Categorized | Commentary/Editorial

The Media Should Be Really Upset that Mitt "Peacetime" Romney Misled Them About His Fundraising





Mitt "peacetime" Romney’s fundraising for the second quarter dramatically fell short of expectations as his campaign had knowingly misled the media into reporting that his campaign would likely raise over $40 million dollars for the quarter. Romney’s campaign didn’t even come close as it appears that he couldn’t even raise $20 million. For weeks, the media had been quoting anonymous sources close to Mitt "peacetime" Romney who would claim that Romney would put up a jaw-dropping fundraising number this quarter.

Now that the numbers are out, it’s pretty clear to everyone that Romney’s anonymous sources were just playing the media in order to create the perception that he’s in the same position as George W. Bush was in 1999. The media should especially be upset about how they swallowed Romney’s claim that he raised $10 million in one day. The reality is that the $10 million number includes amounts that people only pledged rather than donated. A pledge means absolutely nothing.

If I were a political reporter who claimed for weeks that Romney was likely going to raise $40 million this quater based on what his anonymous sources told me, I’d be pretty upset that Mitt "peacetime" Romney purposefully misled me.



Tags: , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • Gelston

    sorry to be ignorant. How much did he raise?
    good night C4P.

  • JanJosex99

    Since her $$$$ results are not mentioned can we assume Sarah didn’t do so well?

    • pipam12

      i don’t think it’s ready to post yet

    • Guest

      I think that SarahPac is different from the campaign fundraising. She is not a declared candidate- her numbers will be different. A lot of people will wait to give bigger money until she gets in.

    • puma_for_life

      She’s not campaigning yet so she has raised no money for her campaign. She has raised money for Sarahpac and she has to report on that, not sure by when.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KPKFYC5CCVUCNGVK4A4OSAT3ZM Amen Baby

      Palin isn’t a declared candidate.

  • independents4palin

    Romney mostly can only get money from fundraising, thats about it. It seems like people are not that thrilled about donating to his campaign. I would never give a cent to Romney. I will only donate to Sarah PAC and then her campaign. I will save what I can each month and give it to Gov.Palin.

  • StacyDrake

    Great news!
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/24/romneys-ask-raise-50-million/

    "One Romney fundraiser said the $50 million figure was what the governor
    wanted to show by early summer, at the time of the first financial
    filing deadline of what is likely to be his official presidential
    campaign."

    • goldenprez

      The key to the entire matter is the "anonymous sources."

      By now, everyone should be completely aware that there are no "anonymous sources." This is the gambit that the Ministry of Propaganda uses to tell bald-faced lies. They then attribute these fabrications and delusions to "anonymous sources" that cannot be checked.

      Whenever one sees "anonymous source" used, one should automatically think "outright lie."

      This type of lie, about the overwhelming fundraising to come, is used specifically by the Ministry of Propaganda, to indicate how popular their preferred candidate is, and how hopeless it is for all other candidates. It is meant to demoralize the oppositions supporters. They never expect to get caught.

      The Ministry of Propaganda still does not realize that they no longer have a monopoly on information distribution. Even as their "articles" are debunked on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis, they continue to promulgate their propaganda. They do not allow their shrinking numbers and red ink to interfere with their delusion that are still relevant. They are relevant only to their choirs, and those choirs are mostly brain dead and will never question the idiocy they are being fed. They want to believe.

      I love the term "One Romney fundraiser." Again, unnamed. If any of these "sources" were real, why would they be so afraid to be named? Obviously, any "anonymous source" is free to say anything with impunity. They never have to have their background brought into it, or their statements questioned in the light of day.

      Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

      Illegitimi non carborundum.

      Barracudas Maximus.

  • HuntingMoose

    The question is not how much they need to raise,

    The question is how much more times do they need to match Sarah’s effectiveness

    • teledude

      Love your bold statements!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D365EUEBVMT2SDF35F2GSW3MJ4 Non Lib

    not on subject……but could some one tell me were Palin stands on illegal immigration?she has said they need to get in the back of the line.that doesnt tell me much.It is one of the problems we have in this country  economically.MILLIONS are out of work because of it .mainly in construction.Dont tell me they are doing jobs americans wont do.Before someone wants to go stupid on me……..let me tell you i will only vote if Palin gets the nomination.But if she caves on illegal immigration just for votes ….ill stay home that day.I HATED TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN BUT DID BECAUSE OF PALIN.I remembered his stand with Kennedy.

    • JanJosex99

      1st sentence – you ask a question . . .

      2nd sentence – you paraphrase her out of content/context . . .

      Rest of paragraph – you rant about *YOUR* position on immigration.

      3rd from last sentence – you threaten . . .

