The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Ramona's picture

    Romney beats Santorum in Michigan and They're Both Sore Losers

    By Ramona on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:12am | Politics

    Rick Santorum didn't win in Michigan yesterday.  That's the good news. The bad news is that Mitt Romney did.  In a better world, the vote would have been for "NotOnYourLife", but we've come to accept that even those destined to be harmed the most by that bunch will vote for the one who promises to hurt them hard enough to leave scars.

    Because Michigan is an open primary state, there was a push by certain of the left to make it a win for Santorum.  The reasoning was that his relentless, escalating, off-the-wall, on-the-pulpit rantings would finally do him in and, come November, nobody in their right mind would vote for him.  With Santorum in the race Obama would handily claim the prize. 

    Obviously, they haven't been paying attention.  It doesn't matter who wins in Michigan or anywhere else.  Big Money is going to back the Republican nominee and since it's worked so well for them all these long ages, they'll pay big to keep the hate machine going.

    The hate machine is all the Right Wing has left.  It's what fuels their desperate efforts to make the country in their own image and they've been at it for so long they're not about to give up now. This is their moment.  They're on the verge of complete control.  They've already taken over states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Arizona, Virginia--and who knows how many more would fall if they could finally eliminate or at least emasculate the federal government?  What a coup!  And all done legally, without a single shot fired.  It could all happen in the voting booth.  The United States could be the first sovereign nation in the world to vote themselves out of existence.

    In his Wasn't-I-Great-in-Michigan? concession speech last night Santorum repeated the same old stuff:  I'll keep hating on Obama, I'll repeal that crazy health care act, I'll make sure we can pray and preach anywhere we want to, I'll. . .I'll. . .okay, goodnight, then.

    In his We didn't win by as much as I would have liked but dammit we won acceptance speech, Romney promised to keep on hating on Obama, to repeal Obamacare, to lower the taxes on business, and to run the country as any good cost-cutting CEO looking out for his best buds would do.

    To say that each of them lied through their teeth is to repeat the obvious.  Over the days and weeks we'll keep harping on the lies, blathering on about what lying liars they are, as if pointing out the truth is some sort of weapon.   Pea-shooters against Goliath.

    We're in for a long fight.  November is a long way off.  But history will never be able to record that Rick Santorum won the Republican primary in my beautiful state of Michigan.   That's my energizer this morning.

     

    At Peace

     Onward.

     

    (Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    I'm sure it's been said before, and certain that it will be shouted ad infinitum in the future, but again I declare that SCOTUS is the entity that is the 'elephant' in the voting booth (yes, pun intended) this election.

    With their ruling to uphold citizens united, it is no longer an assumption but fact that political affiliations and ideology of the court members supersede  any other factor in their rulings.

    Romney has been succeeding in his quest for one reason, and one reason only - and that's the now endless amounts of $$$ made available to fulfill his campaign's needs.

    Does anyone truly believe that without this, he would prevail?  Even taking into account Santorum's and Newt's ongoing need for emergency care to remove 'foot from mouth and soul', or Paul's extremist and unrealistic rants, how many did not even enter into the race or drop out (Pawlenty) simply because of this ruling and lack of riches?

    Kudos to Michigan for denying Santorum, but shame needs to be assigned to all who voted for Romney simply because he had the funding to spend (courtesy of SCOTUS to large part) on  ads and well oiled political machine which was the decisive factor for the majority 

     

     


    by Aunt Sam on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:40am

    Does anyone truly believe that without this, he would prevail?

     I do; I think the major factor helping him is that the competition is so poor, and he is the only one who was a governor and has had a major run before which gave him name-recognition. Over and over we have seen evidence that his money and his PAC's money really haven't gotten a whole lot of bang for the buck, he's still doing pretty poorly for how much is being spent on him. His candidacy so far is proof to me that  money can't buy you love but negative advertising works well if your opponents have major screws loose.

    how many did not even enter into the race or drop out (Pawlenty) simply because of this ruling and lack of riches?

    I don't buy the argument that Citizen's United has made it harder for a candidate without personal "riches" to run for the presidency. If anything, it's the opposite

    You needed "riches" before Citizens United to run for president (Obama spent $740.6 million,) if you didn't personally have it, you needed bundlers and others raising donations for you in an arduous very long-term process, planned far in advance.

    Citizen's United makes it possible in theory for a few wealthy people to help out candidates without their own money, candidates who hadn't planned far in advance to run. So far that's happened in a minor way for Santorum and Gingrich, but it could happen in a much more major way if a bunch of wealthy people decided someone should enter a race late. Citizen's United means there is a money option available for those who haven't done the long arduous process of fund raising and building a war chest.

    Previously a Perot or a Bloomberg (or Romney) type running themselves and spending their own money were the only ones who could do such a thing, now others can be funded in a similar way.

