Althouse: "Mitt Romney entered the final months of the presidential campaign with a cash balance of just $35 million..."

September 21, 2012

"Mitt Romney entered the final months of the presidential campaign with a cash balance of just $35 million..."

"... racing to find new large donors and rally low-dollar contributors in August even while he raised tens of millions of dollars for the Republican Party."

Romney's low on cash?! What the hell did he spend it on?

And now he wants more... That seems awfully dependent, as though we have a responsibility to care about him. I'll never convince him to take personal responsibility and care for his own campaign.

94 comments:

Andy said...: He thinks he can fix the economy but he can't handle budgeting for his own campaign?

Romney has demonstrated the only way he can make money is by looting pensions and extracting value from firms before they declare bankruptcy.

This is not the man our country needs right now.; 9/21/12, 12:55 PM
Amartel said...: Why so gullible?; 9/21/12, 12:59 PM
trumpetdaddy said...: RNC chair Priebus already debunked this meme several hours ago.

This is the latest effort to try to sell the idea that Obama is inevitable, despite actual evidence.

Romney is dividing the joint cash haul with the RNC more equitably than Obama is dividing the joint haul with the DNC. This makes it look like Romney has less money when in fact the combined party/candidate stashes are larger on the Romney/RNC side.

Unlike Obama, Romney and the RNC understand team loyalty and the need to get Republicans elected across the board.

Obama, as usual, thinks it's all about him and screw the down-ticket Dems. This has been covered already in some detail when previous reports about cash-on-hand and its distribution were publicized.; 9/21/12, 1:00 PM
garage mahal said...: "How Romney lo....."; 9/21/12, 1:01 PM
Andy said...: Unlike Obama, Romney and the RNC understand team loyalty and the need to get Republicans elected across the board.

Thompson Suggests Romney Is Dragging Him Down

lol; 9/21/12, 1:02 PM
Timotheus said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/21/12, 1:04 PM
Timotheus said...: He's not in trouble now. He couldn't legally spend the money he was raising -- and I guess, unlike many politicians, his campaign actually cares about following the law.; 9/21/12, 1:05 PM
Roberto said...: He needs some of his wealthy friends to re-distribute their income in his direction.; 9/21/12, 1:05 PM
KLDAVIS said...: Ann, you're too smart to not read between the lines here. The NYT is telling its readers what they want to hear. Romney has raised plenty of money, but the arcane nature of campaign finance law put serious restrictions on how it could be used and distributed prior to his official nomination. You frequently advise your commenters to re-read, or read more closely. Go back to the NYT article and try to see what was left unsaid in this pap prepared for their target demo.; 9/21/12, 1:05 PM
campy said...: Romney needs more $$$, since the entire news budgets of ABC-NBC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC-NPR-NYTIMES-WAPOST-ad infinitum are de facto Obama campaign $$$.; 9/21/12, 1:07 PM
Roberto said...: I see lots of band wagon jumping among the Althouse gang.

What a shock.; 9/21/12, 1:07 PM
bgates said...: Romney has demonstrated the only way he can make money is by looting pensions

Tell it to the Delphi workers who were robbed by Obama, asshole.

The RNC has ten times as much cash as the DNC.; 9/21/12, 1:07 PM
shiloh said...: Willard just released his 2011 tax return. WTF, why not as he's already toast! Even when he tries to change the subject, it's bad news lol.

hmm, do you think con billionaires will be still give $$$ to a sinkin' ship? Rhetorical.; 9/21/12, 1:08 PM
trumpetdaddy said...: No one ever said that Tommy Thompson was a perfect candidate. Only that he will beat Baldwin.

Try again to address my actual point, which is that the joint fundraising of Romney and the RNC is being accounted for with more toward the down-ticket races than the joint fundraising between Obama and the DNC.

Or is math too hard?; 9/21/12, 1:08 PM
Methadras said...: Andy R. said...

He thinks he can fix the economy but he can't handle budgeting for his own campaign?

Romney has demonstrated the only way he can make money is by looting pensions and extracting value from firms before they declare bankruptcy.

This is not the man our country needs right now.

Oh stop lying. How do you live your life being such a liar. Aren't there some twinks around your neighborhood that need attending to?; 9/21/12, 1:09 PM
Roberto said...: campy - So now Kristol, Noonen, Frum, Brooks, etc...are all part of that nasty liberal media?

