PJ: Important to remember that the GOP used to promote science. Eisenhower promote science education (watch his speech from 1957: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok_2zsjTXVA), Nixon initiated The Evironmental Protection Agency and Reagan pushed for the Montreal Protocol to phase out substances depleting the atmosphere's protective ozone layer. Even current GOP heroine and Reagan's close friend Margaret Thatcher supported scienctific discovery having earned a degree in chemistry from Oxford University. She was also a stalwart for education having served as the Education Minister in the UK for four years. But these conservative leaders (who also believed in a seperation of Church and State and who never used their own religious beliefs on the podium) have little in common with today's GOP.
The Telegraph
Republicans turn their back on the Enlightenment
By Tom Chivers
Over in the US, the Republican party is choosing its presidential nominee to face Barack Obama in November. But whoever wins, science may lose.
The Grand Ol’ Party (GOP), as the Republicans are known, has an uncomfortable relationship with scientific fact. Rick Santorum, a frontrunner in the nomination race, has said of a fellow candidate: “If he wants to believe he is the descendant of a monkey then he has the right to believe that, but I disagree with him on this liberal belief.” Yes: acknowledging biology’s central premise is “liberal”. His opponents Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman and Newt Gingrich have all made noises doubting either climate change, evolution or both; only Jon Huntsman, a forlorn no-hoper, acknowledges the reality of both.
It’s not just the candidates. Fifty-two per cent of Republican voters reject the theory of evolution, saying mankind was created in present form within the last 10,000 years; just 31 per cent think man-made climate change is happening. In Congress, Republicans fought stem cell research and the HPV vaccine. Sarah Palin, ignoramus-in-chief, mocked “fruit-fly research” as a “pet project [with] little or nothing to do with the public good,” rejecting at a stroke most advances in genetics since Gregor Mendel.
“Is the GOP anti-science?” asks Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America. “It depends on your definition. If you mean ‘Takes many positions that are contrary to scientific understanding’, then yes; if it’s ‘Has an animus towards scientists’, then data suggests it’s true; if it’s ‘Wants to de-fund scientific research’, it's less clear, but to some extent true.”
To some extent, the cause is obvious. Religious conservatives have difficulties with science, notably evolution and a lot of medical research. Fiscal conservatives are leery of the idea of global warming, because the proposed responses are seen as constricting of business.
But it hasn’t always been like this in the party of Eisenhower and Lincoln. A move towards anti-intellectualism began in the 1960s: “The Republican political elites decided to energise their base around culture-war issues, like women’s rights, gay rights, separation of church and state, and abortion,” says Mooney. “It was called ‘Nixon’s Southern Strategy’, and it worked: the Republicans became the party of people who have very, very traditionalist views on cultural issues.”
This Nixonian strategy actually changed conservative psychology, according to Mooney. “It’s been argued convincingly that when you energise people around these sort of issues you get an authoritarian streak coming out, characterised by rigidity and inflexibility, thinking that you're absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong; a need for certainty, a need for order.” This black-and-white thinking does not sit well with science’s error bars and uncertainties.
Worse, it’s become a vicious circle. The Republican party is trapped by its own anti-science tactics. Part of the culture war strategy included attacking intellectuals: describing them as weak and spineless and effete. Academics, always liberal-inclined, responded by becoming more so: “They're so overwhelmingly liberal now it's kind of ridiculous, and so is the scientific community. The Democratic party is drawing the votes of people with advanced degrees, and the Republican party is not,” says Mooney. So, in turn, the Republican party reacted by becoming ever more distrustful of intellectualism, and pushing wave after wave of scientists and academics from the Right to the Left. “The more the Republican party rejects nuance and attacks knowledge, the more the people who have knowledge go the other way. It shows in statistics about liberalism among professors and scientists, and distribution of PhDs across the parties: there's a giant knowledge and expertise gap.”
And to appeal to this anti-intellectual base, the Republican elite now have to pretend to be stupider than they are. Gingrich, who in earlier years repeatedly acknowledged the dangers of climate change, suddenly dropped a chapter written by a climate scientist from an upcoming book after getting challenged on air by Rush Limbaugh, the hugely influential Right-wing talk radio host; Mitt Romney moved from “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that” to “We don't know what's causing climate change on this planet” in the space of three months.
Do they mean it, or is it pandering to their anti-intellectual base? “Santorum, Bachmann and Perry are completely out of touch with reality. With Romney and Gingrich, many people get the impression that they know what's right and what's wrong, but can’t say it,” says Mooney.
Perhaps. But nowadays, to get far in the Republican party, you can’t be part of what George Bush might call the reality-based community. It’s a worrying state of affairs: America is becoming an intellectual two-speed nation, with a technocratic, informed elite and a scientifically illiterate rump who are falling behind economically in their increasingly knowledge-based economy. The GOP is increasingly the party of the uneducated: it’s bad enough for them, but if it means voting stupid people, or people who are pretending to be stupid, into the most powerful office in the world, it’s bad for the rest of us too.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100128559/republicans-turn-their-back-on-the-enlightenment/
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
UK: Negative win for Romney; Gingrich pays Gingrich to be candidate
The Guardian
Mitt Romney's negative win in Florida's primary
Romney claims his down-and-dirty Florida victory toughens him to beat Obama. But voters are repelled by an ugly GOP contest
By Ana Marie Cox
The biggest news event of the night was the Florida primary, but the only surprising bits of information to come across the mediasphere were from the Federal Election Commission findings.
We learned that Rick Perry was as profligate with his campaign funds as he was limited with his ideas, burning through $14m in the final weeks of his flagging campaign. And that Michele Bachmann was as loosey-goosey with money as she was with facts: her campaign committees' debt aggregates out at $447,000.
The frontrunners' books revealed character traits as well. Mitt Romney and his family have given thousands to help retire the campaign debt of former rival, current surrogate Tim Pawlenty: the man uses money to make problems go away. Newt Gingrich's accounting included a line item paying the former speaker of the House to be the candidate, an unusual use of limited funds that is only out of character in that it suggests Gingrich believes a finite value can be placed on his importance.
As of this writing, Gingrich has yet to even formally concede the race – and it's not like it was close. Gingrich has written several books of "speculative fiction", novels that play out what might have happened if some major historical event had gone the other way (a favorite theme being to toy with the idea that the Confederacy might have come closer to winning the Civil War). To judge by his attitude last night in Florida, Gingrich is taking the same approach to his campaign, soldiering on as if the double-digit loss hadn't happened.
