Posted on 11/21/2007 7:07:01 AM PST by JRochelle
I thought that I was going to have a nice quiet Thanksgiving. Perhaps not.
Erick Erickson at Redstate (disclosure I too contribute to Redstate) has uncovered some more information on the Mitt Romney phone scandal. Leon Wolf, another Redstate contributor who today endorsed Mitt Romney, also pointed out that this happened previously (described then) when Leon was on the Brownback campaign.
The basic facts are that a Romney staffer, Marshan Roth contacted the Salt Lake Tribune, identified herself as "leaning towards Romney", and told her story:
Marshan Roth, of Fairfield, Iowa, got a call on Wednesday night. It started out like a regular poll, she says, but then asked positive questions about Sen. John McCain and delved into disparaging things about Romney. She was asked whether she knew that Mormons have ‘baptized thousands of dead people’ and that the Book of Mormon was more important than the Bible to Mormons. ‘It was sick. It really was. It made me just furious,’ says Roth, who is leaning toward backing Romney. ‘If you didn’t know enough about McCain, you’d think he was the white knight coming in on his charger saving the world and that Mitt Romney was tantamount to the devil
Erick points out that Roth receives $500/month from the Romney campaign.
Similarly, Rose Kramer, another Romney staffer who describes herself as "a supporter," told a McClatchy reporter her story:
Rose Kramer was at her Dubuque, Iowa, home, waiting for the TV show ‘House’ to start at 8 p.m. Tuesday when a pollster called and started asking her about John McCain. After a few polite questions, the caller started saying unflattering things about Mitt Romney. Kramer, a Romney supporter, got so angry that she missed the opening of her show. ‘I was still ranting at my husband,’ she said.
Rose isn’t just a supporter. She is a staffer, making $1,000/month. She is also a co-chair of Romney’s Iowa Faith & Values Steering Committee.
It doesn’t stop there. Rose told a different story to Real Clear Politics:
Rose Kramer, an Iowa voter who backs Romney, told Politics Nation the call, which she received around 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, began with typical screening questions on whether she planned to caucus and if she had caucused before. After an initial ballot test — on which she says Romney’s name was listed last — the pollster offered five questions about John McCain, all of which she characterized as ‘glowing.’ Kramer said she asked the caller whether he was working for a campaign; he said no, his was an independent research group.
First, when Rose talked to McClatchy, it was Tuesday 8pm. With Real Clear Politics, it was 8:30 on Wednesday. She lied to one of the reporters.
Second, in both (all three?) cases, the Romney staffers highlighted the McCain questions. It seems to me that the Romney campaign was deliberately pushing the McCain angle.
Third, either the staffers didn’t disclose their relationship to the reporters or the reporters didn’t disclose it in their stories. My money is on the staffers, something that, as Leon pointed out before, Romney consultants in Iowa have done in the past.
This raises several questions:
First, is there any evidence that this poll contacted anyone in Iowa who was not a Romney staffer or supporter? If not, is there any evidence that the calls actually occurred? Could this be a story manufactured by the Romney campaign? After all, Western Wats only seems to talk through another Romney official, Justin Hart.
Second, were they directed by either Boston or Des Moines to deliver these messages? If so, were they told to hide their relationship with the Romney campaign?
Is Romney auditioning for FEMA Administrator?
UPDATE: Jonathan Martin had reported a non-Romney supporting phone call recipient.
Hmmmmm.
Does anyone actually think Mitt Romney authorized this? I don’t, its too stupid, and like him or not, he’s a smart man.
Said the ("I've known Romney for 30 years") shill who delights in posting every negative Fred article that can be found, ROTFL!
Here are the facts -- paid Romney staffers contacted newspapers about this "push poll" and lied about their campaign affiliation referring to themselves as "leaning" Romney voters.
Regardless of who made the (lame) calls, those facts reflect very badly on the Romney campaign.
Despite the many "independent" sleaze attacks that come from Romney supporters and staffers, Romney has always remained lily-white pure.
Either he's exceptionally good at getting people to lie and cover for him, or he's a horrible judge of character and is kind of clueless.
He hired Warren Tompkins who has all but admitted he engineered the 2000 push poll against John McCain in South Carolina. His campaign staffers "coincidentally" received these phone calls.
His supporters keep touting his magnificant management talent....so, which is it? Is he "smart" to hire "dirty tricks Tompkins", or does he not have control over his low-level staffers?
