Overplaying the Bigotry Card
Romney's Chief Strategist Behind Un-American Calls?
By The Directors Posted in 2008 | Mitt Romney — Comments (340) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
NRO's Mark Hemingway reports this morning on the rumor that close associates of Mitt Romney are actually behind the recent anti-Mormon phone calls, in an effort to inspire positive coverage of their candidate. The web of connections Hemingway cites certainly supports the idea that a friends or associates of Romney, trying to help a candidate they support, did something incredibly stupid and highly unethical.
Target Point President Alex Gage, the consultant named in the piece, just happens to be serving as Romney's Chief Strategist - and it appears he is closely connected to the firm placing the phone calls that Mitt Romney calls "Un-American."
Since last week, a number of bloggers and others have speculated that someone close to the Romney campaign was behind these phone calls. In response, Romney's most ardent conservative supporter online and over the airways has been calling these people conspiracy theorists, buying into the Romney campaign spin that John McCain's support for McCain-Feingold is responsible for these calls.
Most of us here at Redstate have favored candidates in the presidential primary, and even The Directors of this site have different views. But most of us do not so willingly lose our objectivity at the drop of a hat that we cannot see reality beyond our preferred campaign's or judicial nominee's spin.
Today, we want to be clear that whatever the case is, we do not blame Mitt Romney personally for these phone calls. Those of us with experience on the campaign trail know just how valuable - and detrimental - good friends left to their own devices can be. We do think the Romney campaign and their radio mouthpiece going after John McCain is unfortunate, especially given McCain himself was a victim of these types of calls in 2000. Of all the candidates, it seems clear to observers still willing to objectively observe that McCain would be the least likely candidate to organize these calls.
The problem, of course, is that supposedly reliable friends would prefer to eat their own in defense of the Romney campaign instead of offering straight talk and the truth. One could learn a lesson from Rush Limbaugh, who has made a point of not taking sides in this campaign, instead hurling his fists full force into the opposition.
And as for Alex Gage and the Romney associates who are apparently behind these efforts: in a campaign where the faith of your candidate has been respected by the overwhelming majority of voters and activists, you've managed to create out of thin air the kind of bigoted attack that cheapens the process and expects the worst of the American people. Nice strategy, folks. We hope you're happy.
UPDATE by Thomas: The Romney Campaign has responded to NRO:
Let me be perfectly clear: our campaign was not and is not involved with any efforts to engage in alleged push polling calls against our own candidate.
The insinuation made by the National Review post is highly misleading, and I emphatically reject the entire premise of the headline and the theories promoted by anonymous political consultants cited in the posting.
Even cursory reviews of news reports would indicate that the research firm in question, Western Wats, is a prominent research collection company that was used by firms that are currently employed by rival campaigns. But, our campaign has been careful not to accuse anyone, especially since we have contacted the Office of the Attorney General in New Hampshire in an effort to get to the bottom of this matter.
Again, our campaign is not involved with efforts against our own candidate, and I reject outright even the slightest insinuation to the contrary.
UPDATE by Thomas: If Gage wants to put a stake in this right now, all he needs to do is answer, unequivocally, "No," to this question:
"Did the Romney campaign or Target Point pay for phone calls -- survey, push, or otherwise -- from Nov. 15-17 in IA, NH, or SC that asked questions about Mormonism?"
Update by Thomas: Gage responds here. We'll have more to say about this soon enough.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | On The Bus With McCain: Rep. Flake Explains Why Conservatives Should Support McCain — Comments (56) »
Overplaying the Bigotry Card 340 Comments (0 topical, 340 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It may be that someone supporting a rival campaign funded the anti-Mormon calls - then when got scared that it would come out who they were supporting and thereby hurt their candidate. So...they decided to obfuscate by putting out there that it was actually the Romney Campaign (or an unofficial proxy thereof) all along.
Once we get to the bottom of this, I very seriously doubt we will find that Mitt Romney or anyone very high up in his campaign had anything to do with these calls.
Hillarys' campaign accepted $850,000 from a wanted felon and it hardly made a ripple.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Just getting back and have seen the updates. What makes you think ANY republicans had anything to do with it? Me thinks you jumped the gun.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Thomas but that exactly why I think you jumped the gun.
I'm pretty sure most Mitt supporters would have preferred we wait until March of 2008 at the earliest to explore this. On the other hand, we could have run this even earlier. Kinda hard to stay in the current event loop, sometimes.
