Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Update: Romney Dials for 6.5 Million Dollars

Former Gov. Mitt Romney's (R-Mass.) campaign said it raised $6.5 million for his presidential exploratory committee, Monday, thanks to an all-day call-a-thon featuring the candidate and a group of his biggest supporters.

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said the $6.5 million total is a combination of "actual contributions and signed pledges."

A press release from the Romney campaign said 400 volunteers placed 15,000 calls to potential Romney contributors.

"I am overwhelmed by this support, heartened by the friendship, and hopeful for the future. I can only say thank you," Romney said, according to the press release.


Mitt Romney hopes to raise $100 million for his 2008 presidential bid. (AP File Photo)

The "National Call Day" is an attempt to showcase Romney as an "innovative and entrepreneurial leader," according to spokesman Madden. As evidence, Madden pointed to the use of a new system called ComMitt -- a sales software developed specifically for Romney's campaign. Romney hopes the software will help organize and coordinate the raising of the $100 million he wants to collect in 2007. Madden explained that ComMitt is an attempt to professionalize past fundraising programs, which were "done with a spreadsheet or worse paper and pencil."

More than 350 people gathered Monday to help with the telethon, including former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (R-Mass.) and her husband, Tennessee fundraiser Ted Welch, Utah businessman Jon Huntsman Sr., former Gov. Bill Weld (Mass.), and Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt.

The telethon punctuates the first weekend of a full-fledged Romney candidacy. On Saturday he addressed the "Awakening 2007" conference -- a gathering of social conservatives -- in Sea Island, Ga. In his remarks, Romney continued to cast himself as the logical heir to former President Ronald Reagan's political legacy even noting that he, like Reagan, came to his conservatism later in life. "Perhaps some in this room have had the opportunity to listen, learn, and benefit from life's experience -- and to grow in wisdom, as I have," Romney said. "My life experience convinced me that Ronald Reagan was right."

That rhetoric comes in response to the criticism Romney has received regarding inconsistencies in his beliefs on issues like abortion and gay rights. Romney has apparently settled on casting those changes as an evolution of thinking rather than a political flip-flop aimed at wooing social conservatives.

Meanwhile, Romney continues to recruit elected officials and key staffers to his presidential campaign. Former Gov. Bill Owens (R-Colo.) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) have signed on as supporters. On the staff level, Romney has recruited Charlie Spies, the former general counsel at the Republican National Committee and Republican Governors Association, to serve as chief financial officer and counsel. Spies, according to informed sources, will be charged with establishing and managing the budget of the Romney campaign. The campaign has also brought on Ted Newton, who made his name in 2004 at the Republican National Committee by developing the opposition research book on Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, will be Romney's research director. Joe Pounder, who worked in research for the California Republican Party last cycle, will be a part of Romney's rapid response team.

For more detail on Romney's day of fundraising make sure to check out the Washington Post tomorrow morning. In the meantime, the Associated Press's Glen Johnson and the Hotline's Marc Ambinder are reporting from Boston.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 8, 2007; 4:09 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Gore Make Another Run?
Next: Kerry Prepares Another White House Run

Comments

xodcimrkq ozhvrfac jxfwky ihloxjv pywxzrb yafgvot vtxegn http://www.xpebghjd.xaecpgldw.com

Posted by: txnwhy gkyfmp | January 30, 2007 4:46 AM | Report abuse

umrhyb jiywpvd txmv zplr ocpusahbv furvgxeh dpbfiut

Posted by: nybj vmbjgxwko | January 30, 2007 4:45 AM | Report abuse

Anyone on this blog really believe Guiliani is a real presidential contender? Look at organization and big money donors...Bush's donors are behind McCain and Romney for the biggest part. Raising $6.5 million in 1 day of phone calls is very impressive! McCain is also doing well in fundraising. McCain and Romney also have the tugging of activists and the support of state party coordinators to really run a great race.

Guiliani, in the end, just has too much baggage. If he enters the race and actually runs, conservative factions will cut that man down so fast he won't know what hit him. Guiliani is a gun hating, gay, divorced, gun hating gay lover...or, enough evidence is there to portray him as such. How will he explain announcing his 1st divorce at a press conference...standing beside his mistress. How well do you think this will go in Iowa? How about his record on gay rights? abortion? gun control? His other 2 divorces? Not mentioning his kids on his web-site, b/c that brings up the other issues? Living with a few gay guys after the divorce? He has no real political experience...mayor of NYC and Attorney General of NY. He's never even been a governor. Not to mention the fact that the NY Republican party is in shambles. The dems. trumpt the R's this past election cycle in every statewide race. If Guiliani runs, he will self-destruct just like Pirro in the AG's race. She was going to be NY's saving grace, right? Ha! Guiliani has no chance!

Posted by: reason | January 10, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

It's about time we have a political leader at the helm with some morals and values. Mitt brings both morals values and a great leadership style that will move the American people in the right direction. GO MITT!!!!!