Get real...Mitton's entire campaign is a disaster...it has nothing to do with media.; 9/21/12, 1:09 PM
Wince said...: Mr. Obama began September with a balance of $86 million, even after spending $65 million on advertising. He raised over twice as much money as Mr. Romney in checks of under $200, which donors can give repeatedly without quickly hitting federal contribution limits.

What's the advantage of giving "repeatedly without quickly hitting federal contribution limits"?; 9/21/12, 1:09 PM
trumpetdaddy said...: Romney released the second complete tax return of the two he said he would release. Previous 2011 releases were estimates until the final return was completed. This has been previously reported in detail.

Do try to keep up. Or at least ask Axelrod for updated talking points.; 9/21/12, 1:10 PM
Nonapod said...: I moused over the link and saw it was to the NYT, which told me everything I needed to know about the veracity of this claim.

Don't get me wrong, I often force myself to read a lot of the MSM bilge, but I can only stomach so much.; 9/21/12, 1:16 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: I was on a conference call last night with campaign HQ. I suspect I know where a lot of that money went.

And it'll hit the other campaign when they least expect it where they least expect it.; 9/21/12, 1:17 PM
Triangle Man said...: What's the advantage of giving "repeatedly without quickly hitting federal contribution limits"?

@EDH

That puzzled me too. Best I can come up with is an implication that the donors could be tapped again for more cash later.; 9/21/12, 1:18 PM
traditionalguy said...: Planning for money is a skill that Mitt has mastered. Good job Mitt.

Now please learn how to be yourself in public speaking and expose your true emotions...you know, those emotions that are not only of by and for MONEY.; 9/21/12, 1:19 PM
CatherineM said...: So press all summer was Obama was in a deficit, and Romney was drowning in cash and now suddenly the story is he is broke?

Color me skeptical.; 9/21/12, 1:20 PM
mccullough said...: Romney's loaded, so he can just dip into his personal wealth. Give till it hurts, Mitt!; 9/21/12, 1:22 PM
Hagar said...: There is one sentence that offhandedly admits that the Republicans have more total cash on hand than the Democrats. How much?

And the Republicans have reince Priebus heading their national committee. The Democrats have Debbie Wassermann-Schultz. I would not let her handle my money either, if I were a Democrat!; 9/21/12, 1:22 PM
Bob Ellison said...: From the article: "But federal law guarantees candidates, not parties, the lowest available ad rate in the days leading up to a general election."

I'm a political junkie, and I didn't know this. Is it true? How is it Constitutional? I can think of several ways to challenge it.

Is it just that nobody bothers?; 9/21/12, 1:24 PM
Bob Ellison said...: This article by David Oxenford seems to address the questions I raised.

This is American?; 9/21/12, 1:28 PM
Known Unknown said...: "How Romney lo....."

How Romney lost MonEy.; 9/21/12, 1:28 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: Mitton's entire campaign is a disaster...it has nothing to do with media.

And I'm a handsome billionaire. Why? Because I said so!

Less foot stamping and more reality-engagement, please.; 9/21/12, 1:28 PM
Wince said...: Obama...raised over twice as much money as Mr. Romney in checks of under $200, which donors can give repeatedly without quickly hitting federal contribution limits.

Advantage big donors under the radar?

Open Secrets: Under federal law, all contributions of more than $200 to federal candidates, PACs, or parties must be itemized and disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. Donors must report their name, address, employer and occupation, and these records are publicly available from the FEC and several other website.; 9/21/12, 1:28 PM
Roberto said...: I keep hearing my conservative friends tell me about how we need a real businessman to run the show, but when I ask them who the last successful president was...that was also a successful businessman...they have a tough time of it.

And if anyone want to use G.W., b sure to not leave out all of his failed businesses before falling into the Texas Ranger gift deal.

And remember where he left us the day he walked out the door.; 9/21/12, 1:29 PM
Known Unknown said...: I was on a conference call last night with campaign HQ. I suspect I know where a lot of that money went.

And it'll hit the other campaign when they least expect it where they least expect it.

