Mitt Romney raises $18.25 million, but Republicans worry it might not be enough

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    July 7, 2011 11:55 p.m.

    "A re-Publican controlled House has done nothing.


    The President can do nothing if the re-Publican controlled House does nothing?"

    America would be in a lot better shape if Obama did nothing. Look what Obama doing "something" has gotten our country into!

    We are safer with Obama doing nothing than doing something.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 7, 2011 11:14 p.m.

    That's OK. The republicans, outside of the utah experience, aren't necessarily supposed to or expected to succeed. All this money poured into scary ads with monochrome unflattering pictures of democrats with voiceovers describing so and so voting for tax increases may be, and should be, for naught. They're bereft of ideas. It's not a crime if whatever romney or any of the rest of them raise isn't enough. Maybe it isn't supposed to be.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    July 7, 2011 10:16 p.m.

    A re-Publican controlled House has done nothing.


    The President can do nothing if the re-Publican controlled House does nothing?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 7, 2011 7:12 p.m.

    Pagan seems incapable of understanding it was DEMOCRAT controlled legislature of MA that makes the and passes the bills,

    The govenor can do nothing if the legislature does nothing.

    Then, as usual, Pagan goes off topic.

    This article seems mostly liberal media fearmongering, and primaries do not even start till next year.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 4:19 p.m.

    Mitt Romney on Job creation:
    From 2003-2007 job growth: 0.9%.
    In rankings with the rest of the country
    MA was 47th in Job creation when Mitt Romney was there.
    - Think Progress Travis Waldron 06/02/11

    Mitt didn't even run for a second term in MA.

    Whereas his Republican party:

    "According to the Pew Economic Policy Group, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts will cost $3.1 trillion over ten years, once the costs of servicing the debt are factored in."

    *'Boehner Praises Tax Cuts Passage; Pledges to Cuts Spending' - ABC News - 12/17/10

    *John Boehner: If GOP Cuts Cause Federal Job Losses....'So Be It' - Huffington Post - 02/15/11

    * 'Senate Republicans - again - kill bill for jobless aid' - By Stephen Ohlemacher - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/30/10

  • Informed Voter South Jordan, UT
    July 7, 2011 3:41 p.m.

    I agree the candidates are a major factor. Can't get excited about Romney. If necessary I will vote for him because Obama would be an absolute disaster for America. Anyone who loves America AND bothers to learn the facts about Obama would learn his policies and the people around him are dedicated to bring down capitalism and individual freedoms. If you cannot see that, you have not investigated him. If you dont care, that is a problem. Last election I donated lots of money to several candidates, but not this time. I am fed up with the game and want to see strong results in cutting spending and a restoration of the values upon which this nation was founded.

  • Cougar Blue N. Las Vegas, NV
    July 7, 2011 2:36 p.m.

    No, the lack of money has everything to do with no good candidates running. Huntsman is the only Republican that might capture my vote, otherwise, it's Obama.

  • We the People Sandy, UT
    July 7, 2011 1:14 p.m.

    Could the lack of fundraising have anything to do with a down economy? Hmm....

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    July 7, 2011 12:51 p.m.

    Corporations don't care if they get a republican or a democrat as long as they are bug business friendly.

    Despite republican claims that Obama is a socialist Obama has been very favorable to big business. The corporate money gap is getting pretty slim. We may see 12 years of corpratist democrats.

  • utesovertide Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:31 p.m.

    If you vote for Ron Paul you won't have to worry about wasting your money. With him as President there wouldn't be any money to spend.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:24 p.m.

    Let's see, barack has neary 500,000 people that are looking for a tax break, exemption from obamacare, the ability to run business in a foreign country etc. The real winners are GE, GM, Louisianna, Nebraska, Nevada, McDonalds and other states, businesses, politicians, that sold their votes to force everyone else into bondage, while getting a get out of jail free card.

    barack can't win with all of the money in the world. He can't even create a job printing Trillion$. The average job that they "created" costs us merely $250,000 per job.

    What would have benefited us more, is to give that money to US citizens that are taxpayers. Divide it up. Let us spend or use it to pay down our own debt or invest it. Instead the great and wise barack, nancy, harry trio decided to save us!

    They tried to blame President George Bush for their failure. They tried to blame the tea party for their failure. They are now trying to blame republicans for their failure. They are also blaming average americans for their failure.

    But he promised to never pass on blame and to move forward....really?!

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:24 p.m.

    I blame it on the plethora of candidates that have no chance. Get them out and it frees up the money.

    Ron Paul has no chance. He is too exentric (the only word I can use that the Dnews will post).

  • Led Zeppelin II Bountiful, UT
    July 7, 2011 11:32 a.m.

    More money wasted on a presidential candadate. That money could have gone to feed an entire 3rd world country. I will vote for the Libertarian that does not have a chance in heck winning. I'm not supporting Republicans or Democrats. I have had enough of both of them. I will vote for freedom and the constitution. Not wasting money on a candadate who will waste money in Washington. I hope Ron Paul can win with support of we the people and not with money from corporations and the easy way to win.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 7, 2011 11:32 a.m.

    Money for campaigns is a necessary "evil" but it doesn't always determine the winner. John McCain could have raised and spent $1 billion in the last presidential election and he still would have lost to Barak Obama. This time Obama has a record that he must defend and if the economy doesn't do a complete turn around very soon it won't matter how much money he raises and spends he will lose the election. His support among the key groups that elected him last time, college students, seniors, independents and even jewish voters has dropped dramatically.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    July 7, 2011 11:27 a.m.

    My my will you look at that, Mitt Romney's new fundraising totals may indeed lead the crop of Republican presidential candidates, but those numbers are nonetheless below expectations and causing concern among RINOs and the Kochs war on the middleclass so called leaders. We all know the Kochs are winding up their annual conference/retreat in Vail, Colorado, where the country's hyper-conservatives including the terrible governors Rick Scott (Fla.) and Rick Perry (Texas) gathered to talk shop and raise bucketloads of money to further their dangerous war agendas against the middleclass and poor plus the elderly and Veteran's. And these agenda's leaves the middle class without a government protector in the face of laissez-faire capitalism. The "Romney consultant" Martin references is Utah-based Don Stirling, the same Don Stirling whose 2006 email sparked a firestorm about perceived ties between Team Romney and the LDS Church. As if we don't know that already, today let's call it, "Romney", the poster boy for DN, the LDS Church's news paper?. Sounds better hey?. More honest sounding?. Who's fooling who here?. We were not born yesterday you know. That's my "not my vote for Romney" views. Like it or not Utah.