Posted by: ME | January 10, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse

JayPe, yes, it is logical to think that Negroponte in late 2007 would be given the reins at the State Department to allow Condi Rice to run. Who else would be better equipt than a man like Negroponte with 40 years of experience in Foreign Relations. In fact, with his experience as UN Ambassador and US Ambassador to Iraq, he is the perfect man to help Condi for the next year, and then maybe become Acing Secretary of State until January 2009.
And if Condi got elected either as president or VP, Negroponte might be confirmed for the next Republican Adm.


http://www.eyeon08.com/2006/08/20/mccain-and-condi-tie-in-nhs-bow-straw-poll/

This is a link to a New Hampshire straw poll at a Republican event in August 2006.
Romney who is well-known in NH was ranked low. I was amazed that Condi tied McCain.
You might not have seen any report about this straw poll, but it is newsworthy.

Posted by: Tina | January 9, 2007 10:38 PM | Report abuse

It really shows where the money is when a one term Repub governor raises $6.5m in one day, while two term Dem governor Vilsack takes over a month to get to $1m.

The wind is blowing with the Dems, the money with the Repubs. It'll be a close election come 2008!

Posted by: JayPe | January 9, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Nice point Nathan W; campaign finance law eroded our liberty, Larry; a $100 bribe on me wouldn't work, and Andy; what a bummer seeing your glass half empty all the time! And all you other whiners, please repeat:
"I AM NOT A VICTIM".
Due to the Finegold, McCain campaign finance bill, only Billionaires can afford to run for our highest offices (the Senate has been know for years as an exclusive millionaires' club).
Hats off to Mitt and his team for raising $6.5 million dollars on Monday by placing approximately 15,000 phone calls. With the new restrictions, that's an average of $433 per person, although we know his sister pledged the maximum of $2,100. Had I been on one of their lists, I would have sent him a hundred bucks! According to my math, if they have the same event 15 times this year, they should be able to raise over $100 million! Mitt has been credited with the ability to solve a problem when one surfaces (SLC Olympics scandal, The Big Dig in MA, etc) and in this case the problem his problem was to raise money to compete in the race. He has proved he can solve problems. Perhaps we could use a guy like him in the White House in 2008 when the USA just might be facing a serious problem or two!

Posted by: R72guy | January 9, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Hello Tina!

A question, do you think Negroponte moved to Deputy SoS in order to replace Condi as she resigns to run for President?

Its a marvellous conspiracy theory that I haven't heard aired at all. Given no one thinks its credible, it shows how unlikely it is that Condi will run for President. (As opposed to Gore, who attracts Fix columns speculating, and massive blog comment).

Posted by: JayPe | January 9, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Tina said:
"With Secretary of State Condi flyinn off on another diplomatic mission to the Middle East, I think it clearly shows that she is a work horse, not a show horse.
She has rolled up her sleeves again and again to help settle turmoil in that region of the world. "

Condi settle turmoil? Even when Colin Powell got fed up with the lies and incompetence of George W. Bush, Condi hung in there as an enabler. Under her firm hand, Iraq is now in a civil war that will likely end with partition of the country. Oh, and great job in Lebanon, Condi. Neocons are pathetic losers.

Posted by: Geoff | January 9, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Tina said:
"With Secretary of State Condi flyinn off on another diplomatic mission to the Middle East, I think it clearly shows that she is a work horse, not a show horse.
She has rolled up her sleeves again and again to help settle turmoil in that region of the world. "

Condi settle turmoil? Even when Colin Powell got fed up with the lies and incompetence of George W. Bush, Condi hung in there as an enabler. Under her firm hand, Iraq is now in a civil war that will likely end with partition of the country. Oh, and great job in Lebanon, Condi. Neocons are pathetic losers.

Posted by: Geoff | January 9, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The leftover money if Romney does not run can be used to help finance any Republican campaign or help a few state GOP committees. It is not for his personal use along he has a few million of his own and would not need it anyway.

Did any of you see the November Gallup poll of who the people say they want to run?
It was for Guiliani at 28%
McCain 26%
Condi 13%
Romney and others in single numbers.

With Secretary of State Condi flyinn off on another diplomatic mission to the Middle East, I think it clearly shows that she is a work horse, not a show horse.
She has rolled up her sleeves again and again to help settle turmoil in that region of the world.

Romney will have to spend a lot of money and attend various events to build support.
That does take money to stay a fancy places with his staff, just like the others who are exploring. But consider this point, with over 20 websites promoting Condi Rice for president, (you can find them doing a google search)
I think these groups are like ONE BIG GIGANTIC exploratory for Condi. She is working and these volunteers are spending their own time and money promoting her.
Sounds like a perfect plan to test the waters for Condi 2008 without her having to resign in order to run.
If the mood of the Republicans, conservatives, and Second Amendment supporters continue to stay in support for Condi for another year, you just might see the 2008 race get a good shake-up to get Condi to run.