      If you are really interested in her position on the subject – RESEARCH it!

      http://bit.ly/mkHOBx Make sure you separate fact from made-up fiction.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D365EUEBVMT2SDF35F2GSW3MJ4 Non Lib

        IM AFRAID SHE IS ANOTHER POLITICIAN IF SHE IS LOOKING FOR LEGALIZING ILLEGALS.PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.IF SHE IS ANOTHER POLITICIAN SUCKING UP TO MEXICANS BECAUSE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION .COUNT ME OUT

        • exodus2011

          there’s no need to shout

          we all saw Gov Palin fly down to AZ especially to stand with Gov Brewer when AZ passed the law which tightened up the regs on illegals, and she was under attack from all sides - Gov Palin was the ONLY politician to do so

          let that be your answer

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D365EUEBVMT2SDF35F2GSW3MJ4 Non Lib

            I STAND WITH GOV BREWER….WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT WILL PALIN STAND TALL OR WILL SHE CAVE TO POLITICS

            • exodus2011

              Do you know anything about Gov Palin’s character at all???????????

              I think you should read her emails, and definitely go and see "The Undefeated"

              you don’t appear to be equipped to make the case for Gov Palin, her character, her record as a Reformer Governor …. there is plenty of material at this site for you to read

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Norton/100002228997007 John Norton

              Say NL not a good idea to tip your hand to early in a card game wouldnt you agree…?

          • Sue Lynn

            Sarah has been Leading all her life. Why you may ask….SARAH PALIN is a LEADER!!!! Sarah will lead us to the future with the truth and some people can’t handle the truth!!!!! 2012 can’t come soon enough. Sarah says "FOLLOW ME THERE" …..That’s what we gonna do!!!!!!

        • Guest

          She will have a more complete round-up of policy on immigration when she is officially running. Until then it took me a few seconds to find this:

          http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/sarah-palin.html

          NorCon

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D365EUEBVMT2SDF35F2GSW3MJ4 Non Lib

            THAT SOUNDED LIKE A POLITICIAN.I NEED A STRONG LEADER ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION…NOT A POLITICIAN

            • Guest

              To the left on your keyboard is a key called "Caps Lock". When you find it, get back to us..

        • unseen1

          look its  rightwingyahoo  from hotair.  Oh  how sweet.

        • JanJosex99

          You write: "PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG"

          Maybe my OP was too vague?  So. . .  Let me be more succinct:

          DO IT *YOURSELF*

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D365EUEBVMT2SDF35F2GSW3MJ4 Non Lib

        I READ YOUR LINK….I DIDNT LEARN JACK.DO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS GET THEIR JOBS BACK OR WHAT? ARE YOU JUST STAR STRUCK OR DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE WORKING MAN

        • Escaped_Teleprompter

          Palin is against amnesty for illegal aliens.
          Palin stated on O’Reilly that she is against amnesty.
          Not only is she against general amnesty, she is also against the Dream Act, which is a mild form of amnesty, in which only certain children would be eligible.  
          If she is against the milder Dream Act, she is certainly against general amnesty. 

          Palin against amnesty, in O’Reilly interview:
          http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/how-sarah-palin-would-tackle-illegal-immigration
          Palin against Dream Act:
          http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/06/sarah-palin-bus-tour-immigration-/1
          .

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D365EUEBVMT2SDF35F2GSW3MJ4 Non Lib

            she said they have 60 days to report…..and…and what.do americans get their jobs or what.she needs to make a solid stand…..stop all social programs go after employers stop the 14 amendment

            • Escaped_Teleprompter

              Non Lib must be a troll; Non Lib wrote:
              "SHE IS LOOKING FOR LEGALIZING ILLEGALS.PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.IF SHE IS ANOTHER POLITICIAN SUCKING UP TO MEXICANS BECAUSE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION .COUNT ME OUT".
              In the links that I cited, Palin was clearly against amnesty, and yet you make wild unsubstantiated allegations against her "SUCKING UP TO MEXICANS".
              Clearly you, Non Lib, are not seeking information but really wanted to disrupt the thread.
              .

            • Guest

              You sound like the person whose been posting on Sarah’s FB page similar rantings.  Even after people sent you the info to rebut you claims, you still stick to your script like a TOTUS.  

        • suehimel

          I have three brothers in the construction industry.  One of them earns 6 figures and the other two are not far behind.  They have never been unemployed.  Could the fact that they are all non union in right to work states have anything to do with that?

        • parigger

          If you are union think twice before voting lockstep with union leadership.The stimulus plan was designed by obama/dems to redistribute wealth away from a bunch of construction companies with white tradesmen. I quit voting with my union in 1972. The stimulus plan also was designed to give illegals 300,000 jobs with you paying for them. All this was backed by the unions , dems and signed into law by obama.    Sarah Palin had nothing to do with this.The democratic party, the unions who backed them,obama and the people who voted for them own this policy and there is no way to run from it or shift the blame onto others who who had no part in it. You won’t get those jobs back if you vote with these people on any issue.The unions have taken up residency in the White House and are extremely pleased with the direction this policy iis taking them.Sarah Palin’s stance on illegal immigration is clear .Secure the border and get in line.   Governor Palin 2012

    • REHLV

      " Me thinks thou protest too much"  Shakespeare from Hamlet.  Just the Non Lib name of your blog, makes me suspicious that you might be just that.  I agree with JanJosex99, if you do not know Sarah’s position on immigration, you have not done your homework.  This might be a fair question for other candidates, but not Sarah.  Please tell us what you really want to know?  We will show you the way.  Get rid of your anger, say a prayer and help us get Sarah elected. 