It's Bizarro Politico!; 9/21/12, 1:30 PM
sakredkow said...: I keep hearing my conservative friends tell me about how we need a real businessman to run the show

I don't think being a "real businessman" is necessarily what's needed to run the USA. It's a good skill, but there a lot of skills and intelligences that are useful for a president. I wouldn't personally give "real businessman" a big priority. YMMV.; 9/21/12, 1:33 PM
Tom Spaulding said...: From Twitter:

Reince Priebus

@Reince
NEWSFLASH -
Cash On Hand:
RNC - 76.5 mill
DNC - 7.1 mill

More August Facts:
DNC spent 21.9M and RNC spent 47.8M;
RNC raised 35.6M and DNC raised 13.6M;
Final Cash on Hand RNC 76.5M - DNC 7.1M.

Math? How does it work?

Your narrative sucks, Andy R., which is apropos I suppose.; 9/21/12, 1:33 PM
Known Unknown said...: So press all summer was Obama was in a deficit, and Romney was drowning in cash and now suddenly the story is he is broke?

Color me skeptical.

That's okay. They just polled D+ 70 million.; 9/21/12, 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Patience grasshopper. I suspect vast amounts have been already been spent on ad buys for late in the campaign. Bammy will go to make his ad buys next month, since they seem to be on much more of a shoestring month-by-month existence, but only to find all the prime time has been bought up by Romney and his allies down ticket.

Romney by 10 with 400+ electoral votes and a 53 vote Senate. You read it here first.; 9/21/12, 1:34 PM
Known Unknown said...: I just love the NYT descriptions of the big donors.

Gotta get Newt's name in there!; 9/21/12, 1:35 PM
garage mahal said...: I was on a conference call last night with campaign HQ. I suspect I know where a lot of that money went.

Tease!; 9/21/12, 1:35 PM
Known Unknown said...: Oh, and I forgot: KOCH BROTHERS!!!11!!!11111!!!!!; 9/21/12, 1:36 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: EDH:

What's the advantage of giving "repeatedly without quickly hitting federal contribution limits"?

I think it's actually that if you donate less than $200 in one go your donation doesn't become part of the public record (see opensecrets.org). That probably makes it easier to evade the campaign finance contribution limits.; 9/21/12, 1:38 PM
KCFleming said...: Disinformation from the NYTimes?

Who'da expected that?; 9/21/12, 1:38 PM
sakredkow said...: And it'll hit the other campaign when they least expect it where they least expect it.

Yowsa! Exciting!; 9/21/12, 1:38 PM
Tom Spaulding said...: NRO:

Mitt Romney deliberately paid more than he needed to in taxes this year … because he chose not to deduct all of the nearly 30 percent of his income that he donated to charities.

Jaunty-capped fabulous fabulists and Narrative-clinging Faux-Indicters hardest hit.

The Obama campaign IS a charity. At least they act like it.

Somebody tell Mitt.; 9/21/12, 1:41 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Look, there are two concepts:

1) Frighten the base by saying the opponent is ahead

2) Enlighten the base by saying your candidate is ahead

What's going on?; 9/21/12, 1:42 PM
machine said...: "I have inherited nothing. Everything I earned I earned the old-fashioned way."; 9/21/12, 1:43 PM
Known Unknown said...: Mitt just needs to hold more garage sales and hit more wedding registries!; 9/21/12, 1:43 PM
Known Unknown said...: The Koch Brothers are wealthy conservative businessmen, but Jeffrey Katzenberg is just some schlub at this DreamWorks place.; 9/21/12, 1:44 PM
Balfegor said...: As a practical matter, if Romney really wants to win and he thinks money will make the difference, he can donate or loan as much money as he wants to his campaign -- he's not subject to donation limits on donations to his own campaign. I think he can continue to collect donations afterwards to retire some or all of that debt.; 9/21/12, 1:44 PM
Roberto said...: Joe Schmoe - So you feel his campaign is in good shape?; 9/21/12, 1:45 PM
Roberto said...: phx - "I wouldn't personally give "real businessman" a big priority."

Well, tell that to Mitt and Company.

That's been their mantra from day one.; 9/21/12, 1:47 PM
edutcher said...: The Gray Lady is off (surprise!!!) by about 15 mil.

Andy R. said...

He thinks he can fix the economy but he can't handle budgeting for his own campaign?

Romney has demonstrated the only way he can make money is by looting pensions and extracting value from firms before they declare bankruptcy.