I still have some questions Gage hasn't answered, but that's me.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
...that it is established FACT that the Romney camp was behind this? The evidence seems pretty circumstantial to me. I promise to agree that the Romney camp is stupid if they are PROVEN to be responsible, if the esteemed "Directors" promise to issue an apology if it is proven not to be true.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
And actually "read" the "article," I'll personally submit to my fellow "Directors" that we should "consider" "it."
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation for this... perhaps too much time spent reading this site?
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
...I admit, I do use them liberally.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
but it seems to me they are writing a story about what someone else has done research on. They also clearly state "Today, we want to be clear that whatever the case is, we do not blame Mitt Romney personally for these phone calls."
And they clearly point that regardless who is behind this, they are the ones making an issue of his faith, not him, nor the directors of this site.
The only people who should be apologizing are the people making the calls AND anyone who tactically supported them by making hay over the scandal.
There are plenty of enemies afoot, no candidate needs to manufacture more.
Bingo! The bottom line here is this: The company behind the calls has people on its payroll that donated to the Romney campaign. Therefore Romney must be directly responsible for the calls.
That's the logic of the conspiracy theorists here. Never mind that this company is based in Utah where Romney is polling at around 80% and has raised a good chunk of his funds. It's not terribly hard to find Romney contributors around those parts. And I failed to see the Western Wats-Target Point connection that Hemingway is talking about. He took a huge leap there.
Look at the phone numbers cited in the story. I'll grant you that Hemingway didn't put it right up front, but it is there.
Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com
What strikes me is how little in the way of hard facts have been proffered by the Tin Foil Hat crowd.
Unless you can find it on the Internet they are not interested. The Salt Lake Tribune, historically full of animus for Mormons, actually did some spade work by interviewing people at Western Wats and found
"The chief executive officer and other executives are not Mormon.. Moreover," not one board member is Mormon," "That's a connection that just isn't there," Western Wats Mormon founders have had no interest in the firm since 2004.
I agree with Hugh, it is conspirital at this point to think that Romney or someone from his campaign is behind the calls. At this point now, we have a bunch of fuzzy, very weak links to anything. The only new "news" is that Alex Gage's company used Western Wats in the past, WOW!
telemarketing firm, whose owner is a MR supporter, has been fingered as the firm involved.
And from MR to Hugh the Romney side has been hyper sensistive and very defensive on romney confronting the honest questions people have about LDS. I don't have a problem with LDS. I could easily vote for Romney. But his dodge and weave and apparent game playing does not bode well for him.
...I believe Ron Lindorf sold the company three years ago. WW is owned by a private equity group, none of which are Mormons or Romney supporters.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Private equity firms, when they buy companies, don't dictate the day-to-day operational activities of their investees, like whether or not to take on a contract to make bigoted hit-calls. The directors who "come with" the company, i.e., the non-private equity appointed ones (in many cases, the entirety of the board), in 99.99% of cases do (I say this as a former corporate finance lawyer who dealt extensively with private equity acquisitions when practicing). So the question is, or in my view should be, are there connections between those people and the Romney campaign or Romney donors or Romney supporters-- or any other campaigns, other donors, or other supporters, for that matter. And we know that a Senior VP at Western Wats has donated to Romney, along with several other employees, among other things.
Does that conclusively prove anything? No, it doesn't. But this point about a PE firm owning WW is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and in my view, a red herring.
Note: I attempted to post on this at my own site yesterday, but was experiencing problems. If you want more detail on the point, visit mine in about 15 mins.
Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com
...in that case, do you know for a fact that Ron Lindorf remains a member of the board to this day and is actively involved in the company?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
he is one. I don't think he is, in fact. I'm just saying the PE point is irrelevant here.
Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com
Do generally put in their own CEO's and directors. They don't just buy an operation and leave it to it's own. They buy it with the idea of using the basic model of the purchased business with their own management savvy and create better results.
They don't dictate the day to day operations, but the senior management at the acquired company they have installed does.
The point here is that WW is not owned by a Romney supporter as was being claimed. It's owned by a company who represents large amounts of investors who bought the company with the idea of making it a larger success.
