Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has topped $1 million in contributions in Arizona, the home state of presidential rival John McCain, Romney campaign officials said Wednesday.
Sen. McCain's campaign spokesman Danny Diaz dismissed the announcement by the Romney campaign, saying McCain has raised more than twice that amount in Arizona.
"We've also done well raising money in Massachusetts," Diaz said. "Senator McCain has been elected and re-elected in Arizona time and time again."
Romney is expected to add another $175,000 after speaking to 250 supporters at a fundraiser Wednesday night in Gilbert, a rapidly growing town east of Phoenix.
Romney called McCain a "terrific senator and American hero" but he differed with McCain on a number of key issues.
I'm not positive what Team McCain's response will be, but I suspect outperforming fundraising expectations would be a good start. I actually think that McCain will meet his $10 million goal, and is lowering expectations to make hitting this number a larger victory.
16 comments:
Just curious, Framer, if you think Romney can win the general. I think Rudy is the stronger candidate, and, with all due respect to those McCain supporters as well as the elderly, it is too big a bite too late.
If he really wants to stay active, he should remain a good senator and support legislation he endorses.
I don't think McCain can win the primary. No way he can win the general, even against Hillary.
The folks I like, unfortunately are not running.
You've seen what I've posted about Mormonism. This is a bigger deal than being Catholic.
Have you gone to any of the local Mitt events? (I have not.)
X4mr,
Its all about match ups. It will take a clear miracle for Hillary not to be the eventual nominee on the Democratic side. I believe that Gulinani, Romney, and F. Thompson all stand at least an even shot against Hillary Clinton.
What makes Mitt special, and what has carried him this far is his ability to think in a third dimension, beyond tomorrow or next week and have it dovetail perfectly with what he is doing now. It's like a Fisher-Kasparov chess match, where winning is determined and recognized 20 moves in advance.
The fact that is is almost unknown, he is a Mormon, but most damning of all, he is a Yankee, speak volumes about what he has done to get to this point. Have you seen any fawning coverage of Romney like the other candidates get? Romney earns every inch, and he adapts, evolves and gets stronger with each challenge.
I would bet that he has notebooks filled with goals upon micro targeted goals. I would also bet that he has fund raising goals laid out for every LD for every state, and has triggers and at least three fall back plans for each major decision made. That is important when at times it appears that Rudy, Thompson, and especially McCain appear to be "winging it."
To win, even the primary, Romney needs to play almost a perfect game . Should he be able to dispatch the rest of the Republican field, he will have grown formidable enough to take on a Democrat.
Every candidate has their strengths . Romney's analytical skill as a strength is something that it rather rare at this level, and definitely makes him interesting to watch. Should he win it all, a whole lot of campaign textbooks will need to be rewritten, and a whole generation of political advisers will need replaced.
If Romney wins, it will change politics forever, much as would have taken place with a Dean win four years ago. It certainly makes things fun to watch.
Religious beliefs are not really a factor that should take precedence over a person's ability to guide this beloved America with what is best for the most.
I did attend event in Gilbert to experience and see "up close and personal" Mitt Romney. What you see is what you get...it is clear there is no hidden agenda..."THIS is who I am"!!
Framer,
Good comment and can't disagree with a thing you wrote. Thanks. Your insight into his tactics is deeper than mine. I'm still in denial about Hillary, but you are probably right. She is going to get it.
Damn.
Romel,
I am not so much concerned with an individual's religious convictions as I am with their position regarding the imposition of it on others. Romney can pray to pink cheese on Pluto, for all I care, but what aspects of his Mormonism will bleed into his politics?
In 1960, Kennedy (I believe) promised and delivered that his Catholicism was not a factor in his presidency. I don't think it was.
Will Mitt appoint Mormons to various positions of influence? Will he continue Bush's push towards theocracy with faith based funding initiatives? Will he continue to use creationist concepts to deny funding for scientific research? People will be all over this like white on rice. The backlash is already loading its weapons, and I am not talking about democrats.
I agree with you, Framer, that if he pulls off the whole enchilada, we need to toss out the old and craft the new.
For what it's worth, I find a Hillary presidency equally frightening, although I am not entirely sure what I fear. I just don't like it. Who would be her VP?
Mark Warner would be the correct answer as to her VP Pick. I called that months ago, when he announced he was not running.