This is not the man our country needs right now.

Hatman is describing the wrong campaign.

Isn't Choom's stiffing people everywhere they go and they're still in the red?

shiloh said...

hmm, do you think con billionaires will be still give $$$ to a sinkin' ship? Rhetorical.

No, just more stupid.

If the billionaires have given up on anybody, it's Choomie.

PS I wonder if the little animal would care to comment on this line from Jerome Corsi's latest column?

"The source told WND that highly confidential internal polls conducted by the Obama campaign indicate Obama cannot win re-election, despite public surveys that show him in the lead.

'The public polls are mostly political,' the source argued. 'Obama radicals want Romney supporters to feel discouraged and give up. Truth is that Romney’s winning.'"

Maybe he can give us something (preferably non-communicable) on Barry's secret life?; 9/21/12, 1:49 PM
garage mahal said...: "The source told WND that highly confidential internal polls conducted by the Obama campaign indicate Obama cannot win re-election, despite public surveys that show him in the lead.

LOL; 9/21/12, 1:52 PM
machine said...: Jerome Corsi???!?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

ah thank ya....; 9/21/12, 1:52 PM
KLDAVIS said...: The advantage of the sub-$200 donation are two-fold.

1) They campaign can claim it as bonafides of grass roots support. "We have the support of the common man, who gives what he can."

2) Big donors can skirt campaign contribution limits, as smaller donations do not need to be recorded in the same manner.

Democrats would respond to any attempt to change this arrangement in much the same manner as they reply to Voter ID laws. In both cases, there is a legitmate, populist argument to be made...it just happens to have no basis in empirical fact. They like the status quo in both cases because it allows them to skirt the law to their advantage.; 9/21/12, 1:53 PM
machine said...: Who is next? Dick "the genius" Morris?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA; 9/21/12, 1:54 PM
Balfegor said...: RE: shiloh:

hmm, do you think con billionaires will be still give $$$ to a sinkin' ship? Rhetorical.

Like all Americans, billionaires are limited to $2,500 in campaign contributions to an individual candidate or his campaign. Honestly, if Republican billionaires haven't kicked in $2,500 by now, they were never going to. Billionaires who want to give more would give their money to a PAC, but those are separate from the campaign.; 9/21/12, 1:55 PM
Tom Spaulding said...: Like all Americans, billionaires are limited to $2,500 in campaign contributions to an individual candidate or his campaign.

Facts..how do they work?

Luckily, the shinebox business I started is booming.

Multiple orders from shiloh and garage account for most of it.; 9/21/12, 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: I think it's actually that if you donate less than $200 in one go your donation doesn't become part of the public record (see opensecrets.org). That probably makes it easier to evade the campaign finance contribution limits.

I want to see some statistical analysis and forensic auditing of this. The Obama campaign deliberately disabled ALL security checks on their credit card operation, both in 2008 and now. There is nothing in the world to prevent a boiler room operation in China donating untraceable tens of millions every month with $199 Visa gift cards supplied by George Soros. Doodad Pro anyone?; 9/21/12, 2:04 PM
edutcher said...: machine said...

Jerome Corsi???!?!?!?!?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Swift boats ring a bell?

How 'bout Purple Owie?

ha.; 9/21/12, 2:11 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: No wonder people have no trust in news media.

Unfortunately, you have to go to a completely different area of the NYT to find out Romney has significantly more cash on hand than Obama. Newspaper of record, indeed.; 9/21/12, 2:11 PM
edutcher said...: PS Off Drudge regarding the Romster's return:

Paid $1.9 Million on $13.7 in Income...

...donated $4,020,772 to charity

Doubles rate of Obamas' giving...

Tell us again what a likable guy Choom is.

As Theo Kojak once observed,

Be careful of that for which you wish, you may get it.; 9/21/12, 2:14 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Did Romney accept public financing? I know Obama did not.; 9/21/12, 2:16 PM
Tim said...: If the New York Times says it's so, it must be true!

Ohhh noooosss!

Get a grip.

Our affirmative action hire is still below 50% in every poll.

Everyone knows, even idiot incumbents like our failed president know, that no matter how many photos of pledges of allegiance you get from your idiot voters, that is the danger threshold for sure defeat.

