Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Mitt Romney's technology driven campaign’

Wow. That's creepy stuff. I guess if it's going on, though, better to be aware of it than not.

Thanks, Sen. Bennett, for another interesting read.

President Obama's going to win a second term, and there's very little the Republicans can do at this point to stop it. They've damaged their brand too badly.

Mr. Bennett's final observation ("A candidate who relies on oratory alone would lose it") signals clearly why Mr. Gingrich simply cannot and if nominated would not prevail over President Obama. Mr. Gingrich neither has devoted the time to set up the "ground game" Mr. Bennet speaks of nor does Mr. Gingrich have the resources available to conduct a technological campaign of this sort. In the final analysis, even at this point in the nomination process, it is clear that none of Mr. Romney's competitors has even the most remote of chances against President Obama.

What Robert Bennett is saying is Obama in 2012. Speak English Bennett. And now some "food for thought" from the PC Thought Police. Many traders nowadays are recruited as university graduates with top marks from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and M.I.T., whereas 30 years ago aspiring youngsters with few, if any, academic qualifications often started as back office clerks and worked their way up to the trading floor. Young London lads blessed with quick wits, common sense and ability to juggle numbers were often prized above those with academic laurels and went on to make fortunes as City traders. "They were the 'barrow boys' coming off the market stalls. It was more working class and with that came the language of the street," who used to work alongside some dealers who also owned fruit and vegetable and flower stalls. Now dealing rooms might be a bit more international and slang is dying off a bit. The Bank of England gained its title from its address, making it the "Old Lady" of Threadneedle Street, while the yen is nicknamed the Bill and Ben after a pair of puppets from a 1950s British children's TV show simply because it rhymes.

Mitt Romney's technology driven campaign. While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives. Romney's family came from England, converted to Mormonism, came to America and quickly turned to plural marriage which led them to an unexpected exile and exodus to Mexico and then just as abruptly, they fled back to the USA to avoid a revolution. Smith's revelation that God authorized polygamy remains in Article 132 of the Church's doctrine and covenants. In addition, Mormon widowers who remarry today believe they will live in eternity with their multiple wives. Mormon genealogical records, among the most detailed and complete of any religion, show that two of Mitt Romney's great-great grandfathers, Miles Romney and Parley Pratt, had 12 wives each. (The polygamy Romney punch line is a familiar one, when it comes to poking fun at Mormons as though Mormons and polygamy are synonymous in mainstream media. Ironically, the practice that's most linked to Mormons, is a practice most Mormons oppose.)

This election season is the first presidential race to feel the influence of Super PACs can receive unlimited money from individuals, corporations and unions. Some of these Super PACs have morphed into powerful outside organizations working solely on electing a presidential candidate of their choosing. While a campaign supporter can only donate $2500 directly to a presidential candidate, he or she can donate unlimited amounts of money to a Super PAC supporting the same candidate. Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not limit political spending by corporations. Let the OWS protests begin harder this day. Honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. the right way. This is a national day of action just before the second anniversary of the infamous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that corporations (as people entitled to the rights of the U.S. Constitution) can spend unregulated and undisclosed sums of money in order to influence elections. [There are] over 80 rallies at federal courthouses around the country, including the Supreme-Court in Washington, D.C., must-be a-better distribution-of-wealth within this-country for-all Gods-children.

Bro Schroeder.

You should look into how much money Obama receives from Unions. The money that he receives from government created entities far far outweighs the money received by other candidates, Romney included, by private businesses and people.

I told yall I'd tell the truths.

I'm going to vote for Obama's technology driven campaign.

Bro Schroeder,

While I appreciate your zeal and enthusiasm, you are incorrect on a couple of accunts concerning campaign finance laws.

First off, individual federal campaign contributions are limited to $5,000 per election cycle, not $2,500. Technically, individuals are allowed to contribute $2,500 toward the primary and $2,500 toward the general, for a total of $5,000. As much as you bemoan that you are limited to giving only "$2,500", I don't think that you are a regular campaign donor, otherwise you would know the correct limits as candidates typically let higher donors know how much they can still give. And, once donors have maxed out their contributions to a campaign, they can then make donations to a candidate's non-allocable account with the state party. If campaign debt exists, that also changes the rules for campaign limits.

Second, please look up exactly how much money different candidates have received from PACs, it might surprise you to learn that Dems collect more money from PACs than Rs.

Third, if money "buys" elections, then why do self-funded candidates typically do so poorly? Money is an indicator of the quality of a candidate, because no one wants to waste their hard earned money on a candidate that will ultimately fail.