Romney donor at fundraiser: "We are VIP!"

[mondale84]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/romney-donors-out-in-force-in-hamptons/

I can't believe this has yet to be discussed. If this isn't made into an attack ad soon, the Obama people are truly incompetent.

[tmthforu94]

I'm sure there are people just like this at the many fundraisers President Obama has had in the past few months.

[Cory]

These are the people who are on the verge of complete and total control of this country if Romney is elected President in November. Mitt Romney is possibly the most insidious major party nominee for some time. He is such an obvious snake I honestly don't see how anyone with an ounce of integrity can support him. 

[Smid]

I am by no means a fan of Romney, but this article is just ridiculous. Romney would be an idiot if he wasn't prepared to take money offered by supporters, and you can't blame the candidate for the supporters they attract - I'm sure there would be one or two drug addicts who'll be backing Obama... by the guilt by association logic, that would mean Obama is supportive of drug abuse.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry, what does this have to do with Mitt Romney?

[Brittain33]

Sorry, what does this have to do with Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney celebrated his candidacy with these VIPs in the Hamptons and invited them to fund his campaign to take America back on their behalf.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So?

[Keystone Phil]

The super wealthy and pretentious obviously never attend Obama fundraisers.

But, yes, this only reinforces the Romney/GOP stereotype.

[old timey villain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/romney-donors-out-in-force-in-hamptons/

I can't believe this has yet to be discussed. If this isn't made into an attack ad soon, the Obama people are truly incompetent.

Holy crap, these people are real and not some stereotype of rich people from a 1980s sitcom???

[WhyteRain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/romney-donors-out-in-force-in-hamptons/

I can't believe this has yet to be discussed. If this isn't made into an attack ad soon, the Obama people are truly incompetent.

Riiiigghht ... Because there's no way the Repubs could find some mega-rich buttheads who support Obama at big dollar fundraisers and make an ad of that.

Don't be slow about sending this great idea to Team Obama.

[Simfan34]

Why? Because it would be hollow when we all know, or all will soon know, Obama's Hollywood supporters and other wealthy backers.

[WhyteRain]

Sorry, what does this have to do with Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney celebrated his candidacy with these VIPs in the Hamptons and invited them to fund his campaign to take America back on their behalf.

Is it a bitch when the truth is the opposite of what you believe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I learned in my 20s that the rich are far more important contributors to the Dems than to the Repubs.  Time to for the news to catch up with the rest of you.

Btw, ditto for corporations.

The Dems have been the party most beholden to the deep pockets of the super-wealthy and big corporations for about ... well, at least since the 1970s.  That's when I first got my look at the books and I know it's only gotten worse since then.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Sorry, what does this have to do with Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney celebrated his candidacy with these VIPs in the Hamptons and invited them to fund his campaign to take America back on their behalf.

Is it a bitch when the truth is the opposite of what you believe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I learned in my 20s that the rich are far more important contributors to the Dems than to the Repubs.  Time to for the news to catch up with the rest of you.

Btw, ditto for corporations.

The Dems have been the party most beholden to the deep pockets of the super-wealthy and big corporations for about ... well, at least since the 1970s.  That's when I first got my look at the books and I know it's only gotten worse since then.

Yes, because the rich are giving the Democrats such a huge fundraising advantage.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Thus far, Obama and his supporters have worked very hard to turn this campaign into an ongoing personal attack on Mitt Romney, his wealth, and his past employment.

Funny how it was said that the GOP didn't seem to have anything going besides "We're not Obama". And we know how this type of campaign worked out for John Kerry.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I just find threads like these funny. When Obama was raking in the big bucks 4 years ago, everyone was thrilled and said just look at how Obama is sticking up for the little guy, and poor, old ladies who don't have any money are giving him their last dollars so he will be their savior.

Four years later, when Romney is bringing in the big money, everyone shouts bloody murder and claims to their disgust that he's going to buy the white house! The horror! But of course these detractors were silent 4 years ago when Obama spent 3 times the money that McCain did.

When will people around here accept that politics is driven by big money on BOTH sides of the isle? I'm glad Romney is competing with Obama this time. I don't want to see Barack have a $500 million advantage over him come November. That makes for a boring election. The special interests and corporations will have their say on both sides. Don't try to let your political leanings convince you otherwise.