Barry Soetoro, workin' on the resume...lol.; 9/21/12, 2:20 PM
Tim said...: "The source told WND that highly confidential internal polls conducted by the Obama campaign indicate Obama cannot win re-election, despite public surveys that show him in the lead."

Produce the list of incumbent presidents who consistently (for 18 months now) polled below 50% and won re-election.

Go on - you *might* learn something - although I'd never take that bet.; 9/21/12, 2:23 PM
yashu said...: Glad others jumped in to correct this (and pointed to Reince Preibus's twitter).

You just can't trust anything the media says. Not ever, but especially not now. On anything concerning or affecting Romney, Obama, and this election-- the NYT is as reliable as so-and-so who heard it from so-and-so.; 9/21/12, 2:30 PM
Pookie Number 2 said...: Romney has demonstrated the only way he can make money is by looting pensions and extracting value from firms before they declare bankruptcy.

The empty hat reappears to confirm that his smugness is intact, notwithstanding the fact that he is as blessedly ignorant about pension accounting as he is about molecular biology, and as he is about mathematical statistics.

But perhaps he'll again tell us that some other group is "dumb".; 9/21/12, 2:33 PM
yashu said...: NB It's the Obama campaign that played the teary violin, woe is me, whining and whining about being low on cash, being outraised and outspent by Republicans. That was their pitch for donations. Turns out that underdog narrative was largely BS.

And now it's the NYT "reporting" that the Romney campaign is low on cash. RNC Chair counters and asserts confidence.

Who's whining?; 9/21/12, 2:36 PM
Hagar said...: It is on the news that Romney's tax return for 2011 will be released at 3 PM today. It also says that Romney's tax preparer, Pricewaterhousecoopers, will also release a table of his percentage tax payments over the last decade.

Pricewaterhousecoopers? What happened to Harry Reid's "reliable source" within Bain Capital?; 9/21/12, 2:43 PM
Bryan C said...: "He thinks he can fix the economy but he can't handle budgeting for his own campaign?"

Yep. The burn rate in the Obama campaign is absurd! I'm glad you agree.; 9/21/12, 2:43 PM
yashu said...: Let's see how (if) the NYT reports on Romney's tax returns.

They're doing such a bang-up job reporting on Libya, right? What the O admin insisted were not-planned not-terrorist protests-- oops, make that, planned terrorist acts. Over to you, NYT...; 9/21/12, 2:43 PM
SteveR said...: I am not willing to accept that Romney is a sure thing to win, but there are numerous recent examples of efforts being made, usually by a willing media, to discourage potential Romney voters.

Polls showing Romney losing or slipping (bad polls), reports of infighting, "gaffes" that aren't gaffes, and now money. The ceiling for Obama is set, the only way to win is lower turnout for Romney.; 9/21/12, 2:46 PM
yashu said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/21/12, 2:51 PM
yashu said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/21/12, 2:52 PM
garage mahal said...: Everyone knows, even idiot incumbents like our failed president know, that no matter how many photos of pledges of allegiance you get from your idiot voters, that is the danger threshold for sure defeat.

It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand.; 9/21/12, 2:53 PM
yashu said...: Deleted the Romney taxes info because it's off topic, but here's a link to Ace of Spades on it.; 9/21/12, 2:56 PM
Tim said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/21/12, 3:07 PM
Tim said...: "It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand."

Right. So show us your list of incumbent presidents who consistently polled less than 50% who one, er, won reelection.; 9/21/12, 3:08 PM
Tim said...: "Polls showing Romney losing or slipping (bad polls), reports of infighting, "gaffes" that aren't gaffes, and now money. The ceiling for Obama is set, the only way to win is lower turnout for Romney."

No incumbent president who consistently polled less than 50% ever won reelection.

Not one.

And no one here: Shiloh, failed hat mannequin, Garage, etc., can demonstrate otherwise.

Or else they would.; 9/21/12, 3:10 PM
machine said...: hmmm...actually proud of the purple band-aids...

what does that say....; 9/21/12, 3:43 PM
edutcher said...: Not much since most men wouldn't have applied for a decoration on them.

But, then, the guys in his squadron were happy to see him go.; 9/21/12, 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: What is Gov. Romney doing paying out $200,000 in cash bonuses to people on his staff when he hasn't yet won?

