Whoever commissioned the calls wanted Romney team members contacted

This morning, in the wake of the resurgence of Mormon-gate as a story, I've been doing some digging around. While I had hoped to write something on where we stand now, and what we know, including the results of my digging this morning, at an actual publication (as opposed to my own blog), with a few hours to go before everyone switches off for Thanksgiving, I'm bailing on that idea.

1. As I read through the latest this morning, one point sprung out at me. It was the same point that sprung out at me when I found out last week that an Iowa State Rep. who had endorsed Romney was called. And that was, whoever commissioned this survey wanted Romney team members called. I say that without inclusion of the words "evidently" or "apparently" because it seemed to me that including people on Romney's payroll or publicly affiliated with the campaign in a call sample would be bad, and non-standard, practice. Including more than one such person (and thus far, we know of three included in the call sample) to me evidenced something beyond negligence.

2. Turns out my assumption, that it would be totally non-standard practice, to include those on payroll, at the very least, in a call sample is correct. In speaking to a top Republican pollster this morning, I have been told that normally, people working for or associated with campaigns, and members of the media, are excluded from calling lists in the first place-- presumably because of bias that might be evident, which could raise questions about the accuracy of the result. There are two points relevant to this situation to glean from this. First, it is definitely not standard to call people receiving money from a campaign-- as was done here. Second, pollsters determine who is called, not the firm conducting the calls.

3. This is consistent with other information I've obtained today. This morning, I spoke to Jeffrey Welch of Western Wats. We talked about the responsibility that Western Wats takes in relation to polling. Jeffrey underlined to me that Western Wats does not advise on, nor determine, who gets called as part of a given survey. They also do not advise on, nor determine, what questions are asked as part of a survey. Responsibility both for determining a call sample and survey questions rests with the consultant who instructs Western Wats. In other words, whoever instructs Western Wats designs a survey; Western Wats simply executes it. (Jeffrey also reiterated that Western Wats does not engage in push polling.)

So, a top pollster and the firm alleged to have made the calls in question both agree: consultants determine the questions and the call sample, calling firms solely execute the project.

Why is this relevant? Well, it indicates very, very strongly that whoever orchestrated the calls wanted these particular respondents-- who could be counted on to run to the media complaining about the calls-- contacted. Certainly, it was not up to Western Wats (allegedly) to determine who was called, so it wasn't an accident, mistake, oversight , or even deliberate action (perhaps to aid a candidate that some at the firm seem to strongly back) on their part that led to these people being called.

Of course, this still doesn't move us that much closer to determining who commissioned the calls-- but we do at least know now, with a very high degree of certainty, that the party that pushed them wanted people who would rush to the media, and had pre-existing biases included.

That again raises the question of who would benefit, not just from calls like this being made, but from them hitting the headlines so fast and so furiously. I revert to my position that the calls (and especially the publicity) in no way benefit McCain. They do not benefit Rudy (he wasn't even mentioned in the calls, and the only very early primary state he might beat Romney in is New Hampshire, where there's not much of an evangelical community to get stressed about the Mormon factor). They do not benefit Thompson. Again, he wasn't mentioned in the calls, and frankly, a look at early state polling data suggests that he's in no position to catch much of anyone, let alone Romney, let alone by orchestrating this kind of thing. The calls might benefit Huckabee, but in Iowa only, and calls were also made in New Hampshire and South Carolina-- suggesting, at least, that the number of calls would have been sufficient to be expensive enough that the Huckabee campaign wouldn't be able to afford it (meanwhile, I'm guessing that only handful of Huck supporters could, most if not all of whom would probably not be able to engineer something like this on their own).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Romney does benefit from this, or at least members of his team seem to think so. In the words of one of them, "when people attack his religion he becomes an underdog, and people like underdogs." Moreover, we already know that at least one non-Romney-affiliated respondent developed significant sympathy for Romney as a result of the call.

Again, I'll underline that nothing, up to this point, conclusively shows that anyone associated with the Romney camp, let alone that the campaign itself (including the candidate) engineered the making of these calls. But, the more digging into this story occurs, the more it looks likely that someone affiliated with Romney in some form (rogue consultant, supporter or donor) may be responsible.

Need a good laugh?

Well here you go.

This is a FAKE e-mail that has been sent out in Iowa.

Note to Romney supporters: I repeat, IT IS A FAKE.

Dear Supporters,

As most of you probably read in today’s National Review , our campaign has been tied to the anti-Mormom calls made here in Iowa attacking Gov. Romney for his faith. It appears our campaign’s chief strategist, who we have paid nearly $800,000 in fees, is behind the calls.

Our office has been swarmed with hundreds of phone calls since the National Review, the most respected national conservative publication, broke the story. Many Iowans are upset that our own campaign would smear our own candidate and Mormons and try to tie it to another campaign.

Because we were not able to answer all your phone calls, we’d like to issue a sincere apology. Our campaign believes that we must say and do anything to win — which sometimes gets us into trouble.

It has been a tough couple of months, as our staff has been under intense scrutiny because of our aggressiveness.

1. You probably read in the Washington Times that just 5 days ago, our top social conservative liaison, Paul Weyrich, accused National Right to Life of being bribed by the Fred Thompson campaign.

2. You probably read in the Washington Post about our consultants in South Carolina who made an offensive, anonymous website about Fred Thompson.

3. You probably heard from the Associated Press (AP) about how our campaign employed a director of operations who made fake police badges and would pull reporters over .

4. You probably read in The Hill, Washington’s leading newspaper, that our former Finance Co-Chairman, who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for our campaign, has been sued for severe child abuse, specifically sexual abuse .

5. You probably read in the Boston Globe about another one of our chief fundraisers who defrauded companies by $32 Million Dollars.

6. You probably heard that one of our top Homosexual supporters, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, will most likely not run for re-election. Luckily, we have found new support in the Homosexual Community by the endorsement of the Gay and Lesbian Log Cabin Republicans. You can view the endorsement by the Homosexual Gay and Lesbian Republican Group Here .

While we do not have the time to explain each and every of these offenses, including the newest one, we can assure you, our valued supporters, that the Team Romney campaign is 100% committed to saying anything and using any campaign tactics to win.

To Victory,

Iowa Team Romney

“Well, it indicates very, very strongly that whoever orchestrated the calls wanted these particular respondents— who could be counted on to run to the media complaining about the calls— contacted. Certainly, it was not up to Western Wats (allegedly) to determine who was called, so it wasn’t an accident, mistake, oversight , or even deliberate action (perhaps to aid a candidate that some at the firm seem to strongly back) on their part that led to these people being called.”

Not only were Romney staffers in the polling sample, but the choice of Western Wats themselves was designed to ensure the poll got flagged (by dissidents within Western Wats). From experience, most conspiracies are not conspiracies (but a few are).

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.