??????? The Hotline, with a link to Salon, is reporting on how these presidential straw polls often do not reflect grassroots support for candidates but rather the degree to which campaigns are willing to pay for and organize strong showings in advance. Straw polls are used by local party apparatuses to raise funds – to participate a person must purchase a ticket to the event at which the straw poll is being conducted; some presidential campaigns then pay for the tickets and transportation (not infrequently from out-of-state) of their supporters (or folks willing to be leased as such for the day) to attend these events and vote for their candidate in the straw poll.
In the most status quo, old school, inside-the-beltway fashion possible, the Romney campaign has basically purchased its recent straw poll results in South Carolina; buying an entire presidential nomination will hopefully prove to be a lot more difficult.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Here we go again, Republius.
The National Journal, run by hacks, puts forward articles written by hacks. Where’s the proof? They keep writing this, and yet no proof. Why don’t they rename themselves The Yellow Journal? It would be a start at telling the truth.
And I’m not just saying this about their treatment of Romney, it’s been horrible all around. This publication is the new Wonkette. Congrats, National Journal.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I’m sure the authors were able to get some attendees to admit off-the-record that they had been bought off by the Romney campaign, which would be enough corroboration to run with the story notwithstanding the fact that no staff would admit to such.
Anyone who knows the least bit about presidential campaigns understands that this is how these straw polls operate. They are farces that are finally being exposed to the general public, though political insiders have known for years how this game is played.
Is it any surprise that a campaign with the highest fundraising to date but single digit national support in polls is utilizing such a tactic? Do Romney supporters really want to deny that their campaign paid people to attend these South Carolina straw polls?
I am not picking on Romney. I have posted and pledged that I will highlight that which is unseemly, disingenuous, misleading, inconsistent, and hypocritical across the GOP spectrum of candidates in this race – because failing to expose such is how we end up with elected officials who campaign one way and govern another. Trust me, there is a lot more to cover when vetting these candidates, especially the front-runners.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Everyone knows what a farce these straw polls are. They are won by whoever is able to “cook the books” by encouraging/paying/busing etc…, the most supporters to the event.
‘Nuff said!
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
yeah, like we-know-who
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Republius, it’s unethical to publish off the record comment as fact. Unethical as a betrayal of the trust placed in the reporters, and unethical because it cannot be corroborated. Which essentially makes it worthless information.
There is also a difference between paying someone cash to vote a certain way and paying the logistical cost for that person to attend a vote (which does not benefit the individual financially). You’re talking about bribes, here. That is a serious charge, one that demands proof.
Are the straw polls a joke? Absolutely. I don’t care about the results of these at all. I do care about charges of bribery, and certainly proof of that is enough for me to stop supporting Romney. But rumor and innuendo is not enough, and the article cited above cannot be called objective or professional by any stretch.
Finally, Republius, why do you go back to the national polls again and again? It’s illogical. The efforts are local, so the corresponding measurement should be local (i.e. the individual state polls). That’s how it generally works: plan, act, measure, adjust. If you plan and act in Locale X, it doesn’t make sense to measure results in Locale Y.
I appreciate your efforts at muckracking. You may eventually succeed at changing my mind (and probably many other Romney supporters’ minds), but you’re going to need facts, not speculation, to do so.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
*muckraking
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/04/23/romney-buying-more-straw-polls/
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
“I’m sure the authors were able to get some attendees to admit off-the-record that they had been bought off by the Romney campaign, ”
Even if that were to be true, what does that tell you about a candidates ability to mobilize and get out the vote? Also, can’t all the candidates play this game?
I think this is a bit over the top:
“unseemly, disingenuous, misleading, inconsistent, and hypocritical across the GOP spectrum of candidates in this race ”
If these straw polls fall into that category, then we ought not to have them. Shall we make a pledge to not post any straw poll information due to these concerns? Also, if this were really “old school” politics, then the political bosses themselves would be bought out to “ensure” victory. That’s not the case here.