Posted by: Tina | January 9, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Emctwo,

There was a lot of corruption in the Salt Lake games, until he came in and fixed everything. He not only rid the games of corruption, but ended up turning a profit, which did not look like it was going to happen. Like I said, sounds great, but need to learn more about him before I can say yea and nay.

Another Mass. Republican,

Interesting, everything I have read and looked into so far has not been so. Please send me in the direction that you get your information. No doubt differences of opinion, but in the short time I have looked into Mitt, there seems to be a healthy list of accomplishments. Healthcare not the least of them.

Posted by: Nathan | January 9, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The LDS Church has actively--if you consider the members being asked over the pulpit--campaigned against gay marriage in several states (especially California) as well as the ERA.

The LDS Church campaigns with a "quiet word behind closed doors" in the words of Gordon B. Hinckley in his book "Standing for Something" for many other things which no one ever finds out about.

Posted by: Ryan | January 9, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The Mormon church doesn't seek to influence politics? What about their funding of the anti gay marriage initiatives, as in California? Plus, through Zion Banking and Trust they control immense assets, which are distributed by the church heirarchy in a secretive manner. Mormons who want to stay in good standing and retain their membership card which is required to visit their temple in SLC don't buck the church power structure. How much Romney is beholden to the church power structure remains to be seen.

Posted by: Geoff | January 9, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Don't believe the hype- Romney was EASILY the worst of the last 3 GOP Governors of Massachusetts. Long on rhetoric, short on results. And a flip-flopper of Kerryesque stature!

Just say no- Mitt doesn't happen.

Posted by: Another Mass. Republican | January 9, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the clarifications - sorry for the errors.

Still not sure about this whole Olympics thing (aren't the Olympics terribly corrupt?).

But now I know that the missions are optional. Whoops.

Good reminders about other Mormon politicans and their diverse stances on the issues. Very true.

Posted by: Emctwo | January 9, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Is he going to keep the illegal beaners out?,, he has my vote if he id

Posted by: Scott | January 9, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Just for the record, the LDS church maintains a strict policy of political neutrality. The fact that many Mormons will donate to the Romney campaign is no more significant than the fact that many Catholics supported JFK, or that many Jews supported Lieberman? People who run for higher office will always reach out for support to those with whom the share a common bond. That hardly means that the LDS church is going to be "pulling the strings" of President Romney. Does anyone really believe that the LDS church is dictating the votes of Harry Reid, who is also a Mormon?

Posted by: nota | January 9, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Nathan,

If you want a good place to start your research, try spending some time at

www.mittromney.com

Posted by: murphy | January 9, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I am a Mormon, and I know or recognize only a few of the names mentioned by Mr. Murphy, but what he said makes sense and is intelligent and non inflamatory. The church has never tried to infleuence my political opinion. We don't believe in tearing people down but desire their sucess and well being as the Savior taught us and set the example for. As a nation of many who profess Christianity and a trust in GOD lets enter the political arena with some of those values and support the best man for the job. I think Mr Romney might be a good choice.Happy New Year

Posted by: Darrell H | January 9, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I haven't heard of this Mitt guy for very long. Sounds like he knows how to run things. At least he knows how to make some buzz. Maybe he is using his successful past with the 2002 Olympics and 4 years of being a conservative governor in a liberal state take him to the presidency. I don't know if it will work. But if he can do to the nation what he did with the Olympics and what I understand he did in the state of Mass he's got my vote. Time to do my research and start to understand all the possibilities next year.

I love it when people state that one religion is like this or another is like that. Most people don't understand anothers religion. Seldom does anybody do the due research to really know what one religion is like over another. It's too bad the Jews, Catholics, or Mormons get the rap they do since people rail on them without their due diligence.

Too bad most of the nation are just lemmings following what they simply hear one day in a news story. Kudos to Mr. Romney to create the chatter that we lemmings love. I just hope that this buzz kiblitz turns into something substantial.

Posted by: Nathan | January 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

liberals suck

Posted by: Shawn | January 9, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Just for the record, the LDS church maintains a strict policy of political neutrality. The fact that many Mormons will donate to the Romney campaign is no more significant than the fact that many Catholics supported JFK, or that many Jews supported Lieberman? People who run for higher office will always reach out for support to those with whom the share a common bond. That hardly means that the LDS church is going to be "pulling the strings" of President Romney. Does anyone really believe that the LDS church is dictating the votes of Harry Reid, who is also a Mormon?

Posted by: nota | January 9, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

AndyR,

Romney left Massachusetts with balanced budgets every year he was in office. Your claim of a billion dollar deficit is rediculous.

Your new governor Patrick came up with that $1B number for next year. He also pledged to rescind $384 million worth of cuts Romney made to the 2007 budget. Sound a little fishy?

This may serve as a lesson to you. The reason Romney was constantly slashing budgets by hundreds of millions in the last few years was to BALANCE THE BUDGET. It's called fiscal discipline. Say goodbye to that policy.

Posted by: murphy | January 9, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MONEY IF HE DOES NOT RUN? IS THIS HIS RETIREMENT FUND?

