Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Giuliani, Romney Camps Diverge on Ad Strategies

10,000 vs. 0.

Those are the numbers -- roughly -- of television ads run by Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani to date, respectively, in their campaigns for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

$12.7 million vs. $565,000.

That's the amount of money Romney has spent on "media" versus the amount Giuliani has spent, according to Political Moneyline -- the preeminent campaign finance site on the Web.

Romney has been up early and often, using his early fundraising success and his willingness to spend from his personal wealth to fuel thousands of ads introducing himself to voters as a strong fiscal and social conservative.

"Before our advertising push, Governor Romney was barely known in Iowa," said campaign spokesman Kevin Madden. "We were in single digits against opponents like Rudy Giuliani, who has 100 percent name awareness across the country. As a result of our travel efforts and our advertising, we have been able to raise awareness about Governor Romney and his platform, and we now stand in a very competitive position there. Same goes for New Hampshire."

It worked. Romney soared to leads in Iowa and New Hampshire. That doesn't mean, however, that he has let off the throttle when it comes to ads. Romney is running ads in early states that are pegged to issues raised in the previous week of the campaign -- an attempt to amplify and control the message with paid advertising.

Here's an example of the Romney strategy -- an ad that went up in New Hampshire today:

Romney and Giuliani have traded body blows on taxes and spending for the better part of the last ten days, as both candidates fight for the mantle of the true fiscal conservative in the contest. By taking to the airwaves on taxes in New Hampshire -- where voters really care about the issue -- Romney is taking the first step in a two-part process. First, he has to build his own credentials as it relates to taxes and spending before dropping the hammer on Giuliani on the issue.

Meanwhile, the Giuliani campaign is surprisingly mum when it comes to their advertising plans. They pronounce themselves unconcerned about Romney's extended ad campaign, and, if polls are to be believed, they needn't be.

"Right now we feel like we are in a good place," said campaign manager Mike Duhaime. "We want our advertising to be impactful when it goes up." Duhaime added that the campaign wants to keep its options open given that the nominating calendar remains "in flux."

Giuliani has made no secret that he believes the primary battle will extend until at least Feb. 5 and that states voting on that date -- New Jersey, New York and Connecticut to name just three -- play to his strengths. So, his campaign may well be holding its financial firepower to ensure he has the resources to take advantage of his inherent strengths on Super Tuesday.

Romney seems to have Iowa in the bag (as we wrote last week), but in New Hampshire Giuliani appears to have momentum and South Carolina looks to be a toss-up between Romney, Giuliani and Fred Thompson at the moment.

When Giuliani decides to go up with television ads in these early states it will mark a significant moment in the campaign and could be a make-or-break event for Romney and Thompson.

There are two schools of thought about what a Giuliani ad blitz would mean to the race.

The first is that voters already know everything positive about Hizzoner -- his turnaround of New York City, his handling of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks etc. Therefore, positive ads that outline Giuliani's accomplishments in office and tie him to 9/11 won't move his numbers much.

Madden took that argument a step further, arguing that the more voters find out about Giuliani, the less they will like him -- citing Iowa as an early indicator of this trend. "For a candidate like Giuliani with 100 percent name awareness to muster only 11 percent in the last public Iowa poll shows that he has trouble with Republicans who are currently paying the most attention and who have the most information about his liberal record on same-sex marriage and his pro-choice views," he said.

The second theory is that when reminded of what they like about Giuliani through a series of biographical ads, voters will react positively and move the former mayor's numbers up rapidly.

Giuliani's campaign clearly believes the latter scenario is more plausible, a belief that explains why they appear to be saving their money for an all-out ad blitz in the final few months of the campaign rather than the slow-burn strategy pursued by the Romney campaign.

"This primary is different than anyone that anyone has ever been a part of before," said Duhaime. "There's not necessarily a set way of doing things."