At least this is not beer for votes:
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_096103933.html
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
KT, EyeOn08 is not a credible news source. Just because he excerpts the Salon article (which claims that logical costs were paid, not bribery as Republius claims) doesn’t make it true.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
You Romney supporters (well, SOME of you) really need to take a chill-pill. This is all about politics and if you cant take the heat get out of the kitchen! Seems to me you are more like those liberal dems attempting to stop free speech on this blog.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
and that goes specifically for YOU JF
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
logical -> logistical
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
KT, once again you are overcome by emotion. I respect facts, and facts only. Show me facts, not “he said, she said,” and you can convince me. I have said multiple times, I am probably the easiest person to convince on this whole board, but no one, least of all you, KT, cares to argue with facts. Thus I remain a Romney supporter.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Would you like a real source on this issue? I was recruited by Chris Slick to attend the GOP convention, and I paid for my own registration. I’d be happy to e-mail a copy of the cancelled check. I can also vouch that anyone else he recruited was a solid supporter of Governor Romney–both before and after the convention.
Most of these people simply didn’t know how the process worked and so Romney’s campaign helped explain the process so that we could get involved. As a result of attending, my wife and I were able to volunteer to assist with future elections at our precinct.
Was there “vote buying”? NO! Was there “delegate sponsoring”? Probably, but that’s not why Romney won the straw poll. He won it because he gave the best speech, has the strongest grassroots organization in the state, and his supporters are enthusiastic about his message.
By the way, has anyone actually looked into the process of qualifying to be a delegate at a straw poll in Greenville County? You have to have voted in the republican primary in 2006, attend your precinct reorganization meeting, or attend the make-up reorganization meeting (which I did)–in addition to paying a mere $15 to help support the local GOP. In other words, it cost me 7 hours of my time to be a delegate (regardless of the $15 dollars).
You would have to be an idiot to think that Romney’s win was by anything other than a dedicated grassroots support!
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
JF, I am the least poll driven contributor on this site. I have said repeatedly that these early polls are mostly name identification driven at this stage and need to be taken with a tremendous grain of salt. However, there are some things that you can glean from them. When a candidate like Romney has raised and spent as much money as he has but cannot make headway in such national polls, that is a trouble sign. And when candidates like Gingrich and Fred Thompson do well in such national polls without having declared or having applied any money or organization to the campaign then it reflects a groundswell.
I recognize that Romney supporters would rather focus on these straw polls that they are buying rather than the national polls, but that would not, it seems to me, provide a balanced look at his campaign. There are reasons why the national media are comparing Romney to John Connally in 1980 and Phil Gramm in 1996.
cwpete, I am all for eliminating reports of straw polls. Unless one can report exactly which candidates spent money on them and how much was spent by each, the results are going to be seriously skewed. I am willing to admit that these straw polls can reflect organizing prowess, but the problem is that in a primary election you cannot pay voters (legally) in the same way. And as to being over the top about that which ought to be reported, stay tuned. The weaknesses and negatives of the top-tier GOP candidates have not been focused on yet by the media or the public in any significant degree.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Indeed, JF. I’ve basically given up on attempts to corrale fact-based responses from many posters on this site. Are straw polls indicative of the general population’s voting preferences? Of course not. Are they based in large part on a candidate’s organizational and monetary assets? Absolutely. But that’s sort of the whole point. Claiming that Romney is “buying” off supporters in such context is borderline hysterical and incoherent. Romney’s doing exactly what every other presidential in past fields, and every presidential candidate in the current field, attempts to do. He’s simply been more successful at it. And a large part of that success stems from the fact, that he was more successful in other, earlier parts of the campaign (organization leads to money, which leads to more organization, which leads to more money). If people insist on decrying Romney and lobbing ridiculous accusations in his general direction, because he’s successfully executed a common strategy, within the rules of the system, then I think they really ought to abandon the notion that they’re conservative. Because I’d sort of thought that deploring success was a liberal’s job.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Republius,
I have noticed a constant thread through much of your Romney reporting — condemn him for something that you just “know” he is doing and have no proof, or (my personal favorite) condemn him for something that you just “know” he is going to do eventually.