Posted by: j. martin | January 9, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

Since you have questions about the level of influence the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will hold over Romney (should he be elected), here are a few pertinent quotes for you to chew on.

"America has a political religion and that people who are elected to office subscribe to this political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and the Constitution, above all others. And there's no question that as I take the oath of office as governor, and have, that I make that my primary responsibility. And you know, I don't think getting into any particular religion makes any sense for somebody who's serving the public." -- Mitt Romney

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." -- Mormon Article of Faith #11

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." -- Mormon Article of Faith #12

Feel free to look over Romney's entire record as well. For that matter, look over the records of Harry Reid, Bob Bennett, Rob Bishop, Chris Cannon, Mike Crapo, John Doolittle, Eni Faleomavaega, Jeff Flake, Jim Gibbons, Orrin Hatch, Wally Herger, Jon Huntsman Jr, Ernest Istook, Michael Leavitt, Jim Matheson, Buck McKeon, Kathleen Clarke, Mike Simpson, Gordon Smith, or Tom Udall. Can you find a shred of evidence of the Church dictating the political behavior of its followers?

Posted by: murphy | January 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow, how quick so many here forget the campaign finance law that McCain passed. The max donation any of Mitt's rich friends or LDS Church members can give him is $2,100. Hard to be beholden to anyone for $2K. Contrast that to good old days of $25K donations and more. Raising $6.5 million from those caps is nothing to sneeze at, and happens to be 2X the money McCain and Giuliani rasied in their fundraisers combined! You may not like Mitt, but he just demonstrated his organizational skills and competency in raising money. There was no idle talk here. Even is own finance guy was betting on only raising $2.1 million.

Posted by: Nathan W. | January 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Emctwo is incorrect when he states "Non optional missionary tours for every Mormon, very pragmatic." Missionary tours are encouraged but optional and many choose not to go and are still active in the church.
Why is it that when the religion is anything other than the so called accepted religions i.e Catholic, Protestant,etc. the person's religious background is questioned?
I remember when JFK ran everyone wondered if he would be told by the Pope what to do. And just for the record Nixon was a Quaker and had a religious adviser and no one questioned that one.
Leave the religion out of it, question the person's character and examine the past record.

And remember there are lies, lies, and statistics.

Posted by: Haveaniceday | January 9, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I donated money to Mitt yesterday, and I'm a liberal from Southern California. The reason is, I had the chance to meet him and talk to him here in California - you know, get a sense for whether he's got good intentions, and integrity. He does.

Posted by: bboy | January 9, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Just for the record, the LDS church maintains a strict policy of political neutrality. The fact that many Mormons will donate to the Romney campaign is no more significant than the fact that many Catholics supported JFK, or that many Jews supported Lieberman? People who run for higher office will always reach out for support to those with whom the share a common bond. That hardly means that the LDS church is going to be "pulling the strings" of President Romney. Does anyone really believe that the LDS church is dictating the votes of Harry Reid, who is also a Mormon?

Posted by: nota | January 9, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Just for the record, the LDS church maintains a strict policy of political neutrality. The fact that many Mormons will donate to the Romney campaign is no more significant than the fact that many Catholics supported JFK, or that many Jews supported Lieberman? People who run for higher office will always reach out for support to those with whom the share a common bond. That hardly means that the LDS church is going to be "pulling the strings" of President Romney. Does anyone really believe that the LDS church is dictating the votes of Harry Reid, who is also a Mormon?

Posted by: nota | January 9, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Just for the record, the LDS church maintains a strict policy of political neutrality. The fact that many Mormons will donate to the Romney campaign is no more significant than the fact that many Catholics supported JFK, or that many Jews supported Lieberman. People who run for higher office will always reach out for support to those with whom the share a common bond. That hardly means that the LDS church is going to be "pulling the strings" of President Romney. Does anyone really believe that the LDS church is dictating the votes of Harry Reid, who is also a Mormon?

Posted by: nota | January 9, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

One thing about the LDS is that they are extremely pragmatic when it comes to strategies to further the growth of their church. Wide streets with trees, very pragmatic. Lots of childbearing wives (even though they don't do this any more), very pragmatic. Nonoptional missionary tours for every Mormon, very pragmatic.

Even if Mormons don't think much of Romney's values and stance on the issues, church leaders might encourage them to hold their nose and vote for him to represent their church to the world. (speculation alert... I don't know how LDS really works as to this sort of thing)

There are as many American Mormons as Jews, so they is not a trivial voting bloc. Of course most Mormons vote Republican anyway so they have more "swing room" in the primary than in the general.

Posted by: Emctwo | January 9, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"Clearly, he like, Mccain, is being bankrolled by many of bush's backers. So will his policies be simply retread of bush's? [endless war, privitization of everything, green light to outsourcing and illegal immigration, etc?]"

maybe so.

Posted by: peter | January 9, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

My brother told me he read that Romney got past the whole Vietnam War with deferments to be a Mormon missionary in FRANCE! I'm hoping to see a story on that one.