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D365EUEBVMT2SDF35F2GSW3MJ4 Non Lib

        WHATIS HER POSITION…….LEGALIZATION?…TELL THAT TO A CONSTRUCTION WORKER TELL THAT TO ME A CONSTRUCTIONWORKER

        • Guest

          Insanity….he keeps repeating the same thing expecting a different result.

      • ellebb

        I will be anxious to hear more from Sarah on her stand on illegal immigration… during the campaign.

    • lanahi

      She has stressed that they have to "follow the rules".  Illegals are not following the rules.   She feels first priority is to close the border before doing anything about the illegals already here.  She is against amnesty for illegals:  The path to citizenship is to come into the country legally…no one will be rewarded for not following the rules.  She is very much against the DREAM act for the same reason.
      BTW, Sarah does NOTHING just for votes.  If you don’t already know that, you arn’t a Palin supporter.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D365EUEBVMT2SDF35F2GSW3MJ4 Non Lib

        ILL TELL YOU WHERE IM COMING FROM IVE WORKED CONSTRUCTION FOR OVER 30 YEARS I MADE OVER 100000 A YEAR FOR MANY YEARS NOW A CANT EVEN GET A JOB PAYING 10 BUCKS AN HOUR.SO TELL ME ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.WHAT EVER CANNIDATE IS STRONG ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WILL GET MY VOTE

        • lanahi

          Yeh, that’s the kind of working conditions you get with Democrats in
          charge…none at all.

          You sound like you are arguing with someone. I answered your
          question. Sarah is against amnesty and the DREAM act and wants to
          close the border ASAP. What don’t you understand about that?

          Construction isn’t doing well anywhere because of the economy. It
          doesn’t help that some construction workers might be illegals, but
          it’s the economy first and foremost that is causing unemployment in
          construction and everywhere else. Construction is one of the hardest
          hit. The housing market went south after two years of a heavily
          Democratic congress and ACORNs demand that the poor be given mortgages
          they couldn’t afford. Thank Obama for that.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D365EUEBVMT2SDF35F2GSW3MJ4 Non Lib

            you say some construction workers …get out in the real world…its most….it started before the collaps.they are doing work for 1990 wages can you handle that at your job

        • ellebb

          I’m with you !  Sarah made a comment when she visited Ellis Island that was VERY strong on "following the rules". 

          She hasn’t had to take a strong stand yet against amnesty as Alaska I don’t believe, has much of an illegal immigration problem.  It will be interesting to hear more on this issue from her in the coming days.

    • JeannieBinVA

      Why do you think she would "cave" on immigration? When has she ever caved on anything?

      You seem to be looking to pick a fight and, frankly, if you know anything about Gov. Palin, you appear quite ridiculous.

    • unseen1

      hey  rightwingyahoo   thread jacking isn’t  allowed  here  sorry.  

    • http://www.twitter.com/onepurplekrayon OnePurpleKrayon

      From what I gather, I think she did one time mentioned "a path to citizenship," but she didn’t call it amnesty.  She did say they should all "get in line" like the rest of the legal immigrants do. I think she understands that it may be impossible to deport millions of illegals.  She says she doesn’t support the DREAM Act, but she did support Carly Fiorina (CA candidate for US Senator in 2010) who supports the DREAM Act.  Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to illegals during his time.  So I think she’ll mostly likely compromise with the Democrats and support the ‘illegal immigrants can be legal through military service’ route. You can’t just close up the border and expect illegals not to come through.  They’ll always find a way. You have to create ways where it’s impossible for illegals to get a job (more enforcement), so that they will end up moving somewhere else.

    • kadska

      This sounds like concern trolling.

  • TheTotalConservative

    I think the Fundraising is the First Sign that Mitt Romney is a Hollow Candidate and so is his Toadie Moochele Bachmann. Mitt Romney will be beat big time.

  • TheTotalConservative

    At Race42012 the Mitt Lovers had put out Bullcrap that their Boyfriend Mittens would raise $50 to $60 Million. I went after those Romney Lovers at race42012. Mittens is very beatable. Very Beatable, he is being carried by Bogus Polls that say he is the most electable that is all he has. If we destroy that argument we destroy Mittens Completely.

    • lanahi

      This was really stupid to build up expectations and then fall that short.  It would have been wiser to underestimate it or say nothing and then do much better than their projections.  It was a dumb tactical error to brag about expected high numbers so the failure was highlighted that boldly later.  Not only that, but who will believe him after this?  (If there is anyone who believes him anyway!)
      Hope SarahPac did well, even if it is a different kind of fund.