Don’t you feel just a little silly sometimes?
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Certainly some straw polls are more reliable and genuine than others (see #14 by SC Conservative); some have strict standards for participation that help filter out illegitimate voters, many do not (because the local party wants to raise as much money as it can).
My larger point is that straw polls are not a very good indicator of how a presidential candidate may be doing. When you have to pay to play, as you do in a straw poll, it makes things less than representative and subject to manipulation by wealthier campaigns.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
marK (#17), are you denying that the Romney campaign spent a bunch of money to influence the South Carolina straw polls?
What is silly is the delusional nature of so many Romney supporters, which I am pleased and proud to expose.
Me thinks the Romney supporters doth protest too much in this instance.
And I have pointed out weaknesses, inconsistencies, and unseemliness when I have seen them in Brownback, Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson – not just Romney.
This site ought to help educate the public as to their presidential choices. And I have been involved in enough national and federal campaigns to expose the tricks and misdirection that these campaigns like to pull. Sorry.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
They bought and paid for mercenaries at CPAC, and here they go again, doing it in SC. All smoke and mirrors from the Romney campaign.
I call it one thing: DESPERATION.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Billy,
One sign of desperation is when you throw around accusations without proof.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Billy Valentine (in #20), I am willing to agree that there is a pattern with the Romney campaign of trying to buy support at events like CPAC and in the South Carolina straw polls, which is why I posted this article in the first place. Romney has a lot to offer, it seems to me, but his buying of support and claims of things like being a lifelong hunter really make me wonder if he isn’t just another bored, rich, Harvard elitist lusting for the power of office to keep himself challenged. My personal regard for him and his efforts dissipates as the campaign unfolds, and he may be like McCain for me – someone I cannot consider voting for in the primary.
I don’t know that the Romney campaign is all smoke and mirrors and no substance. But I think their tactics are disingenuous enough to be exposed so that voters can judge for themselves.
As to whether the Romney campaign is desperate, I am not sure they are there yet. But after raising as much money as they did and still being in single digits in the national polls, they can probably see it from where they are.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
These allegations of buying out polls are ridiculous. The real story here is the candidates ability to organize and mobilize. I don’t know about yours but twenty dollars is not worth several hours of my time. If I were to be “bought out” (and I’m not) – I’d make sure that it would be for a figure well North of $20! C’mon man, are these guys really that cheap? This allegation does not make sense. Is there anyone willing to go on the record saying that they were offered money to vote a certain way? If not, then there really is not any discussion here.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
cwpete (in #24), why would anyone go on the record and admit they (as staff) paid people to participate in a straw poll or (as a voter) were paid to attend? There could be serious ramifications for admitting to any of this.
This has been going on for years. Open your eyes.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Republius:
“..Romney campaign of trying to buy support..”
Please clarify what you mean by “buying support.”
Are you implying that something illegal is being done? Or, are you saying that he is simply doing what all politicians do when they have the necessary wherewithal. Which is it?
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Republius,
You launch an attack on a candidate without the barest fig leaf of proof, the candidate’s supporters point out your errors, and then you claim their very defense proves that you are right.
Is that not weak, inconsistent, or at least unseemly — to use your words?
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I guess one could make any accusation they wanted with the cover of anonymous sources. Even to the extent of slander.
If the Romney campaign did something illegal – I’d want to know. So would many here..