Posted by: Andra | January 9, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Peter, i remember those comments about jfk--but he made a point of talking about church/state separation. I think after bush and his attempt to inject christianity into every discussion [which some of us of other faiths don't appreciate] we ought to ask pointed questions about religion of any presidential candidate, because, unlike senators, presidents can, say, start a war for religious reasons.

Yes, romney has shown he can 'exploit' big donors. Now, which of them can 'exploit' him? Clearly, he like, Mccain, is being bankrolled by many of bush's backers. So will his policies be simply retread of bush's? [endless war, privitization of everything, green light to outsourcing and illegal immigration, etc?]

Posted by: dridl | January 9, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

back to romney...

"I really don't know much about LDS except that they have vast global financial network [like many religious groups]. What will they ask for, or demand, if he's elected?"

fair enough point on the financial network, drindl, but i worry that your question is a little too remniscient of claims that electing jfk would put the pope in the white house. i have no interest either in voting for romney or defending the church of latter day saints, but i'm willing to believe that romney's faith is more or less a personal affair. of course he's going to attract wealthy mormon backers - a viable presidential candidate opens all kinds of doors to the lds community. are we to worry similarly that mormon power brokers are making demands of senator reid?

i agree with an earlier post saying the point of this story is that romney can be financially competetive with the bigger names in the republican race. regardless of what one thinks of his corporate connections, romney has made the point that he can exploit them effectively.

Posted by: peter | January 9, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

'OLIVER NORTH CONTRADICTS JOE LIEBERMAN'S ACCOUNT OF COMMANDERS' OPINIONS OF "SURGE."

As faithful readers know, this blog has been on something of an Ahab-like quest to prove that Joe Lieberman hasn't been telling the truth about what military commanders have told him about whether they back a "surge" in troops to Iraq. Now still more evidence of this has emerged from an unlikely source: Oliver North.

Lieberman has justified his call for more troops by saying that he'd reached this conclusion after traveling to Iraq and "speaking with our military commanders on the ground" there. He's even suggested that the commanders themselves "asked" for more troops during those private discussions. Lieberman's account of those conversations, however, has proven to be directly at odds with that provided by GOP Senator Susan Collins, who went to Iraq with Lieberman.

Now North has added still more detail for us, and guess what: It casts still more doubt on Lieberman's assertions. In a column for Human Events in which he (somewhat surprisingly) comes out against escalation, North claims flat out that he spoke to the same officers that Lieberman (and McCain, who was also on the trip) did. North claims:

McCain and Lieberman talked to many of the same officers and senior NCOs I covered for FOX News during my most recent trip to Iraq. Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: "We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops," was a common refrain. They are right.
North claims that "not one" of them said they "wanted more U.S. boots on the ground." Yet Lieberman emerged from conversations with many of what North describes as "the same officers" -- and is convinced of the rightness of his own pro-escalation position.'

Posted by: strange | January 9, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK When President Bush speaks to the nation tomorrow night, he will announce plans for a "surge" or escalation in the number of American troops in Iraq, according to most reports.
But a new Gallup poll, taken over the past four days, finds that "the American public in general opposes the concept of an increase in troops in Iraq."

Asked directly about the idea, 36% back it and 61% oppose. Of that, only 18% "strongly" support the idea.

Gallup also notes that the same poll shows that 54% want a complete pullout within 12 months.

It mentions other polls which shown that "when given a choice between a set of alternative ways of handling the troop situation in Iraq, only about 10% of Americans opt for the alternative of increasing troops. The rest opt for withdrawal of troops either immediately, within a 12-month timeframe, or by taking as much time as needed."

Posted by: bush doesn't care, it's good to be king | January 9, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK When President Bush speaks to the nation tomorrow night, he will announce plans for a "surge" or escalation in the number of American troops in Iraq, according to most reports.
But a new Gallup poll, taken over the past four days, finds that "the American public in general opposes the concept of an increase in troops in Iraq."

Asked directly about the idea, 36% back it and 61% oppose. Of that, only 18% "strongly" support the idea.

Gallup also notes that the same poll shows that 54% want a complete pullout within 12 months.

It mentions other polls which shown that "when given a choice between a set of alternative ways of handling the troop situation in Iraq, only about 10% of Americans opt for the alternative of increasing troops. The rest opt for withdrawal of troops either immediately, within a 12-month timeframe, or by taking as much time as needed."

Posted by: bush doesn't care, it's good to be king | January 9, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse

i don't know what happens to this blog sometimes...dysfunctional, much like politics in this country.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

'The NYT fronts, and everyone else mentions, news that President Bush has picked Fred F. Fielding to be his White House counsel. Fielding is considered a Republican "wise man," according to the Post, because of his experience as a deputy counsel for Richard Nixon and as counsel for Ronald Reagan. All the papers mention this is part of the administration's efforts to build up its legal team in anticipation of investigations by the new Democratic Congress.'

