While I am not yet formally behind any one Republican presidential contender in 2008, I am willing to?publicly condemn?those GOP candidates who engage in negative campaigning during this process, which is evidently what the Mitt Romney campaign is guilty of. I want to hear from each candidate why we should vote for?them and not why we should?refuse to?vote for another candidate. The stakes are too high?in this election for politics as usual and more inside-the-beltway behavior.?The case against the Romney campaign?in this respect is made in yesterday’s article?from The American Spectator on-line by The Prowler:
An independent website of evangelicals that supports former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney?has been using opposition research provided by the Romney campaign, as well as accepting funds from donors steered to the site by the Romney camp. The site does not accept funds directly from the Romney campaign.
Romney has been attempting to build up his credentials among evangelicals for almost two years, particularly since early focus grouping and polling in the South and elsewhere revealed that many evangelicals have a deep distrust of the Mormon faith.
Evangelicals for Mitt appears to be the result of the early efforts of?Mark DeMoss,?who operates a public relations company out of Atlanta. It was DeMoss who initially approached Romney, and who brought together many of the leaders of the evangelical movement in a meeting with Romney in Boston. From there, a number of evangelical groups began outreach with Romney. DeMoss has no direct ties to the website.
Today, the Evangelicals for Mitt operation has spent its time attacking conservative Republican presidential candidates, most recently former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and unannounced candidate, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
Thompson, who has made it clear that he does not support Roe v. Wade, and who was certified as pro-life by the National Right to Life Committee back in 1994, has continued to state that he is pro-life. But the Evangelicals for Mitt, using research provided by the Romney campaign, has been putting out information on its blog that Thompson, as well as other Republican Senate candidates, were not.
“That’s simply not the case,” says a Tennessee state Republican Party official. “Anyone who says that men like Thompson and [Bill] Frist weren’t opposed to Roe v. Wade wasn’t paying attention or just didn’t care.”
The Romney campaign has targeted Thompson as a serious threat to its ongoing political survival. Recent polls that have just begun including Thompson in surveys show him running ahead of Romney in Iowa, without his having spent a dime.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:22 am
What utter tripe! Evangelicals for Mitt is an independent group of Romney supporters, and they haven’t been attacking Thompson. They’ve been saying some pretty good things about him, just making it clear that he’s in the same category as Romney and not some always pro-life type that people are making him out to be because of their newfound belief never before held in presidential elections that you always have to have been a conservative on every issue to count as a good Republican candidate. It’s perfectly fair to point out when someone is being inconsistent in applying that standard to Romney while not applying it to others such as Brownback or Thompson. Such statements do not count as attacking Thompson.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Hold your horses Republius! This news is almost a week old. The latest attempt by AmSpec to attack Romney is pitiful, ill-informed, and maligning in my mind.
Here’s what I posted yesterday at MMM and here is the reply by Evangelicals for Mitt.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:23 am
from MyManMitt.com:
Frankly, this is silly. In my mind the folks at EFM have been maligned by Philp Klein and the AmSpec folk (who are inexplicable vehement in their opposition to Mitt Romney). Here’s the short version: Nancy French (a native of Tennessee) opined that she thought Thompson was pro-choice in his original incarnation for the Senate. Philip Klein and other people in the blogosphere then accused them of being liars. EFM co-blogger comes to Nancy’s defense:
David French (Nancy’s husband) chimes in with his own response:
Yesterday, I suspect that Philip Klein fed some items into the Prowler Column on Spectator.org. The gist of the article is confusing. They claim:
EFM is taking funds from the Romney campaign but isn’tMark DeMoss was the guy who started the EFM website only he didn’t. EFM is using Romney research which the Prowler doesn’t cite.
EFM is attacking Thompson using this research by quoting the opinions of other people?In short, it’s a pathetic attack with little evidence
March 27th, 2007 at 7:25 am
I read Evangelicals for Mitt quite often. It is an extremely positive group. They are not “negative campaigners.” Republius, on the other hand…
March 27th, 2007 at 7:41 am
I know Nancy,
They are independent.
This piece is shoddy work.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:00 am
C’mon, just re-read this:
“Today, the Evangelicals for Mitt operation has spent its time attacking conservative Republican presidential candidates, most recently former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and unannounced candidate, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.”
As if they’d waist resources attacking a guy who polls 2% and another who has not even announced yet? As long as they are making up stories, they should have added Newt Gingrich to that list.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:04 am
This would be accurate if a few words were changed. If by opposition research provided ‘by Romney’ you mean ‘by google’, then it would be correct. Also, saying the Romney campaign is trying to malign Fred Thompson is utter paranoia. I think Thompson’s presence is most welcome in the race since his support mostly is siphoned off from front runner Rudy Giuliani (according to initial polls).
I think you should let EFM speak for themselves on this matter: http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/the_american_spectator_gets_it.php
March 27th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Yup, that EFM post decimated that American Spectator article. Are these people serious? Five minutes with Lexis Nexus a few weeks ago told me that Fred Thompson was pro-choice in 1994 and 1996. The idea that a group of Tennesseans (which is what Evangelicals for Mitt essentially is) who were, you know, there when Fred Thompson made both his runs, needs opposition research from Romney’s camp to rememeber what was widely reported at the time is stupid beyond imagining.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:26 am
It is very clear that this is a hit piece on Mitt – not the reverse.
Are we “willing to publicly condemn those GOP candidates who engage in negative campaigning during this process” as Republius states?