      • spottedreptile

        Movie studios lowball all the time to avoid precisely this situation. It doesn’t matter what the facts are, just what the expectations were. That’s all the narrative the media want to hear.  A movie ‘bombs’ if it makes less than expected, regardless of what it actually makes.

        I suspect, however, Mittens is genetically designed against lowballing anything, because that would admit he could fall short of expectations, and that isn’t possible in his mind.

        • TheTotalConservative

          Absolutely.

        • lanahi

          Right, but then he did fall short of expectations.  Wrong move.

      • TheTotalConservative

        The Romneybots at Race42012 are really beyond dumb.

  • MaMcGriz

    The big money will go to Palin.

    • TheTotalConservative

      I did not think so at first, but it could. Pawlenty and Huntsman are not really getting it. Mitt has the usuals and his old friends to hit up.

      • MaMcGriz

        Yeah, they appear to be choosing to ignore that we’re all out here reeling from the economy and Sarah is the only one who gets it. No amount of woofin’ and business as usual politics will spare the elites from what’s about to sweep over them. We’re forming ranks behind that feisty little fisherman’s wife from Alaska. We’re gettin’ a real big grrrr on. They ignore us at their political peril, and I say go ahead on. Render yourselves irrelevant and relieve us of your presence. R and D elites alike should prepare to have their political walls stormed and their gates thrown down, because we’re on our way.

        This economy to us and this economy to them are two different worlds. We’re way past ready for a leader who lives in the real world with the rest of us bears and barbarians.  

  • TheTotalConservative

    Remember the Mitt Shills at Hotair and Drudge touting Mitt’s $10 Million Day. They were so giddy to report it and now nothing on his big let down in fundraising. Allahpundit does not have a thread and drudge does not report anything that reflects Badly on Romney.

  • teledude

    Get out of here. That has been debunked since 2008. That is the old BS they were making up about her when she first came on the scene. Total bullsh*t.

  • usajingoist

    Don’t worry, this election will NOT come down to money.  This election is ENTIRELY about Obama and the direction of the country.  He can spend $2B dollars, but he has lost huge percentages of independents who will not come back.  Unemployment is the highest with young people, black people, Hispanic people and he is doing so much to endear himself to the Jewish voters.  He hasn’t put one policy in place that will improve the economy before the election.  Gas, unemployment, the price of food are all high and climbing higher and he is going to get reelected?  He is going negative because that is the only way he can motivate his base and doing so will also motivate us and turn away many of those that "wanted a new type of politician".  He will be lucky to get 45% of the vote in 2012.

    • FredHeadBill

      I believe Obumber has come to the same concussions.

    • puma_for_life

      Well, he claims he will pull out of Afghanistan before the election to pacify the anti-war crowd, but  I don’t know how much good that will do since he has already started another war to replace it in Libya and I recently read we are doing more drone strikes in Somalia…it’s like he is out there bombing the Muslim countries on the one hand and catering to them in this country on the other hand.  What in heck is this guy doing?  I have one obat friend who just told me she will never vote for him again.

  • Guest

    If you are a Palin-supporter you would not stop at one link claiming something like that, you would do your resarch and be helpful in getting the truth. It took me 3 minutes to find this on Google:

    At least since September 8 the extreme left has been pushing a lie that Governor, then Mayor, Sarah Palin “charged rape victims for rape kits” performed upon them in the Alaskan town of Wasilla. 

    The charge stems from a May 22, 2000 article in the local Wasilla paper The Frontiersman and has been spun from a comment made by the Wasilla Police Chief. This comment was somehow made into a Sarah Palin policy.

    Evidence of the incident, though, shows no involvement by Palin at all. Still, many Old Media outlets continue to keep illegitimately linking this rape kit billing claim to Sarah Palin, even though the truth is easily discovered.

    As mentioned, first up was The Frontiersman story from 2000.

    In that story Police Chief Fannon was quoted as standing against legislation that would force local municipalities to pick up the costs of rape kits being performed. In the interview Fannon said that, upon conviction, he favored the criminals being charged for the costs.

    The story mentions that Fannon claimed that at the time Wasilla did have a policy that rape victims’ insurance would be charged for the kits being performed but there was no mention that victims themselves were charged and no claim that any ever were.

    It should be pointed out that The Frontiersman is the local Wasilla paper, so, consequently, the story did not mention what the policy was in any other Alaskan city outside the area the paper covers other than to say that “most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams.” This last phrase has been focused on by Palin’s detractors and spun from “some municipalities” into “all” (except Wasilla) and presented as some sort of proof that she hates rape victims.

    After Palin was picked to be VP, on September 8, a blog called Americablog found the old story and brought it up as evidence of “a rather nasty window into Sarah Palin.” Americablog is run by a man named John Aravosis, a Democratic strategist, sometimes gay activist, and Washington D.C. lawyer who once worked for Alaska Senator Ted Steven before he, Aravosis, formally switched to the Democratic Party.

