I Don't Care Too Much for Money, Money Can't Buy My Vote

[AttackPlanR]

...Tuesday night was a rough one for Karl Rove. The GOP guru is the guiding light and chief fundraiser for the biggest outside spender: the twin groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS.Rove and other fundraisers had coaxed checks as large as $10 million out of their donors. The Crossroads operation had spent nearly $300 million against President Obama and other Democrats. Now, the White House race was slipping away, and Democrats were actually picking up Senate seats...

....Obama carried Ohio, despite a huge investment by both Crossroads groups. As if that weren't enough, Rove became a punch line for newly elected Sen. Angus King of Maine. King, an independent who had been attacked by Crossroads, began his victory speech by saying one person deserved special praise and thanks.

"He helped bring the volunteers to their feet, tremendous boost to our fundraising, and I really don't think we could have achieved what we achieved tonight without him," he said. "I refer, of course, to Karl Rove."....

Link

Of course fools and their money are soon parted, and it was a relief to see that $10 million does not = 1 million votes. Personally I think that this kind of national public disgrace could not have happened to a more self-centered, party-not-country, nice guy.

[ms maggie]

Karl Rove drank the KoolAid, you could see it on Fox election night. Kinda weird because despite being a dreadful person, Rive was a brilliant strategist. Have to wonder if on some level he knew he was going down.

[ODENTON]

Karl Rove drank the KoolAid, you could see it on Fox election night. Kinda weird because despite being a dreadful person, Rive was a brilliant strategist. Have to wonder if on some level he knew he was going down.

Oh he knew, but he was in too deep and had to keep a poker face. I think they knew early on the race was over.

[Jeebus]

So you're OK with all the money (billions" spent on Dem candidates, as that money was not "wasted, it was...ahem..."well spent"?

Seems to me that you're a giant hypocrite, having a problem with one side spending money in a (losing) attempt to "buy" an election, but you have no issues with "the other side" (Democrats) spending just as much and actually succeeding in buying the election?

[SemiAuto]

How much did Obama spend?

[ms maggie]

How much did Obama spend?

The Obama campaign (meaning controlled by Obama as opposed to "independent" SuperPACs like the one Rove ran) spent $852Million; Romney $752MM.

SuperPACs: Obama $86MM, Romney $416MM. (Note these totals I did by eyeballing the chart, so could be slightly off)

Total: O $938MM, R $1,168MM.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/ca...ditures/totals

[can you hear me now!]

you have to count all the money, not just what the campaigns raised....

the fact that the pubbies didn't win is heartening in one respect-- people with money haven't quite bought the political system just yet, just ask Rove, McMahon and Whitman...hopefully when Obama fills the upcoming Supreme Court slots, he'll appoint justicies that understand we the people does not include corporations...

it is time to institute real campaign reform....

[SemiAuto]

you have to count all the money, not just what the campaigns raised....

the fact that the pubbies didn't win is heartening in one respect-- people with money haven't quite bought the political system just yet, just ask Rove, McMahon and Whitman...hopefully when Obama fills the upcoming Supreme Court slots, he'll appoint justicies that understand we the people does not include corporations...

it is time to institute real campaign reform....

But corporations do include we the people.

Is it somehow heartening that Obama, who also spent big money, won?

Or is the real problem not what people spend to win office but what they spend after they are elected to office? The latter is the far bigger problem.

[can you hear me now!]

But corporations do include we the people.

Is it somehow heartening that Obama, who also spent big money, won?

Or is the real problem not what people spend to win office but what they spend after they are elected to office? The latter is the far bigger problem.

yes corporations are made up of we the people who can vote..corporations are inanimate objects...people vote...inanimate objects don't...is that concrete enough for ya? want to one step further, we the people who belong to an inanimate corporation, are not all from the same part of the political spectrum...giving inanimate objects the ability to prop up only one side means the inanimate object is not speaking for me, but has more access and power...got is figured out yet?

the issue is allowing inanimate objects to buy influence is what leads to the spending problem..of course you'll deny that because you won't accept the fact that inanimate objects enjoy for more because they can purchase the rule makers....got it yet?

like I said, campaign reform is the answer, but apparently you can't quite deal with an apolitical solution because you haven't removed your partisan glasses yet....you are one of those "we the people types" as long as YOU get what you want....

[dsummoner]

Corporate persons are legitimate people.

[ms maggie]

Corporate persons are legitimate people.

And so can't be aborted....guess that means any startup has to be guaranteed financial backing....

[cprenegade]

It's funny how people have a real problem with evil corporations being allowed to spend their own profits in support of one candidate or the other, but have no problem when taxpayer dollars are spent in support of those evil corporations to bail them out of their own gross mismanagement of their businesses. If you want to take corporate money out of the election process, no problem. Also take government corporate welfare to those corporations out of the equation as well. Let them sink or swim on their own horrible decisions. Saying any non-government entity is "too big to fail" only invites those who know they are on that list to recklessly mismanage their business affairs knowing that they have the government to provide a safety net to them at taxpayer expense.

[cprenegade]

And so can't be aborted....guess that means any startup has to be guaranteed financial backing....

GM and Chrysler obviously enjoyed that privelege!

[ms maggie]

GM and Chrysler obviously enjoyed that privelege!

GM and Chryslers are start-ups.....ok. So where'd you get yr MBA?

[dsummoner]

And so can't be aborted....guess that means any startup has to be guaranteed financial backing....

Of course they can be aborted... unless... they have a tie in with government... such as Government Motors, Chrysler and the investment banks. In the case of the first two it was a matter of the deliberate bailout of the UAW and the vindictive screwing over of debt holders and in the case of the last... the bailouts never did stop, are continuing at this very moment and will continue into perpetuity.

[ms maggie]

Of course they can be aborted... unless... they have a tie in with government... such as Government Motors, Chrysler and the investment banks. In the case of the first two it was a matter of the deliberate bailout of the UAW and the vindictive screwing over of debt holders and in the case of the last... the bailouts never did stop, are continuing at this very moment and will continue into perpetuity.

Sorry, if they are people, no abortion allowed in wingnut land, no way no how.

[dsummoner]

Sorry, if they are people, no abortion allowed in wingnut land, no way no how.

One is pro-abortion, especially of the postpartum variety (it is for the Earth and Dr. Holdren would agree).

[dsummoner]

The use of the term abortion does raise an interesting issue when applied to corporate persons that happen to have a life cycle akin to that of Acherontia atropos. What would be the most apt usage of the term 'abortion' in regards to the quadriphasic life cycle of such persons? Is the phase of economic fascism the 'adult' condition?

[ms maggie]

The use of the term abortion does raise an interesting issue when applied to corporate persons that happen to have a life cycle akin to that of Acherontia atropos. What would be the most apt usage of the term 'abortion' in regards to the quadriphasic life cycle of such persons? Is the phase of economic fascism the 'adult' condition?

In a specific corporation, the models now say the "adult" phase is impermanent. Meaning maintaining share, maintaining status quo, is not sustainable. Grow, cash out, partner, enter new markets--you get the drill. So the Corp recycles back to a pre-adult stage or commits suicide in a sense. Or maybe becomes an organ donor in some.... oh this is silly.

[BlandFood]

How much did Obama spend?

AF1 is being traded in as a high time vehicle.