We won't know who made the right choice until the end of January (or even Feb. 5). But it's a fascinating study in contrasts in a game being played at the highest level of politics.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 16, 2007; 1:24 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Virginia Senate: Can Warner be Beaten (Part 2)?
Next: N.M. Senate: Pearce's Entry Sets up GOP Primary Clash


Mibrooks27, you didn't look very hard. If you want to validate these quotes, you will have to look in the most basic texts on Thomas Jefferson. He was most certainly a deist, not a Christian. A more convincing argument could be made that he was a deist than an unorthodox Christian. Please read your history texts, if you have any, before commenting in this forum.

Posted by: Lcs210 | November 5, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris,

You really think things have gotten harder for the Republicans? Al Franken seems to be more of a long shot and the Oregon/Maine race s seem to favor the incumbent at this point. Not to mention Bob Kerrey's strange behavior even if he does jump into the Nebraska race.

It still looks like the Dems will pick up seats- but I think the magic '60' still looks out of sight.

Posted by: jforauer | October 19, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

I agree with cheyennepress,

Romney's personal competence far outshines anyone on either side of the political spectrum.

Posted by: DCWill | October 18, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I'm of the opinion that Romney has done quite well for himself. The man had essentially no name recognition in Iowa or across the country when all of this began. Same thing in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada... And yet now he's atop all of these, or at least close in South Carolina.

Frankly, the idea of a venture capitalist in the White House sounds fabulous to me. Indeed, their objective is to take over a flagging corporation, strip out all of the inefficiencies, reunite its parts in working order, and to create a profit generator that is worth more than it ever was. Exactly what we need to see happen in Washington.

America has also stood unique in the world given our nation's ability to compete and to innovate. The foolhardiness of those who would tax those who would lead our nation forward is just mind-boggling. At a time when the rest of the world is talking of decreasing corporate tax rates, we have "leaders" like Barak Obama and John Edwards talking about how we need to be more punitive towards corporations. It shows a complete failure to comprehend what America needs to stay competitive in the global economy in the coming years.

Romney gets it. He's had successes in life far and beyond anyone else in this race. Personally, I think the GOP would be foolish to back anyone else.

Posted by: cheyennepress | October 18, 2007 4:00 AM | Report abuse

>>>dON'T COME ON here an claim that jefferson is one of you, gop. Please don't do that. The man was a liberal.<<<

In what freaking way? You think Jefferson would have backed Social Security? Government involvement in healthcare? Or so many of the nutty programs that Democrats envision entangling the government within?

"I sincerely believe...that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government, enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments."

You can argue in many different ways with Jefferson. The man was a federalist through and through and would have spat upon the ideals of the Democratic Party. That said, he would have wrangled more than once with social conservatives, as well--and vehemently.

I would argue that if Jefferson had truly had the influence some project on him in founding this nation that we would simply not have lasted.

To quote the man again:

"Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

A bit kooky, no?

Still think he's a liberal?

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. "

Posted by: cheyennepress | October 18, 2007 3:51 AM | Report abuse

How does Edwards have the best interest of the country at heart? The man actually believes he can steal enough money from small businesses and those who have done well for themselves in life to pay for the healthcare of the rest of the nation. He'd then go after these same people to pay for the reckless spending we've seen on both sides of the aisle to fund that monstrosity of a poorly-conceived and inefficient of an idea: social security.

The man is a total sleaze bag who has zero clue as to what made this country great and how to keep it going. He attacked healthcare policies that weren't "punitive enough" against the pharmaceutical industry--perhaps the last remaining industry in the world solely dominated by the United States.

Posted by: cheyennepress | October 18, 2007 3:31 AM | Report abuse

response to (Posted by: claudialong | October 16, 2007 01:47 PM)

LOL! Yet Guiliani is still ahead in national polls. I guess that's the irony of it all.

Posted by: con_crusher | October 18, 2007 2:33 AM | Report abuse

Yet after loaning himself millions of dollars, Romney is still behind in national polls. Pathetic, like the GOP.

Posted by: con_crusher | October 18, 2007 2:30 AM | Report abuse

Only a fiscally irresponsible Red Bushie Repub could have a burn rate like that.

It's amusing how, in their race to the bottom, the evolution-denying Red Bushies just can't stop spending and borrowing.