    Later that day The Daily Kos also picked it up and from here it began to morph even further adding false claims to the story.

    In one of those additions to the story, Kos blogger Steven R claimed that Palin hired Police Chief Fannon because he was in favor of charging rape victims for rape kits. Steven R said he was “Pro-Charging Rape Victims for their OWN TESTS!!!” (bold in original). I cannot find this claim anywhere prior to the meme being picked up by the Old Media echoing this Kos diarist.

    According to the Uniform Crime Reports for Wasilla, up until 2000 only one rape had been reported to police in Wasilla.

    The Kos diarist tried to claim that one rape reported equalled one rape conviction alleging that all the “other” rapes were not convicted. But the report clearly says that it was one rape reported not one rape convicted. The Daily Kos Diarist was trying to make it seem as if there were all sorts of rapes going on that weren’t being reported and, presumably, all sorts of victims being charged for rape kits.

    In any case, from here the Old Media began to pick up the charge that Palin had put in place or at least agreed with this charging of victims policy. On September 12, for instance, The L.A. Times repeated the charge.

    When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

    The L.A. Times also helped further the warped claim that made it seem that the only Alaskan town that charged victims for rape kits was Palin’s Wasilla.

    Then-Gov. Tony Knowles said Thursday that Wasilla was unique in the state in charging rape victims for costs incurred by law enforcement in trying to solve the crime.

    This charge then began to appear in all sorts of opinion columns, blogs and in the comments sections of many of the Palin stories in papers all across the country.

    On September 21, the Chicago Tribune repeated the tale, as well. The Chi Trib tried to spin this tale into one that made Palin notorious in the Alaska State Legislature over the practice.

    While she was mayor of Wasilla, her town was the only one in Alaska that required rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests. Charging victims for the “rape kits” necessary to collect evidence and convict sexual predators was a “cost-cutting” measure that continued until complaints about her administration’s policy prompted the Alaska State Legislature to pass a bill that banned this anti-victim practice statewide.

    On September 22, it was CNN’s turn to highlight the charge. CNN also pushed the false idea that out of all of Alaska’s towns only Wasilla insisted on perpetrating this policy quoting former Democratic State Rep. Eric Croft to that effect.

    Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.

    Farther down in the story, CNN does reveal that there are no records and no proof that Palin ever even knew about this charging the victim policy. CNN also finally mentions that Wasilla wasn’t the only town in Alaska that had this policy.

    Many other papers also mention that Palin charged victims for their own rape kits. Papers such as Denver Daily and Philadelphia Weekly, for instance. There are far more than the few I mention here.

    So, the impression all these stories leave us with is that the town of Wasilla was a major impediment to passage of a bill in the state legislature that would end the policy of charging rape victims for their own rape kits being administered.

    We are told that “Palin charged rape victims” and we are told that she hired a new police chief because he also wanted to charge victims. One would think that if all this were true, Palin would have been all over Alaska’s news in the year 2000 because of it.

    But, in reality, none of these charges can be found and Jim Geraghty of NRO has done a little investigative work to prove it.

    Geraghty looked to see how often Wasilla and Palin were mentioned in the debates about the rape kit bill. But he finds that there is not one mention of the town of Wasilla in the hearings over the bill. Far from being the mayor that had “complaints about her administration’s policy” (as the Chi Trib says) being the one forcing the state legislature to pass the law, Wasilla is not mentioned at all in the debates about the bill.

    The Democratic sponsor of the legislation, Eric Croft, told USA Today recently that “the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.” Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged.

    Geraghty also could not find a single instance of a rape victim ever having been charged for her own rape kit.

    To clarify: In preparation to attend a hearing and support the bill, one of the state’s top law-enforcement officials found no case of a rape victim ever being charged. And roughly a month after 30 Democratic lawyers, investigators, and opposition researchers, not to mention reporters from every major news agency in the country, landed in Alaska, we still have no instances to consider.

    Additionally, Geraghty found that it was the hospitals in Alaska, not the police agencies, that were passing the bills on to the victims’ insurance companies. And the idea that only Wasilla had such a policy is blasted out of the water by Geraghty who notes that Juneau also had the same policy of charging rape victims for their rape kits.

    In fact, at a Finance Committee hearing, Representative Gail Phillips (R., Homer) “read for the record, a statement from a woman in Juneau who had experienced the charges as indicated.” Compare Juneau (population 30,711 in 2000) to Wasilla (population 5,469).

    On top of all of that, there are no stories prior to Sarah Palin being offered the billet as VP by John McCain that makes the claim that Palin was informed of or involved in this policy of charging rape victims for rape kits. And, since there was only one rape reported in the city between 1996 and 2000 when the story first came to the papers, it’s no wonder she wasn’t aware of the policy. When would it ever have come up? Does anyone think that any given mayor of any American town is fully cognizant of every single policy or law in their city, especially if it is a law not in use because of a lack of situations to bring it to light?