Either way, given the problems President Bush has had with HIS staffers, (Powell, McClellan), we don't need another "experienced manager".
So, what are you saying? The McCain campaign should have been able to conduct the push-poll without Romney staffers finding out?
You created this thread. You didn't excise the update. But your subsequent commentary blows off the new information as if it shouldn't color your conclusion. Why not? The author of the piece thought it was necessary.
Actually, Romney is the only one who stands to use this to his advantage. Julie Annie's people wouldn't make it a point to call Romney staffers to get this in the headlines, even if the staffers were plants, because such plants would be too many loose ends, to much risk for a breakdown and confess moment. Romney's staff putting this together to 1) divert attention from his liberal history, 2) give him a story regarding Mormonism upon which he can make an opening statement just before Thanksgiving, then 3) make follow-up speech regarding the 'unAmerican' nature of questioning a man's fitness for office based upon his religious convictions. The Romney campaign is sleazy because their candidate is a sleazy politician, as he proved by turning into a liberal to get elected in Massatwosh!ts, but he has his Mormon minions pleading he was never 'pro-abortion' while he was protecting abortion in that state. This man is bill clinton with a nicer family! Is the GOP ready to slide that far down into the morass?
I’m, um, “leaning towards” #1. After all, these are clearly not professional campaign staffers, given the meager sums they are receiving. But I find it plenty odd that the author of this article didn’t did into the religious affiliations of these people. Could well be overzealous “Mormons for Mitt”. Or maybe not. But it would be nice to know, seeing as how the questioning they reported as inappropriate was all about the Mormon religion.
His campaign has thousands of workers, suggesting he’s hired every one of them personally doesn’t fly.
That said, I do agree its his responsiblity, and they should be fired.
And I’m hardly suggesting he’s ‘lilly white pure’. I don’t have a favorite in the race quite yet.
You mean this update? That someone has reported a recipient of this so-called "poll" that was not a Romney supporter or staffer? That's a pretty thin thread to hang your hopes upon.
I don’t think going ‘no experience’ is a viable hiring strategy under most circumstances, and certainly not in politics.
Guess you missed the /sarc
Single incidents are one thing. A repeated pattern of "individual" efforts disavowed by the campaign implies either shoddy control of staff or more central involvement than is let on.
‘Single incidents are one thing. A repeated pattern of “individual” efforts disavowed by the campaign implies either shoddy control of staff or more central involvement than is let on.’
Not enough evidence to support anything beyond a couple of staffers, low level at that, talked among themselves and took a risk.
Not saying you might not be correct here, just noting there are a few other plausible scenarios.
How Romney addresses this will tell us a lot.
That’s just this incident. This isn’t the first time the Romney campaign has had to deal with a “rogue” staffer causing problems.
I don’t think so either. I think the most likely scenario is some call center employee independently adding to the poll script, out of some personal religious or political conviction. These “staffers” are clearly part-timers, amateurs, given what they’re being paid. They may well have felt the urge to make noise about the calls, believing they had been more widespread than they really were, but did not feel they should identify themselves a campaign workers when they weren’t speaking on behalf of the campaign, with official endorsement of what they were saying.
I think thats the more likely explanation as well.
Letes see how Romney handles it.
I’m leaning toward #1 also. Romney would have to be beyond stupid to authorize something like this.
Has there been a statement from Romney today about this? Any sort of denial? The only denial I’ve seen from the campaign was yesterday in the Herald where his manager said that neither he NOR HIS SUPPORTERS had anything to do with it. Clearly the second part’s not true. McCain’s campaign and Guiliani’s campaign are both categorically denying any involvement.
Romney needs to get to the bottom of this posthaste and get the whole story out there. Because, regardless of whether he authorized this or not, it was dirty politics on his behalf, and at the very least some paid supporters need to be fired.
Apparently you didn’t hear the immediate response Romney gave in which he called the polling questions ‘unAmerican’ in nature. The set-up was precise, the response pointed ... but the rest of the story wasn’t expected to get out so the staffers thought they could lie about ‘leaning toward Romney’. Look for another ‘prepared speech’ addressing the unAmerican behavior of questioning a candidate’s fitness to serve based upon his religious convictions. There have been numerous efforts by Romney supporters to characterize Ike as a JW and other candidates regarding their religious affiliations. The Ike characterization is just as stupid and sleazy since it is basically false but convenient to twist.
Hmmm, as we suspected: fake-hate-crime
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.