Except they want to do it with our Social Security reserves, which they've been wasting on the insane Iraq Civil War we shouldn't even BE in.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 16, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

" disagrreed with a lot of his policies and I think some of his deregulation schemes led directly "

Not to mention his gettingrid of the fairness doctrine, which lead us to the current political dialogue. Ie rush came on the air the next year.

Not to mention his amnesty which legalized millions of illegals. Then the gop did nothign the next 20 years to fix illegal immagration. and now they complain and whine. PRetty conveiant. They sure to like to blame. I hear fairy tales abotu teh gop being a party of "law and order" and accountability. When was that golden age? I've never seeen it in my lifetime. They can hold Clinton accountable for a bj. They haven't held much else accountable.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I feel you mibrooks27. I get frustrated battle the devil daily, here. Sorry. I am sick of republcians (i see clinton in the same mold) trying to defend their fascism by using the good book or the founding fathers, while preaching teh exact opposite of their teachings. It's sacrilege. The gop is defiling everything. Destroying the best religon in the world. Destroying the best coutnry in the world and stompingon the words of the foudners they claim to be all about.

It's sickining. I just hope we get our coutnry back in 08. i agree about edwards.


Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

PollM - Reagan was a pretty decent man.I disagrreed with a lot of his policies and I think some of his deregulation schemes led directly to the present economic mess, but he was also responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union and lifted this country out of a horrible recession. Someon very much like Reagan, but with liberal credentials is Barak Obama. He would make a fine President and agree or disagree with him, he would be a uniter.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

rufus, I hope your comments weren't directed at me. I certainly am a classic Jeffersonian liberal and no friend of the GOP. I *will* choose them as the lesser of two evils, when presented with a choice between some psychotic nutcase like Clinton and an honest man or woman with whom I disagree like Thompson. Likewise, I would hope that many conservatives here would feel similar if presented with a choice between (say) Romney and Edwards. Romney is a wealthy opportunist who would do anything or say anything to get power, but would use that power for his own self interest. Edwards is a genuine populist and someone with dignity who has the best interests of this country at heart.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Clueless - Lost - No Direction.

Is anyone in the 2008 Republican presidential field the next Ronald Reagan?


Posted by: PollM | October 16, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

dON'T COME ON here an claim that jefferson is one of you, gop. Please don't do that. The man was a liberal. The man fought, in his time, the same enemy liberals are fighting today. Please don't do that. Stay in the now. you will get ripped to shreds with that arguement. It's bad enough i have to here you people try and represent my religon. It's bad enough you corrupted my religon with your fascism conservatism. Don't bring the founders in too. You will lose. Please don't do that. Let's stay in present times. For your sake.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

claudialong: You are on the right track. I have been unable to post anything that exposes the "Hillary Haters" as being something they are not. Hope this one gets through.

Posted by: lylepink | October 16, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Lcs210 - I went out looking for your "quotes", by the way. They are INVENTED, not something ever written nor said by Thomas Jefferson. A genuine quote, "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.", is here: What Jefferson actually believed was "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact,
constitute the real Anti-Christ." I quite agree with him, but this is afar different thing than not believing in Christ nor in Christianity.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Rudy isn't focusing on TV ads at the moment, he's busy setting up campaign offices in the February 5 mega-primary states like ND, MO....

CC, It seems a little early to say that Romney has Iowa "in the bag."

For the top 12 money raisers in the third quarter:

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | October 16, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Lcs210 - YOUR IGNORANCE OF HISTORY IS ONLY EXCEEDED BY YOUR BILE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY. Jefferson, common ignorance passing as knowledge, to the contrary was very much a Christian. Go read his biography. As a part of his death bequeith, his estate funded more than 30 Christian Churches. He was was, to be sure, not one of your narrow minded "fundimentalist" sorts of Christians, but he was a self identified Christian nonetheless.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a Deity; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

This is where Jefferson is coming from. Where's Carter coming from?

