Posts Tagged ‘globe staff’
“WASHINGTON (AP) — A campaign fundraising report shows Republican presidential dropout Mitt Romney lent himself $7 million last month. That means Romney spent more than $42 million of his personal fortune on his failed campaign,” writes Jim Kuhnhenn in an Associated Press transmission titled Romney Lent His Campaign $7M in January
The former venture capitalist and Massachusetts governor finished January with nearly $9 million in the bank. But more than $3 million of those funds must be returned to donors because they were earmarked for the general election […]
[…] “Before abandoning his bid to become president, Mitt Romney put in at least $42.3 million of his own money, a big chunk of the $97 million he spent on the campaign,” writes the entire staff of the Boston Globe in an article titled Romney spent $42.3m of own money; McCain reports raising $49m
His campaign reported to the Federal Election Commission yesterday that he loaned his campaign $6.95 million during January to reach that total.
The former Massachusetts governor’s total self-financing puts him ahead of Steve Forbes, the publisher who spent $38 million on his unsuccessful run for the GOP nomination in 1996, but shy of the $63.5 million that H. Ross Perot spent on his 1992 third-party presidential campaign.
Romney’s total loan also equates to about $167,000 for each of the 253 delegates he won before suspending his campaign. By suspending his bid, Romney, who made an estimated $250 million as a venture capitalist, can keep raising money to possibly pay himself back.
Romney also reported raising $9.7 million last month, bringing his campaign total to $63.6 million.
That total is appreciably more than that raised by John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee whom Romney endorsed last week. McCain received contributions totaling about $49 million and borrowed nearly $4 million more by the end of last month.
During January, McCain raised $11.7 million and borrowed $950,000, his campaign reported to the FEC. After he emerged as the front-runner, he raised nearly twice as much in January than during the previous three months combined […]
Conclusion: Romney dominated the field with his own money and his fund raising prowess. Yet he still failed. More evidence of Romney’s preposterously low ROI for his every campaign dollar.
“JOHNSTON, Iowa — As a new Des Moines Register poll showed him trailing Mike Huckabee in Iowa, Mitt Romney also launched a fresh attack, criticizing the former Arkansas governor for suggesting that President Bush did not read the National Intelligence Estimate for four years,” writes the estimable Michael Levenson of the Globe Staff in an article titled Romney opens new line of attack and dated 1, 2008 01:40 PM
“That’s obviously completely inaccurate and wrong.,” Romney said, unprompted by a question from reporters.
As opposed to inaccurate and right? Or accurate and wrong?
“The president has kept us safe over these last six years and is extraordinarily well-versed in matters of foreign policy. I’m not sure whether Governor Huckabee did the attack as a joke, but this is not a time to be mocking our president. And it was, I think, in bad taste. I think we should come together and recognize the great work our president is doing and not take on our rhetoric or our plays from the Democratic playbook.”
Meanwhile, on the same day:
“JOHNSTON, Iowa (Reuters) – Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said on Tuesday the Bush administration mismanaged the Iraq war, distancing himself from his party’s unpopular president two days before Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential contest,” writes Andy Sullivan in a Reuters release titled Romney says Bush mismanaged Iraq war and dated Jan 1, 2008 3:37pm EST.
“I think we did a less than effective job in managing the conflict following the collapse of Saddam Hussein,” the former Massachusetts governor said at a news conference. “I think we were under prepared for what occurred, understaffed, under planned, and, in some respects, under managed.”Romney’s comments echo those of his rival John McCain, who for years has criticized the way former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld handled the war. Polls show McCain and Romney locked in a tight battle for first place in New Hampshire, which holds the nation’s second primary contest on January 8 … etc.
How do you reconcile
“I think we should come together and recognize the great work our president is doing and not take on our rhetoric or our plays from the Democratic playbook,” angry noise that Romney emits to scold Gov. Huckabee
“I think we were under prepared for what occurred, understaffed, under planned, and, in some respects, under managed,” angry noise that Romney emits to outflank Sen. McCain by aping his criticisms
Hence: Romney’s credibility issues.
From an article titled Credibility pounded, Romney wrestles with uncertainties, Michael Levenson writes: “A lot of Republicans were hit with these flip-flops and said, ‘We’ve got John Kerry, basically’ – he was for abortion before he was against it – and they were confused,” said Daron Shaw, a University of Texas political scientist who worked on President Bush’s campaign in 2000. “He’s had to work furiously to give them some context, to dirty up some of the other guys, to level the playing field a little bit. So, he’s in trench warfare” …
How does Romney intend to address his credibility issues?
Rather: Romney cherishes in his heart the absurd notion that his credibility issues will vanish in an instant once Iowa returns its verdict.
… Ron Kaufman, a Romney adviser who was George H.W. Bush’s White House political director, said questions about Romney’s character will disappear – if Romney can win the Republican nomination. A McClatchy/MSNBC poll released yesterday showed Romney has gained ground on Huckabee in Iowa and the two are now statistically tied, at 27 and 23 percent, respectively.
“Nothing changes the dynamic of races more than someone winning,” Kaufman said. “All of a sudden, they view you differently. It raises your stature. It changes the way people look at you” … etc.
Romney said he is doing all he can to win …
Even should you win, Romney, the truth may still catch up with you.
Not everyone will forget.
We certainly won’t.
“MANCHESTER, N.H. — Mitt Romney said today that his long-awaited speech on his Mormon faith would not be a clear echo of the address made by John F. Kennedy in 1960 as he sought to become the nation’s first Catholic president,” writes Michael Levenson, Globe Staff, in an article titled Romney talks about his Mormon speech
Instead of a highly personal speech, Romney said he would talk more broadly on Thursday at the George Bush presidential library in College Station, Tex., about the role of religion in politics and of the nation’s religious heritage.
