Romney wants to be the face of the Republican Party

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitt-romney-wants-to-be-the-face-of-gop-success/ar-BBczqer

Sadly, he is that.

He wanted to be President too and people were having none of that.

His ego will interject himself from Tuesday until a Tuesday two years from now.......he really is walking around stunned that he could not buy the election.

2seaoat wrote:His ego will interject himself from Tuesday until a Tuesday two years from now.......he really is walking around stunned that he could not buy the election.

That's a petty and incredibly naive opinion. Both Romney and Obama spent nearly an identical amount. So using your reasoning Obama is walking around laughing because he DID BUY the election. It takes too much money to make a run for office - it's disgusting. It would be a miracle if an Independent could ever come close these days.

Here's a look at 2012 election spending.

Spending on Obama

More than $1 billion was raised and spent by Obama, the Democratic Party and the primary super PACs supporting his candidacy, according to published reports and campaign finance data.
That's an average of $2.9 million per day for 2012. The $1 billion-plus in spending by those entities includes:
• $775 million spent by Obama's campaign committee
• $286 million spent by the Democratic Party
• $75 million spent by the Priorities USA Action super PAC
The total spending by those entities amounts to $14.96 per vote for Obama. Obama won 65,899,660 votes in the 2012 election.

Spending on Romney

About $993 million was raised by Romney, the Republican Party and the primary super PACs supporting his candidacy. Those entities spent $992 million of that money, according to published reports and campaign finance data.
That's an average of $2.7 million per day for 2012. The nearly $1 billion in spending by those entities includes:
• $460 million spent by Romney's campaign committee
• $379 million spent by the Republican Party
• $153 million spent by the Restore Our Future super PAC
The total spending by those entities amounts to $16.28 per vote for Romney. Romney won 60,932,152 votes in the 2012 election.

Chirp Chirp Chirp

I think you need to make a qualitative analysis of donations. I think to simply say they both spent close to a billion dollars overlooks who made the vast majority of donations to each candidate and what was the average amount donated. If this country is ever going to free ourselves from the same British Wealth which colonized our forefathers, we need to make sure that Congress has it's constitutional rights to regulate elections restored. Citizen United overturned precedent to create a very dangerous paradigm where foreign wealth can control this nation. The details do matter.

2seaoat wrote:I think you need to make a qualitative analysis of donations.   I think to simply say they both spent close to a billion dollars overlooks who made the vast majority of donations to each candidate and what was the average amount donated.   If this country is ever going to free ourselves from the same British Wealth which colonized our forefathers, we need to make sure that Congress has it's constitutional rights to regulate elections restored.  Citizen United overturned precedent to create a very dangerous paradigm where foreign wealth can control this nation.   The details do matter.

Knock yourself out. Fact is you point the finger of hypocrisy at one side when the other does the very same thing. If you think you can track down where all the mystery money comes from good luck.

My point is there is too much money in politics for both sides and I'm OBJECTIVE enough to see it.

Unlike others here..........

My point is there is too much money in politics for both sides and I'm OBJECTIVE enough to see it.

Unlike others here..........

Well believe what you want, but the law of the land has garnered the constitutional rights of association now equate to money and that Congress who has their duties clearly spelled out in the constitution which one of those duties was to regulate elections, cannot regulate too much money in politics, because it impinges on the freedom of association guaranteed under the constitution. So, your comment unlike others here, misses the very essence of the debate. We have no constitutional right to regulate that dark money because of the precedent of Citizens United, which is directly contrary to common sense and black letter law of our constitution which clearly states that Congress WILL regulate elections. My point of asking for a qualitative analysis of the sourcing of money will allow the exception in Citizens which deals with public corruption. We agree that there is too much money in politics, and that the money corrupts. What must be done is to get bipartisan support for a congressional law which addresses that corruption and sets limits. Then let the Supremes review the same.

Why shouldn't people be "allowed" to pool their money for whatever cause they choose? Limit politicians all you wish.

Why shouldn't people be "allowed" to pool their money for whatever cause they choose? Limit politicians all you wish.

I agree if they are American citizens, and are people.......not corporations. However, I think our founding fathers were clear that Congress has the power to regulate elections which includes reasonable campaign finance laws.

2seaoat wrote:Why shouldn't people be "allowed" to pool their money for whatever cause they choose? Limit politicians all you wish.

I agree if they are American citizens, and are people.......not corporations. However, I think our founding fathers were clear that Congress has the power to regulate elections which includes reasonable campaign finance laws.

It's already perfectly constitutional to limit politicians and their parties or associations in ways that would solve this issue.

The monster is created by the access to politicians and the perverted system that requires politicians to entertain those interests in order to gain election. This ain't rocket psychiatry... sever that collusion and you slay the beast. A one page law.