Posted by: Lcs210 | October 16, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"Mr. Carter was one of the most moral, decent, godly, and thoughtful Presidents this country has had since Thomas Jefferson." - mibrooks27

Godly? That's not something that's going to impress me. Moral? Carter's morality come from the Bible - again, that doesn't impress me. I will concede that Carter is a sincere person, but I'm very critical of where he gets his opinions from.

As for Jefferson, I would sooner describe him as a radical than a religious believer. This is the same man, you will recall, who held reasoning in such high esteem. Have you ever read the Jefferson Bible?

I don't think Carter can be compared to Jefferson, at least not in the way you're trying to do it. Jefferson was an incredibly brilliant man - a genius, in my opinion - who seemed to rely on reasoning above all else. I don't think the same could be said for Carter, to say the least.

Posted by: Lcs210 | October 16, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"how many votes will she have to buy to win?"

That's like asking how many $2000 a night hotel rooms giuliani will stay in this year. You can't put a number on it.

Do you think 'hizzoner' is saving up his ad budget for one super-duper ad buy during the superbowl? Just in time to feed into his hail-mary super-tuesday strategy!

Posted by: bsimon | October 16, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Gore even represents an improvement over the previous American winner, former president Jimmy Carter. Like Menchu, Carter also suffers from serious integrity issues. In his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter plagiarized maps drawn by former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross for Ross's own books, and then presented the work as Carter's own.

Worse, Carter systematically misrepresented conversations with Syrian president Hafez Assad, to create a false impression that Assad was more conciliatory than he really was. The note-taker at Carter's meetings with Assad, Kenneth Stein, resigned in protest from his post at the Cater Center after the publication of Peace Not Apartheid. Gore may twist data, but at least he does not act as a PR agent for dictators.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 16, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

At a campaign event at the YWCA in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Tuesday, Clinton, D-N.Y., reminisced about her days as a young working mother while unveiling her "Helping Parents Balance Work & Family" agenda. (Snip) According to a statement released by her campaign, "Hillary's plan would set an ambitious goal for all states to implement a paid family leave program by the year of 2016 and offers $1 billion per year in grants to encourage innovative paid family leave programs at the states level.

another billion today. how many votes will she have to buy to win?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 16, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks: Jimmy Carter was also without question one of the worst presidents of all time, right down there with Pierce, Buchanan, Harding, and Bush 43. How moral, decent, godly, and thoughtful he might or might not be is utterly irrelevant.

Interestingly, even though I was only 16 in 1976, I had the good sense to support Gerald Ford for president.

Posted by: Spectator2 | October 16, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"Gore, however wooden he might appear, is a genuinely intelligent and thoughful man and would make a great president."

I guess we will never know. not sure how smart you have to be to flunk out of divinity school and lose an election to George Bush as an incumbant.

"Mr. Carter was one of the most moral, decent, godly, and thoughtful Presidents "

I guess those characteristics don't translate well into an effective executive. He is certainly in the running for worst president ever by any objective standard and worst ex-president ever as well. after thinking long and hard, it is suggested one occasionally act on the decision. and it might be nice to put your own countries best interest first on occasion.

But even in their total irrelevance and electoral failure, they are all the Libs have to hold up as examples. what does that tell you?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 16, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Don't feed the trolls.

Clinton clinton clinton. 1992 1992 1978.

He's got nothing. don't give him the satisfaction.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk - Most liberals would agree that Kennedy, Sharpton, Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Clinton are self serving blowhards with the collective conscience of a bit less than an opposum. Kennedy, especially, is a fillandering, money grubbing drunk, in the mold of Bill Clinton. Gore, however wooden he might appear, is a genuinely intelligent and thoughful man and would make a great president. Jimmy Carter was the subject of a whole series of inside character assasinations by the power elite of both parties in Washington (and New York). Mr. Carter was one of the most moral, decent, godly, and thoughtful Presidents this country has had since Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Coulter - best selling author, first on NYTimes list
O'Reilly - King of cable - highest ratings of all cable shows
Limbaugh - best ratings of any talk radio show, invented the genre

Summary (I am jealous of their success, tax them, silence them, do something!!!!)