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Repulius, you are doing it again. (see my personal favorite in #17)
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Republius,
Of course Romney spent money and expended resources to influence the South Carolina straw polls. But what in the world does this have to do with anything? Do you deny that the Bush 2004 campaign spent money, and expended resources to influence the voters? I confess, it’s not always clear to me exactly what point pundits are attempting to make, and I’m certainly in the dark here. Is the fact that Romney has strong organizational prowesss and substantial finacial resources and, say, Jim Gilmore has a poor organization and poorer coffers, something that’s not going to be relevant in the primaries? Again it’s not clear to me what you’re getting at here, though it’s obviously something negative for the Romney campaign. The best I can figure is that Romney should be criticized for using his advantages, in areas which are relevant to straw polls (and to elections more generally) to produce targeted success. That is to say, Romney should be dismissed because he’s succeeding where he’s attempting to and (presumably), finding less success in areas where he hasn’t focused considerably. It seems like an odd sort of indictment. Again, if there’s any evidence that Romney’s doing things illegal or unethical, such as directly paying voters, or if he’s taking unprecedented steps, then maybe the claim he’s “purchased straw polls” would be relevant. But I’ve seen absolutely no evidence of this, and I highly you’ll ever find any (hint: Because it’s simply not occurring).
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
cwpete (#25), I am saying that Romney is doing what many politicians who are flush with cash do – paying folks to show up and support him at events like CPAC and the South Carolina straw polls.
But it is wrong (unethical, but not illegal), and not all candidates do it – even those with money.
Character counts – a lot. And when a candidate is willing to exaggerate their record (as a lifelong hunter) and pay for support to the degree Romney has, it makes me question their character. If you disagree, donate to and vote for him. I won’t support a candidate who is that desperate to win because I question their judgment.
But I am confident that Romney is getting himself in enough hot water with these things to eliminate his chances to win the nomination, which from what I am seeing of him will be a good outcome.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Republius (#19), you said “What is silly is the delusional nature of so many Romney supporters, which I am pleased and proud to expose.”
Delusional for demanding facts? I could have sworn you had legal training, but I must have confused you with a different poster.
Let’s look at your posts in April tagged with Mitt Romney:
“Glad To See The Mainstream Media Doing More Reporting On The Charades That These Straw Polls Have Often Become”
(Today) You posted baseless speculation, and when I asked for proof, you were unable to come up with the goods
“Mitt Romney Has The Highest Negatives Of Any 2008 Presidential Candidate In Either Major Party At This Juncture”
(April 19) I proved through the poll’s own data (14% name recognition) that no conclusion could be reached about his negatives, unless you believe that Americans are as bigoted as Democrats believe they are
“Yes, Giuliani And McCain And Romney Have Downward Momentum – As This Iowa Lincoln Day Dinner Report Shows”
(April 17) I didn’t challenge you on this directly at the time, but nothing in the article proves that Romney has downward momentum.
This is the only specifically anti-Romney quote, and it’s hardly a blanket condemnation. The article also said that he and McCain had the best organization. Once again, you are confusing one event in one state with nation-wide consequences, which is an invalid conclusion.
“Someone Else Makes The Comparison – Is Mitt Romney A 2008 Version Of The 1996 Phil Gramm?”
(April 11) As explicit as you can get in the third-party attack tactics. I challenged you in this in comment #7, and you said you didn’t think those differences were enough to make a difference.
In any case, I’m sure you can see a trend here. Instead of Romney supporters doth protest too much, it’s probably we protest too little. We have a legitimate (and fact-based) claim that your presentation of Romney has been less than objective. The only difference is that I call you on it more often than supporters of other candidates call you on your less than objective coverage of their candidates.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Republius,
I just deleted a heated and probably uncalled for response to number #22. I will say only two things in response. 1.) As Thompson’s entry to race has appeared more likely, you’ve essentially abandoned your previous, aloof “it’s too early to make any serious decisions” posture. And 2.) This statement “I don’t know that the Romney campaign is all smoke and mirrors and no substance” coming from someone almost guaranteed to jump on the Thompson train the moment it leaves the station, is really hard to to fathom.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Republius:
I think you are just bemoaning “politics as usual” – which I can understand. I haven’t seen anything illegal or disingenuous being done (unless you include politics as usual as disingenuous, which I can respect if you do). Some candidates need to spend at this stage, some don’t. Others need to but can’t. I don’t consider it fair to lampoon Romney’s character for doing what most politicians are compelled to do in order to remain viable and to increase name recognition.
As for the hunting thing, well – that bothers me just about as much as a cloudy day.