I know you are not trying to indict Romney with your poitnt, but who owns the company is certainly not unimportant.
we've both made the same points, but you've ended up in a different place somehow. You recognize that PE directors, where installed, aren't there to get into minutiae like OK'ing individual contracts like, say, this one (totally consistent with my experience, as a lawyer, working on numerous PE investments and with numerous PE investee companies). You put responsibility for day-to-day operational stuff on senior management, and presumably by implication, the non-PE elements of it.
My argument is that PE firms' representatives don't comprise the entirety, or usually even anything more than a small majority of senior management, and in any event, not the part of it responsible for making decisions about taking on specific contracts such as this one. So, what I'm saying is, let's look at who's really running the show-- i.e., the non-PE types, who are actually involved in day-to-day operational issues. And I think that's consistent with what you're saying, actually, though for some reason, you seem to still think that PE ownership of the firm is really important. It's not, except insofar as it shows that Ron Lindorf doesn't own it.
Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com
You were probably wondering if there was an echo.
But, my point was that St. Louis was responding to Hunters painting of the picture that thee was a Utah company with Romney supporters behind this.
St. Louis Conserv. was making the point that it's not quite the story Hunter is making it out to be. By the way people on some of the blogs have amde this sound, you would think that WW is a mom pop telemarketing company that is Ran by Romney's best friend.
The Private Equity angle shows that the situation is not what Hunter in the post above was painting but rather a company who is ran by people on the top levels who are more interested in turning substantial profits than helping Romney with the Mormon question.
This doesn't mean it wasn't a friend of Romney, but it does show a different angle to the story.
The Salt Lake Tribune, historically full of animus for Mormons, actually did some spade work by interviewing people at Western Wats and found
"The chief executive officer and other executives are not Mormon.. Moreover," not one board member is Mormon," "That's a connection that just isn't there," Western Wats Mormon founders have had no interest in the firm since 2004.
Ignores the fact that Romney was a supporter of McCain-Feingold-style campaign finance regulation from 1994 until very recently.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
big complaint about McCain-Feingold in relation to this matter, it seems to rest on the notion that it doesn't go far enough, and that c4s and 527s continue to preserve donor anonymity.
Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com
....McCain-Feingold should be repealed, all donation caps should be eliminated, and there needs to be immediate and full disclosure of all donations, with stiff penalities on those that fail to do so.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
McCain-Feingold should be repealed, all donation caps should be eliminated, and there needs to be immediate and full disclosure of all donations, with stiff penalities on those that fail to do so.
Well said (and I say this as a McCain supporter).
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
if Romney were making this point.
Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com
repeatedly throughout his campaign. He wants to repeal the law, get rid of contribution caps, and increase disclosure. He has personally stated this on numerous occasions.
That's not the point! How quickly, Hugh and other Romney supporters pointed the finger at McCain is the point. Now, they're all crying foul when it turns out the the "weak" links point in their direction.
So, here's a novel idea. Let's stop pointing figures, and let the investigation continue and let the chips fall where they may when it all comes out. Cause believe me at some point we'll get to the bottom of this or darn near close to the bottom!
Pam
But he is not playing straight withhis audience. He is so obviously in the pocket of Romney but won't admit it. And this telemarketing push - even if it is directly tied to a campaign - Who gives a fig? It is backfiring big time.
the big loser here will be Hugh, especially if it turns out it was done by a MR supporter or his campaign.
First, "Reply to this" is your friend.
Second, It's 38585. It might not mean anything to you but it does to me.
The reason the finger was pointed at McCain so quickly is because he was directly mention in the poll and on some level would benefit. It was also mentioned that he is employing a vocal anti-Mormon in SC and I mention at the beginning of all of this that he could have taken on some of the anti-Mormon staff that Brownback had. I don't think that McCain himself would do anything like this, but in a "staffer gone wild" scenario, McCain's staff makes more sense than Romney's.
Now, my point earlier is that there really isn't any new news. The Directors have gone out on a limb here and are assuming that Gage is behind all of this when Mark Hemingway's article doesn't prove it (only
suggests the link). The fact that Gage has done bussiness in the past with Western Wats doesn't actaully PROVE anything.
But the point I was making is let's all slow down and stop the finger pointing.
Pam
What bunk. I started looking into this story from the angle that McCain could be behind this, but if you think about it for all of three seconds, it's obvious he wouldn't benefit and his camp wouldn't be capable of doing this, anyway.