vs - Jimmy Carter - failed President, began long slide into submission and fecklessness
Al gore - sore loser and failed candidate
Sharpton - race baiter and lying self promoter
Bill clinton impeached president responsible for slide toward terror, intern jokes and classless behavior. also corruption and finance scandals
Kennedy - cared more about his career than a girl's life, another cheater and drinker

Despite all these flaws, they are still widely popular in Lib circles. Ignore the bad, if they're a Lib. We crave power at all costs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 16, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"sorry to break the news to you, but there are a whole series of rumors of Hillary's marital infidelities going way back"

A sad day in america when supermaket tabloid slime passes for political news. I blame rush. Cut the head off the snake (figurativly of course) and the monster is done.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Claudia....sorry to break the news to you, but there are a whole series of rumors of Hillary's marital infidelities going way back, from Vice Foster and even reports of lesbian relationships. I am more than a little inclined to believe them, too. Based on her history of breaking the law (or, as her feminist supporters are want to put it, "living above the law") I wouldn't put anything past her. And, as for Ms. Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest of them, I don't listen to them nor do I like them at all. I'm a loyal listener to Air America and a genuine liberal. I loath right wing ideology, multinational corporations and big business interests, and speculators ("investors"); all of which is reason for detesting Hillary Clinton. They are her chief supporters and she is one of them.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"he left his first two wives for other women"

as opposed to staying with your wife while dallying with dozens of women. Unfortunate as both situations are, one is honest and unfortunate, the other is dishonest and unfortunate.

"Bill Clinton also is not running for president" = except they have offerewd us two for one, so in fact he is running as co-president. Are you now trying to shun him? convenient. Maybe you can choose the five things you really like about clinton and choose to ignore all the rest. That seems to work for the press and the rest of the loony left.

As far as "going off the deep end", I presume as a regular resident of that locale, you are the best to judge that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 16, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

And look at who your heros are -- Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, the lowest scumbags on earth. Hey, did you know your hero, 'Miss' Coulter, really admires Joseph McCarthy? She's had a few nice things to say about Hitler and Mussolini too, you admire them also, I presume?

Posted by: drindl | October 16, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Instead what we hear is the Libs desperate to change the subject about their own candidate and history.''

No, actually what we hear is the constant attacks on Democrats by folks like you, zouk, desperate to change the subject about their own candidates and history-- by talking about Jimmy Carter, for chrissake --who cares? And Bill Clinton. For a winger, when all else fails -- Blame Bill.

Posted by: drindl | October 16, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

'Former wives and mistresses? Really, Claudia, at least he left one before going onto another.'

Uh, no. He had, while mayor, a wife and children he still lived with in Grace Mansion, and two mistresses simultaneously, before Judi sunk her hooks in and got him to dump the other two. By all accounts, he left his first two wives for other women.

Bill Clinton also is not running for president. His wife, who is, has never been rumored to have any marital infedilities, is. You really seem to go off the deep end every time you talk about the Clintons.

I don't care how long Gerth and Van Natta were reporters. They're very heavily right-leaning and the book is a hit piece, plain and simple.

Posted by: drindl | October 16, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"Why not ask all the former wives and mistresses and children he dumped about that"

Instead what we hear is the Libs desperate to change the subject about their own candidate and history. we don't hear from Repubs, evangs or for the most part any Rs. Instead we hear the constant drumbeat from the Libs, who would do anything to hide their own indecision on policy. Just try to get a straight answer from clinton on anything.

Ask a Lib to compare policy. your answer will be "He dressed in drag and stayed with gays". but not Hillary - she won't answer any question at all. meanwhile, the Libs are laughed at in every medium that actually has an audience.