To judge by his speech, he's writing futuristic fiction as well, plotting an almost minute-by-minute agenda for his first hours as president. He'll skip the inaugural balls, he'll repeal "Obamacare", he'll get rid of the "White House czars" (whom he'd presumably have to hire first), he'll move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Also, there will be ponies.
These ideas are ludicrously specific, yet fundamentally vague – the political equivalent to the advice Steve Martin once gave to those asking "How can I be a millionaire?": "First, get a million dollars." (Martin's routine expands on the idea with instructions on how to "be a millionaire … and never pay taxes!" His advice? Claim, "I forgot!" He really missed his calling as an accountant to the 1%.)
That Newt is living in a fantasy land is OK, though, because Romney has set up camp in the same imaginary district. The opening lines of Romney's victory speech all but ratified its borders, declaring, "A competitive primary does not divide us; it prepares us." With those words, Romney – intentionally or not – put us all on the sidelines of a battle that shouldn't really be happening: Newt's chances of actually winning the nomination are minimal – and shrinking.
To be sure, Romney can't wrap up the slot quickly. As NBC's Chuck Todd pointed out, even if Romney wins every contest in front of him and walks away with 100% of all the delegates at stake in each of them, he numerically cannot secure the nomination until 24 April. If he has a challenger (or two) who scrape off 40% of the available delegates, it will take him until 5 June.
Whether what happens between April and June will improve Romney's chances of beating Obama, or worsen them, depends on which Romney shows up on the campaign trail. The one that walked away with Florida was not the carefully groomed rationalist, given to describing Obama as a "nice guy" who is "in over his head". He was a vicious and, at times, sarcastic campaigner who told sneaky lies (or maybe, he approved that anti-Gingrich Spanish-language ad in his sleep) and seemed to relish poking at Newt's doughy rhetoric.
Voters, already lukewarm about Romney, are not fond of the new version. Up until last week, he had been skating by on a favorability rating of about 40%, with 30% unfavorable. The latest polling flips that ratio, and hitting a new low with independent voters: just 23% have a favorable view.
Now, those numbers are from national polls and it's important to remember that GOP primary voters do not hold the same opinions. Obviously, Florida voters in particular didn't mind meeting Bad Mitt. Exit polls showed that Romney and Gingrich tied at 34% as to who ran "the most unfair campaign". That result says a lot for the intensity of Gingrich's vitriol. He managed to run a campaign just as poisonous as Romney's while still being outspent by $12m. Perhaps that's why Romney still won the votes of 12% of those who found his campaign the most unfair; that acid bath was more diluted.
But acid still wears. By the time we get to next fall, will there be any of the Good Mitt left?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ana-marie-cox-blog/2012/feb/01/mitt-romney-negative-win-florida-primary
Mitt Romney's negative win in Florida's primary
Romney claims his down-and-dirty Florida victory toughens him to beat Obama. But voters are repelled by an ugly GOP contest
By Ana Marie Cox
The biggest news event of the night was the Florida primary, but the only surprising bits of information to come across the mediasphere were from the Federal Election Commission findings.
We learned that Rick Perry was as profligate with his campaign funds as he was limited with his ideas, burning through $14m in the final weeks of his flagging campaign. And that Michele Bachmann was as loosey-goosey with money as she was with facts: her campaign committees' debt aggregates out at $447,000.
The frontrunners' books revealed character traits as well. Mitt Romney and his family have given thousands to help retire the campaign debt of former rival, current surrogate Tim Pawlenty: the man uses money to make problems go away. Newt Gingrich's accounting included a line item paying the former speaker of the House to be the candidate, an unusual use of limited funds that is only out of character in that it suggests Gingrich believes a finite value can be placed on his importance.
As of this writing, Gingrich has yet to even formally concede the race – and it's not like it was close. Gingrich has written several books of "speculative fiction", novels that play out what might have happened if some major historical event had gone the other way (a favorite theme being to toy with the idea that the Confederacy might have come closer to winning the Civil War). To judge by his attitude last night in Florida, Gingrich is taking the same approach to his campaign, soldiering on as if the double-digit loss hadn't happened.
To judge by his speech, he's writing futuristic fiction as well, plotting an almost minute-by-minute agenda for his first hours as president. He'll skip the inaugural balls, he'll repeal "Obamacare", he'll get rid of the "White House czars" (whom he'd presumably have to hire first), he'll move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Also, there will be ponies.
These ideas are ludicrously specific, yet fundamentally vague – the political equivalent to the advice Steve Martin once gave to those asking "How can I be a millionaire?": "First, get a million dollars." (Martin's routine expands on the idea with instructions on how to "be a millionaire … and never pay taxes!" His advice? Claim, "I forgot!" He really missed his calling as an accountant to the 1%.)
That Newt is living in a fantasy land is OK, though, because Romney has set up camp in the same imaginary district. The opening lines of Romney's victory speech all but ratified its borders, declaring, "A competitive primary does not divide us; it prepares us." With those words, Romney – intentionally or not – put us all on the sidelines of a battle that shouldn't really be happening: Newt's chances of actually winning the nomination are minimal – and shrinking.
To be sure, Romney can't wrap up the slot quickly. As NBC's Chuck Todd pointed out, even if Romney wins every contest in front of him and walks away with 100% of all the delegates at stake in each of them, he numerically cannot secure the nomination until 24 April. If he has a challenger (or two) who scrape off 40% of the available delegates, it will take him until 5 June.
Whether what happens between April and June will improve Romney's chances of beating Obama, or worsen them, depends on which Romney shows up on the campaign trail. The one that walked away with Florida was not the carefully groomed rationalist, given to describing Obama as a "nice guy" who is "in over his head". He was a vicious and, at times, sarcastic campaigner who told sneaky lies (or maybe, he approved that anti-Gingrich Spanish-language ad in his sleep) and seemed to relish poking at Newt's doughy rhetoric.
Voters, already lukewarm about Romney, are not fond of the new version. Up until last week, he had been skating by on a favorability rating of about 40%, with 30% unfavorable. The latest polling flips that ratio, and hitting a new low with independent voters: just 23% have a favorable view.
Now, those numbers are from national polls and it's important to remember that GOP primary voters do not hold the same opinions. Obviously, Florida voters in particular didn't mind meeting Bad Mitt. Exit polls showed that Romney and Gingrich tied at 34% as to who ran "the most unfair campaign". That result says a lot for the intensity of Gingrich's vitriol. He managed to run a campaign just as poisonous as Romney's while still being outspent by $12m. Perhaps that's why Romney still won the votes of 12% of those who found his campaign the most unfair; that acid bath was more diluted.