Didja ever see an administration fight so hard to keep EVERYTHING they do SECRET? Well, maybe Nixon I guess. And look -- here they're bringing back Nixon's Watergate lawyer. Coz that worked out so well for them last time.

Bush is possibly the only person in the country who could make Nixon look good. He looks more honest and decent by the day compared to this crew of criminals.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

'The NYT fronts, and everyone else mentions, news that President Bush has picked Fred F. Fielding to be his White House counsel. Fielding is considered a Republican "wise man," according to the Post, because of his experience as a deputy counsel for Richard Nixon and as counsel for Ronald Reagan. All the papers mention this is part of the administration's efforts to build up its legal team in anticipation of investigations by the new Democratic Congress.'

Didja ever see an administration fight so hard to keep EVERYTHING they do SECRET? Well, maybe Nixon I guess. And look -- here they're bringing back Nixon's Watergate lawyer. Coz that worked out so well for them last time.

Bush is possibly the only person in the country who could make Nixon look good. He looks more honest and decent by the day compared to this crew of criminals.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

'The NYT fronts, and everyone else mentions, news that President Bush has picked Fred F. Fielding to be his White House counsel. Fielding is considered a Republican "wise man," according to the Post, because of his experience as a deputy counsel for Richard Nixon and as counsel for Ronald Reagan. All the papers mention this is part of the administration's efforts to build up its legal team in anticipation of investigations by the new Democratic Congress.'

Didja ever see an administration fight so hard to keep EVERYTHING they do SECRET? Well, maybe Nixon I guess. And look -- here they're bringing back Nixon's Watergate lawyer. Coz that worked out so well for them last time.

Bush is possibly the only person in the country who could make Nixon look good. He looks more honest and decent by the day compared to this crew of criminals.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

"The WSJ mentions in the top spot of its worldwide newsbox that Tony Snow said the president knows the public is anxious about the situation in Iraq, but emphasized Americans "don't want another Sept. 11."

Tony Snow wins today's Most Egregious BS award. Flog it, Tony. Flog it. Hey tell me, Tony, why were NONE of the 9/11 hijackers from Iraq, Tony? Why were they all from SAUDI ARABIA, Tony? When is bushieboy going to stop kissing and holding hands with saudi princes and bomb them, Tony?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Hey yourmom, that is why most fo the people on this blog don't like Hillary Clinton. Also 6.5 million that he has been setting up for 1 year on my tax dollars as a Mass resident isn't that impressive. Especially given the fact that 4 million of that is pledges.
He should be forced to give that money to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that he left with a fiscal defecit of close to 1 billion dollars. Thanks Mitt let's let the rest of the country enjoy your boyish charm and complete lack of a backbone.

Ladies and Gentlemen mark my words Mitt Romney is the Ken Lay of politics. Everything looks great until you peel back the first couple layers where you find creative accounting, corporate handouts, and a total lack of ethics and ideas.

Posted by: Andy R | January 9, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

'Ya'll (most of you anyways)
are retarded.'

Thanks, mom, love you too. The point about the money is, where does it come from? Who is this candidate beholden to? The truth is, a great deal of Dean's mney DID come from SMALL personal donations.

You are quite wrong when you call MikeB "anti-corporateAmerica" - there is no longer such a thing as 'corporate America'. Have you been paying attention? EVERYTHING is global now. Most of our traditional 'American' companies are now either owned outright or controlled by foreign entities. And what makes you think that they act in our national interest? Hint: they don't. Their loyalties are entirely to their owners and shareholders.

And as far as mitt's religion is concerned, there ARE questions. As there would be with any religion. Or as there should be. We've seen what happens with a president who is unduly controlled by his 'faith'. I really don't know much about LDS except that they have vast global financial network [like many religious groups]. What will they ask for, or demand, if he's elected?

Perhaps you want your next president to be beholden to someone or something other than US citizens. I don't.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Democrats criticize Iraq "surge", but won't cut war funds

By Patrick Martin
9 January 2007

The two top congressional Democratic leaders have publicly opposed the Bush administration's plans to dispatch more troops to Iraq, while signaling to the White House that there will be no serious effort to prevent an escalation of the slaughter as the bloodbath in Iraq heads towards its fifth year.

The two-faced character of the Democratic posture is the product of their need to speak to two audiences at the same time: the American voters, largely working class and middle class, who voted for Democratic candidates last November 7 to express their opposition to the war; and the American ruling elite, whose social and economic interests, within the US and worldwide, the Democratic Party is committed to defend.

Public opinion is overwhelmingly against Bush's plan for a "surge" of additional military forces into Iraq One recent poll showed only 11 percent favoring the deployment of more troops, while over 50 percent supported withdrawal of all US forces by the end of 2007. A second poll found that even when the alternatives were heavily loaded in favor of the escalation, with those polled asked to assume that the increase in troops would stabilize Iraq, more were opposed than in favor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to appease this massive antiwar sentiment with a letter to Bush that was made public January 5, followed up by Reid giving the Democratic Party's response Saturday to Bush's weekly radio address, and Pelosi appearing Sunday on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation."