-Thanks for the discussion..
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Dang, I just occured to me……
so that’s how John Cox won a straw poll.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
If he’s jumping, he might not be the only one….
http://www.nhinsider.com/the-rumor-mill/2007/4/23/romney-preparing-for-comstocks-switch-to-thompson.html
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Tommy, can you put your FDT blog in your “Website” field? I forgot in which thread you posted it, and it would enable us to access it more readily.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Straw polls are fluff. The polls are about as insightful as navel gazing midgets. At this point the real game begins at the debates.
I expect after the first GOP debate we’ll see shifts in the polls as voter are given something to judge these candidates on besides stale propaganda.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
As long as this ain’t some trick to attract a lot of spam, no problemo.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Republius,
It seems to me that for the last few months you’ve brought up policy issues of a somewhat significant nature regarding McCain and Giuliani. But when you go negative on Romney, I constantly find you grasping for straws…if for no other reason than presenting negatives for all Big 3. A few examples:
Recently, you’re constantly bringing up Romney’s hunter comments where he claimed to be a lifelong hunter as a dishonest exageration of his record. Yet if you look at the context of his remarks, he was being very clear about only hunting small game. The claim of being a lifelong hunter was clearly based on him hunting (rabbits, varmints, etc) his whole life (boyhood, young adult, even recently). There was never any insinuation that he was a annual-moose-head-on-the-wall type hunter, and Romney further clarified his remarks to say that he is more of a Jed Clampett than a Teddy Roosevelt.
Before that, you were all over Romney for the negative ads he was “prepared” to air on the other candidates, even though no such negative attack had been made. If I recall, the only support for this idea was one of the staffers of another candidate. This might be marK’s personal favorite in #17.
I remember when your gig was attacking Romney for making a $250 contribution to a mormon Democrat in a primary race, using that to question whether Romney held religious loyalty over party loyalty. Haven’t heard much of that schtick after a reader pointed out that Romney’s financial support of mormons is less than you’d expect based on their statistical representation in Congress.
You’ve stated previously that Romney’s flip-flopping on “many” significant issues will be a problem. Yet the only significant issue he flipped on was abortion. Many of the other attacks (gun policy, Bush tax cuts, gay marriage, stem cell funding, etc) have been laid out on this very website as mostly hype and incorrect facts. Furthermore, Fred Thompson has made the same flip on abortion policy and you give him a free pass.
Now you’re attacking Romney for unethically paying people for support at straw polls. Yet the facts of the matter show that his supporters are making no monetary gain…he is merely covering some of their logistical costs.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Not to get into another fred vs mitt arguement. But Fred’s abortion slip was an out of context quote from 14 years ago. Mitt’s debate with the Democrat female for governor is ALL over yourtube. There’s a little bit of difference there.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Republius -
While I agree with some of the facts in your presentation, I would have to differ with some of the conclusions you draw from it (and quoting anything from Salon, by the way, doesn’t give you the air of ethos on any political subject
).
Is Romney paying for the tickets of folks to attend these county conventions? Some of them, sometimes. Are other candidates paying for the tickets of folks to attend these county conventions? Some of them, sometimes. It’s called ground organization, and it’s part of the game.
Are people who go as McCain supporters deciding to vote for Romney in the straw polls? Yes, and Mitt didn’t pay for that to happen. Are people who paid for themselves going in just to hear the candidates and ending up voting for Romney? Yes, and Mitt didn’t pay for those. Are multitudes of folks walking out of these conventions with Mitt Romney yard signs and buttons and DVDs? Yes, and he’s not paying them to take that stuff.
Are straw polls narrow polls with a specialized audience and an incredibly small sample size? Absolutely. Are they the be-all-end-all to the campaign? Nobody ever claimed they were. Are they completely useless shams? Far from it. They are useful for measuring two things: a campaign’s organization and a campaign’s popularity.
