he should.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
John Galt — “yes and most libertarians are rolling around in their grave by someone with teh name ‘thatlibertarianguy’ supporting rudy giuliani. Rudy is no libertarian, lets get that straight. I am quiet sure libertarians do not support 9 justices deciding that the constitution have this magical umbrella or rights one of which is abortion and that these nine judges have the right to impose that view on a whole country. I can go on as well.”
Who the hell ever said Rudy was a libertarian? Who said that I supported Roe v. Wade? Rudy is a mainstream Republican and I oppose Roe v. Wade.
Huh? Who said anything about John Galt having his foot in his mouth? Anyone?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
so when is Mitt going to lead by example and give 1.75 million to his opposition?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
This man is so trying to buy the election. He has the mooney, so why shouldnt he?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
..and the money
October 4th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“This man is trying to buy the election” is false. He is trying to buy exposure so people know who he is. He has low name ID in comparison to Thompson and Giuliani and even McCain. He isn’t paying anyone for their vote, he is paying the price it takes to get your message, face and platform out there. HUGE TASK and an expensive one. He started as an unknown. That the man believes enough in what he is doing to put his money where his mouth is? Kudos to him. And to the people who think there shouldn’t be contributions because he has money himself, well, your boss shouldn’t pay you a paycheck because you already have money in your savings. You got to be kidding! It’s a group effort. It’s a group party. The President represents all Republicans. Everyone contributes. Romney is representing millions, and everyone has a vested interest in his getting the job and increasing this country’s prosperity. And he is the man who will do it.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Rudy has a lot of COH. He must be planning a media blitz in the coming weeks. I have believed all along that Rudy was biding his time, letting Romney spend millions on early advertising. Now he can drop $10 million to saturate the airwaves and force Romney to dig into his pockets a la John Kerry.
To be fair, Romney had to spend a lot to introduce himself to the voters whereas Rudy already had high name ID.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Awakened, I did not realized I screw up with TLG’s name. It was not intended. Thanks for pointing it out.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
tlg, that was my point exactly, the statement was irrational.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
SGS: ‘Awakened, I did not realized I screw up with TLG’s name. It was not intended. Thanks for pointing it out.’
You’re welcome. I was wondering why you misspelled his name. I thought that there might be some name-calling involved, but despite your rather extreme political views, that did seem out of character.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
tlg
have you been reading my posts at all or do you just look and automatically respond without thinking.
read more carefully and you will understand my comment. when you blog for rudy with the name ‘thatlibertarianguy’ you are suggsetin ghtat libertarians would support giuliani. you and metro were giving me beef becuase i blog for romney with an ayn rand username so I was returning the lame argument in your favor with the same lame argument above. “ayn rand would be rolling in her grave.” in response to your ‘reasonable’ jab. maybe you didn’t catch that. My point was that your name doesn’ tahve to suggest that rudy is a libertarian but that is what you and metro keep saying me bloggin as john galt must imply.
so pull your foot out of your own mouth.
I already
October 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
MetroRepublican Says:
October 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
So, you think it’s honest to call it a loan when there is clearly no means to repay it.
Actually yes, I do. Given your unstated answer to your own question, you wouldn’t think it was honest for a student to take out a loan to go to school. After all, “there is clearly no means to repay it”.
I enjoy watching you MittSlammers shoot yourselves in the foot. You just can’t buy this kind of entertainment.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Its a loan because when and if donations come in to cover it, the campaign will pay him back. So, Romney will be raising money in Q4 solely to put in his pocket.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Pablo,
To inject some reason into this discourse, it doesn’t matter whether he calls his contributions loans or gifts. If he calls them loans, and there is anything left over after the shooting stops, he can reclaim it. I don’t think anybody thinks he intends to pay back every red cent of what he is contributing. This point is so transparently obvious that there shouldn’t be any confusion on the point. But there is. We have a few posters who are mentally challenged.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Dave,
I think its relevant that a candidate loans the campaign money. It was a big deal when John Kerry did it. It was also newsworthy that Ross Perot and Steve Forbes self-financed their campaigns. Its an obvious advantage when a candidate can loan himself funds to keep going and its fair to opine that were the candidate not wealthy he would be in trouble
October 5th, 2007 at 9:36 am
PabloZed,
I do agree with your post #118 in some respects.
On the other hand, what kind of man would it take to run an enterprise as huge as America? America, whether its romantic or not to say, is run on money, economy, capitalism, etc. I would want some one successful as Romney to run it, because the man has proven himself, he is self made.
If it was someone who inherited the money, or whose wife has the money, I can see your points clearly.
Romney has money because he has “IT” and because he is a leader, a winner, a get-it-done guy. He has earned the privilege to fund his own campaign because the same gumption that got him the money is the same gumption that makes him a viable man for the White House bid.
I agree with your sentiments when the money is handed to them, I think men who made the money happen on their own are great considerations for leadership positions. It takes one heck of a mind to make that happen. Business is politics, psychology, relations, leadership, foreign policy and culture…you name it, it is all there.