Buy at Amazon

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

New York Times "explaining away" Romney's fundraising success.

Seen this article from the NY Times yet?

Their lead-off Paragraph:

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign said Monday that it had raised $20 million in the first quarter, tapping two distant but rich networks — Wall Street and the Mormon Church — to easily outpace his better-known Republican primary rivals.

There are a full six paragraphs devoted to Romney's poltical ties with Mormons and they drag up the "pseudo-scandal" of Romney officials and church officials meeting to supposedly coordinate efforts. However, they have NO evidence (yet because this information has not been made public) that "the Mormon Church" helped him raise this money. I'm sure plenty of Mormons contributed . . . but that's not what the piece says . . . it says that "the Mormon Church" was "tapped". A slip of the keyboard? . . . or a targeted attack?

Something to keep in mind (and pass along on message boards/blogs/comments). Romney received donations from about 33,000 people. There are over 6 million Mormons in the USA. Assuming that EVERY Romeny donor was Mormon (an absurd assumption, but it helps prove the point) that would represent about one-half of one percent of USA Mormons donated to Romney's campaign. POINT: there is no organized, directed (or even effective) Mormon movement/conspiracy to artificially prop up Mitt's fundraising.

They then go to explain how people who Romney "made rich" via his Venture capital career are now simply "returning the favor" . . . just a pay-back or pay-off rather than them actually supporting him as the best candidate for POTUS. Case in point:

Mr. Romney helped make many others rich through steep annual returns for investors in Bain Capital and through its payments to finance or buy out private companies. Some. like Thomas Stemberg, founder of Staples, have returned the favor with political contributions.

Then they throw in this one:

Unlike the other leading primary campaigns, Mr. Romney's declined to disclose how many individual donors had contributed or how many small donations it had received. Some campaigns use those measurements to show that they have broad support.

Where did they get that? I've seen the 33,000 Romney donors figure a few times already. However, this will be used to attack Romney . . .

Romney only had 33,000 different contributors while Hillary had 50,000 and McCain had 60,000 (not sure if the McCain # is "contributors" or "contributions"). Of course, many will try to negatively spin this that Romney is "being propped up by a lot of rich donors" who have maxed out their contributions and so he has less "room to grow" from his base. So, I encourage everyone who hasn't donated yet to contribute $10 to his campaign. Get your spouse or kids over 18 to donate $10 as well (donations less than $300 will not become part of the "public record" as names of such donors are not reported as part of the FEC filings . . . so don't worry about that) You can contribute to Romney 's campaign online using this webpage (please consider using my fundraiser ID# 225003 when making your contribution)

Loved this one:

Mr. Romney's first-quarter take may undercut some of Mrs. Clinton's triumph, but his lead over his party rivals most damages Mr. McCain.

Love that phrase . . . "Mrs. Clinton's TRIUMPH". They're so in love with Hillary (and Barack) it makes me sick.

Let me tell you, that ANY GOP candidate that could outraise every Dem sans Hillary (and Romney apparently did outraiser her in "Primary funds raised") in this "low point" for the GOP has got to scare all the other competitors in the race ON BOTH SIDES. Be prepared for the attack machines to be revved up again.

Make sure to pass along this article to all your friends and paste in the URL on every message board you can. We know evenhanded or positive press is hard to come by for Romney. However, the facts don't lie and more people need to know the facts about Romney. This article does a good job of that.

UPDATE: Compare the Piece the NYTimes did on Romney above to the piece they did on Obama today "Obama Built Donor Network From Roots Up" . . .
No accusations of Obama presently being propped up by donations mostly from Trial lawyers, African Americans, Hollywood and media elites, or the Union bosses. Nope . . . he's done it "the American way" by "hard work" building it from the "Roots up". The headline for Obama should read "Obama's Donor Network Provided by Overly Positive and Overly Copious Mainstream Media Coverage"

This is simply amazing!


myclob said...

imagine the new york times doing an article about the larger percentage of African Americans donating to Barak, and saying african americans fund Barak. Or doing the same with hillary. It is all Wemon giving to Hillary!

Anonymous said...

Dick Cheney is speaking at BYU Graduation. Of course there is no organized campaign at endorsement. People who make musicals on 6 benevolent points of Christlike behavior based on a talk by President Hinley at general conference will not determine who he secretly wants them to vote for by choosing Cheney as the graduate speaker at BYU. And, furthermore, they are totally ignorant of this fact.

Political Realm said...

"Of course, many will try to negatively spin this that Romney is "being propped up by a lot of rich donors" who have maxed out their contributions and so he has less "room to grow" from his base."

Well, Romney pretty much admitted this on the Today Show this morning. He said he maxed out most of his current donors, but hoped to reach out to more.

Romney had a good first quarter, but he still has a lot of work to do if he wants to win over voters.

Keith Steurer said...

great explanation Jeff. I knew the NYT would be all over the campaign $$ bias. Wait until they see today's polls. How will they explain tht away? Blog coming shortly........