But acid still wears. By the time we get to next fall, will there be any of the Good Mitt left?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ana-marie-cox-blog/2012/feb/01/mitt-romney-negative-win-florida-primary
Canada: Romney's super PAC and the money that buys elections
The National Post
Analysis: Mitt Romney Super PAC has been machine of destruction for his opponents
By Samuel P. Jacobs and Alina Selyukh
WASHINGTON — Whenever Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been down and in need of an enforcer, one has been there.
Restore Our Future, the independent “Super PAC” that supports Romney’s campaign, has been a machine of destruction in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, swamping Republican rival Newt Gingrich with attack ads each time he has seemed to threaten Romney’s frontrunner status.
Until late on Tuesday, the engines behind the PAC — its donors – were largely secret.
But the group’s financial reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reveal that private equity executives, hedge fund managers and other financial heavyweights are key contributors to the fundraising juggernaut that Restore Our Future has become.
Political action committees (PACs) are groups with great clout in U.S. politics that are legally separate from candidates. In this campaign, they have unleashed negative advertising against the rival of the candidate they favor.
The filings reveal that Restore Our Future had $23.6-million in the bank as of Dec. 31 — more than the Romney campaign itself. The PAC has spent $17.4-million in support of Romney, including nearly $11-million in Florida before Romney’s decisive victory in the Republican primary there on Tuesday.
The group’s filings reveal a broad base of donors who have given $100,000 or more, taking advantage of the lack of limits on donations to such groups. Campaigns are limited to $2,500 donations per donor.
Among the most generous contributors to Romney’s cause have been people who share Romney’s investment background. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, co-founded Bain Capital, a private equity firm, and has emphasized his business experience in touting his ability to create jobs and improve the economy.
Three hedge fund managers pitched in $1-million to the pro-Romney PAC: Tiger Management’s Julian Robertson, Elliot Management’s Paul Singer and Renaissance Technology’s Robert Mercer.
Miguel Fernandez, chairman of a health-care private equity firm, gave $500,000. MBF Family Investments, which shares an address with Fernandez’s investment company, gave another $500,000.
The list of major donors to Restore Our Future is studded with other veterans of Wall Street and the investment community.
Tudor Investment Corp. founder Paul Tudor Jones contributed $200,000. Goldman Sachs executive Edward Forst forked over $95,000. Four other Goldman employees gave at least $50,000. Lewis Eisenberg, a leader at private equity firm KKR, gave $25,000.
Romney, mocked by Gingrich as a “Massachusetts moderate,” has received the support of conservative money men such as Bob Perry, a Texas home builder, and William Koch, a billionaire investor whose family is active in conservative politics.
“You would think they would be backing much more conservative candidates,” said Fred Zeidman, a Houston fundraiser for Romney. “It seems to me what they are saying, ’Hey we’ve got to beat Barack Obama, and this is the way we are going to do it.”’
Restore Our Future also has drawn contributors from Reebok founder Paul Fireman and philanthropist David Mugar from Boston, Romney’s longtime home.
A BROAD BASE OF SUPPORT
Fourteen individuals contributed at least $250,000 to Restore Our Future. That is far more than the number of such donors who have given to competing Super PACs.
Winning Our Future, the group allied with Gingrich, has depended largely on one couple: casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who each chipped in $5-million in January, a month after their two daughters had given a total of $750,000.
Our Destiny, a Super PAC that backed former Utah governor Jon Huntsman when he was in the race, raised $2.7-million in the fourth quarter of 2011 — $1.9-million of it from Huntsman’s father, industrialist Jon Huntsman Sr.
Wyoming billionaire Foster Friess contributed nearly half the $729,935 raised by the Red White and Blue Fund, which supports another Republican, former Pennsylvania U.S. senator Rick Santorum.
The financial gap between Romney’s PAC and the rest of the field is likely to widen, said campaign finance analyst Anthony Corrado.
“I expect it would be much easier for the Romney Super PAC to go out and solicit big contributions after a win in Florida, and the other Super PACs will be even more dependent on the largesse of a few wealthy individuals to continue to be willing to write large checks,” said Corrado, a government professor at Colby College in Maine.
Restore Our Future is based in Washington and is run from the law firm Clark Hill by treasurer Charles Spies. It has no offices in any of the 50 states and no staff presence on the campaign trail.
Rivals describe it as a monolithic campaigning machine, with tight-lipped members, lots of money and a favorite target: Gingrich.
“That’s a compliment as long as it’s an effective machine,” said Spies, former counsel for Romney’s 2008 campaign.
The group has outspent its rival PACs by far, dumping millions of dollars into TV, Internet, direct-mail and other types of advertisements — nearly all of them attacking Gingrich.
The ads casting Gingrich as an erratic Washington insider with questionable ethics helped send Gingrich’s campaign into a dive just before the Iowa caucuses, the first contest in the race to pick a Republican nominee to face Democratic President Barack Obama in the Nov. 6 election.
Restore Our Future’s anti-Gingrich ads appear to have had a similar effect in advance of Tuesday’s vote in Florida, where the PAC had spent nearly $11-million.
In keeping with Restore Our Future’s low profile, spokeswoman Brittany Gross, who fields media requests, declined to comment on the group’s scope and strategy.
© 2012 Thomson Reuters
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/01/analysis-mitt-romney-super-pac-has-been-machine-of-destruction-for-his-opponents/
Analysis: Mitt Romney Super PAC has been machine of destruction for his opponents
By Samuel P. Jacobs and Alina Selyukh
WASHINGTON — Whenever Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been down and in need of an enforcer, one has been there.
Restore Our Future, the independent “Super PAC” that supports Romney’s campaign, has been a machine of destruction in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, swamping Republican rival Newt Gingrich with attack ads each time he has seemed to threaten Romney’s frontrunner status.
Until late on Tuesday, the engines behind the PAC — its donors – were largely secret.
But the group’s financial reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reveal that private equity executives, hedge fund managers and other financial heavyweights are key contributors to the fundraising juggernaut that Restore Our Future has become.
Political action committees (PACs) are groups with great clout in U.S. politics that are legally separate from candidates. In this campaign, they have unleashed negative advertising against the rival of the candidate they favor.
The filings reveal that Restore Our Future had $23.6-million in the bank as of Dec. 31 — more than the Romney campaign itself. The PAC has spent $17.4-million in support of Romney, including nearly $11-million in Florida before Romney’s decisive victory in the Republican primary there on Tuesday.
The group’s filings reveal a broad base of donors who have given $100,000 or more, taking advantage of the lack of limits on donations to such groups. Campaigns are limited to $2,500 donations per donor.
Among the most generous contributors to Romney’s cause have been people who share Romney’s investment background. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, co-founded Bain Capital, a private equity firm, and has emphasized his business experience in touting his ability to create jobs and improve the economy.