    For her part, Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella has said that the governor “does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.”

    In the end, it seems that this story is a wild exaggeration about Palin’s role in this policy. There is no proof that she ever knew about the policy until long after the situation hit the news, it is untrue that her town was “unique” in blocking the measure, no evidence that she, herself, was notorious for the policy, and no proof that any victims were ever charged for rape kits. In fact, according to the Uniform Crime Report there were only 5 rapes reported in the 6 years she was mayor of Wasilla and four of those happened after the state law in question was passed.

    In fact, this whole thing looks like another case where the media has been programmed by the nutroots and Democratic operatives.

    Yet, the media still repeatedly bring this false charge up at every possible opportunity. Geraghty is right. The Old Media and the Obama campaign owes Palin an apology.

  • scotgirl1

    couple of questions  

    whats with the Mitt (peacetime) Romney thing if its meant to be an insult I dont get it ?

    and is there anywhere where we can see what all the candidates have raised for comparison 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Petretich/100002088167892 Pete Petretich

      He said in an op-ed several months ago that this was "peacetime" economy. He actually wrote that and published it.

      Ignoring the fact that there are several real wars going on!

      http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/25/6526479-peacetime

      He should never live this down.

      —————————————————————–

      Mitt Romney: Obama isn’t serious about America’s financial health

      MITT ROMNEY
      Another View
      Monday, Apr. 25, 2011

      Obama is not serious about America’s financial health A MERICA received a giant wake-up call when Standard & Poor’s, the bond rating agency, announced that it was changing the outlook on its highly prized AAA rating for U.S. Treasuries to "negative" from "stable." This is the first ratings warning for the United States since S&P began evaluating our creditworthiness in 1941.

      S&P’s action is a significant marker of our country’s deteriorating economic position.

      Treasury bond ratings matter — they are measurements of the fiscal strength of the country. The better the bond rating, the lower the cost of borrowing. And the costs of borrowing by the federal government are, of course, ultimately carried by the taxpayer.

      So, what was the White House response?

      Obama’s top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, downplayed the event, saying, “I don’t make too much about it.” The President himself went on a weeklong campaign swing highlighted by six fundraisers and sharp partisan attacks against Republicans for their attempts at deficit reduction and entitlement reform.

      The main job of any executive — whether a CEO, a governor or a President — should be to avert these dangers, or work to repair them. When I took office in Massachusetts, we faced job losses and a fiscal crisis that had the potential to shake the faith of the credit raters in our bonds. We went to work to convince S&P and the other rating agencies that we were committed to reducing spending to balance our budget. I met personally with these officials in my of­fice in Boston, and I traveled to New York City to meet them in their offices. S&P responded in 2005 with a credit rating upgrade that acknowledged the state’s sound fiscal management and the improving strength of its revitalized economy.

      Barack Obama is facing a financial emergency on a grander scale. Yet his approach has been to engage in one of the biggest peacetime spending binges in American history. With its failed stimulus package, its grandiose new social programs, its fervor for more taxes and government regulations, and its hostility toward business, the admin-istration has made the debt problem worse, hindered economic recovery and needlessly cost American workers countless jobs.

      Consider that during the Bush years, the U.S. government’s deficit — the gap between what Washington taxes and spends within a year — hovered between 2 percent and 4 percent of GDP. Already that was a problematic level.

      But in the first year of the Obama administration, the shortfall in our annual spending exploded to 10 percent of GDP — a shocking number — and has risen even higher, to 11 percent of GDP in 2011.

      No less dramatic has been the explosion in our level of debt, the total amount Washington has borrowed to pay for its out-of-control spending. In 2008, our debt was 40 percent of GDP. That was bad enough. But, according to S&P, even under the most optimistic scenario our government’s indebtedness will double to nearly 80 percent of GDP by 2013. Other estimates project that our nation’s debt will equal the entirety of our nation’s economy — 100 percent of GDP — by 2020.

      We are not on a sustainable course. The consequences may come in slow-motion, with reduced growth, chronic high unemployment and a lower standard of living. Or they may come suddenly, in the kind of cascading crises that we just witnessed when the housing-price bubble burst. The only way to avert it is to take action that is rooted in the need to reduce spending.

      The overall picture may be dark, but we should not lose sight of what we are capable of as a country. Our economy is astonishingly flexible. It is highly diversified. We have low inflation. We are the world’s engine of technological innovation. Despite our troubles, the U.S. dollar has preserved its position as the world’s currency of choice.

      Even more significant are the clear signs that the American people have had enough of a federal government that is increasing in size and dominance. We are a great republic in which change is possible. The Obama admin-istration may not be serious about addressing the problems that have caused the S&P downgrade, but in less than two years the voters will tell us whether they will issue a decisive downgrade of their own.