[Beet]

That's true but the left at least calls for some restraint on the role of money in politics. The Republicans (McCain was an honorable exception) want to throw the gates as wide as possible for unlimited contributions, secret contributions, foreign contributions. If it was up to progressive Democrats, there would be much stricter limits on how much money could be poured into political campaigns, particularly by large and influential donors. The more politics is driven by money, the more politicians are dependent on special interests and corporations. Both sides play in the system, but at least one side occasionally fights the system (not nearly as hard as I'd like).

[Brittain33]

Sorry, what does this have to do with Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney celebrated his candidacy with these VIPs in the Hamptons and invited them to fund his campaign to take America back on their behalf.

Is it a bitch when the truth is the opposite of what you believe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I learned in my 20s that the rich are far more important contributors to the Dems than to the Repubs.  Time to for the news to catch up with the rest of you.

Btw, ditto for corporations.

The Dems have been the party most beholden to the deep pockets of the super-wealthy and big corporations for about ... well, at least since the 1970s.  That's when I first got my look at the books and I know it's only gotten worse since then.

The millionaires and billionaires funding Romney's campaign and lining up at the VIP entrance don't have the Hamptons as their main address, by and large. They would report according to their first homes.

How on earth is "the truth the opposite of what I believe"? Do you think this report about a Hamptons fundraiser for Romney was faked? Or what about the fact that the money was donated this past week and that anti-Obama donors, until the last few months, split their money up among many candidates?

[WhyteRain]

Sorry, what does this have to do with Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney celebrated his candidacy with these VIPs in the Hamptons and invited them to fund his campaign to take America back on their behalf.

Is it a bitch when the truth is the opposite of what you believe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I learned in my 20s that the rich are far more important contributors to the Dems than to the Repubs.  Time to for the news to catch up with the rest of you.

Btw, ditto for corporations.

The Dems have been the party most beholden to the deep pockets of the super-wealthy and big corporations for about ... well, at least since the 1970s.  That's when I first got my look at the books and I know it's only gotten worse since then.

Yes, because the rich are giving the Democrats such a huge fundraising advantage.

The fundraising advantage that the GOP has over the Dems is a large and generous middle-class base.  The Democrats are usually able to counter with massive contributions from a few rich people, corporations, unions, and PAC-type operations.  Check out ... what's the name of that site ... opensecrets.org or .com or something?

[WhyteRain]

That's true but the left at least calls for some restraint on the role of money in politics. The Republicans (McCain was an honorable exception) want to throw the gates as wide as possible for unlimited contributions, secret contributions, foreign contributions. If it was up to progressive Democrats, there would be much stricter limits on how much money could be poured into political campaigns, particularly by large and influential donors. The more politics is driven by money, the more politicians are dependent on special interests and corporations. Both sides play in the system, but at least one side occasionally fights the system (not nearly as hard as I'd like).

You'll never get money out of politics until you get politics out of money.

I've always been a big fan of the corporate income tax, because it's the closest thing we have to a national sales tax and thus the only way to force many low-income people to cough up some taxes.  So when Sarah Palin in a speech some months ago proposed abolishing the CIT, I was aghast ... until I read her rationale.  Her rationale is that corporate taxation is one of the biggest drivers of corporate lobbying in D.C. and that abolishing the CIT would eliminate a lot of the reason that corporations are driven to lobby (and bribe) in D.C.

I can't say I entirely agree, but it's an interesting take.

Jeez, I went looking for a link for Palin's speech on this.  I found lots of commentary (pro and con) on it, but not the speech itself.  I'm sure it's out there.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

That's true but the left at least calls for some restraint on the role of money in politics. The Republicans (McCain was an honorable exception) want to throw the gates as wide as possible for unlimited contributions, secret contributions, foreign contributions. If it was up to progressive Democrats, there would be much stricter limits on how much money could be poured into political campaigns, particularly by large and influential donors. The more politics is driven by money, the more politicians are dependent on special interests and corporations. Both sides play in the system, but at least one side occasionally fights the system (not nearly as hard as I'd like).

No one was calling for  such reforms on the left last time when Obama opted to not take public funds.

Like you and many other Americans I expect, I would like to see some restrictions placed on funds where both sides are on equal footing, but we all know that is a pipe dream. Money has always controlled politics and will continue to do so as neither side really has a vested interest in biting the hand that feeds them.

I guess my whole gripe about this thread is its partisan hackery, but I forget I am on the Atlas forum.