McCain isn't playing in Iowa, it appears, and that's the state where raising concerns about Mormons and Mormonism might actually sway some voters' opinions (at least if one believes that a lot of evangelicals have concerns about Mormonism, and if one thinks Iowa has enough evangelicals for this to matter). In New Hampshire, which is where McCain is aiming to play, theological concerns are less relevant to the electorate. Guns and taxes are big issues up there-- if McCain was going to benefit from an attack on Romney, it would be if issues like those were raised. And they weren't. Meanwhile, the pro-McCain stuff in the calls was all about McCain's military experience-- hardly new information that was going to benefit him, electorally.
Also, dare I mention that the McCain camp just doesn't have the money for this kind of thing? If you think it's McCain, or that there was a good reason for the finger to be pointed at him, I'd be interested in seeing how you justify that in light of his, er, financial woes.
I agree that Hemingway's post doesn't conclusively prove anything, or move the ball as much further along as those of us who want to get to the bottom of this would like, but I think you're off-base with the rest of this.
Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com
First off, I've said on many occasions that I don't think McCain himself would be invovled. He would benifit from these calls as much or more than any other Republican canidate (especially Romney).
Wheter he's "playing" Iowa or not is irrelevant. Would he not benifit if Romney stumbles out of Iowa? The question for the Romney dunit folks would be why in the world would Romney want to highlight the issue when he's already cruising in Iowa? The call weren't all about Romney's religion they also highlighted that he and his sons didn't serve in the military while highlighting McCain. Also it doesn't matter that it wasn't "new information", only that it highlighted the difference.
If McCain's camp doesn't have the money for this type of operation then how would some renagade Romney staffer have the money?
My only point is that there are many others who benifit from this more than Romney, McCain being near the top of that list.
the Directors call it unfortunate that the Romney campaign and "mouthpiece" Hugh Hewitt blame McCain. I would like to see a direct quote by Romney or his campaign that lays the blame for this directly on McCain. Not a quote related to McCain-Feingold.
Since we all seem to be "push polling" conspiracy theories here, how about this one- McCain most certainly has had conversations with his mother about the candidates, and he knew that if she was allowed to speak freely, that she would utter that anti-Mormon and anti-Romney tirade. My conspiracy theory is no less plausible than that which the Directors have placed front and center.
Let's have the NH attorney general do his work and maybe we'll get to the bottom of this and perhaps end someone's campaign. Now that would make for a good Directors' editorial.
has a certain sense. Since independent campaigns cannot express support for a candidate all they can do is attack. In other words, the law limits the amount that can be spent in support of a candidate but allows unlimited expenditure on negative campaigning.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
to suggest that an experienced political consultant would pull some stunt like this and do such a poor job covering his tracks.
if it was romney supporters behind this, it's most likely a few guys with deep pockets and zero experience running campaigns.
on the other hand, if it was another campaign behind the calls, it makes sense that they might use a company with ties to mitt so as to evade suspicion.
that NRO article gives me no reason to believe that alex gage or any other romney consultant is behind these calls.
one more thing! Has any noticed how silent Hugh Hewett has become on this issue!
Pam
The Romney campaign is awash in his cash, and they are still polling at roughly half of RG's numbers, along with all the rest of the VP hopefuls. If this is true, it sounds like some of his people are reading the writing on the wall and getting desperate to give their man a boost.
How about some honest to goodness Socratic inquiry: Who indeed would sponsor a poll that bashes your religion, your family and your integrity?
Ask yourself who has the most to gain and who the least to gain form the push poll? The only candidates are anti-Mormons and/or Nutroots have the most to gain and least to loose.
For the Romney campaign - y'all had better not own-goaled this one. And if this went down as or close to how Hemingway and The Directors laid out above, you have one heck of a mess on your hands to clean up, and the sooner you get cracking on that clean-up, the better.
That said, and for The Directors, don't you think the title of the piece, without so much as a question mark, is a bit much given the facts as they are known at the moment? There may very well (I fear) come a time when such a declarative statement is required, but that time does seem a bit off for the moment.
It's a quibble, perhaps a trifle, but if this turns-out to have not happened the way you've laid it out I think you may, at some future point, owe the Romney campaign a mea culpa.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I completely agree. This article is reckless and irresponsible and I personaly don't think it should have been placed on the main page with such prominence.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
I would leave it, for the moment, at "premature".
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Fair enough.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
If the Romney camp hadn't made a big public issue of the calls, they would not now be in a position to look so bad as doubts are being raised about their source. It's stupid politics.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
It was and would have been a big issue no matter what Romney said or did. He may have squandered some of the good will by focusing on McCain-Feingold, but that's a different story. I guess calling for an investigation was "stupid poltics" in your book also?
