Why would Mitt Romney end up donating something like $42,000 to a candidate for governor in South Carolina. Well, first, Gresham Barrett endorsed Fred Thompson in 2008. This is NOT about putting the BEST person into office, it is about Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin manipulating the primaries to get the person THEY think will deliver SC’s extremely important POTUS primary vote in 2012.
Nah, it isn’t about tea parties, patriotism, or even who’s on first. It is about 2012, and the battle to get the nod from the Governor of SC to promote their Presidential ambitions.
“…“I think the 49 1/2 -percent figure that Nikki Haley garnered is a pretty clear indication that the people of South Carolina want to focus on the key issues,” said Romney, appearing with Haley at the College of Charleston Friday, a few feet from a marble plaque celebrating the education of the “sons and daughters” of Africa. He continued: “The distractions are not distractions anymore.”
If true, that could be good news for Romney should he run for president again; his Mormon faith was described as a liability in South Carolina in 2008. The state’s prominence in presidential primary politics — it is among the four “early” states on the calendar in 2012 — means the results here can have lasting effects. Romney placed fourth in South Carolina in 2008, behind McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson….”
SC could be the most pivotal of all primary states. The endorsement of the state’s governor is a big fat hairy deal. We all know Gresham probably won’t endorse either Palin or Romney. Ergo – they gotta go with Haley, shampoo and all.
What are all these endorsements about other than political brownie points?
It is manipulative, dirty pool, cold ambition, and please, do not mistake it for patriotism. It is about WINNING in 2012 – getting the nomination.
You think I would even think of voting or supporting either one of these two in the primaries? My heart breaks telling you I will not support Sarah Palin in the primaries. I feel like she has betrayed all she once stood for – simply for political expediency and personal ambition – and money.
Too bad all politicians aren’t as honorable as Lindsey Graham!
Are Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin manipulating the local primary process in a number of states for personal political ambition. (of course they are) After Romney just donated Nikki Haley $42,000 – count it - Forty – Two Thousand Dollars – to make up for the fact that people in South Carolina ARE NOT donating to her campaign, The Pink Flamingo began to wonder about a few things.
“…Political action committees are typically capped at giving $3,500 per cycle, but lawyers “discovered that multiple PACs sharing the same leadership and office space are able to contribute $3,500 each per cycle in South Carolina… With one federal PAC and five statewide PACs each maxing out at $3,500 for Haley in both the GOP primary and general elections, Romney has contributed a total of $42,000.”…”
We all know FOX News is manipulating the whole tea party thing for ratings, and Glenn Beck is using it for money and power. What is to stop previously honorable (with the exception of Ron Paul) Republicans from doing the same thing – it’s the power stupid.
One way to judge how people within a state feel about a candidate is just who is donating money. Is it coming from within the state, district, or county or from outside interests? Who is complaining about an elected official – people who live can actually vote for that person, or people who should have no say in what that official does because they are NOT constituents of said elected official? The Pink Flamingo made the same comments during the NY-23 disaster. I am making them again.
People like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Jim DeMint, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, etc. should stay the H – E – DOUBLE TOOTHPICK out of localized and primary elections. I don’t care what candidate they are endorsing, it is cheating. It is manipulating. It is a most egregious violation of the Prime Directive.
I think the GOP should have their own version of the Prime Directive. If “national” figures – i.e. political celebrities - interfere with localized primaries, they should face sanctions. They should be castigated. They should be shamed for what they have done. It is wrong for people to interfere and manipulate to promote an agenda that may not be the same as people who live within a sphere of influence.
It is almost immoral.
It is going to seriously cost the GOP, badly. The worst of it is the outsiders have a tendency to make vanity endorsements. They do not appear to be looking beyond the hype. It is almost an ego thing. I’ll endorse you then you endorse me when I need your help. There’s nothing wrong with this – for general elections, but not for local primaries.
It is egotistical manipulation.
It is arrogance, as though someone who has never really stepped foot in a state, district, or region has the gall to think that THEY know better than the people who live there on a day in and a day out basis.
The same holds true for people who have a tendency to donate to promote primary candidates, even if they do not live in a state. There is something cheesy, arrogant, manipulative, and it is almost like thumbing your nose at people who will actually be voting for a person. YOU know MORE than THEY do. Because you are superior and a pay more attention to YOUR issues, you should be allowed not only to vote in your own area and state, but should have a say in how people clear across the country are governed.
The great irony here is that libertarians and the far right are the ones who are the most abusive when it comes to out of area donations, letters to the editor, and campaign manipulation. They complain about “Big Government”, liberals, and lament the loss of localized power, but are the very first to step in to manipulate a candidate or an issue for their own agenda. It makes a mockery of what they say they believe, proving otherwise.
When a localized candidate’s donations are greater than their “nationalized” opponent, and they are receiving far more donations from within rather than outside of their region, state, or district, does that not say something? If this is the case, should people not step back and look at the actual will of the people – actually listen to WE THE PEOPLE, instead of serving a little tea to WE THE PEOPLE and telling them how to vote?
Maybe people who live with this person know something our friendly egotistical national political celeb doesn’t know?
Let’s be honest here, the worst violators of this are the Ron Paul Bots, libertarians, John Birchers, anti-immigration manipulators, and the Tea Party “Patriots”. Theirs is such an arrogance, such a patronizing paternalistic “we know better” attitude. It is an attitude that says we really don’t give a damn about you, only OUR agenda. You are unimportant. You are stupid and need to be told why you should not vote for a person who truly represents your state or district and should vote for some pontificating grand-standers who uses all the right words. They know the right people, and donate to the right causes.
The Tea Party “patriots” are all about, allegedly, “we the people”, returning government to the people. It is too bad they can’t practice what they preach and stay the heck out of primary elections where they don’t belong. Political celebs like Sarah Palin (who I once supported) should realize that they are causing more problems than they are solving by stepping in where they do not belong.
Let’s put it this way – it is not fair. It is almost like our political celeb are cheating in order to sell books and salve their egos. There is nothing wrong with endorsing a candidate in an general election or raising money for them. It is the primary manipulation that is just plain wrong.