Media Begins -Romney Fundraising Called Into Question or Herald as Strategy, Obama Vs. Romney in the Money Game

Pictured Romney, Santorum and Obama GOP candidates in total out-fundraising Obama - image Salon.com

The fundraising efforts of GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney were investigated by the AP through the FEC recently, and the fact that Romney’s campaign is amassing millions was originally addressed by the Catholic Online in an article entitled: Not yet begun to fight - Romney's secret weapon against Obama” – the opening paragraph:

Romney is a brilliant money manager and his war chest will still brim in August.
Media attention has focused on Obama's fundraising machine that is rumored to be preparing a reelection campaign war chest of almost $1 billion - although such an amount seems unlikely. Such a fundraising apparatus, if it exists and is working as advertised, could make Obama a much more formidable political opponent. However, Romney is quietly amassing a formidable war chest of his own.

From this sprung a version by Business Week, Romney's fundraisers are quietly amassing millions” – the opening paragraph:

Mitt Romney's presidential fundraising operation dwarfs those of his Republican rivals, with more than $75 million already in donations. It also operates mysteriously at times, withholding the names of Romney's major fundraisers who have helped amass much of its money”

The difference in the reporting lays in the innuendo’s of the Business Week report, as well as following reports from CBS News, one can anticipate the groundwork being laid by the media for a spin on Romney and his “wealthy” supporters versus the incumbent, President Obama.

However, when one compares the data available on the FEC website, there is a reason for the sudden scrutiny of the GOP front-runner – simply he’s bringing in more money.

In reviewing the detailed March report from the Romney Campaign Romney’s total contributions were: 11,554,514.25, the majority of which were itemized, with 1,071,118.66 not itemized, 207,603.17 was refunded to donors – total expenditures: 12,362,525.90 for the period and the total contributions in this election cycle to date: 74,755,068.90.

In contrast, Obama for America reports total contributions for the period were 13,873,901.12(including funds from authorized committees), with 7,459,172.14 not itemized. 207,544.30 was refunded to donors, with total expenditures listed as 12,590,672.44 – the Total contributions for Incumbent, including funds from authorized committees in this election cycle to date: 156,713,376.64 (Authorized Committees, political party disbursements i.e.: the Democrat Party).

In total, Republican Candidates from the beginning of this election cycle 2011-12 totaled 202.5 Million, with the Incumbent bringing in, with support from the Democrat Party: 157 Million.

Therein lays the crux of the matter - more money flowing in the opposite direction from the Incumbent - the Romney campaign has approximately 6 million less in contributions that have not been “itemized”, yet the press is suddenly focused on the Romney campaign and identifying the “Wall Street” donors, many of which, were donors to the Obama campaign in 2008.

This falls under: Obama is not bringing in the Billions anticipated, even with help from the DNC compared to the Republican candidates, who are not yet eligible to receive that extra boost – time to beat up the front-runner.

The bundlers: Courtesy of Open Secrets.org:
Romney bundlers versus: Obama’s bundlers indicates that the Obama campaign has received more contribution through bundlers, including lobbyists, as well as the Wall Street Firms tied to Romney in the Business Week article. The “smoking gun” is suddenly revealing the names of those who have contributed in a “bundled” environment”. The bundler is an individual who holds a fundraising event, each individual attending can give the maximum of $2,500, and these funds are then submitted as “bundled”. This has been a common practice and it is within the law that campaigns need not release the names of private citizens who have participated in the process. Suddenly the more mainstream media finds this to be a mystery?

Of interest: a positive note from the Huffington Post: ”Mitt Romney Campaign's Dramatic February Budget Re-Shuffling” a report from Sam Stein outlining the Romney budget during the month of February, and his campaigns ability to balance a budget. It gives insight into the candidate and his management team’s ability to make necessary cuts to bring a balanced budget to bear. What is interesting is that this fact was not played up by the Romney Campaign – It’s a selling point.

President Obama's Open Mic Remarks to Medvedeve - Gridlock To Blame - Suggests Final Term would allow Flexibility – The Problem – World Perception

Former President James Carter was often referred to as a "Paper Tiger" - image althouse.blogspot.com

ABC news first reported that President Obama was picked up on an open mic noting that he’d have more flexibility after his election – this while speaking to outgoing Russian President Medvedeveon U.S. Missile Defense (ABC). The exchange, which lasted briefly, was immediately defended by the Administration as a simple conversation regarding the inability of the President to move things forward in light of the gridlock in Congress – the article Los Angeles Times article, Titled: Obama Clarifies Hot Mic Comment Made to Russian President” begins:

SEOUL -- President Obama pointed to an uncooperative Congress and hotly contested presidential election for his decision to put talks with Russian leaders over a missile program on hold, a rare instance of a president acknowledging domestic political limitations while on the international stage.

A slightly different version of events comes from the Wall Street Journal
article entitled: “Obama Makes Light of Missile-Shield Remark"

SEOUL—U.S. President Barack Obama is trying to downplay the significance of a comment, accidentally picked up by a live microphone, in which he cited his re-election campaign as the reason he won't tackle the divisive issue of missile defense this year.