If those people deserve bonuses, and only Gov. Romney is the judge of that, then they should only get them after he is elected.; 9/21/12, 5:13 PM
shiloh said...: It appears Althouse is no longer smitten w/mittens!; 9/21/12, 5:19 PM
edutcher said...: The little animal doesn't know a real rhetorical question when he sees it.

Or drollery.

lol, as they say.; 9/21/12, 6:08 PM
Michael K said...: "It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand."

Are you sticking your finger in light sockets again, garage ?; 9/21/12, 6:24 PM
Tim said...: shiloh said...

"It appears Althouse is no longer smitten w/mittens!"

Does not matter.

No incumbent president consistently polling under 50%, as this one has for 18 months now, has ever won reelection. Your failed president is toast.

Anyway, show us your picture pledging allegiance to that failed president of yours.

You must have been one of the first to do so.; 9/21/12, 6:34 PM
Bender said...: Romney's low on cash?! What the hell did he spend it on?

In 1996, Bob Dole had raised a ton of cash. And yet he was always low on money. I saw very few Dole/Kemp commercials that election.

What did they spend all the money on??

FUNDRAISING. They spent megabucks just in trying to get more money. Back then, a lot of money went to direct mail solicitation, and then there were the travel expenses to fundraisers and the cost of the fundraising venues, the fundraising meals and entertainment, etc. Almost all of the money went to overhead and very little to the campaign itself.; 9/21/12, 6:55 PM
Chris Althouse Cohen said...: Romney will lose.; 9/21/12, 7:41 PM
shiloh said...: "Romney will lose."

Badly, it won't be close. The GOP is totally deflated by charlatan/shyster Willard's non performance.

And the irony of all the unnecessary Rep voter suppression/voter disenfranchisement laws have only served to fired up the liberal base to overcome these obstacles.

ie the perfect storm!

btw, he's runnin' out of $$$ and gave bonuses to top aides after the Rep convention. Willard is runnin' his campaign like he's still st Bain Capital lol.

Perfect!; 9/21/12, 8:00 PM
wildswan said...: This is just another set of lies from the NYT, all of which are meant to boost Obama and make Romney look bad. How come there are no stories about how the Democrats feel about Obama's refusal to share the money he is raising with them? What is that doing to the party? Note how no major figures are supporting Obama - just party hacks like Reid, Pelosi, Biden and Clinton. Note how narrow the focus in this campaign is - just daily events followed by a poll on Romney v. Obama, reflecting these events. This campaign, as portrayed in the papers, is like the mind of a campaign manager, like the mind of Axelrod. Not like the mind of a statesman or even a politician. And I think that's because the Democratic party has bailed on Obama - not openly but in a very real way. The more they bail, the more dishonest the coverage becomes. And because it's so dishonest it doesn't matter to them any more what they say - like Carney suddenly saying that "everyone knows it was a terrorist attack" when he had been denying that fact. DWS, another example.; 9/21/12, 8:59 PM
Tim said...: "Romney will lose."

Only if Americans are now too dumb to learn from mistakes, and Obama is the first incumbent president ever to win reelection despite consistently polling below 50% for the last 18 months.

It could happen, but it seems highly unlikely.

More likely is the opposite: the failed affirmative action hire loses his reelection bid.; 9/21/12, 9:06 PM
Tim said...: "Badly, it won't be close. The GOP is totally deflated by charlatan/shyster Willard's non performance.

And the irony of all the unnecessary Rep voter suppression/voter disenfranchisement laws have only served to fired up the liberal base to overcome these obstacles.

ie the perfect storm!

btw, he's runnin' out of $$$ and gave bonuses to top aides after the Rep convention. Willard is runnin' his campaign like he's still st Bain Capital lol.

Perfect!"

You just keep telling yourself that.; 9/21/12, 9:08 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: shiloh, garage, ARM, OK we can stop pretending, Romney doesn't have a chance. Shit, he's going to lose so bad, you guys don't even need to vote. Why waste your time? You can stay home, suck on those bongs and just watch the votes roll in on Democracy Now. Tell all your friends they don't need to vote either.

(SSShh. Don't anybody clue them in.); 9/21/12, 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Compared to President Enron he's Warren Buffet.; 9/21/12, 10:01 PM
sakredkow said...: Romney will lose.

I never take anything for granted one way or another. But if the election were held today...; 9/21/12, 10:20 PM