    As for Pawlenty, he decided it wasn't wise at this time to run against Mitt, mho, it's just that simple--he's now a National Co-Chair of the Romney campaign


    by artappraiser on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 3:13pm

    Would love to see a dollar per vote comparison between Mitt's current run, his current opponents and last year's primary field.  Mitt's campaign is like owning an old Jaguar -- as expensive to keep running as it is to buy in the first place.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 3:27pm

    Yeah. You inspired me to try a quick search on dollar-per-vote. I found  nothing useful on that front, but ran across the following from the land of the Jaguar @ The Guardian, Feb 21; I love his "thought for the day" at the end of my quote:

    Mitt Romey's advantage as the best-funded candidate in the GOP presidential race is being eroded, as the latest figures show Romney's campaign has been burning through its cash pile like a dotcom start-up, while his rivals and their Super PAC's are closing the fundraising gap.

    According to January's fundraising reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Romney and his supporting Super Pac spent well more than $32m during the month, with only wins in New Hampshire and Florida to show for it, while his campaign raised just $6.5m during the same period.

    The Washington Post's Aaron Blake calculates:

    The Romney campaign spent heavily on the four states holding contests in January – nearly $19 million for the month – and ended it with $7.7 million in the bank. In other words, for every dollar he raised, he spent nearly $3.

    Thought for the day: Bain Capital Romney would probably shut down Presidential Candidate Romney for being a bad business proposition.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 4:07pm

    I wonder if he tries to self finance in the general.  He's rich, but he's not as rich as the usual self financing candidate.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 7:24pm

    If the last presidential election is anything to go by, there is a general assumption that a popular candidate will be able to achieve financial support from the little guy.  The Obama team has spent a lot of energy pushing the info on how many of their contributions come from the little donors.  If Romney was forced to self-finance his campaign, it would push the meme, rightly or wrongly, that this indicated he didn't have strong support from the people - ie those who would vote for him don't support him enough to give financially as opposed to the more passionate supporters of Obama.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 7:32pm

    Is this great country or what? Where else does 250,000,000 dollars not qualify to fully self finance an election?

    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 12:37am

    Per Politico:

    An eye-opening analysis of Mitt Romney's campaign and super PAC spending in Michigan, Arizona and elsewhere, courtesy a senior Democratic party official who monitors air buys.

    So far, Romney and his associated super PAC have spent about $38 million on primaries and caucuses -- about 65 percent more than the rest of the field and their surrogate PACs combined.

    In Michigan alone, the former Massachusetts governor and his pet PAC spent twice as much as Santorum and Co. -- $4.2 million to $2.1 million. In Arizona, which Santorum practically conceded, Romney Inc. shelled out $640,000, five times the amount spent by Santorum's $130,575, according to the internal analysis obtained by POLITICO.

    The year-to-date tally:
    Romney Inc.: $38.5 million
    Santorum, Inc.: $6 million
    Newt Inc.: $9.7 million
    Ron Paul: $7.5 million

    I believe that Romney has prevailed in some of the primaries (and will in future no doubt) simply because of his campaign's ability to saturate markets with media ads, better 'tools', etc. because of the ability to pay for them.

    Even with this (IMO unfair) advantage he's still barely squeaked by in some and didn't do as well in Michigan key counties this time as in 2008 (per CNN).

    As for Pawlenty, he initially stated he didn't have the financial resources to carry on in race.  It means nothing that he is now 'supporting' Romney, he's a good ol' GOP boy and doesn't want to diminish his political future (and Romney is the one the base, not tea party, wanted).

    I take no issue with those who are successful because of their political tenets and stances.  

    As far as President Obama's fund raising in last election, since this is first time citizens united has been in play, it's apples/oranges.

    IMO (again), in this year's primary races, $$$ made a huge difference and responsible more often than not for Romeny's 'wins'.


    by Aunt Sam on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 3:41pm

    I was hoping for an RMoney/SaintOrum tie.


    by Donal on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:20am

    I hereby render unto Donal the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me.

    WE COULD MAKE MILLIONS IN PROCEEDS FROM BUMPER STICKERS!


    by Richard Day on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:39pm

    I watched both their speeches last night, and I thought to myself, "What the F*ck are they talking about?"  Heck, they both sounded like Democratic Populists ... they hit all the appropriate Populist outrage buttons ... except Leapin' Lizards!!  They re-wrote the ending!!  All of a sudden, it's the bad ol' Guv'mint that ruined everything, not the Sc*mb*g policies of the GOP - Corporate-Fascists.   It was mind-boggling.  Did you know that if we just stopped regulating Corporations and let them rape and pillage the environment to their heart's delight, that it would create JOBS?!   How dare we stand in the way of job creation?!!  And if we just got rid of Guv'mint!  the little guy would finally get his chance to succeed, because it's been the danged GUV'MINT that's been holding him back all this time!!  OMG!  Who knew?!  If we'd just eliminate all those regulations, like the minimum wage and union arbitration rights, the working guy would be a lot better off!!  Thank goodness, the GOP is going to do what's right for the little guy, the ordinary Joe, the guy that's really feeling the effects of this horrible economy .. News Flash!: House Republicans just passed a bill allowing corporations to eat all of our lunches, that way, us Ordinary Folks will not get fat!  Thanks, GOP!!  