The sad part is that I would take a Hillary presidency over a John Edwards Presidency. Edwards is just a bad person )I'll have a little more on that later.) At least with Hillary, we have an idea who the players involved would be, and Warner is a plus.
She's the Devil I know. . .
I think things are shaping up for Hillary too.
Re. Romney, I think he has done very well so far, but I also agree he needs to be near-perfect to garner the Republican convention. However, I certainly DO think he's had his share of "fawning" from the media.
One example:
"Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man’s shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of — a little bit of cigar smoke?" -- Chris Matthews
Another:
"He looks great, sounds great, smells great." -- Alina Cho (CNN)
Another:
"There is something a little too good to be true about Mitt Romney. The former governor of Massachusetts and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is so buff and handsome in late middle age that when a brochure from a recent campaign showed him standing, bare-chested, on a swimming float, he was accused of sexually pandering to women voters." -- Newsweek
And another:
"MATTHEWS: What do you think of him as an opponent? We're looking at him right now. He has the perfect chin, the perfect hair, he looks right. He looks like a Mountie. He looks like from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Can that guy capture the hearts of the American people?" --Matthews again
... and so on.
So Mitt needs to market his own brand of cologne? I'd certainly buy the hair gel.
And certainly, he is going to get his props for LOOKING Presidential, because he does. Now imagine if Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama had turned around the SLC Olympics, would we hear about anything else? Romney gets scrutinized heavily on shortcomings, but receives very little attention from the media on his achievements, which are considerable. Talking about his hair minimizes him.
Framer,
Are you a Steve Earle fan?
"Talking about his hair minimizes him."
You mean in the same way talking about Edwards' hair minimizes him?
In the coming few weeks, Edwards is going to wish everyone was talking about his hair.
LMAO.
Let's just review the past few presidencies:
- George I proved that a president can be completely devoid of compassion and disconnected from the citizenry.
- Bill Clinton showed us that indiscreet promiscuity is not a problem for a world leader because your sex life really is your own business.
- George II has shown that intelligence is optional and that a president can just "tell a lie when the truth sounds better" as we used to say in the south.
- President Cheney has proved that pure, unadulterated evil is absolutely not a problem in the executive office.
What can John Edwards possibly add to the mix? I have an idea, but I'm just going to wait and see.
Interesting stuff.
First, Romel, what you see is what you get with Romney? That is hilarious given the fact that he has confused even himself with all of his position changes. I also still can't wait to see how the other candidates start blistering him on his "liberal" record in Massachussetts. We shall see.
Some interesting tidbits on money. Some early leaks (could be political...grin) are starting to essentially say that Giuliani and Romney are set to match their fundraising totals, McCain may not even get as much as last time, and the newbie Thompson might have raised $5 Million. On Thompson, even though that is impressive in one month, how can he survive being what will be $45 Million behind and behind in organization?
On the left, Hillary and Obama are said to have raised as much or more than last time. Putting Edwards in massive trouble...along with everyone else. This is actually further bad news for Hillary if true.
Look at the numbers. In the primary it will be those for Hillary and those who are not. Based on the belief that she isn't fresh enough, liberal enough, and can't win.
Right now, Edwards and Obama split the "those who are nots" vote. As long as Edwards and Obama are in the race, Hillary gets her percentage and wins primaries. As soon as one is out, there is a massive vote total of anti-Hillary/Pro-Changers that can win primaries.
She needs Edwards and Obama around as long as possible. If one is looking weak, I would also not discount a late entry Gore.
Don't you tire of labels?
"Conservative" "Liberal" Does anyone ever try Webster's for the correct definition??
How about "COMMON SENSE"? So many of the posturing, scowling, angry Wannabees never seem think of that focus as a viable stance of leadership! (Of course that should include many bloggers as well)!
Well, Framer, you won't admit to being a Steve Earle fan, but I caught that line from "Angel is the Devil."
There's been a great deal of speculation lately about McCain possibly ending his campaign if his numbers and fund-raising don't show improvement by Sept. Does this affect your thoughts that McCain might be "sand-bagging" regarding his lowering of fund-raising expectations for the quarter?
I would be very, very surprised if McCain didn't end up northwards of 10 million. If he hits about 8 or less, I cannot see where the money will come from for September reporting. He needs a victory, and if he has to expend every bit of capitol he has to hit, say, $12 million. He needs to make that happen. $12 keeps him firmly in the game. $14 fuels a resurgence.
Post a Comment