Some of the most politically tuned-in voters in the country get an amateur push-poll call, and it's a major issue? What's next? Being upset because some crank manages to get his self-published newsletter distributed in the parking lots of two of the local KKR chain in New Hampshire?
Dignifying this silliness with a call for an investigation is indeed stupid, on every level.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
You left off amateur "anti-Mormon" push-poll call. That was the theme coming from the pundits and media types. Also the fact that it's someone, anyone going negative is always a good story. So, yes I do believe that even small event like this could cause a large media storm.
Of course the other theory (Dan's and maybe yours) is that Romney cooked this thing up all by himself simply by over reacting. Never mind the fact that he was relatively slow to react, with McCain being the first to issue a statement
.
You left off amateur "anti-Mormon" push-poll call.
You mean I left off "anti-Mormon" from "amateur push-poll." Regardless, by definition, an anti-Mormon ad in Iowa and New Hampshire is amateur-level stuff; of all the voter sets in the country least likely to include Moron Voters, those two rank at the top.
This makes it an even bigger non-story, but you have an axe to grind, so let's continue.
That was the theme coming from the pundits and media types.
Interesting question: Why? Why would anyone care if it hadn't been brought to their attention?
Also the fact that it's someone, anyone going negative is always a good story.
My fat white butt it is. If it's the aforementioned crank in the grocery parking lot, it's a good story in the same way that Troofers coming up with a new theory on steel lattice strength is a good story. It's only a good story if you can show, definitively, that a campaign, or someone a campaign is failing to control, is doing this. Otherwise, it's background noise, and at best, a chance for the Romney camp to whine a little.
So, yes I do believe that even small event like this could cause a large media storm.
Thank you, Mr. Gleick.
Of course the other theory (Dan's and maybe yours) is that Romney cooked this thing up all by himself simply by over reacting.
My theory is that this is so much harmless hokum, and that it won't matter past Wednesday unless someone develops a link to an actual campaign. I think if Romney had ignored it, or just dismissed it with, Well, this was stupid, but what are you going to do? he would have looked a lot better, and the story died a fast death.
Then again, politicians from the Commonwealth appear to be abysmal at handling negativity, so maybe it's too much to ask that of him.
Never mind the fact that he was relatively slow to react, with McCain being the first to issue a statement.
How he reacted, kid. How he reacted. Not when.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
What does the level of sophistication have to do with the media's reaction? How amateurish is this push poll considering we (all but the Directors) still don't know who it is?
"My theory is..."
Except that there are very few headlines on this story that mention Romney's reaction, specifically McCain-Feigngold. At most it's a add on to the whole story.
What does the level of sophistication have to do with the media's reaction?
The "media" would neither have known nor cared had it not been brought to their attention, and had reactions not been what they were.
Look, you have an internal narrative. Run with it. I don't mean to try to talk you out of it.
One note:
How amateurish is this push poll considering we (all but the Directors) still don't know who it is?
Well, you forced us to tip our hand. We actually uncovered that it was Mitt Romney himself who did this. Seriously. He got a briefcase of money, flew on a private jet to Utah, paid cash for the calls, then flew back before anyone was the wiser.
It's amateurish for the reasons outlined, not for the reasons you're reading in your head.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"The "media" would neither have known nor cared had it not been brought to their attention"
WOW, how incredably insightful. Would any story be written if it wasn't brought to their attention?
"and had reactions not been what they were."
You mean Romney's reaction, right? You should look at the actual articles from the past week, not many of them centered on how Romney reacted. Of course this doesn't follow your internal narrative.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Romney+push+poll&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&as...
"We actually uncovered that it was Mitt Romney himself who did this."
Yes I know, I read the orginal blog this morning.
"And as for Alex Gage and the Romney associates who are apparently behind these efforts" -- The Directors
...which not only confuse your ability to read several-hundred-word long pieces, but also fifteen-word sentence fragments you've excerpted. On general principle, I try not to argue with people in the middle of religious ecstasies, so have at it, kid. I'll just know not to take you seriously in the future.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Your the one who insisted on using sarcasm, I just went along with it.