Three hedge fund managers pitched in $1-million to the pro-Romney PAC: Tiger Management’s Julian Robertson, Elliot Management’s Paul Singer and Renaissance Technology’s Robert Mercer.
Miguel Fernandez, chairman of a health-care private equity firm, gave $500,000. MBF Family Investments, which shares an address with Fernandez’s investment company, gave another $500,000.
The list of major donors to Restore Our Future is studded with other veterans of Wall Street and the investment community.
Tudor Investment Corp. founder Paul Tudor Jones contributed $200,000. Goldman Sachs executive Edward Forst forked over $95,000. Four other Goldman employees gave at least $50,000. Lewis Eisenberg, a leader at private equity firm KKR, gave $25,000.
Romney, mocked by Gingrich as a “Massachusetts moderate,” has received the support of conservative money men such as Bob Perry, a Texas home builder, and William Koch, a billionaire investor whose family is active in conservative politics.
“You would think they would be backing much more conservative candidates,” said Fred Zeidman, a Houston fundraiser for Romney. “It seems to me what they are saying, ’Hey we’ve got to beat Barack Obama, and this is the way we are going to do it.”’
Restore Our Future also has drawn contributors from Reebok founder Paul Fireman and philanthropist David Mugar from Boston, Romney’s longtime home.
A BROAD BASE OF SUPPORT
Fourteen individuals contributed at least $250,000 to Restore Our Future. That is far more than the number of such donors who have given to competing Super PACs.
Winning Our Future, the group allied with Gingrich, has depended largely on one couple: casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who each chipped in $5-million in January, a month after their two daughters had given a total of $750,000.
Our Destiny, a Super PAC that backed former Utah governor Jon Huntsman when he was in the race, raised $2.7-million in the fourth quarter of 2011 — $1.9-million of it from Huntsman’s father, industrialist Jon Huntsman Sr.
Wyoming billionaire Foster Friess contributed nearly half the $729,935 raised by the Red White and Blue Fund, which supports another Republican, former Pennsylvania U.S. senator Rick Santorum.
The financial gap between Romney’s PAC and the rest of the field is likely to widen, said campaign finance analyst Anthony Corrado.
“I expect it would be much easier for the Romney Super PAC to go out and solicit big contributions after a win in Florida, and the other Super PACs will be even more dependent on the largesse of a few wealthy individuals to continue to be willing to write large checks,” said Corrado, a government professor at Colby College in Maine.
Restore Our Future is based in Washington and is run from the law firm Clark Hill by treasurer Charles Spies. It has no offices in any of the 50 states and no staff presence on the campaign trail.
Rivals describe it as a monolithic campaigning machine, with tight-lipped members, lots of money and a favorite target: Gingrich.
“That’s a compliment as long as it’s an effective machine,” said Spies, former counsel for Romney’s 2008 campaign.
The group has outspent its rival PACs by far, dumping millions of dollars into TV, Internet, direct-mail and other types of advertisements — nearly all of them attacking Gingrich.
The ads casting Gingrich as an erratic Washington insider with questionable ethics helped send Gingrich’s campaign into a dive just before the Iowa caucuses, the first contest in the race to pick a Republican nominee to face Democratic President Barack Obama in the Nov. 6 election.
Restore Our Future’s anti-Gingrich ads appear to have had a similar effect in advance of Tuesday’s vote in Florida, where the PAC had spent nearly $11-million.
In keeping with Restore Our Future’s low profile, spokeswoman Brittany Gross, who fields media requests, declined to comment on the group’s scope and strategy.
© 2012 Thomson Reuters
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/01/analysis-mitt-romney-super-pac-has-been-machine-of-destruction-for-his-opponents/
Australia: Romney wins Florida
The Sydney Morning Herald
Florida voters go for Romney
By Simon Mann
THE hostility that marked Florida's Republican primary is set to continue with Newt Gingrich pointedly declining to congratulate winner Mitt Romney.
Instead, the former House Speaker rallied supporters with a battle cry that characterised the contests ahead as ''people power'' versus Mr Romney's ''money power''.
Set back by Mr Romney's commanding 14.5 percentage point win in the biggest state to vote so far, Mr Gingrich pledged to fight on through all 46 remaining contests.
Advertisement: Story continues below
''We are going to contest every place, and we will win,'' he boldly predicted, describing his candidacy as the party's opportunity ''to nominate a conservative who knows what he is doing, who has done it before''.
But Mr Romney's big win exposed key stumbling blocks to Mr Gingrich's chances of forging a winning constituency: according to exit polls, women and those voters concerned mostly about the state of the US economy snubbed Mr Gingrich. Married women, in particular, backed Mr Romney over the thrice-married Mr Gingrich 51 per cent to 29 per cent.
The former Massachusetts governor's win gave him all of Florida's 50 delegates to the party's national convention in August and a springboard into February's remaining contests, starting with Nevada's caucuses on Saturday.
He captured 46.4 per cent of the vote in Florida to Mr Gingrich's 31.9 per cent. Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, was a distant third with 13 per cent, followed by Texas congressman Ron Paul (7 per cent).
Mr Romney's win was built on a TV and radio advertising blitz in which more than 13,000 ads at a cost of $US17 million ($A16 million) portrayed Mr Gingrich as unethical and dishonest. Much of the attack was funded by political action committees allied to Mr Romney, causing bitter resentment in the Gingrich camp, which was outgunned by five-to-one.
Mr Gingrich had accused the Romney camp of ''carpet-bombing'' the state with ads that media analysts judged as negative in 92 per cent of cases. But Mr Romney explained the blitz as fighting fire with fire, after the Gingrich camp had attacked hard - and successfully - in last month's South Carolina primary.
Mr Romney, with his wife of 42 years, Ann, and four of his five adult sons sharing the stage with him, refrained from continuing the assault against Mr Gingrich, instead training his rhetoric on President Barack Obama, whom he hopes to challenge in November's election.
To wild cheers, he said his leadership would ''end the Obama era and start a new era of American prosperity''.
He attacked the White House incumbent on economic policy, and promised to maintain a military ''so powerful that no one would ever think of challenging it'', in contrast to what he described as Mr Obama's policy of ''appeasement and apology''.
He laid claim to being a successful businessman who ''saved'' the Salt Lake City winter Olympics from scandal and an administrator who had cut taxes 19 times in Massachusetts.
Florida voters overall, however, may not be quite so ready to dump Mr Obama, who won the state in 2008 with 50.9 per cent of the vote against John McCain's 48.4 per cent. An NBC opinion poll this week put him ahead of Mr Romney 49-41 and of Mr Gingrich 52-35, although the President's approval rating in the swing state matches his disapproval rating at 46 per cent.