“I think JFK, or President Kennedy really did give the definitive speech on politics and religion, the political process and religious discrimination,” Romney said. “I think he said what had to be said. I don’t have anything really to add what he did, so I’m speaking on a related but different topic, which is the role of religion in a free society, if you will the faith in America, and the fact that I’m concerned that faith has disappeared in many respects from the public square.
“So I want to make sure we maintain our religious heritage in this country, not of a particular brand of faith, if you will, not of particular sect or a denomination but rather the great moral heritage we have is so critical to the great future of this country,” the former Massachusetts governor added … etc.
Say, what? Is that the issue? Evangelicals demur to vote for a Mormon because “faith has disappeared in many respects from the public square?” How does that follow? Here is CBN’s Brody’s account of Romney’s rhetorical problem:
… “If Romney wants to grab those crucial Evangelical votes in Iowa and elsewhere, he will earn their respect and come across as honest and authentic if he acknowledges the differences between the two religions. Evangelicals, for the most part, don’t want him to lump Mormonism and Christianity into the ‘we’re all the same’ category. I know Mormons feel differently about this but I’m just giving it to you straight. Values wise the two religions have a lot in common and I’m sure that will be a big part of his speech. But Evangelicals would trust him more, appreciate him more and respect him more if he came clean about the differences. I’m not saying he needs to do theological bullet points here. Of course not. But a little more would go a long way” …
NOTA: What Romney proposes is the precise opposite of what Brody advises—Brody wants distinctions, and Romney wants to claim that all sects and their sectaries are parts and equal partners in a grand mosaic of sectarian unity-in-diversity, our so-called “great moral heritage,” whatever that means. But the point is moot. No matter what solution to the problem Romney chooses, he loses. He missed the moment and has allowed others—like Brody—to frame the debate and to specify its terms. The time to address this issue was last summer, or perhaps even as late as the Value Voters Summit. See:
how Romney botched the Mormon-Kennedy-speech issue by setting up impossible expectations, by consistently failing to identify opportunity and seize the initiative, and by allowing others to frame the debate
… “Now, just seven weeks before the first votes are cast, Romney’s disciplined approach stands as one of the biggest contrasts with his main rivals for the Republican nomination, all of whom are campaigning more as charismatic figures than as methodical politicians seeking to lock up various constituencies,” writes the estimable and precise Michael Levenson of the Globe Staff in a boston.com release titled Methodical style sets Romney apart from GOP rivals
Backed by heavy spending, Romney’s game plan has propelled him into the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls and into the top tier of GOP contenders nationwide. But it has also drawn critics who say his persona is so carefully crafted it appears contrived and does not elicit the same kind of passionate support as his rivals, who showcase their personalities.
“The fear is that voters won’t know who this guy is,” said Daron Shaw, a University of Texas political scientist and a strategist for President Bush’s campaigns in 2000 and 2004 who is not involved in this campaign. “That’s kind of the concern with people who are on Romney’s side and looking for him to do well. He can have wonderful positions on the issues, but if voters don’t know him and don’t have a sense of him, they’re not going to trust the particulars of his healthcare plan. They’re not going to trust that he’s necessarily going to be tough on national security issues.”
Romney’s strategy has produced broad-based, but not deeply loyal, support. A Boston Globe poll published Sunday indicated that Romney was leading in New Hampshire by 12 percentage points over his nearest rival, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. It also suggests that Romney’s supporters are the least likely to have made up their minds, compared with backers of Giuliani and Senator John McCain of Arizona …
The emphases are ours, all ours.
…. Paul M. Weyrich, the conservative activist who endorsed Romney last week, said Romney’s strategy is exactly right.
“I think he’s thought through where he thinks he can win, how he thinks he can win, and what he’s going to do about it,” he said. “Most of the other candidates don’t really have a clue” … etc.
Well, duh. Of course they don’t have a clue, Boy Weyrich.
What the abjectly prostrate Weyrich and his imperious master, Romney, fail to understand is that the primary process is a learning process—or at least it is supposed to be. It is—or it was—supposed to be about candidates testing and developing messages, and about constituencies and coalitions forming and un-forming in relation to their perceptions, to the media’s perceptions, to how the candidates respond to their appeals or address them in their proposals etc.
Is it “mittmentum,” or is it the US$85,000 a day—$US600,000.00 last week alone—for a total so far of US$10.2 million that Romney is spending on television advertising that has resulted in Romney’s unstable, unreliable early primary-state leads—yet more evidence of Romney’s frighteningly low ROI for his every campaign dollar
“CNN reports that Mitt Romney ‘has spent $10.2 million on television advertising this year, a record amount at this point in a presidential campaign, according to new data provided to CNN,'”writes Taegan Goddard of Teagan Goddard’s Political Wire in a post titled Romney’s Campaign Sets New Record for Early TV Advertising
“He is spending more than $85,000 a day — $600,000 last week alone — on campaign commercials, according to TNSMI/Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN’s consultant on political television advertising spending. Romney’s presidential campaign commercials have aired more than 14,500 times. The closest Republican to Romney in ad spending is Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has aired more than $300,000 worth of campaign ads.”
And what are the results of this massive spending?—not much:
“The primary contest in both parties [for NH] remains highly fluid – just 16 percent of likely Republican voters said they had definitely decided whom to back; among likely Democratic primary voters, only 24 percent are firm in their choice,” reports Scott Helman of the Globe Staff in a boston.com release titled Romney, Clinton ahead, vulnerable in N.H. poll; Race still open, analysts say
And neither Clinton nor Romney has closed the deal with their party’s voters, the poll suggests.
“It’s still really open,” said Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the Globe poll … etc.