The fact is that the Directors have gone out on a limb here and have accused those close to Romney of being behind this, without any real evidence. Your (Thomas) insisting that this was a nonstory propped up by Romney is not only presumptuous, but just plain stupid if you go back and read the stories (as I tried to get you to do).
It's extremely sad that someone of your stature here at Redstate would withdrawal to religious accusations in a debate. You are in a very bad position to be giving people crap without being able to take it.
First, I've actually read the thing that set you all off.
Second, I've actually written in response to what is actually written in the comment to which I'm responding.
Last, I'm capable of understanding written English.
I am accusing you of being incapable of reading something because you have something else dictating what you're actually reading. I use "religion" as a shorthand for raw rage, indignation, or some other emotional, non-rational state of mind. You may substitute liberally until that makes sense to you. Whatever you substitute, I have no desire to argue a point with someone who won't do me the courtesy of reading what's actually written.
Good day.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Still doesn't change that this would have been a big story no matter how/when Romney reacted.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
My theory is that this is so much harmless hokum, and that it won't matter past Wednesday unless someone develops a link to an actual campaign.
That being the case, why was it necessary for the Directors to place this editorial front and center and further the feeding frenzy, as evidenced by the response here?
Especially: It's stupid politics.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
If we'd said this was the work of Mitt Romney or his campaign, instead of what you said, I'd think you have a point.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Fine - I read too much into the title. Standing down.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I thought we were leaving the conspiracy theories to the Ronulans...
This is utter nonsense. Give me a break.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Listen, it is clear that *someone* placed these calls. By definition, this story involves a conspiracy. If you can think of a way in which a conspiracy is somehow not involved, I'd love to hear it. This goes for the rest of the people (including Hugh) who are invoking "conspiracy theory" at every opportunity. Unless you are suggesting that one single person managed to pull this off.
The problem that you (and Hugh, and others) have is not really that there's a conspiracy being mentioned, but that it's being laid at the foot of your guy. And so you scream "conspiracy theory!!!@#!!" to dismiss it. Not bad as political plays go, especially given the general Republican reluctance to believe in conspiracies, but pretty thin nonetheless.
I note that a lot of these same people were all too eager to believe that this was a conspiracy organized by someone in the McCain camp.
Oh yeah, and part of the reason that Republicans tend to disbelieve conspiracy theories is that we have the feeling that most conspiracies involving people in politics simply can't be kept secret, at least not for any amount of time. I'll note here that it took about 24 hours for people to start connecting the dots on this one.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
This kind of article reminds me of the 9/11 truth stuff that so many of the Ronulans buy into.
The reason I'm complaining is that this blog was placed on the front page and it doesn't have any hard evidence to back it up. This is basically spreading rumors and gossip.
If you'll notice, I haven't suggested who may be at the helm of this "conspiracy" because I don't know. It's irresponsible to jump out on a limb and suggest it's the Romney campaign without any direct proof!
If it is the Romney campaign, that's fine. Go ahead and put it on the front page. If not, then this was a mistake and it should be addressed accordingly.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Up there, in very clear words, is the site's position. It says something. The bots get upset because it doesn't say what they want it to say, so they attack it for saying something else.
If you're intent on seeing something there, have at it; just don't impute it to us.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"Conspiracy theory" is often used to mean more than just a theory about a conspiracy. It may be used to describe such a theory which is also more complicated than alternative theories.
For instance, 9/11 perhaps was the result of Islamofascism or maybe a Jewish cabal. Both are theories about conspiracies. But only the Jewish cabal theory is a "conspriacy theory" in the usual sense.
Saying that McCain or Giuliani did it isn't a "conspiracy theory" in the usual sense of the word. Saying Romney or associates did it is.
You could go even further, and suspect that a rival campaign chose Western Watts in hopes that people would suspect that Romney did it to himself.
Apprently, in "the usual sense of the word," conspiracy theories involving operatives from the McCain or Giuliani campaigns are not conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theories involving operatives from the Romney campaign are conspiracy theories.
My ability to divine "the usual sense of [a] word" must really be slipping.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
My first two paragraphs explained what the usual sense of "conspiracy theory" is. My third paragraph merely applied that explanation to the present facts.
Let me know if this isn't clear, so you can understand my explanation rather than deflect it with another sarcastic mischaracterization.