Already, the Obama campaign team has opened 11 offices across Florida as it marshals the President's re-election forces.
Mr Romney cautioned Democrats against delighting in the spectacle of Republican challengers beating up on each other, saying a hard-fought, competitive primary race would not divide Republicans but prepare the eventual nominee for the main event.
Fewer than 2 million of Florida's 3.8 million registered Republicans voted in Tuesday's primary.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/florida-voters-go-for-romney-20120201-1qtct.html
Florida voters go for Romney
By Simon Mann
THE hostility that marked Florida's Republican primary is set to continue with Newt Gingrich pointedly declining to congratulate winner Mitt Romney.
Instead, the former House Speaker rallied supporters with a battle cry that characterised the contests ahead as ''people power'' versus Mr Romney's ''money power''.
Set back by Mr Romney's commanding 14.5 percentage point win in the biggest state to vote so far, Mr Gingrich pledged to fight on through all 46 remaining contests.
Advertisement: Story continues below
''We are going to contest every place, and we will win,'' he boldly predicted, describing his candidacy as the party's opportunity ''to nominate a conservative who knows what he is doing, who has done it before''.
But Mr Romney's big win exposed key stumbling blocks to Mr Gingrich's chances of forging a winning constituency: according to exit polls, women and those voters concerned mostly about the state of the US economy snubbed Mr Gingrich. Married women, in particular, backed Mr Romney over the thrice-married Mr Gingrich 51 per cent to 29 per cent.
The former Massachusetts governor's win gave him all of Florida's 50 delegates to the party's national convention in August and a springboard into February's remaining contests, starting with Nevada's caucuses on Saturday.
He captured 46.4 per cent of the vote in Florida to Mr Gingrich's 31.9 per cent. Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, was a distant third with 13 per cent, followed by Texas congressman Ron Paul (7 per cent).
Mr Romney's win was built on a TV and radio advertising blitz in which more than 13,000 ads at a cost of $US17 million ($A16 million) portrayed Mr Gingrich as unethical and dishonest. Much of the attack was funded by political action committees allied to Mr Romney, causing bitter resentment in the Gingrich camp, which was outgunned by five-to-one.
Mr Gingrich had accused the Romney camp of ''carpet-bombing'' the state with ads that media analysts judged as negative in 92 per cent of cases. But Mr Romney explained the blitz as fighting fire with fire, after the Gingrich camp had attacked hard - and successfully - in last month's South Carolina primary.
Mr Romney, with his wife of 42 years, Ann, and four of his five adult sons sharing the stage with him, refrained from continuing the assault against Mr Gingrich, instead training his rhetoric on President Barack Obama, whom he hopes to challenge in November's election.
To wild cheers, he said his leadership would ''end the Obama era and start a new era of American prosperity''.
He attacked the White House incumbent on economic policy, and promised to maintain a military ''so powerful that no one would ever think of challenging it'', in contrast to what he described as Mr Obama's policy of ''appeasement and apology''.
He laid claim to being a successful businessman who ''saved'' the Salt Lake City winter Olympics from scandal and an administrator who had cut taxes 19 times in Massachusetts.
Florida voters overall, however, may not be quite so ready to dump Mr Obama, who won the state in 2008 with 50.9 per cent of the vote against John McCain's 48.4 per cent. An NBC opinion poll this week put him ahead of Mr Romney 49-41 and of Mr Gingrich 52-35, although the President's approval rating in the swing state matches his disapproval rating at 46 per cent.
Already, the Obama campaign team has opened 11 offices across Florida as it marshals the President's re-election forces.
Mr Romney cautioned Democrats against delighting in the spectacle of Republican challengers beating up on each other, saying a hard-fought, competitive primary race would not divide Republicans but prepare the eventual nominee for the main event.
Fewer than 2 million of Florida's 3.8 million registered Republicans voted in Tuesday's primary.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/florida-voters-go-for-romney-20120201-1qtct.html
Middle East: Romney changes focus of attacks to Obama
Al Jazeera
Romney targets Obama after Florida win
Republican frontrunner sets his sights on battle for White House after scoring big win over main rival Newt Gingrich.
Mitt Romney has won the Republican primary in Florida, soundly defeating his main rival Newt Gingrich and taking a big step towards challenging US President Barack Obama in November's election.
With his win on Tuesday in the largest nominating contest so far, Romney regained the political momentum he had lost after Gingrich's victory in the South Carolina primary and set his sights squarely on the incumbent president in a victory address to supporters.
"As this primary unfolds, our opponents in the other party have been watching, and they like to comfort themselves with the thought that a competitive campaign will leave us divided and weak," Romney told a jubilant crowd.
In-depth coverage of the US presidential election
"But I've got news for them. A competitive primary does not divide us. It prepares us, and we will win," he said.
Attacking Obama, he said: "Mr President you were elected to lead, you chose to follow, and now it’s time for you to get out of the way."
The win gives Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, all 50 of Florida's delegates to the Republican National Convention in August. A candidate needs at least 1,144 delegates to become the nominee.
Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, has vowed to fight on regardless of Tuesday's vote.
"It is now clear that this will be a two-person race between the conservative leader Newt Gingrich and the Massachusetts moderate," Gingrich said, refering to Romney.
The next contest is the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, followed next Tuesday by caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota and a primary in Missouri.
Analysts said the margin of victory in Florida, 46 per cent to 32 per cent with 96 per cent of the roughly two million votes counted, cemented Romney's status as frontrunner in the race.
Two other candidates, the former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, garnered 13 per cent and seven per cent of the votes respectively.
Advantage Romney
The win also demonstrated Romney's ability to compete strongly in a major political battleground state with a broad voter base including Tea Party conservatives, evangelical Christians and Cuban-Americans.
According to exit polls by CBS, 62 per cent of the Republican voters said the economy was the most important issue to them. Romney has campaigned hard on his credentials to fix the economy based on his experience as a businessman.
Voters also said in exit polls that they were very concerned about picking a candidate who could beat Obama.
Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher, reporting from Tampa, Florida, said: "If you look at the next six contests, four of them certainly favour Mitt Romney. He has advantages in opinion polls in each of those states."
"So, he is pushing forward believing that winning in Florida has given him a significant advantage in hunting down the Republican nomination," he said.
Our correspondent said that Gingrich appeared to be struggling in terms of fundraising and campaign organisation.
Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher on Florida win
"The problem Newt Gingrich has got is that, to a large degree, he did not expect to be still in the race at this stage.
"Gingrich knows he has got to do well in Nevada and if he doesn’t do well in the caucuses there, his campaign could be fatally damaged."