The letter offered Bush the cooperation of the Democratic Congress in "finding an end to the war in Iraq," citing the death toll among American troops, now past the 3,000 mark, and called for a decision "to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months."

"Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq," they write. "After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq."

The Democratic letter does not challenge the basis of the war and expresses the wish to contribute to the "success" of the Bush military intervention. Not only that, the Democrats attribute this position to the American people as well, portraying the election results as the product of the public belief that the Iraq intervention has failed to achieve Bush's war aims, not to popular opposition to the war itself.

"The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success," Reid and Pelosi write. This effectively accepts the argument put forward by the
For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/dems-j09.shtml

Posted by: che | January 9, 2007 4:38 AM | Report abuse


For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Washington think tank bars WSWS reporter
An incident that says much about the US capital

By Barry Grey in Washington DC
9 January 2007

In covering Washington DC, it does not take long to get a sense of the political atmosphere that pervades the nation's capital. It is a place where corporate interests and their legions of lobbyists wine, dine and bribe politicians of both parties. It is a place where corporate- and government-funded think tanks work out imperialist policies affecting the lives of countless millions of people at home and abroad, entirely outside the control and behind the backs of the American people.

An incident occurred Monday that provided a telling example of the real relationships and forces at work in Washington.

This reporter was barred from attending a public event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a national security think tank that has close ties to the government and lists among its officers some of the most prominent names in the American foreign policy establishment.

The event, entitled "The Way Forward in Iraq," was advertised on the web site of the CSIS and posted on its events page, which states that all of the listed events "are open to the public." It was broadcast live on the CSPAN cable TV network.

This is but one of many official and semi-official events currently being held in the capital as part of the effort to fashion a bipartisan consensus, in complete disregard for the popular anti-war sentiment expressed in the November elections, on the basis of which the catastrophic US occupation of Iraq is to be continued and intensified.

The World Socialist Web Site registered to cover the CSIS forum as part of its reporting from Washington on the newly installed 110th Congress and the development of US policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East as a whole.

The panel for the event consisted of four members of the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives: the new chairman of the committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (Democrat from Montana); Rep. Jim Marshall (Democrat from Georgia); Representative Jim Saxton (Republican from New Jersey) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (Republican from Texas).

The evening prior to the event, I sent an email to the Office of External Relations, the press office of the CSIS, to register as a member of the press, in accordance with the instructions given on the CSIS web site. Early Monday morning, I telephoned the office to confirm my registration and was told I had been included on the list of press members registered to cover the panel discussion.

However, when I went to the press table 30 minutes before the scheduled start of the event, I was told by H. Andrew Schwartz, deputy director for external relations of the CSIS, that I was not on the list and that I could not attend as a member of the press. When I explained that I had registered and received confirmation that morning, Mr. Schwartz flatly denied that this had occurred.

I asked whether I could cover the event regardless, and he said I could not because the policy of the CSIS was to admit only those members of the press with "federalized credentials." He claimed that this policy is stated on the organization's web site. (I could find no such statement when I subsequently checked the CSIS web site.) When I protested at this arbitrary attempt to exclude me, Schwartz added that the press registration was "overbooked" and there was no room.

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/dc-j09.shtml

I then asked if I could attend as a member of the public, since the

Posted by: che | January 9, 2007 4:29 AM | Report abuse

Ya'll (most of you anyways)
are retarded. The point of this article is that Romney raised 6.5 Million in 1 day. Thats 3 to 6 TIMES as much as McCain and Guliani did in the same fashion. This doesn't meen Romney is some sort of political genious (not yet at least) but it is a very valid point: "I'm somone 90% of this country has never heard of, but I can PWN you in fundraising on the first try. I have what it takes to be the 3rd major GOP 08 candidate"

Oh and for you "anti-corporateAmerica" folks - Hilary Clinton (yes, the person married to Bill clinton, ever so dubiously pursuing a Presidential bid)) served for some time on the BOARD of *dun-dun-dun* WALMART (that bastian of anti-Liberal low-price low-wage megamonopoly corporate merchandizing) OH THE HORROR!
look who's on Satan's side now, eh?

Posted by: YourMom | January 8, 2007 11:01 PM | Report abuse

A presidential candidate raising money is blog worthy? I've sat here for 5 minutes trying to think of something interesting or thought provoking to say on the subject. But on this non-topic, i got nothin. Perhaps i'll go comment on a more meaningful topic like the "Bill Clinton Stops Bye". Or maybe i'll just make fun of Mitt's religious background like a lot of the posters here...