    The GOP, taking care of YOU, but GOOD. 


    by MrSmith1 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 1:10pm

    Some fascinating "believe-it-or-not!" Michigan exit poll data at the NYT on an easy to read chart, such as:

    • Catholics went for the Mormon and Protestant Christians went for the Catholic
    • Union households split pretty evenly, despite Romney's union bashing
    • Tea party supporters split evenly between Romney and Santorum
    • Many youngsters luv them some Ron Paul, everyone else: not  so much
    • Many are buying Romney's prescription to get jobs back, as per the numbers for those who had a job loss in household in last 3 years
    • Registered Democrats who voted: (9% of the voters) 53% for Santorum (ala Operation Hilarity, I would imagine) but also 18% for Mitt and 17% for Ron Paul
    • Those who think abortion should be illegal in all cases went 60% for Santorum, but those who think it should be illegal in most cases went 46% for Romney

    by artappraiser on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 3:14pm

    For political junkies, this Atlantic Wire article is a fun review of who's playing footsie with who::

    That Brokered Convention Is Already Underway


    by artappraiser on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 3:49pm

    Nice catch. The Paul/Gingrich split screen is why I founded Amalgamated Trotskyite Paulistas.(High-prestige single-digit membership #s available)

    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 12:00am

    Here's another with a split screen photo that you'll probably like even more, it's almost like it was written just for you:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/29/grand_ayatollah_or_gran...


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 3:36am

    just call me "Supreme Jurisprudent." 9 for 9 .

    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 10:28am

    It doesn't matter who wins in Michigan or anywhere else.  Big Money is going to back the Republican nominee and since it's worked so well for them all these long ages, they'll pay big to keep the hate machine going.

    I am one of those who believes that it does matter a little bit. If Romney was able to cruise to the nomination crown early on in this primary, then the machine could basically operate as it has been able to do in the past.  Romney could use the primary season as the beginning of the general election, with the machine and other helpers like Fox News working to undermine Obama. 

    But now that there is a fight going on between the various nominees that threatens to go on for another couple of months at the very least, the focus is on the battle within the party.  The hope here that the longer this fight goes on, the more exposed the various factions of the right wing and their real agendas become.  Whether it is the establishment's economic agenda or the social conservative's desire to interfere with a woman's right to control her own body.  And so on.

    When the various factions of the right are able to remain united against a common enemy, they have shown to be very apt at presenting a common messaging package. 

    Romney's inability to unite the party / conservatives this election cycle has allowed the various cracks to widen between the factions.

    And the fact that Santorum can say what he has said in the recent path (along with what he has said for a long time now) and still get as many votes as he has is doing one thing if nothing else: scaring the bejeezus out of the independents.

    And the fact that Romney continues to demonstrate his true economic colors as he fights for the heart of the Republican base is doing one thing if nothing else: scaring the bejeezus out of the independents.

    The same goes for Gingrich and Paul.

    2012 isn't about just Obama re-election.  It is about the down ticket - state and federal. 

    The big money machine can't cover for the candidates when they actually reveal their true thoughts or go off the reservation in an attempt to win over the extreme ideologues of the base.  The longer that goes on, the more the independents and centerists begin to see that the Democrats and even the liberals might be the more sane choice to keep the country going on the correct path. 

    Keeping a contested primary all the way to the convention won't turn Alabama into a liberal haven, but it might help peel away a little of the facade the machine has been able to place over the true face of the Republican party.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 5:53pm

    Maureen Dowd, calling them Robo-Romney and Sanctorum in her Weds column, titled  "G.O.P. Greek Tragedy", wrote, among other things:

    ....the once ruthless Republican Party seems to have pretty much decided to cave on 2012 and start planning for a post-Obama world.

    Not even because Obama is so strong; simply because their field is so ridiculously weak and wacky.

    John McCain has Aeschylated it to “a Greek tragedy.” And he should know from Greek tragedy.

    “It’s the negative campaigning and the increasingly personal attacks,” he told The Boston Herald, adding, “the likes of which we have never seen.” When a man who was accused of having an illegitimate black child in the 2000 South Carolina primary thinks this is the worst ever, the G.O.P. is really in trouble....


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 2:43am