The brouhaha over the comment came from Republican’s raising questions about the President position on missile defense changing if he were to be re-elected (WSJ). That is a reasonable considering the fact that “since President Obama took office, the White House has systematically undercut comprehensive missile defense and thereby placed the U.S. homeland and our allies at greater risk. On February 1, 2010, the Administration released its Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, which indicated that the Administration would continue to pursue a less-than-robust effort to protect the homeland against long-range missile strikes.” (Heritage Foundation.)

However, also reasonable is the fact that gridlock in Congress has dogged the President since he had taken office with the first two years with a Democrat controlled House and Senate, and the last two with a Republican controlled House and a Democrat Senate. (Washington Times) One understands that neither side is willing to move one whit, especially on areas of Defense, with Democrats insisting on cuts, while Republican’s put forth alternatives – specifically in areas of Domestic spending. The problem also lays on the campaign trail, as the President seeks re-election and the GOP nominees are battling both themselves and the President, the rhetoric is at a fever pitch – the assertion that somehow “Congress” is to blame for his inability to move forward, must be taken with a huge grain of salt, considering remarks the President makes both on and off the campaign trail. It is what it is, politics as usual from both sides of the aisle.

However, the point missing from this entire dust-up over an open mic is the fact that the President is seen on the world stage as one who has his “hands tied” and unless reelected will not be able to accomplish much, if anything at all. How does one imagine the Iranian’s or the Chinese or North Korean’s, or those nations to the U.S. Southern border, such as Venezuela views our President at this point (and previously for that matter)? The operative phrase is “paper tiger”, a moniker by definition meaing a weak or ineffectual leader

From the world stage run by theocrats and dictators (elections held in some nations being what they are), a President lacking the ability to move things forward without being able to forcefully convince his nation and his Congress to see his point of view, gives those nations the signal that a nation is of no threat to operations as usual. Therefore, in Iran, for example, where they are consistently testing ballistic missiles and developing their nuclear capabilities, one would understand that the Mullah’s who run that nation, are likely to be bolder in their “saber rattling”. What is of concern is that they stop showing the world and actually launch a strike, either at Israel or the U.S. as they feel no threat from the U.S. Administration or they may feel that the U.S. is incapable of striking back (See the Washington Times Piece on the cuts to the Defense budget.)

Therefore, it would behoove the President, to put the Congress on notice, both sides of the aisle, specifically Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, to get something done, and knock of the impasse. He might also cut back on his partisan remarks, but both scenarios are unlikely as this Presidency, more than others, has fanned the flames of partisanship, since taking office. It was, and still is, the go-to “Blame Bush” for all woes statements that continue to boggle the minds of those who are more bi-partisan – in a manner- Own the Office, and get to work.

It may be a tad late for that, as November is fast approaching and the current front runners in the GOP contest (Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum) would have the support of the conservatives in the nation, as well as (according to job approval ratings) independents. It is probable that 2012 will see a new face on the world stage, either a moderate Massachusetts former Governor, or a more Conservative, Reaganese former Senator – both would take a stronger fiscal and national defense stance – and both would, if not forceful in their approach to the job, appeal to the nation and Congress, be in the same boat President Obama finds himself in now. It is however, doubtful that they would blame former President Bush, and might even be courteous to the outgoing President and “own” the position to which they are both elected and entrusted. One must ask themselves, is it better to be feared on the world stage, and live in relative peace (something we, as a nation have not enjoyed), or to be derided or lack of strength, and run a real risk of a war which would be fought on our own soil. It does appear to be an extreme statement, but from an historical perspective, not so much. Should the press continue to allow pick-ups (apparently there needs to be some education on that front), regardless of who the President may be, and point out errors made (both in the U.S. and on an international scale, it will continue to harm whoever the President may be. Of course, a quick civics course, and an ongoing briefing of world affairs, may be too much for the average journalist to digest – that said there are editors who might be more inclined, even in this day and age, to figure out if something is in the interest of national security. This may be asking too much, considering the glee with which the New York Times and other notable publications treated the Bush Administrations “secrets” as headlines, regardless of the costs to national security.

Santorum Wins Louisiana, Left Goes Nuts Over New Web Ad – Santorum “Swears” at NY Times Reporter – The Delegate Math – Santorum Win Possible – Yes.

Then there were three - Image Salon.com

Rick Santorum won a decisive victory in Louisiana on Saturday besting Mitt Romney 49 to 26.7 percent, this compared to 2008, when Mike Huckabee narrowly beat John McCain 43.2 to 41.9% (NYT), gives credence to the Exit Polls from CNN that showed Santorum winning in demographics which are normally Romney territory – such as moderates and those who consider themselves “liberal”. In watching the returns, the conversations between John King and Wolf Blizter suggested that to be a “moderate” or “liberal” in Louisiana was far different than being a “moderate” in a different part of the country. However, the video posted on the CNN site, suggests a strictly Religious win with the report focusing on the Bible Belt CNN Video here. This may have been the case in the 1980’s, 1990’s, but with a fall in manufacturing in the Northeast and elsewhere, the migration has caused a shift in both political ideology and religious affiliation in that region. Both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul made a hardly a dent in the contest. Next up in Wisconsin and tensions on the left and in the Romney campaign are running high as the April primary comes into play.

Although reports suggest that Rick Santorum gave a rather aggressive response to the Presidents treatment of the tragedy in Trayvon Martin shooting, the facts are that his response was in line with the Presidents’ and any other parents “There are a lot of people who have very perverted views of reality, and obviously have, as we see, people who do horrible things for seemingly senseless reasons. And I think it’s hard to generalize from one heinous act something that is, trying to make a bigger point out of it. And I think that’s probably what Newt was getting at, and to the president and to everyone that we need to be supportive for the family that’s going through this tragedy.” (Mediaite). In comments on the site Mediate in this article on this post notes: “twitter is exploding with comments about Santorum cursing at an NYT reporter. According to one of Mitt's operatives CBS has video.” (Mediaite Comments) – with Politico reporting Rick Santorum suggesting that a New York Time’s Reporters question was “bullshit” and a distortion of his remarks: “The notion that politicians don't swear is almost as entertaining as the faux shock whenever they do publicly. But, it never goes unnoticed, and it's not exactly common for recent presidential hopefuls.” Frankly, Rick Santorum, given the pounding he has taken from Romney, his being pigeonholed as a one-dimensional religious candidate (and perhaps through his inexperience on the GOP Presidential campaign trail giving some credence to that school of thought) it is amazing that is the only word he has uttered thus far. The language was a far cry from those others have used as far as being “crass”. This one remark should be filed under: “nothing to see move along here”, but chances are that it will make headlines for at least 24 hours – of course, there is competition in that regards.

A web video released by the Santorum Camping has news outlets from NPR to the LATimes in hysterics – from the LA Times S"antorum's 'Obamaville' ad links Ahmadinejad with Obama" [video] suggests that the Santorum Campaign directly compares the President with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, however, if one views the ad (see below) on can see that the focus is on policy – (See video below or link to You Tube here) the ad suggests the price of gas, the loss of jobs, fear of unemployment, small businesses closing down, and longer waits to see a doctor, before it goes into foreign policy, and the rise of the Iranian theocracy - The President is pictured in the video, but not in a comparative sense, it is an overview of predictions of the causes of President’s policies - all of them. One looking at this video entitled “Obamaville” might not consider it to be the best in cinematography, nor that much predictive of two years hence, especially when one considers that everything in the video, is happening now. However, it is the negatives spelled out regarding Obama that is the crux of the matter coming from one Rick Santorum. This is evidenced in the comments connected to the article and a distinct anti-Catholic tone.



Further, Obama spokesman has taken the bait referring to the GOP candidates in primary as a “clown show”, a la, the media and opposition to Ronald Reagan in 1979-1980. To take that a tad further, ”Santorum in Reagan Mold” compares the GOP Candidate to Ronald Reagan, suggesting that the GOP will lose in 2012 and come back to win in 2016 (Philadelphia Inquirer).

It is the media turning on its heels to protect the President by stretching reality to the extreme in some cases, and making a mountain out of a mole hill in others, all with a little help from the opposition team of “Mitt Romney”. It’s all fair in love and politics, and as the Romney attempts to “seal the deal” repeatedly and it now appears a solid two-man race with both campaigns (Romney and Santorum) suggesting math is one their side. In any event, the fact that the media is in such hysterics over former Senator Santorum’s every word, is a tad on the suspicious side and brings to bear the question of which candidate the President prefers not to run against. Alternately, it could be they are honestly afraid of the fact that someone who has religious convictions is somehow “dangerous”, which gives credence to the “dumping down of America” theory. Apparently, that did not bother Reagan, and has not slowed down Rick Santorum, who, when tired of the media “BS”, just lets them know they are out of line, in his opinion.

(Bloggers note: As a Catholic, it is not Santorum’s Catholic faith that initially won support, it was his understanding of domestic and foreign policy affairs, specifically the problem with Iran. It was perhaps, more so his economic policy, a zero percent tax on manufactures to fast track them back to the U.S. to create jobs. Unfortunately that message has been buried by the “religious aspect” pounded home day after day, from the media, as well as, at times, the campaign itself. It would be this opinion that the negative advertising needs to go – with a focus on the positive side of the campaign – that ad above, attempts to contrast Santorum’s policy with that of the President, but it is framed in such a way as to come off in a somewhat “cheesy” at best fashion.)

Santorum is in Wisconsin, a state that is not friendly to the GOP in general – it will be interesting to see how the next few primaries play out – with Romney and Santorum literally the last two standing (given how poorly the insistent Gingrich and Paul are performing and unlikely to improve).

Is the race still winnable for Santorum – yes: from the New York Times: total delegates needed to win 1144, delegates remaining 1258 – Romney has 568, Santorum 273 – therefore Romney needs 576 more delegates, while Santorum requires 871, or a difference of 295 delegates separate the two competitors. With the 1258 remaining, it is not impossible for either candidate to reach the magic 1144. This is perhaps, why the left and the Romney campaign are now ramping up the attacks, looking for every possible religious reference or gaff to play to the hilt.