      __

      Mitt Romney, formerly the governor of Massachusetts, is considering a run for President of the United States.

  • njinfl

    Romney is so very vulnerable and now I sense the Bachmann wave is ebbing, leaving him even more exposed.

    I dont have any poll numbers to back that up, just intuition.  But Mitt’s junior stalking horse, Cain, is already prepped for the glue factory, as I predicted three weeks ago.

    Bachmann hasm’t gaffed as badly as Cain, but her non-attacks on Mitt will probably prove even more harmful, as its given the game away to the Tea Party and the base.

    Bachmann’s speaking style is smooth but limpid, so in contrast to Sarah’s evocative quality.

    Sarah has reseized the initiative with The Undefeated and it seems the MiniMe Bus Tour in SC was not a hit. 

    The Myrtle Beach stop told me a lot. It drew poorly to a location, Broadway at the Beach (which isnt at the beach) that is a corporate trap for Yankees from Ohio and is NOT, repeat NOT, an iconic destination for vacationing Carolinians, presumably the target audience.

    This was a culture fail by Bachmann and it wont go unnoticed, bank on that.

    If Sarah wants to win SC in an absolute walk over, and have fun doing it, she and Todd could take a few hours to learn the shag dance and roll the bus to Fat Harold’s or some such older club covered in beach lore, and take it home.

    Bachmann will soon be re-tied to her hitching post and Mitt’s running out of rides.

    He’ll be in a helluva spot by Thanksgiving.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Petretich/100002088167892 Pete Petretich

      I like that part about "Minie-Me". Somebody should develop that with a video clip from Austin Powers.

      • njinfl

        Thanks Pete, but its not original with me.

        One of the posters here, Senator —-, who ists FB numbers, calls her that.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Petretich/100002088167892 Pete Petretich

      The novelty effect will expire on some of these people. Not with our Sarah!

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Norton/100002228997007 John Norton

        Yea the truth never gets old…

    • sc4GOP

      OK, njinfl…if you live in or near SC….I need you on Organize4palin to help.  It was reported that Bachmann drew 1000 people to Winthrop University for her townhall here at the end of her SC tour, but again the Facebook pics did not support that number.  I agree about your comment on Broadway at the Beach.  There are 400 people running around that place at dinner time with buzzers from the warehouse-sized chain restaurants waiting for dinner and looking for something to do.  They were looking for numbers for perception….period.

    • http://www.polination.wordpress.com Ting

      Finally – something I can do to help Sarah and Todd!  I would love to teach them how to shag – the dance, of course.  It is a lot of fun, and pretty good exercise, too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Petretich/100002088167892 Pete Petretich

    Look at this, people! The notorious "peacetime" gaffe has been removed from the Internet:

    http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Mitt+Romney%3a+Obama+isn%27t+serious+about+America%27s+financial+health&articleId=b7883ad5-32f6-4d62-871c-d967005bb838

    There are still lots of articles that reference it and quote it but the original op-ed has been "cleansed". Here’s the new, improved version on Mitt$ter’s FB page:

    http://www.facebook.com/notes/mitt-romney/op-ed-nh-union-leader-obama-is-not-serious-about-americas-financial-health/10150229387406424

    War is peace. Truth is a lie. Good is bad. 1984 redux!

    P.S. Here it is! I’m going to re-post this before it disappears…

    —————————————————————-

    Mitt Romney: Obama isn’t serious about America’s financial health

    By MITT ROMNEY
    Another View
    Monday, Apr. 25, 2011

    Obama is not serious about America’s financial health A MERICA received a giant wake-up call when Standard & Poor’s, the bond rating agency, announced that it was changing the outlook on its highly prized AAA rating for U.S. Treasuries to "negative" from "stable." This is the first ratings warning for the United States since S&P began evaluating our creditworthiness in 1941.

    S&P’s action is a significant marker of our country’s deteriorating economic position.

    Treasury bond ratings matter — they are measurements of the fiscal strength of the country. The better the bond rating, the lower the cost of borrowing. And the costs of borrowing by the federal government are, of course, ultimately carried by the taxpayer.

    So, what was the White House response?

    Obama’s top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, downplayed the event, saying, “I don’t make too much about it.” The President himself went on a weeklong campaign swing highlighted by six fundraisers and sharp partisan attacks against Republicans for their attempts at deficit reduction and entitlement reform.

    The main job of any executive — whether a CEO, a governor or a President — should be to avert these dangers, or work to repair them. When I took office in Massachusetts, we faced job losses and a fiscal crisis that had the potential to shake the faith of the credit raters in our bonds. We went to work to convince S&P and the other rating agencies that we were committed to reducing spending to balance our budget. I met personally with these officials in my of­fice in Boston, and I traveled to New York City to meet them in their offices. S&P responded in 2005 with a credit rating upgrade that acknowledged the state’s sound fiscal management and the improving strength of its revitalized economy.