The voting came after a week of brutal campaigning that saw Romney and Gingrich exchange a barrage of negative and increasingly personal attacks.
Gingrich picked up the endorsement on Saturday night of former rival Herman Cain, who dropped out of the Republican race in December after allegations of sexual harassment and an extramarital affair.
Some analysts suggest Gingrich could fight on if he can persuade Santorum to quit the race, pushing more conservative Republicans towards the Gingrich camp, but Santorum has resisted calls for him to drop out of the contest.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/02/2012210466652460.html
Romney targets Obama after Florida win
Republican frontrunner sets his sights on battle for White House after scoring big win over main rival Newt Gingrich.
Mitt Romney has won the Republican primary in Florida, soundly defeating his main rival Newt Gingrich and taking a big step towards challenging US President Barack Obama in November's election.
With his win on Tuesday in the largest nominating contest so far, Romney regained the political momentum he had lost after Gingrich's victory in the South Carolina primary and set his sights squarely on the incumbent president in a victory address to supporters.
"As this primary unfolds, our opponents in the other party have been watching, and they like to comfort themselves with the thought that a competitive campaign will leave us divided and weak," Romney told a jubilant crowd.
In-depth coverage of the US presidential election
"But I've got news for them. A competitive primary does not divide us. It prepares us, and we will win," he said.
Attacking Obama, he said: "Mr President you were elected to lead, you chose to follow, and now it’s time for you to get out of the way."
The win gives Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, all 50 of Florida's delegates to the Republican National Convention in August. A candidate needs at least 1,144 delegates to become the nominee.
Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, has vowed to fight on regardless of Tuesday's vote.
"It is now clear that this will be a two-person race between the conservative leader Newt Gingrich and the Massachusetts moderate," Gingrich said, refering to Romney.
The next contest is the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, followed next Tuesday by caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota and a primary in Missouri.
Analysts said the margin of victory in Florida, 46 per cent to 32 per cent with 96 per cent of the roughly two million votes counted, cemented Romney's status as frontrunner in the race.
Two other candidates, the former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, garnered 13 per cent and seven per cent of the votes respectively.
Advantage Romney
The win also demonstrated Romney's ability to compete strongly in a major political battleground state with a broad voter base including Tea Party conservatives, evangelical Christians and Cuban-Americans.
According to exit polls by CBS, 62 per cent of the Republican voters said the economy was the most important issue to them. Romney has campaigned hard on his credentials to fix the economy based on his experience as a businessman.
Voters also said in exit polls that they were very concerned about picking a candidate who could beat Obama.
Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher, reporting from Tampa, Florida, said: "If you look at the next six contests, four of them certainly favour Mitt Romney. He has advantages in opinion polls in each of those states."
"So, he is pushing forward believing that winning in Florida has given him a significant advantage in hunting down the Republican nomination," he said.
Our correspondent said that Gingrich appeared to be struggling in terms of fundraising and campaign organisation.
Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher on Florida win
"The problem Newt Gingrich has got is that, to a large degree, he did not expect to be still in the race at this stage.
"Gingrich knows he has got to do well in Nevada and if he doesn’t do well in the caucuses there, his campaign could be fatally damaged."
The voting came after a week of brutal campaigning that saw Romney and Gingrich exchange a barrage of negative and increasingly personal attacks.
Gingrich picked up the endorsement on Saturday night of former rival Herman Cain, who dropped out of the Republican race in December after allegations of sexual harassment and an extramarital affair.
Some analysts suggest Gingrich could fight on if he can persuade Santorum to quit the race, pushing more conservative Republicans towards the Gingrich camp, but Santorum has resisted calls for him to drop out of the contest.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/02/2012210466652460.html
Israel: Romney's recipe for victory
Haaretz
Romney’s winning formula: superb organization, poisonous propaganda, and lots and lots of money Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney definitely erased memories of his South Carolina defeat, regained his status as the 'inevitable' Republican nominee with his significant majority in Florida.
By Chemi Shalev
April will mark the 60th anniversary of the maiden flight of the legendary B-52 bomber, renowned for its “carpet-bombing” capabilities, aimed at smashing the enemy’s forces to smithereens and completely demoralizing its leaders. This is the strategy that Mitt Romney employed in Florida, but despite his impressively crushing victory, its’ success may not have been complete.
Romney definitely erased memories of his humiliating defeat in South Carolina, regained his status as the “inevitable” Republican nominee and probably created a stir at the White House because of his significant majority in a state that is so crucial to victory in November. But even though he tried to make out in his victory speech that the Republican primaries were essentially behind him, he apparently failed to “shock and awe” his main rival, Newt Gingrich, and may have actually increased his motivation to stay in the race to the end, no matter how bitter it will be.
Although Gingrich had uncharacteristically weak performances in the pre-Florida debates, and his “colony on the moon” ramblings proved embarrassing even to his supporters, and his poor performance among married women – voters, that is - proved that his troubled personal history is taking its toll, what really destroyed him was Romney’s well-funded propaganda machine that decimated the former Speaker’s reputation with an endless loop of poisonous commercials broadcast on Florida’s radio and television stations. And even though most of the media’s attention was on the funds that Gingrich has received from the Adelson family, it turns out that it was Romney who was raking in the truly big money and using it to wage a negative campaign that was so effective that it is bound, unfortunately, to be repeated and expanded during the upcoming election campaign.
My great-great-great-grandfather Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried, wrote in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch codex that the best revenge is to “increase your positive qualities and follow righteous paths” because then your enemy “will mourn when hearing about your good reputation” but I doubt whether this is what Gingrich has in mind. He is now like a wounded animal, seeking blood, but in order to continue hammering Romney as a habitual liar – or, even worse, as a liberal in conservative clothing - Gingrich will have to convince his supporters, but mainly his benefactors, that there is still a viable path to victory and that there is still a light, however flickering, at the end of the primary tunnel.
The political analysts have already determined that Gingrich would need to survive the cold month of February, in which Romney is likely to win all six primaries and caucuses, and to reach the March 6 Super Tuesday sufficiently intact to start piling up some victories in southern states. To this end, Gingrich will be able to point to the lingering unease with Romney that conservative voters expressed in exit polls, as well as to his own success in Florida’s conservative northern counties. At the same time, to continue pressing Rick Santorum, probably futilely, to leave the race and to form a united conservative front against Romney.
