Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney spent $33 million destroying Newt Gingrich and all he got was Rick Santorum in return (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So is John Roberts' defense going to be (9+ / 0-)

    that Citizens United really didn't corrupt the electoral process because these people are not even smart enough to get properly corrupted?

    •  I like it! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wjhamilton29464, commonmass

      The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

      by Hillbilly Dem on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:34:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I must be one of the few who thinks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass

      thatthinks that money in politics is not nearly as powerful as one might imagine. Exhibit A is Jerry Brown's win over the vastly wealthier Whitman. And I submit that Exhibit B is Gingrich, a man who is so obviously a bombast and a cartoon that he was riding for a fall and is becoming a walking joke to most Republicans. This latter situation was brought about by Gingrich himself not by the super-PAC money arrayed against him. Sure, too much money in politics - especially uncontrolled - is not good. But all the money in the world cannot save a bad candidate.

      Fructose is a liver poison. Stop eating it today.

      by Anne Elk on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:37:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Brown was a vastly superior candidate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jane Lew

        and Whitman had a huge domestic help problem.  Having been in Brown's campaign, I can tell you that the money disparity was a huge problem.  Brown was saving up his money until September and getting whacked until then.

        Democrats must
        Earn the trust
        Of the 99% --
        That's our intent!

        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinksy OCcupy!

        by Seneca Doane on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:46:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure, but he still won (0+ / 0-)

          because he was a vastly better candidate. I would even go so far as to say that Whitman' vast ad buys only served to over-expose her and the more she advertised the worse she looked. The money disparity can help when candidates are fairly evenly matched but cannot save a poor candidate.

          Fructose is a liver poison. Stop eating it today.

          by Anne Elk on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:59:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Alas, that it didn't in this case (0+ / 0-)

            does not mean that it can't.  I'll think about examples where it has.

            Democrats must
            Earn the trust
            Of the 99% --
            That's our intent!

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinksy OCcupy!

            by Seneca Doane on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 09:22:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  maybe--but exhibit b doesn't stand up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wayward Son

        Gingrich was walloping Romney until the huge infusion of SuperPac ads drove G's negatives through the roof.  I submit that would not have happened (not as fast, anyway) absent those ads and the money that bought them.

        In an era of a growing number of "low information" voters, a barrage of expensive ads can exert considerable weight.  A case in point: in our local newspaper, a letter appeared claiming Muslims were specifically exempted from the Affordable Care Act, claiming there was mention of "dhimmitude" on p. 107 of the Act.

        All lies, of course.  But imagine millions of dollars to pay for broadcasting an ad that stated that.  Without accountability, the candidate on whose behalf it was issued would merely shrug.  In a close election, it might be enough to make a difference.  More's the pity, but there it is.

        •  Well, not to go on too much (0+ / 0-)

          about this, but we can't say that Gingrich would not have collapsed in the face of a much more modest campaign expenditure. He is a profoundly weak candidate - perhaps the only thing that can be described as profound about him. That was what did him in. Romney went in for overkill but I don't think it would have had the desired effect had Newt been a capable politician.

          Fructose is a liver poison. Stop eating it today.

          by Anne Elk on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 09:05:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Affordable Care Act (0+ / 0-)

          I was at a forum where people had the act on their laptops when the tin foil hat squad from the tea party showed up.  I walked up to them, powered up the camera and said quietly, who is ready to be on You Tube.

          They were ranting about the secret implanted medical devices rumor, which they developed out of the plans for a Government database to track implants in case they are later determined to be defective.

          Out of which they got pacemaker / brain control uplink to UFOs or Black Helicopters.

          William Hamilton practices Law and is a writer and community activist in the Charleston, SC area. He can reached through www.wjhamilton.com

          by wjhamilton29464 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 09:13:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hmm. I wondered why I was acting this way. (0+ / 0-)

            And now I know.  But wait.  My "knowing" could be just apparent--a plot by George Soros to further some even more diabolical scheme!

            (These clowns keep running up against the Cartesian problematic and not having one single clue what to do with it.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site