It just proceeds from the ridiculous assumption that McCain or Giuliani being behind this is somehow the "simpler" explanation than Romney or someone connected to him being behind this. In light of that, your comment got the response it deserved.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
The reason that the Islamofascist theory is simpler than the Jewish cabal theory is that the Jewish cabal theory depends on the Islamofascist theory. The Jewish cabal theory can only be reasonable insofar as the Islamofascist theory is reasonable.
In order to prove the Islamofascist theory, all you need to do is give evidence for the Islamofascist theory. In order to prove the Jewish cabal theory, you need the evidence for the Islamofascist theory and additional evidence that it was really a Jewish cabal all along.
Same for the Romney situation. The push polling is the evidence for the Political Rival Theory. Only on the strength of a Political Rival Theory could someone come up with a RomneyDunIt theory.
It is good to see the Romney Campaign's response, but the response doesn't address the charge. I do not read the NR piece (much less this website) as insinuating that the Romney campaign itself is involved. The theory -- made early and well by Erick -- is that it may be a "friend" of one or more campaigns, and that FOM are not excluded from the list of usual suspects.
Given how amateurish this all seems, I suspect that we'll get to the bottom of this pretty quickly -- at which point it would behoove everyone to move on.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
...is that I redacted a lot of commentary after the blockquote, because I really don't think at this point that the Romney campaign is coordinating this, and I've made it a point to try to avoid own-goaling our Party's campaigns on the front. I haven't always succeeded, but I've tried.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I wasn't criticizing you or the other Directors in the least. I think you've handled this very well.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
All the Romney folks, jumped all over McCain!
But when someone points out the "weak link" to Romney it's a conspiracy against Mitt!
So why don't we all just stop jumping and wait! I'm personally looking forward to finding out or at least getting as close to the bottom of this as possible.
Pam
Is it me or are they saying that they didn't pay for push polls?
This could be -- and probably is -- legitimate survey research gone awry. Perhaps deliberately awry.
The question for Alex Gage and Kevin Madden is:
Did the Romney campaign or Target Point pay for phone calls -- survey, push, or otherwise -- from Nov. 15-17 in IA, NH, or SC that asked questions about Mormonism?
If the answer is yes, then they are caught. They will not
Thomas posted Madden's press release which states unequivocally that the campaign was and is not involved with the calls.
There is nothing to gain for the Romney camp by doing such a thing. Nor would any of their supporters. I also very seriously doubt that it was the McCain group. Its possible that it could be a support group for McCain, but I find it doubtfull.
Now, McCain-Fiengold has a lot to do with the problem. Instead of takeing money out of politics, it increased it. McCain-Fiengold should be repealed.
When you eliminate the improbably, that leaves only three camps that could be behind the attack. Fred Thompson, Rudy, or Huckabee. The other possibility are third parties in support of these three or a third party in support of McCain.
1. Romney's camp was the one that actually tried to benefit from this story.
2. The simplest explanation is that this was done by someone sympathetic to, but not affiliated with, one of the campaigns. And once you start with that assumption, it's not that bizarre to think that someone thought that Mitt would benefit from a story about him being the victim of bigotry.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The RomneyDidIt™ conspiracy theory is out of hand. It's about as likely as the Jews orchestrating 9/11.
Let me break this down in two ways.
First: any theory that Romney or one of his supporters is behind this is silly.
1) The proposed motive is messed up at its roots. He's worried about anti-Mormon attacks, so he's going to generate some?
2) Presumably he wants to attract attention to his faith, when his strategy has always been to downplay its particulars as irrelevant?
3) Romney is the most focused candidate about staying on message at all times. He now wants to be forced to go off message to address fake anonymous attacks?
4) How is "sympathy" supposed to help him anyway? What presidential candidate wants anyone to feel sorry for him?
5) Explaining any of the above by claiming that Romney is stupid doesn't fly. If a strategy would be stupid, there's no reason to believe someone has adopted it. To the contrary, that's a reason to believe that it has not been adopted.
The bottom line: Romney gets nothing from this, had no reason to think that something like this would help him at all, and had obvious reasons to think an attack like this would hurt him at least marginally. Further, orchestrating something like this would risk the total implosion of a strong campaign.
Second: constantly bringing up the Romney side as an "apparent," "likely" or "possible" source of these attacks is a misdirection from the simplest explanation: an opposing campaign. Anyone who publicly discusses RomneyDunIt scenarios more than the straightforward explanation has it out for him. Period.
I'm not saying that this post blames Romney directly. Obviously it doesn't. When I talk about "RomneyDidIt" I include his supporters.