As for the Jewish vote, exit polls indicated that despite Gingrich’s attempt to stir the pot, as it were, with the story of how cruel Massachusetts governor Romney took the kosher food out of elderly Jews mouths – Jewish voters comprised only one per cent of Republicans yesterday, compared to three percent who participated in the 2008 primaries and to the 4.2 per cent Jewish share of the general population. The New York Times’ Nate Silver suggests that this may mean that the much-ballyhooed Jewish dissatisfaction with President Obama is less intense than advertised, but it could also mean that formally registering as Republicans was a bridge too far for many Jews, who prefer to sit on the fence and to watch the political drama play out before deciding for whom they will vote on November 6. After all, they may ask with the proper intonation - what’s to hurry?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/romney-s-winning-formula-superb-organization-poisonous-propaganda-and-lots-and-lots-of-money-1.410366
Romney’s winning formula: superb organization, poisonous propaganda, and lots and lots of money Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney definitely erased memories of his South Carolina defeat, regained his status as the 'inevitable' Republican nominee with his significant majority in Florida.
By Chemi Shalev
April will mark the 60th anniversary of the maiden flight of the legendary B-52 bomber, renowned for its “carpet-bombing” capabilities, aimed at smashing the enemy’s forces to smithereens and completely demoralizing its leaders. This is the strategy that Mitt Romney employed in Florida, but despite his impressively crushing victory, its’ success may not have been complete.
Romney definitely erased memories of his humiliating defeat in South Carolina, regained his status as the “inevitable” Republican nominee and probably created a stir at the White House because of his significant majority in a state that is so crucial to victory in November. But even though he tried to make out in his victory speech that the Republican primaries were essentially behind him, he apparently failed to “shock and awe” his main rival, Newt Gingrich, and may have actually increased his motivation to stay in the race to the end, no matter how bitter it will be.
Although Gingrich had uncharacteristically weak performances in the pre-Florida debates, and his “colony on the moon” ramblings proved embarrassing even to his supporters, and his poor performance among married women – voters, that is - proved that his troubled personal history is taking its toll, what really destroyed him was Romney’s well-funded propaganda machine that decimated the former Speaker’s reputation with an endless loop of poisonous commercials broadcast on Florida’s radio and television stations. And even though most of the media’s attention was on the funds that Gingrich has received from the Adelson family, it turns out that it was Romney who was raking in the truly big money and using it to wage a negative campaign that was so effective that it is bound, unfortunately, to be repeated and expanded during the upcoming election campaign.
My great-great-great-grandfather Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried, wrote in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch codex that the best revenge is to “increase your positive qualities and follow righteous paths” because then your enemy “will mourn when hearing about your good reputation” but I doubt whether this is what Gingrich has in mind. He is now like a wounded animal, seeking blood, but in order to continue hammering Romney as a habitual liar – or, even worse, as a liberal in conservative clothing - Gingrich will have to convince his supporters, but mainly his benefactors, that there is still a viable path to victory and that there is still a light, however flickering, at the end of the primary tunnel.
The political analysts have already determined that Gingrich would need to survive the cold month of February, in which Romney is likely to win all six primaries and caucuses, and to reach the March 6 Super Tuesday sufficiently intact to start piling up some victories in southern states. To this end, Gingrich will be able to point to the lingering unease with Romney that conservative voters expressed in exit polls, as well as to his own success in Florida’s conservative northern counties. At the same time, to continue pressing Rick Santorum, probably futilely, to leave the race and to form a united conservative front against Romney.
As for the Jewish vote, exit polls indicated that despite Gingrich’s attempt to stir the pot, as it were, with the story of how cruel Massachusetts governor Romney took the kosher food out of elderly Jews mouths – Jewish voters comprised only one per cent of Republicans yesterday, compared to three percent who participated in the 2008 primaries and to the 4.2 per cent Jewish share of the general population. The New York Times’ Nate Silver suggests that this may mean that the much-ballyhooed Jewish dissatisfaction with President Obama is less intense than advertised, but it could also mean that formally registering as Republicans was a bridge too far for many Jews, who prefer to sit on the fence and to watch the political drama play out before deciding for whom they will vote on November 6. After all, they may ask with the proper intonation - what’s to hurry?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/romney-s-winning-formula-superb-organization-poisonous-propaganda-and-lots-and-lots-of-money-1.410366
UK: Wealthy doners revealed--the buying of a president?
PJ: I wonder if Lincoln would recognize the country that promotes his phrase with its new twist: Of the rich people, By the rich people, For the rich people...
The GOP and its Tea Party faction have promoted the Supreme Court decision which allows corporations and wealthy individuals to give any amount to the candidate of their choice through super PACs. So in way, the GOP is consistent with its desire to return to the days of the founding fathers. While they are completely ignoring the goals of those men in keeping religion out of government (heck, they even chose to ignore their hero Ronald Reagan when he said "We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate" in his speech to Temple Hillel and Community Leaders in Valley Stream on October 26, 1984 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/RR10_26_84.html ) they do seem consistent in their desire to return to a country where only wealthy male property owners had the vote (http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html)
The Guardian
Wealthy donors pouring millions into Republican race are named
Financial reports of arms-length campaign groups known as 'super-pacs' show which millionaires are influencing campaigns
The most significant political action committees in the US presidential campaign - known as "super-pacs" - have revealed the names of their wealthy donors.
The financial reports are a detailed accounting of money collected and spent by super-pacs. They underscore how millionaires and billionaires are influencing the election behind the scenes.
The casino mogul who, with his wife, contributed $10m to Newt Gingrich's group gave five times more than it collected from all other sources.
Restore Our Future, the group supporting former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said it had collected $17.9m in contributions since July, most of which it spent on advertisements supporting Romney or attacking Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives.
The top four donors to the group were hedge fund managers. The pro-Romney group waited to file its report until hours after Romney was projected the winner in Florida's important Republican primary, just ahead of the midnight deadline.
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife, who between them gave $10m this month to the pro-Gingrich group Winning Our Future, were not listed in the latest filings because the reporting period covered 2011. But the group's reports showed only $2m in donations, making the Adelsons by far the paramount backers in Gingrich's Republican candidacy.
Adelson, a staunch advocate for Israel, was rewarded in Gingrich's speech in Florida late on Tuesday with a renewed promise by the candidate that if elected, he would relocate the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Adelson has long supported such a move.
Winning Our Future and other such groups are the products of a 2010 supreme court ruling that removed restrictions on corporate and labour union spending in federal elections. The super-pacs cannot directly co-ordinate with the candidates they support but many are staffed with former campaign workers who have an intimate knowledge of their favoured candidate's strategy.
American Crossroads, the Republican group backed by former George Bush adviser Karl Rove, said it raised $51m along with its non-profit arm last year. Most of its $11m in contributions over the past three months came from roughly a dozen wealthy donors.
