Replies

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.

If it was as thin as you would like to portray it, it wouldn't have been necessary to tag it on at all.

Let's review, shall we? Soren Dayton wrapped up this piece with this, in part:

This raises several questions: First, is there any evidence that this poll contacted anyone in Iowa who was not a Romney staffer or supporter?

ANSWER: With the news that a non-Romney supporter reported receiving the call, YES.

If not,

Which there is...

is there any evidence that the calls actually occurred?

ANSWER: With the news that a non-Romney supporter reported receiving the call, YES.

Now, as for the lying about not being staffers of the campaign, that doesn't look good. But in order to further the Romney-bashing festival, Mitt-igating circumstances are being glossed over. Posters are alleging that the entire poll is fraudulent based solely on lies that had nothing to do with the reality of the poll's existence, which this piece brought into question. And there is an undercurrent among critics that the paid staffers' lies are just as despicable as the push-polling that inspired them, or even more so.

If it turns out there is evidence that the Romney camp conceived of this poll for the purpose of sliming innocent parties, I say bring it in the same way the truth about the staffers was revealed. But until that moment, the update relegates many of the assumptions voiced here to the "pretty thin thread" category.