Hmnnnn..
March 27th, 2007 at 8:33 am
I just was “delivered” some more opposition research, from on high and it turns out that not only did Fred Thomspon support McCain-Feingold, but he was it’s second Republican sponsor (after McCain). Glad the Romney campaign is feeding me this stuff, and I don’t have to waste 5 seconds discovering it.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Matt,
The Romney campaign just sent me a private email to report here that Thompson did nothing of note while senator. More coming…
…Oh here is the rest: Thompson left politics to become an actor because he couln’t handle the heat! Thank you Team Mitt.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Jason:
Private email, huh? How much is Romney paying you to do his dirty work on the blogs?
March 27th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Republius,
The EFM response to the American Spectator piece was on their site days before you posted this thread. So my question for you is, did you even bother to visit the EFM site before accusing them? If so, how do you disagree with their rebuttal to the Spectator?
Or do you believe everything the Spectator feeds you?
March 27th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Despicable Republius. Do your homework.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Despicable for its blatant spin.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Nate G,
Republius has been one of the more even handed posters around here, which surprises me that he latched onto this shoddy attack piece. However, I will not resort to ad hominem name calling. I think the mere association with certain pieces demonstrates his attitude.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I agree Barktwiggs. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I’d guess that, as an unalignd conservatives, he’s been more enthused by the possible entry of Fred Thompson then others. So I can see why he’d latch onto articles that attempt to defend him. But the truth is, it doesn’t take anything resembling serious opposition research to find the various ways in which Thompson was not what he appears to be during his time as a senator. It doesn’t take anything resembling serious effort to find dozens of articles referring to Thompson as a moderate. And just because some conservatives need him to their savior, it doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to these difficulties and question the motives of those who don’t.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
A note to all Romney supporters – the fact that Alex Castellanos is doing media for Mitt Romney guarantees that running negative advertisements and attacking, both directly and indirectly, GOP opponents will occur. I have made the same claim about the McCain campaign, which has Stuart Stevens doing their media.
For all those who think this charge is overheated, come back and talk to us when Romney and McCain go after Gingrich, Giuliani, and Fred Thompson more explicitly, which is inevitable given their personnel.
While I have not seen the EFM rebuttal, the tenor of The American Spectator piece is such that it implies the Romney campaign provided opposition research to EFM for the purpose of them going negative on Huckabee and Thompson. Perhaps EFM simply did not want to get as nasty as the Romney campaign wanted them to? The larger issue is the reporting that the Romney campaign has designs on going negative against those GOP candidates hurting their man, a tack I condemn.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
EFM has expressly refuted the idea that they’ve received any opposition research whatsoever from the Romney campaign. The writers at EFM are from Tennessee. They REMEMBERED Fred Thompson taking a pro-choice position, and used this remarkable tool called “google” to confirm their memory. One of the writers (perhaps Charles?) specifically remembered agonizing over voting for Fred Thompson, because he’d never voted for a pro-choice politician before. Did you even read the American Spectator article? It offered absolutely no evidence or sources.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Republius,
Whether or not the Romney camp will do negative advertising is yet to be seen. Inevitable? I’m not so sure. Only time will tell. I sincerely hope that they don’t.
The thing that I am stated as despicable is the fact that you haven’t read the rebuttal by EFM yet. The charges that the Romney camp did opposition research are completely fictitious. You should read the several posts about the subject from EFM before writing any more on the subject.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Republius,
You are too eager to believe every inside tip you read as true. Don’t you think it is at all possible that perhaps E4M just happens to know about Thomspon since they live in his home state and are politically active?
March 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Republius,
You’re getting rediculous. You’re defending your current condemnation of Romney based on an expectation that his campaign will go negative in the future, and upon a Spectator article that cites no facts in their claims? Furthermore, even though the link to the EFM rebuttal is in this very thread, you won’t read it, and prefer to ponder about the Romney campaign pushing EFM to get nasty? http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/the_american_spectator_gets_it.php
Republius, you’re losing credibility. Shall we get you a shirt and matching pom-poms with the initials FT on them?
March 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Republius,
You made a mistake. We all do. Just admit it and move on. This twisting around trying to justify your original post does nothing for your credibilty.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Jason,
I’ve been following this sight for a little while and I’m getting kind of tired of some of the spin. They are all good candidates, but anyone familiar with Thompson knows that the DEATH OF HIS DAUGHTER had a major impact on him not running for reelection here in Tennessee, and saying he quit because he just couldn’t take the heat is utterly ridiculous. GET ALL THE FACTS, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT MAKE YOUR CANDIDATE LOOK GOOD. Yes, he was sick of politics, but there were other factors in his decision. The death of ones child can alter a persons WHOLE outlook on life, in general. Thompson is quite possibly the most popular politician in the state over the last 100 years. If it comes down to it in the primaries, Thompson will sweep the south, unless Gingrich enters. His support here is pretty much untouchable unless some scandal breaks.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Tommy,
I don’t know about the south, but Rudy will carry Florida, and the northeast, California and the rest
of the west coast.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:26 am
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT…
It seems some people think the Romney campaign was behind my post about Fred Thompson, so I thought I’d tell the real story of how I came upon the information. I — being a Tennessean — read Tennessee blogs, like……
March 29th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
[...] race42008.com » Blog Archive » Report That The Mitt Romney Campaign Is Going Negative On… [...]