Which, by the way, are the same exact two things necessary to win in the hugest “sham” of them all come August – the watershed event of the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa. That straw poll is half organization and half popularity. By using these SC straw polls as a way to prepare and test his campaign for Ames, Romney is proving to himself that he’s got the goods to deliver in Ames as well as getting the great side benefit of generating a bunch of great local press (and some national press from this weekends’ polls). I say this has been a hugely smart move on Romney’s part to play these straw polls as well as he has.
Just don’t pretend he’s the only one buying people tickets to these events (or that all these events require tickets anyway), or that every person voting for him in the straw polls just did so because he paid them. Those are ludicrous claims that can never be backed up with fact.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I don’t think that was Republius’ point, Heavy. What I think he was trying to say was that the straw polls are pretty worthless. He said it in an angry way, as a lot of people would do when they ccome across something that appears malicious in its intent.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Romney has money and a big organization. At this point he’s got problems with his religion and his past politics. His rationale for being deserving of the Presidency hasn’t yet appeared. I’m assuming he’ll have one ready for the debates. It will be interesting to see how he frames his justification for being nominated.
So far only McCain has really set out why he should be President. I’m assuming the other candidates are still focused on crafting their public images.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Tommy, it’s one thing to say that straw polls are worthless (I agree) and another thing to say that a candidate is bribing people to win those straw polls (I disagree until I see proof). Republius is now notorious for peddling in rumor, speculation, and unsupported conclusions (as I pointed out in #31), which is why he is provoking such a backlash.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Tommy,
Fred took a clerely pro-choice position when he said:
Now of course you’ll point to his record in office as being on the pro-life side of legislation. Very true. But voting to support the partial-birth-abortion ban does not make someone pro-life overall…it simply means that they don’t take as monstrous a political position as some. Romney has always supported parental-notification legislation and the PBA ban, but (like Thompson) that doesn’t mean he was always pro-life overall.
Both Romney and Thompson previously supported Roe v Wade, and they are both now opposed to it. The difference is in the amount of exposure Romney’s former position has been given, and the lack thereof with respect to Fred.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Everyone responds differently. I can see both sides of the argument. One, yes, his remark was probably made intending to provoke some backlash, with the rumors, and he got what he deserved.. But, at the same time, I can understand how he could be sick of all the posting about every little detail of the straw polls, and how great the race is going for Romney, when in truth, it ain’t going that great for anybody, at this point. Nobody likes the annointed one who everyone must bow down to, whether its Romney, Giuliani, or FDT.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Murphy,
But outside of one off-the-cuff quote which has been refuted by both FDT and the former president of Right to Life, there is absolutely no proof that Thompson has ever been pro-abortion. Thompson has always said that Roe v Wade was bad law and needed to be overturned. I personally don’t care what either candidate said years ago, but to say Thompson supported Roe V Wade is false. If/or when he said that quote, he didn’t say he supported RvW. He said it should be up to the states, thereby, NOT supporting federal legalization one way or another.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Tommy, agreed. I think the point has been made with the straw poll results (whatever point that may be), and I think the posters can safely lay off. When John Cox wins, it really undermines the whole effort, so let’s concentrate on matters of substance. Thanks, Jason and HeavyM.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Tommy,
Can you provide quotes from FDT during his Senate campaign to show that he was against RvW? Also, can you provide more detail about FDT’s refutation of his quote? How does he refute it? Was it taken out of context? Was he not talking about abortion, but actually about toaster oven purchases? Was the original quote a lie? Was he delerious at the time?
If Thompson is convincingly anti-RvW and pro-life now, I won’t hold his prior position against him. I do, however, find it bothersome when Thompson supporters (not implicating you in this) judge Romney to have flipped on abortion and give Thompson a free pass.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
thanks
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I’m not judging Romney of anything. Hold on a minute and I’ll look for Thompson’s quote. I saw it the other day,but didn’t think to link it.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
JF (in #31), a review of my posting history around here will show I have said virtually nothing much or good about Senator McCain – I praised his VMI speech but have said I cannot support him in the primary due to temperament and other concerns. The only thing I have posted about Brownback is negative – that he first ran for Congress as a moderate, courting pro-choice voters, and was not the pro-life candidate in the primary. I have posted a lot about Mayor Giuliani, but virtually nothing good lately other than that he has executive experience – and have excoriated him for his recent comments about abortion and gun control. I have urged Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator Fred Thompson to get in the race, but have acnknowledge their weaknesses. I have not talked about the other candidates because I don’t think they are viable.