Just look at who their heroes are: al gore, Jimmy Carter, Michael moore, Cindy sheehan, media matters, moveon, sharpton, bill clinton, ginsberg, Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Maher, Olbermann. what a circus! a perfect not ready for prime time line up. the congress can't pass the approps bills but they have plenty of time to revisit an Ottoman massacre from 19 oh dark ages.

then the Libs will tell you how personal the Rs are, how evil they are, how they insult everyone. Well, examine the comments on this site and see for yourself who are the slime merchants.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 16, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Former wives and mistresses? Really, Claudia, at least he left one before going onto another. In the case of the Clinton's we have is serial adulterer, being aided and abetted by this absolute paranoid swine of a wife:

"In their book about Clinton's rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: "Hillary's defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

"The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill," Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton. "Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions."

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani a decent man? Really? Why not ask all the former wives and mistresses and children he dumped about that.

Posted by: drindl | October 16, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

There's an interesting raphic over on the NYT web site about where candidates get their cash. Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, and Thompsom get about 2/3 of their money from individuals donating $500 or less. Clinton, on the other hand, leading *all* candidates, even all Republican's, receives max $2300 donations from corporate officers, PAC and companies...3/4 of her donations from these sources alone. If you want to look for a grubby candidate, one that is so obviously in the pocket of special interests, look no farther than Hillary Clinton. Even more interesting, however, is that thje bulk of her dnations comes from precisely the same people who donated to Bush and his campaigns. Interesting that the magots and parasites recognize one of their own, while certain lame brains on this forum do not.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

That's all you got zouk? After all those posts. That's all you got.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Did someone cut your b*lls off? HAHAHAHHA.

Good luck zouk. Enjoy life without your avatars. Enoy your irrelevance, come nov 08.

HAHAHAHHA. your a funny little old man.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it at all.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 02:40 PM

Yes, rufas. We know that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 16, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"Then, as if on cue, Malkin unleashed her crusade to slime the family of a 12-year-old boy after he came forward to publicly support a government-funded health insurance program for children known as SCHIP. President Bush recently vetoed an attempt to expand the program. Democrats this week are trying to override that veto. The boy, Graeme Frost, survived a week-long coma after his family's SUV crashed into a tree three winters ago. Graeme's sister was even more severely injured in the crash. Today she is blind in one eye and has difficulty with memory, learning, and speech.

That's who right-wing bloggers picked as the target of their smear campaign, posting all kinds of venom and falsehoods about the family.

Honestly, the Malkin-led jihad unfolded like a parody of blood-thirsty Republican bloggers -- an Onion-worthy spoof -- the kind that even I would have been too sheepish to dream up because the premise made them seem even loonier than I thought they were. How far off the range did Malkin and company roam with their wayward attacks on the Frost family? So far that even the trigger-happy crew at Fox News refused to saddle up and join the midnight posse, out to unmask a sick kid and his needy parents. (Keep in mind that for years Malkin maintained a steady presence on Fox News, yet the channel still wouldn't touch her pet project of hate last week.)

Last one. Don't report me to the geroge bush patriot act cronies and throw me in a prison in eastern europe. Free speech, remember?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

according to the Information Please web page, the Peace Prize was developed by Alfred Nobel to honor "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

* Which explains why Jimmy Carter's dismantling of America's military and intelligence capabilities during his Presidency would have been rewarded with the Peace Prize in 2002.

* Al Gore has certain Jimmy Carter-esque personality traits including truly believing he is superior to the rest of us

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 16, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"What's wrong is their recent wild-eyed pronouncements and consuming sense of martyrdom (why should they apologize when they're the victims?) created the type of cumulative, three-week media meltdowns that we haven't seen in years. And, with specific regard to Limbaugh and O'Reilly, the fact that both men physically could not stop talking about the controversies (i.e. themselves) was a huge boost for progressives, many of whom were privately nervous the O'Reilly-goes-to-Harlem and Limbaugh-attacks-the-troops stories might fizzle after a day or two.

Instead, thanks to O'Reilly and Limbaugh's inability to look away from their own reflection or to turn down the volume of their own microphones, the stories motored on week after week, doing great damage to both men and to the conservative movement, which defends the talkers at any cost.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The Clintonistas understand that Gore is not going to run and so can pretend to be very, really, extremely happy about that fact that he won a Nobel Peace Prize before Bill did - although it is reasonable to suspect Bill Clinton misunderstands the spelling of that particular award.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 16, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"With the Bush administration in a state of prolonged decline and with Republicans out of power on Capitol Hill, it's the right-wing media machine that maintains the highest profile among conservatives on a daily basis. And it's Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly who have become the face of the Republican Party.