    Barack Obama is facing a financial emergency on a grander scale. Yet his approach has been to engage in one of the biggest peacetime spending binges in American history. With its failed stimulus package, its grandiose new social programs, its fervor for more taxes and government regulations, and its hostility toward business, the admin-istration has made the debt problem worse, hindered economic recovery and needlessly cost American workers countless jobs.

    Consider that during the Bush years, the U.S. government’s deficit — the gap between what Washington taxes and spends within a year — hovered between 2 percent and 4 percent of GDP. Already that was a problematic level.

    But in the first year of the Obama administration, the shortfall in our annual spending exploded to 10 percent of GDP — a shocking number — and has risen even higher, to 11 percent of GDP in 2011.

    No less dramatic has been the explosion in our level of debt, the total amount Washington has borrowed to pay for its out-of-control spending. In 2008, our debt was 40 percent of GDP. That was bad enough. But, according to S&P, even under the most optimistic scenario our government’s indebtedness will double to nearly 80 percent of GDP by 2013. Other estimates project that our nation’s debt will equal the entirety of our nation’s economy — 100 percent of GDP — by 2020.

    We are not on a sustainable course. The consequences may come in slow-motion, with reduced growth, chronic high unemployment and a lower standard of living. Or they may come suddenly, in the kind of cascading crises that we just witnessed when the housing-price bubble burst. The only way to avert it is to take action that is rooted in the need to reduce spending.

    The overall picture may be dark, but we should not lose sight of what we are capable of as a country. Our economy is astonishingly flexible. It is highly diversified. We have low inflation. We are the world’s engine of technological innovation. Despite our troubles, the U.S. dollar has preserved its position as the world’s currency of choice.

    Even more significant are the clear signs that the American people have had enough of a federal government that is increasing in size and dominance. We are a great republic in which change is possible. The Obama admin-istration may not be serious about addressing the problems that have caused the S&P downgrade, but in less than two years the voters will tell us whether they will issue a decisive downgrade of their own.

    __

    Mitt Romney, formerly the governor of Massachusetts, is considering a run for President of the United States.

    ————————————————–

    PEACETIME! PEACETIME! PEACETIME! That’s what he wrote, even if he somehow gets the Manchester Union Leader to suppress his own words. I guess that’s the way Big Brother Mitt$ter operates…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Petretich/100002088167892 Pete Petretich

    Mitt$ter over-estimated the second quarter numbers to try to intimidate the small fries, the same small fries that were literally afraid to criticize him in the New Hampshire debate. His entire game plan is to lock up the GOP nomination very early and then to patiently sweep up from coast to coast.

    If his numbers were really over-inflated then he has some serious explaining to do.

    What is his "Plan B"? I doubt that he has one.

    • unseen1

      Plan B is to self  fund.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Petretich/100002088167892 Pete Petretich

        That can’t last. He doesn’t have Rockefeller money.

        He doesn’t even have Hunstsman money for that matter!

        • Right_Wingnut

          Huntsman doesn’t have nearly as much as Mitt, according to his 2009 disclosure ($11 – 74 million).

          His dad is an entirely different story. I’m not sure Huntsman Sr. can fund his son’s campaign. I doubt campaign finance laws would allow it.

          http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/51636588-90/2008-billion-campaign-former.html.csp

          • Right_Wingnut

            "Romney, according to the disclosure filed in his 2008 White House bid, is worth between $190 million and $250 million, and that’s in addition to a fund for his grandchildren valued between $70 million and $100 million."

        • unseen1

          no  but he has  enough to boost his take  at  certain times to avoid the appearance of lack of support.  

  • freeperjim

    When do the 2nd qtr reports become public?

    The "Cash on Hand" amount is the key number – and with the Mittster, one needs to reduce by his own funds donated to "pump up the volume".

    • ellebb

      I think they (PACs)  have until mid or end July to report the 2nd quarter.  I also believe the PACs are different rules than the candidates’ fund raising numbers. (different rules)

      • ellebb

        My other thought is that SarahPAC is waiting until all the candidates have reported their sick numbers… then she may whack them with some amazing number like over $20,mill for SarahPAC right at the time she announces… end of July.

  • JeannieBinVA

    No.

  • section9

    Techno had a point last night about Mitt’s numbers being anemic and the rest of the Dwarves not performing. Cain is packing it in. Bachmann is still out there as our Carlo Rizzi, so there’s that. Pawlenty hasn’t been able to pay his people in IA, but he hasn’t breathed a bad word about Palin, so there may be something going on.

    Unlike Ian, I think Perry will jump in. We’ll see how this shakes out.

    • unseen1

      i think Perry  jumping in would be great for Palin.   Perry  will   take the  ABP   conservative vote from Bachmann  and Mitt  and decrease both of their  standings.    The  trick  is to make  sure its a three person   race

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Norton/100002228997007 John Norton

      Another one Perry that is,Dont forget Perry helped run the campaign for Al Gore…Enough said…

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets