Romney and Obama The Money Game – From “Romney Hood” to Reid and Pelosi's "Dirty Politics"

Obama and Romney - All About the Cash - image: darkgovernment.com (a blog about government waste)

The American Political Landscape has become one in which fundraising for campaigns continues to rule the news – the race to build the bigger “war chest” to best an opponent has run amok – the Boston Globe reports on the fact that for the third straight month, Mitt Romney’s Campaign has outraised the Obama Campaign – the headline ”Romney Trounces Obama in Fundraising for 3rd month”, begins with the question: “Can President Barack Obama raise the money he needs to hold onto the White House?”and goes on to speak of the Romney’s advantage in fundraising has brought about the unthinkable –

“While the race for voter support is tight, according to polls, Romney's robust fundraising and a crush of money from Republican-leaning political action committees have forced the president's campaign to spend heavily through the summer.”

(Boston Globe)

How much money have both candidates raised in one month? – According to the Globe, Romney at $101 million to Obama’s $75 million – both men drawing money from those who “have”, and some who “have not”. Those who have, according to the President, on the fundraising trail in Connecticut’s “wealth belt” – speaking to the “haves”, the President suggested that Romney was like “Romney-Hood”. The New York Times reporting that the President hopes that his new, easy to repeat, mantra, will take hold. It is based on one study that suggested Romney’s tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class, and favor those who had more – similar to the current tax plan if that were the case - the exact quote: “It’s like Robin Hood in reverse – it’s Romney Hood,” Mr. Obama told supporters at a fund-raiser in Stamford, Conn.” (New York Times).

It might stick, or it might not – especially since other efforts to play dirty have appeared to backfire – Romney continues to outpace the President in individual donors (or those who have not yet reached the Federal maximum, as well as those who are able to give unlimited funds, businessmen, having small to large companies are giving to Romney. On the other hand Hollywood and some on Wall Street give to the Obama Campaign (See fundraising in Connecticut – a combination of Hollywood east and the railway to Wall Street. The Obama campaign also has individual donors, but has not come close to the 2008 election haul.

It makes one wonder, who is listening? The press has been extremely negative on Mitt Romney – as expected, and yet that has, to date, failed to make a dent – (Google Mitt Romney in Google News, and one finds one negative after the next, the latest being Mitt Romney’s Religion. Mitt Romney and the Mormon Culture – from the Washington Post, is the number two headline this morning on Google news.)

Therefore, as the difference between the two “war chests” is a source of consternation for the Obama team – they put Harry Reid to work, along with Nancy Pelosi to back up Reid, who suggested that “an unnamed source” told him that Mitt Romney did not pay taxes for ten years, Nancy Pelosi chipped in and suggested Reid spoke “the truth”. These outrageous statements are so ridiculous that even the Chicago Tribune weighed in suggesting Reid was similar to a birther! (Those who believe that the President was not born in the U.S.), by stating the absurd based on pulling something “out of thin air”. – The kicker:

Someday, Reid will say something important that he genuinely wants Americans to believe. After this episode, they'll probably ignore him. We found ourselves nodding in agreement Monday with the opinion of Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, no right-wing nut he: "The politics of this squabble are delightful. But Reid has managed to draw both his party and his president into the gutter with him. ... The soaring rhetoric that Obama used in his first campaign has come to ground in the mud of Harry Reid's latter-day McCarthyism."

(The Chicago Tribune)

What’s a party to do that’s losing the “money game”? – Simple: Attack the Candidate who has the most money by attacking the donors! The Jerusalem Post’s, “Defending Sheldon Adelson’s Support for Mitt Romney”, speaks to the negatives being heaped on Mr. Adelson: “These same Democrats are silent when big wigs pump big money into their own favorite candidates’ campaigns.(Jerusalem Post)

One thing that the disparity in fund-raising does tell us, is the difference between donors – those businessmen, who create jobs, and those small donors who may or may not have a job, are giving what they can to Mitt Romney, while the President is fundraising in artistic circles – the “celebrity” circles, and those small donors who support the President and his policies. The polls, which have shown a tight race since the beginning, given the divided nature of the nation when comes to “Party Identity” rather than political ideology, suggest that the need to sway voters is what drives the campaigns to seek out those who “have” more often. In the end however, all the mud-slinging aside, all the reporting aside, it will be the 5% of the population that decides who will be the next President – unless, of course, the polls change once the glow of summer has faded into fall and the voting public begins to make up its collective mind and decide for whom they will vote in earnest. Will all the negative advertising help? To date, it appears to have done little to change the polls. It seems to some, such a waste, when millions in this nation are unemployed, or underemployed, or on fixed incomes – all being squeezed by rising costs – of everything. Would it not be a more perfect world – if the candidates were chosen on accomplishments, rhetorical skills, and the public square speeches and both candidates donating the campaign cash not spent, but stockpiled, to those who “have not?” Indeed that’s utopian, and in the long-run would not be American Politics – where, according to, and fueled by, the press, (going back decades) money talks, and the candidate with the most “Cash” wins. In the case of this election, where one candidate is obviously preferred over another by the same press, the shock and excuses regarding Mitt Romney’s continued fundraising ability, is apparent, and transparent, as are the attacks on Mr. Adelson, yet they persist. Yet, according to some pundits, this election will be based on the economy, those who have not - ironic.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Fundraising Email Regarding Republicans: “History is on their Side”