The point is that blaming this on Romney or supporters doesn't make sense and is a misdirection from more obvious questions.
The "sympathy for attacks on Romney's faith" theory does not jive with the actual push poll. The poll also attacked him for not sending his sons into the military. If a Romney supporter wanted to generate buzz about the evil of bigotry, why throw in unrelated attacks, instead of spending more time on bigoted attacks? It dilutes the supposed strategy, and risks that bigotry doesn't even come up as a specific item in the push polling story.
Somewhere out there is the real culprit. Whether it was an opposing campaign, a rogue member of an opposing campaign, an independent supporter of an opposing campaign, or a Dem group of some kind, the culprit is out there. Laughing. Relishing every second that conservatives place the blame at the feet of Romney or his supporters. Hoping that the issue never is resolved, and that a RomneyDunIt conspiracy theory is the last discussion of the issue.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Number two is that the Romney campaign is actually beset by someone within or without but aligned who thinks he's doing a good thing. This would make the campaign both clear of all insinuations, and in the unfortunate position of having to take a close associate to the woodshed.
I am agnostic on this, except to note that I don't think the ad/poll campaign was coordinated at any level by the Romney campaign. If that's true, Mitt needs to just drop out right now. If it's true, it would also mean that Mitt Romney is dead, and something with an IQ of 30 is running his campaign.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
...it would be so stupid and it is so unlikely that the possibility isn't worth mentioning.
My point is that any plausible culprit is enjoying discussion of that possibility immensely.
I think you're making the mistake of assuming everyone on Team Romney lacks the Superbonehead Power required to effect something this dumb. In every presidential campaign, there is someone well-placed who has that power; the only relevant question is whether they can be controlled all the time.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
What I'm saying is that the stupider an action is, the less plausibly it can be ascribed to someone's strategy. As you have pointed out, something this dumb would require Superbonehead Power. Like an asylum escapee off his meds.
Someone trying to think their way to the bottom of this must decide which is more likely: a drooling lunatic push polling against his favorite candidate in key primary states, believing that this will give that candidate a boost? Or a rival campaign or supporter (D or R) engaging in what is unfortunately an all too common political practice?
And while he was an idiot, he wasn't crazy. Gotta tell you, the idea of a loose cannon loosely affiliated with any of the campaigns looks equally likely to me.
I agree that this belongs to no campaign's strategy, in all likelihood. I disagree that no one affiliated with one thought this brilliant.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
What I'm saying is that the stupider an action is, the less plausibly it can be ascribed to someone's strategy.
that this was really stupid whoever did it. Stupidity needs to be taken as given. Unfortunately, given that, you cannot reason your way to a solution to the question of who did it, because the actions of stupid people are difficult to figure out.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I'm not saying push polling is a brilliant strategy, but it's not necessarily stupid. Unethical, yes. But many campaigns over the years have thought it through and decided for better or for worse that it was good strategy.
In other words, for a Romney supporter to do it, he would have to be jaw-droppingly stupid. For someone else to do it, unethical, but not necessarily stupid. After all, this has hurt Romney some, and certainly not helped him.
As you said, actions of stupid people are hard to predict or explain. The stupider they are, the more random their actions look, and the harder it is for rational people to ascribe meaning to them. What does this mean?
First, it's a mistake to try to ascribe some strategy to the Romney campaign such as "he's playing for sympathy" for an act so stupid that it resists rationalization. Yet people are trying to rationalize this hypothetical strategy to give it an air of plausibility.
Second, if you want to figure out the background probability of an unpredictable stupid person taking a given course of action, just look to history. There have always been stupid people, but history is not chock-full of examples of push-poll suicide. It is full of straightforward push poll attacks, however.
it is still a major problem with the Romney campaign. Does Romney get a free pass because he has friends that are nuts?
Add to the scenario that the faux scandal was used by the Romney camp to attack McCain (buying into the Romney campaign spin that John McCain's support for McCain-Feingold is responsible for these calls, see comments above), and the problem is a tad bit bigger than an excitable supporter going overboard.
This is not the first time that "friends" have given the Romney campaign a black eye. Remember the PhoneyFred website started by a Romney campaign manager in South Carolina. Oops on that one, too.
At the very, very least, there is a tendency for the Romney camp to spin out of control. If it was Hillary camp doing the same thing, I don't think folks would be so understanding that friends can do stupid things.