Jump to content

Romney Drops Out of Race


Steve

Recommended Posts

"she said she loaned her campaign $5 million last month."

 

Money made from their books maybe? If I remember right they were not well off before Bill won the presidency.

 

Well she sure is a good investor...as i recall while Bill was Governor, Hillary invested $1,000 (which was loaned to her) and made $1,000,000 off if it. I think this came to light during the Ken Starr/Whitewater investigation.

 

No wonder the economy had a surplus during the clinton regime...smart investors!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep...very creative...rent out the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House at $5000/night, for instance. Over 8 years, some pretty decent beer money, no?

 

BTW, saw some clips of the Hill tonight taken 10-15 years ago. My, oh, my, did she have a nice homely southern accent or what? Funny how she picked that back up again when she campaigned in South Carolina 55555555555555 What a cunt!

 

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMAHA, NE -- Barack Obama called Mitt Romney's candidacy "ineffective" on the day that the former MA governor exited the presidential race.

 

Romney, who dropped out of the race for president today in Washington, said in his exit speech that the GOP must unify and not allow Democrats to allow the country to "surrender to terror."

 

"Well my reaction to Mitt Romney's comment that's the kind of poorly thought out comment that lead him to drop out," Obama said during a press avail on his campaign plane. "It's a classic attempt to appeal to people's fears that will not work in this campaign. I think that's part of the reason he was such an ineffective candidate."

 

And the day after rival Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million, Obama also stressed that he had disclosed his income tax returns.

 

"I'll just say that I've released my tax returns," he said. "That's been a policy I've maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know, you know, where you get your income from," he said, adding that his campaign had "set the bar on transparency and disclosure."

 

Obama said that unlike Clinton he didn't have enough personal funds to loan his campaign that much money. On what it meant that Clinton had to borrow funds from her husband, former President Bill Clinton, he said little, saying it's a legal issue but he didn't want to get into the "intricacies" of it.

 

He added that Clinton's money woes reflected her inability to generate the same kind of "grassroots enthusiasm" that the Obama campaign.

 

"You know it's not for lack of trying and she's got a former president actively fundraising for her as well as people like Terry McAuliffe, but you know what we've done is we've created this base where people are sending $25 checks and $50 check on an ongoing basis and that is an enormous advantage to our campaign," he said.

 

He added that the success of his online fundraising had allowed him to limit the number of fundraisers he was holding and focus more on door to door campaigning, citing that $27M of the $32M his campaign had raised in January came from online donors.

 

Reflecting a change in fundraising strategy he added, "At this point in January we had 4 or 5 fundraisers I think. And most of the money that we're raising now is coming online from people who are strong supporters of us."

 

Link

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

am i the only person here who finds all of these 400 threads about the US elections boring?.

i know it's of interest to many Americans but all the threads seem the same.

 

i for one don't give a flying fuck who wins which nomination as they will rule the UK anyway.

the UK Government will lie on their backs and let their tummies be rubbed in order to be called a 'friend' of the US.

 

but i don't understand why all this crap is going on.

why travel the Country for Months and spending millions of $ of your own money canvessing for votes?.

and then the Americans are expected to vote for a 2nd time to decide who becomes boss.

 

not that the system is any better in the UK.

the populous do not vote for leader,that is done within the party itself.

so the populous has no choice who leads the respective parties.

 

Gordon Brown is Prime Minister but never elected into the office and i disagree with that.

when Blair stood down i think that an election should have been held so that the populous could decide who became boss.

 

personally i have no interest in politics or the people concerned as they are liars and have no idea how the general population live and feel.

i don't vote and have no intention of doing so unless they actually live in the Ward they want to represent.

 

at the last UK election we had 6 MP's looking for votes and the nearest one to me was 60 Minutes drive away.

none lived anywhere near me and i don't see how they could represent me.

if they want my vote then they should be available for me to talk to them about any issues i have.

my local MP has not shown his face in his Ward since his election......bad show i say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...