Posted by: Dave! | January 8, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean raised $50 million and it was not all small donations either. How many Rich Swine with D's branded on them forked over $1000 and $2000 to Dean? For that matter, how about the Rich Swine like Kerry were was lucky to be married to Mrs Heinz with mega-millions for his campaign? Did that $6 million loan get paid back or was it written off as lost cause? How many people were willing to keep donating to Kerry after he lost in order to settle all of his debts? Same goes for Edwards and all those other guys. Do you know they do not have to pay off their 2004 debts in order to set up another campaign fund for 2008? Now how many Democrats are willing to donate to rich guys who can't even settle their debts from the last presidential election?
Time for some real research from the Washington Post to expose this stuff.

Posted by: Joe | January 8, 2007 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Hmm, the article neglects to estimate how many of those millions were pledged by LDS minions who are accustomed to having their wages garnished by self-appointed agents for the Heavenly Father.

Posted by: B2O | January 8, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

"Romney has apparently settled on casting those changes as an evolution of thinking rather than a political flip-flop aimed at wooing social conservatives."

Um, what would you expect Chris? Honesty?

But I'm confused by the tack they are taking. Don't they recall that "evolution" is an atheistic liberal lie spawned by the Devil to lead the faithful sheep away from God (and God's wife, in this instance)?

Posted by: B2O | January 8, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Hmm. So raising money for a presidential campaign is an indication of the morals of an ally rat, no love for this country, no sense of patriotism, nor human dignity?

Congrats, MikeB. You just spouted some of the most rediculous comments I've heard in months. What a turd.

Posted by: murphy | January 8, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I think he should get pledges from his ancestors when he retroactively converts them through baptism for the dead. It opens up a whole new source for political money.

Posted by: Staley | January 8, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

...and we're supposed to be? Impressed? Shocked? What? Romney is just another typical Republican who will take money from the same corporate swine who are so busily offshoring our jobs, selling our technology and defense secrets, and stealing billions from the Treasury. Healthcare related DME equipment, Medicare and Medicaid Fraud, military and other government fraud and abuse can all be laid at the doorstep of these crooks. And Romney is juwst provong to everyone that he is one of the, that he is bought and sold, that he has the morals of an ally rat, that he has no love for this country, no sense of patriotism, nor human dignity. That he is another thung, a monster, just like George W Bush. For this, we are supposed to wonder? To be amazed? Perhaps vomit?

Posted by: MikeB | January 8, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

6:49pm,

No, today is Monday. Not Sunday.

Posted by: murphy | January 8, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Did he raise all this money yesterday
Working on Sunday

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Romney's going nowhere fast. Rudy and McCain are the only GOP contenders. Most GOP voters don't even have an opinion of him.
http://polibuzz.blogspot.com/2007/01/2008-quick-hits_08.html
Romney's just another Mass. flip-flopper...

Posted by: matt | January 8, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Thabnks to Noreaster and judge for those -- I thought he kinda looks more like Lurch, though, don't you? From the Adams Family?

Today I saw some cherry trees in full bloom. In Westchester County, in New York. In January. And down the street, some daffodils. If you have anything invested in the ag sector, I suggest you deploy those funds elsewhere, quck.

Run, Al, run. We needja, baby.

Posted by: drindl | January 8, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused. Was he a conservative passing himself off a liberal to try getting to the left of Kennedy to get elected senator in 1994 ( ditto later as Governor) who has now returned to the "real" socially conservative roots, or has he always been a moderate and now is just pretending to believe in the platform of social conservatives?

Posted by: Jennifer | January 8, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused. Was he a conservative passing himself off a liberal to try getting to the left of Kennedy to get elected senator in 1994 ( ditto later as Governor) who has now returned to the "real" socially conservative roots, or has he always been a moderate and now is just pretending to believe in the platform of social conservatives?

Posted by: Jennifer | January 8, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused. Was he a conservative passing himself off a liberal to try getting to the left of Kennedy to get elected senator in 1994 ( ditto later as Governor) who has now returned to the "real" socially conservative roots, or has he always been a moderate and now is just pretending to believe in the platform of social conservatives?

Posted by: Jennifer | January 8, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Bill Weld is helping him?? Noooooooooo

Posted by: Venicemenace | January 8, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Will the sore neck we get from watching Mitt changes positions be like the one from watching a tennis match at midcourt, or like whiplash from a car accident?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 8, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Did he raise this money yesterday on a Sunday

Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Time for another installment of Rewrite That Caption:

Mitt Romney hopes to raise $100 million for his 2008 presidential bid utilizing a spot-on imitation of Fred Gwynne. Here he states "Lily, I'm home!"

Note for the generationally-deprived: Fred Gwynne played Herman Munster in the 1960's sitcom, The Munsters. Lily (Yvonne DeCarlo) was his wife in the series.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 8, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

$2.5 million? I'm impressed.

But did Mitt put that in the bank (i.e. get credit card #s and charge them) or did he get mere pledges for that money?

In other news I just made a commitment of $800 jillion for Sam Brownback.

Posted by: Jonah | January 8, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

97,500,000 to go. That's alot of phone calls.

Posted by: Andy R | January 8, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Is "Dialing for Dollars" just a cute way of saying "soliciting bribes?"

Posted by: larry | January 8, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company