While most recent public attention has focused on super-pacs spending major sums for negative TV ads assailing Romney and Gingrich, Tuesday's figures are a sign of even greater spending to come in the general election battle between the eventual Republican nominee and Barack Obama.
The super-pacs' war chests underscore the extraordinary impact they will have on this year's race. In Republican primaries so far, groups working for or against presidential candidates have spent roughly $25m on TV ads, about half the nearly $53m spent on advertising so far to influence voters in the early weeks of the race.
Crossroads's financial reports identify wealthy donors who had given contributions reaching as high as seven figures by the end of 2011. Among the largest contributors was Dallas businessman Harold Simmons, who gave the group $5m in November and whose holding company, Contran Corp, donated an additional $2m.
Simmons is a major donor to Republican and conservative causes who pumped as much as $4m into the "swift boat" campaign that helped sink Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry in 2004 by challenging his record as a Vietnam war hero.
Simmons, an early supporter of Texas governor Rick Perry's presidential run, also was a fundraising "bundler" putting donations together for Arizona senator John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.
Since this summer, super-pacs have spent tens of millions of dollars on ads in key Republican primary states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. The super-pacs have also unleashed millions on expenses typically reserved for campaigns, including direct mailings, phone calls and get-out-the-vote efforts.
Outside spending by individuals is nothing new. Liberal-leaning billionaire George Soros gave more than $20m to help groups supportive of Kerry – these groups were known as "527" organisations – and his 2004 White House bid. The court's 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case essentially gave a green light to individuals who want to pump unlimited sums into outside groups that would in turn support candidates.
The Obama campaign disclosed a list of 61 people who raised at least half a million dollars for the president's re-election efforts. Among them were the movie producers Jeffrey Katzenberg and Harvey Weinstein, and embattled former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, whose $70,000 in contributions from himself and his wife were refunded by the Obama campaign and the Democratic national committee.
A handful of other financial filings began trickling in to the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday afternoon, including those from the Gingrich campaign. It said the former House speaker raised $10m during the fourth quarter, in addition to $5m this month. Those totals are separate from super-pacs money being spent on his behalf by outside groups.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/01/republican-super-pacs-presidential-campaign
The GOP and its Tea Party faction have promoted the Supreme Court decision which allows corporations and wealthy individuals to give any amount to the candidate of their choice through super PACs. So in way, the GOP is consistent with its desire to return to the days of the founding fathers. While they are completely ignoring the goals of those men in keeping religion out of government (heck, they even chose to ignore their hero Ronald Reagan when he said "We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate" in his speech to Temple Hillel and Community Leaders in Valley Stream on October 26, 1984 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/RR10_26_84.html ) they do seem consistent in their desire to return to a country where only wealthy male property owners had the vote (http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html)
The Guardian
Wealthy donors pouring millions into Republican race are named
Financial reports of arms-length campaign groups known as 'super-pacs' show which millionaires are influencing campaigns
The most significant political action committees in the US presidential campaign - known as "super-pacs" - have revealed the names of their wealthy donors.
The financial reports are a detailed accounting of money collected and spent by super-pacs. They underscore how millionaires and billionaires are influencing the election behind the scenes.
The casino mogul who, with his wife, contributed $10m to Newt Gingrich's group gave five times more than it collected from all other sources.
Restore Our Future, the group supporting former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said it had collected $17.9m in contributions since July, most of which it spent on advertisements supporting Romney or attacking Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives.
The top four donors to the group were hedge fund managers. The pro-Romney group waited to file its report until hours after Romney was projected the winner in Florida's important Republican primary, just ahead of the midnight deadline.
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife, who between them gave $10m this month to the pro-Gingrich group Winning Our Future, were not listed in the latest filings because the reporting period covered 2011. But the group's reports showed only $2m in donations, making the Adelsons by far the paramount backers in Gingrich's Republican candidacy.
Adelson, a staunch advocate for Israel, was rewarded in Gingrich's speech in Florida late on Tuesday with a renewed promise by the candidate that if elected, he would relocate the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Adelson has long supported such a move.
Winning Our Future and other such groups are the products of a 2010 supreme court ruling that removed restrictions on corporate and labour union spending in federal elections. The super-pacs cannot directly co-ordinate with the candidates they support but many are staffed with former campaign workers who have an intimate knowledge of their favoured candidate's strategy.
American Crossroads, the Republican group backed by former George Bush adviser Karl Rove, said it raised $51m along with its non-profit arm last year. Most of its $11m in contributions over the past three months came from roughly a dozen wealthy donors.
While most recent public attention has focused on super-pacs spending major sums for negative TV ads assailing Romney and Gingrich, Tuesday's figures are a sign of even greater spending to come in the general election battle between the eventual Republican nominee and Barack Obama.
The super-pacs' war chests underscore the extraordinary impact they will have on this year's race. In Republican primaries so far, groups working for or against presidential candidates have spent roughly $25m on TV ads, about half the nearly $53m spent on advertising so far to influence voters in the early weeks of the race.
Crossroads's financial reports identify wealthy donors who had given contributions reaching as high as seven figures by the end of 2011. Among the largest contributors was Dallas businessman Harold Simmons, who gave the group $5m in November and whose holding company, Contran Corp, donated an additional $2m.
Simmons is a major donor to Republican and conservative causes who pumped as much as $4m into the "swift boat" campaign that helped sink Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry in 2004 by challenging his record as a Vietnam war hero.
Simmons, an early supporter of Texas governor Rick Perry's presidential run, also was a fundraising "bundler" putting donations together for Arizona senator John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.
Since this summer, super-pacs have spent tens of millions of dollars on ads in key Republican primary states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. The super-pacs have also unleashed millions on expenses typically reserved for campaigns, including direct mailings, phone calls and get-out-the-vote efforts.
Outside spending by individuals is nothing new. Liberal-leaning billionaire George Soros gave more than $20m to help groups supportive of Kerry – these groups were known as "527" organisations – and his 2004 White House bid. The court's 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case essentially gave a green light to individuals who want to pump unlimited sums into outside groups that would in turn support candidates.
The Obama campaign disclosed a list of 61 people who raised at least half a million dollars for the president's re-election efforts. Among them were the movie producers Jeffrey Katzenberg and Harvey Weinstein, and embattled former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, whose $70,000 in contributions from himself and his wife were refunded by the Obama campaign and the Democratic national committee.
A handful of other financial filings began trickling in to the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday afternoon, including those from the Gingrich campaign. It said the former House speaker raised $10m during the fourth quarter, in addition to $5m this month. Those totals are separate from super-pacs money being spent on his behalf by outside groups.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/01/republican-super-pacs-presidential-campaign
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)