Mitt Romney doesn’t want to be president of the United States, he wants to be CEO of the United Corporations of America. Hence, he’s surrounded himself with “special,” nameless people with deep pockets and no identity.
Well, that all changes this week because of a lead AP story that was just posted on USAToday of all places. Check this out:
“More than a month after becoming his party's presumptive presidential nominee, Republican Mitt Romney has not publicly identified most of the fundraisers helping him collect the millions of dollars he needs to win the White House, even as he promises them special access perks.
Mitt Romney is bucking the practice of other GOP candidates and not naming bundlers of large amounts of campaign money.
Romney is not required by law to disclose the identities of his fundraisers with the exception of those who work as federal lobbyists. Releasing the names of bundlers, however, has been standard in presidential campaigns for more than a decade.”
Okay, nothing to see here; he doesn’t want you to know which sleazy CEOs are bankrolling his failed presidential aspiration---no big deal.
Well, just like Anthony Weiner, the cover-up is always worse than the crime. So in our group-think lazy media, I’m expecting him and his surrogates to be swarmed by the paparazzi-like political scrum. Helicopters need to be flying over with grainy live camera feeds—reporting his every movement in a soothing musky voice:
Mitt, who are your bundlers?
And then, every cable TV channel parades out hundreds of experts; weeks of analysis that forces Romney to make a speech — sorta like Obama did when he had to defend some other something—someone else said a some other time. Or that other time when he had to have a beer summit or the time when Hilliary Rosen had to apologize for telling the truth.
And then Rachel could diagram a chart with these facts from the article:
1. "Republican George W. Bush established the pattern in the 2000 election, revealing the names of fundraisers who collected at least $100,000. He repeated the practice in 2004."
2. "Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee four years ago, had disclosed his fundraisers by this point in the 2008 campaign, releasing a list of 106 bundlers on April 18 of that year."
3. "President Obama has released his fundraiser list every three months during this campaign. His most recent disclosure, in mid-April, identified more than 530 individuals and couples who have raised at least $106 million. He reports their fundraising in broad ranges only."
But it won’t happen.
Nope!!
Romney told the USAToday to kiss-off--which might be why this is their lead story. lol
Why can't dems make big scandals out of little stuff?
Because Cory Booker will trot his big-head to the cameras to say it doesn’t matter. Harold Ford will also explain it away while Billo, the “Keeper-of-America’s-Moral Compass” will also swat it down. Kos will write two articles about it and so will Thinkpro and a few others but this once-promising scandal will die on the vine.
Progressives, sometimes we suck at hard-ball politics.
We’re too pure, too sane and politically righteous. We need to learn the lessons from Weiner who got hounded and fired by Brietbart for sending a picture. We need to learn how the right absolutely silenced so many of our warriors for doing the same things they always do.
Am I asking us to become muckrakers?
Um, yup…during this election season.
I want to see a big ole count-down clock on Big Ed tonight with “who’s your donors” scrolling across the bottom. I want to see us asking about this so much until when you Google Romney “who’s your donors” will pop up.
And when he’s forced to finally relent, I want to see research on every bundlers with accusations of secrecy, improprieties, pay-to-play, pay-for-access and all the other stuff we know he’s probably doing.
So is this story really a scandal?
It can be if progressives decide it to be.
Hey Mitt?
Who are your bundlers?
Read More