In a recent fundraising email from the Republican National Senatorial Committee, an excerpt from an email to potential donors to the opposition team was noted in the body of the text as follows:

“The DSCC email went on to say that Republicans "not only have cash, but also history on their side. There are only a handful of times in our nation's past when the party that won the White House hasn't lost big the following midterm election. That would spell disaster for President Obama's agenda."

Although the intent of the RNSC email was fundraising, it also served the purpose of letting its base know that not everything is as bad as the media (constant drumbeat of Republican’s in dissarry) would have it - and with good reason - Apparently, this type of fundraising does not sit well with all Democrats. From the blog Persuasian, Perseverence and Patience: text from the DSCC is demeaned as a “cry-wolf” tactic and additional text is provided by the blogger:

Don't believe what you've heard about a GOP in disarray. They're mad, they're organized, and they're determined to return to what they see as their rightful place: ruling the halls of Congress.

How do I know? $14.4 million.

That's how much Newt Gingrich raised during a fundraising dinner last week for Republican House and Senate committees. One speech. $14.4 million.

They not only have cash, but also history on their side. There are only a handful of times in our nation's past when the party that won the White House hasn't lost big the following midterm election. That would spell disaster for President Obama's agenda.

What is perhaps, the most interesting aspect of this exchange, is that one the one hand, one can find the blogger who favors the Democrat Party in general, dismissing the emails contents:

“I wonder how many people who contribute would be so out of touch to actually buy the argument that the Republicans are organized."

It is interesting because conservatives decry mainstream media bias towards the left, dismissing the strengths of the more conservative party, and touting the invincible Democrat Machine, led by the “American Idol, Rock Star, President Obama. Therefore, the media, seen as a friend to the DNC, may ultimately end up aiding their downfall – by convincing the millions who are so in “lock-step” with a particular party, that they avoid alternative media outlets such as FOX (which is consistently dismissed by the President in speeches given to rally the “troops”.) Unfortunately, the end result is that those who believe that the Democrat Party is invincible are receiving their information from a single-minded source. (Granted, the same could be said of those conservatives who never tune into MSNBC, even for the entertainment factor.)

How far has the “star power” of the Head of the DNC fallen? A Fundraiser slated for today with Obama as the “headliner”, is expected to net 3 million dollars, a pittance for high profile speakers at such events (see Newt Gingrich reference in the DSCC email; which is not verified). Additionally, the campaign promise to ban lobbyist has gone by the wayside, as Democrats are “dodging the ban on cash” from that quarter, as reported upon by Politico.

What is missing in this entire: have and have not, crying for financial help, raffling off personalized photo’s with the President, is the current dismal state of the economy, one which, can no longer be assigned to the Bush Administration or the “Republicans”. Here again, the media came to the rescue. When Obama was pushing his Stimulus Package through the legislature at the speed of light, it was noted in press, local, regional and national, that the Republican’s were simply not cooperating; in fact, they were maligned for not voting for the stimulus. As a student of history, at that point, one had to sit back and admit: tactical error! Specifically if the student has the understanding that the stimulus would go astray, that spending more would end up meaning higher taxes, and that the “Ghost of Jimmy Carter” was in the House.

As the nation takes a sharp swing to the right, the media is still touting the strength of the DNC – which will further affect their fundraising capabilities. One must also take into consideration that the perceived ownership of certain groups, specifically those who are dependent upon the government for financial aid and college students, may have resulted in votes (at the time) but the base is not capable of financial support in the long run – leaving the bulk of the support to come from industry, unions and Hollywood – all of whom are feeling the financial crunch.
On the flip side, the return of Carter, has moved the nation right – those who have had to cut back, will still find $10 to send to the various fundraising arms of the Republican Party – in order to help the nation, both fiscally and in issues of national security. This will, of course, be either proven or disproved with the coming elections: 2009 governorships, 2010 congressional and senatorial races – should the Republican’s gain seats, and it appears that both History, the Media and the DNCC itself are on their side, then there will be a solid return to conservative governance and a reversal of the tax and spend mentality currently found in DC. That said, if this does occur, the Republican members sent by the nation to rescue the country, had best stick to those fiscally conservative principals – and finally, speak up against any bias perceived by those who would seek to usurp the government.

(See: the press as viewed by the Founding Fathers: the Federalist Papers. Reference: The Federalist Papers #84 “From the Federalist Papers: #8, Hamilton

"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than we granted. Fro why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do Why for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shallot be retrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power, but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.")