For liberals, that's a good thing, as the GOP is forced to deal with the sludge that keeps washing up on its shores, courtesy of its favorite media stars who now bide their time insulting black entrepreneurs, war vets, and injured children.

SO IF WE cut the head off the snake(s) what does the gop have? Imagine a world without "dittoheads". What if we were all individuals. "dittoheads", why are you willing participants in your own slavery. I don't get it at all.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I don't see any standard by which Giuliani can be called a decent and honest man. He's nasty to everyone around him, he governs like an authoritarian, and he's profiting tremendously off of 9/11. He's far more of a scumbag than Romney.

Posted by: Blarg | October 16, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse


She has wood eyes. Look in her eyes next time you see her. I'll do what fox does.

Michelle Malkin: Human or Robot ?


Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I feel bad for Michelle Malkin's poor husband. The things some guys will put up with for some regular Asian poontang.

Posted by: Spectator2 | October 16, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

A good way to "Judge" these polls is by the for or against, and then you can get the "Net". Example--for 30%, against 40%--would be a net -10%. I doubt any of the top tier would be under -10%, and some as high as -30%. Try this on any of the recent ones and I think most of you will be suprised.

Posted by: lylepink | October 16, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

JasonL_in_MD - Oh, I believe it. Most of the candidates have high negatives. As a group, they aren't a very nice bunch. Add to that, however, the mud slinging campaigns of the likes of Clinton and Romney, which seek to "up" the negatives of everyone. Their strategy is to paint everyone as scummy as themselves. Basically, that is their only hope. If the voters truly realized that Clinton and Romney and their like were as awful as they truly are, they would vote for *anyone* other than them. The sad truth, hpwever, is that there are decent men and women in politics. They treat it as public service. People like Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Huckabee, Guliani, Thompson, even McCaine, as out of touch with mainstream desires as he is, is a decent and honest man.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about either. They have zero shot in the general

"Between Michelle Malkin Swift Boating a traumatically injured 12-year-old boy, Rush Limbaugh denigrating anti-war veterans, and Bill O'Reilly insulting black Americans (not to mention Ann Coulter dissing Jews), the mighty right-wing media machine -- firmly attached to the hip of the Republican Party -- is in the process of driving American conservatism right off a cliff. The loudmouths whom conservatives have supported for years, and whom Republican politicians have used for political gain, have become increasingly unhinged. And their recent public antics are drawing more and more disbelieving stares."

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 16, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

And Romney is still under 10 in national polls and falling fast in Iowa and New Hampshire. Look like the media blitz is a failure.

Posted by: parkerfl | October 16, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

You know, milbrooks, people keep saying that HRC has such high negatives compared to other people. Did anyone else see the news (I think it was todays WaPo but it could have been the B-more Sun) that something like 7 candidates have negatives over 40% now?

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 16, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Interesting, isn't it? Rudy spends more than he takes in -- and rather than spending it on advertisng -- he spends it on luxury hotels. I can see what a fine small-government president he would be...

'Giuliani raised $11 million during the third quarter of 2007 -- more than his Republican counterparts -- and reached $13 million in spending without making a significant purchase of television advertising.

Giuliani's spending was elevated because he traveled in style. He often stayed in luxury hotels, spending $2,010 at the Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia, $4,034 at La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, Calif., and $5,370 at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. He also spent more than $565,000 reimbursing various corporate supporters for private jet travel, and another $800,000 on charter jet travel.

Posted by: drindl | October 16, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Basically, this is why liberals and moderates, even though they don't much agree with them, might vote for Guliani or Huckabee if it boils down to a race between any one of them and Clinton. I cannot think of anyone, however, who would vote for Romney. Candidates like Romney, Clinton, etc. are part of the problem. They have the vast amounts of money becasue most crooks have vast amounts of money.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 16, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company