I keep mentioning why the presidential election is over, and why Romney is going to win it. The monies being spent on his behalf by the SuperPACs is where it starts and ends.
Well, take a look for yourself:
$213 million and counting in October. About four times as much as they had spent in August.
Among those spending the most:
1) American Crossroads, $23.35 million, mostly in support of Romney and in opposition to Obama and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).
2) Crossroads GPS, $16.87 million, mostly in opposition to Obama, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Democratic Senate candidates Tim Kaine (Va.), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Rep. Shelley Berkley (Nev.) and Rep. Joe Donnelly (Ind.).
3) Restore Our Future, $10.16 million, all in opposition to Obama.
4) Priorities USA Action, $8.26 million, all in opposition to Romney.
5) Service Employees International Union committees, $8.23 million, mostly in support of Obama, Berkley, Kaine and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and against various Republican candidates, including Senate candidate George Allen (Va.) and Reps. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) and Daniel Webster (R-Fla.).
6) House Majority PAC, $6.78 million, all in opposition to numerous Republican House candidates, most notably Reps. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Allen West (R-Fla.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), candidate Martha McSally (Ariz.) and Webster.
Pro-Romney groups are spending twice as much as the pro-Obama groups, and this is just the middle of October. As the spending explodes in the remaining days, look out for the lopsidedness to exceed 6:1 or more.
The disgusting part in this is how our media has chosen to ignore this dirt-cheap purchase of power. After the elections, when people are combing through the rubble of Obama's defeat, the media will play its hand again, and declare that Romney's debate performances were miraculous game-changers.
They were, not because we learnt anything new during them, but because that's when the SuperPACs went all in. Clever move, if you think about it. People will be believing that Romney's debating style won him the day, and money had nothing to do with it.
Are you really going to believe that Romney highlighted something in the debates that we did not already know? Or that Obama was leading earlier on so handily because people loved his policies, and lost only because Romney "exposed" them in 90 minutes when FOX "News" had been doing that and then some for four years?