With all the puffery and positioning and spin going on around here, which is to be expected of supporters, I prefer to be the guy who pokes holes in the facades. But Romney is not the only one who has been the object of my posts, it’s just that he has provided a lot of fodder lately.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I just got online here and saw that this post already has 50 responses, so I apologize if I’m repeating something already mentioned. . .I read most of the responses but may have missed something. . .
I just have two quick points: First, it’s not like straw polls were just invented. It’s been done this way for years, mostly to raise money for the respective party holding the event. No one ever claimed that these polls were the equivalent of a primary election, much less the general. They are fundraisers which give the party faithful a chance to meet and greet the candidates. As someone earlier said, it’s a mere $15 to get in (or whatever the low cost) so mostly anyone could attend these. Which brings me to my second point: Complaining that Romney is buying his way in neglects the fact that every other candidate could do exactly the same. No one is stopping Giuliani or McCain from busing supporters to these events. Romney is playing by the rules. If the others chose not to play along that’s their problem. But something tells me every other candidate would be trumpeting the results from the mountaintops if they were winning most of these polls, no matter how those wins came about.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
My criticism with this article has very little to do with the subject. Straw polls are indeed extremely suspect, and I think the National Journal and Salon pierces are serious pieces of information. The commentary, which alleged serious misconduct on Romney’s part, was what disturbed me. Had Republius said something to the effect of “Straw polls are not representative of general political trends, and don’t really give candidate’s much if any momentum because of the way they’re conducted” I would have probably had one response for the entire thread. And it would have been complimentary.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Murphy:
“And on abortion, his comments echoed those he gave to The Weekly Standard last week, when I asked about press reports from his first Senate campaign in 1994 that identified him as pro-choice. Thompson said: “I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don’t remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice.” He added: “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100-percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/20/opinion/main2709999.shtml
National Right to Life Committee on Fred Thompson:
“This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in Tennessee as a pro-choicer. Not so, National Right to Life executive co-director Darla St. Martin just told me.
St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.
‘I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,’ St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.
‘He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life,’ she said.
On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue…”
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6017
ABORTION:
STRONGLY OPPOSES topic 1: “Abortion is a woman’s right”
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson_SenateMatch.htm
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Abortion
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Republius, I appreciate the gadfly role you often play, but you do yourself and this site a serious disservice when you make accusations (such as bribery) without backing them up. This isn’t a gossip site (or at least, I thought it wasn’t), so it can’t be dismissed as an offhand guess, especially when you come back with claims that having worked in the political arena, you have witnessed this first-hand. If such corruption so pervasive, I would be eager to learn more so I can oppose candidates engaged in such behavior. But you haven’t shown that Romney is engaged in such behavior, which makes it appear that you’re engaging in a smear campaign. Support or oppose him, the tactics used against McCain in SC in 2000 were disgusting (concerning a possible illegitimate child), and I should hope you don’t support such tactics, either. In which case you might be best served following Matt’s advice (#54) and stay on the high road.
Otherwise, as they say, “put up or shut up.”
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
JF (in #56), you have to be the only guy in this hemisphere who doesn’t know that the Romney campaign has been paying folks to show up at events. If you are that unknowing, nothing anyone can report is going to have much impact on you. Those who are doing the paying or being paid are not going to go on the record.
I will be pointing out, as I pledged, all unseemly tactics that come to my attention during this race on the GOP side. Yes, presidential straw polls are pervasively rigged. Talk to any political professional and they will tell you this. It is not against the law, but folks should not tout the results of these straw polls as grassroots support and evidence of momentum for their candiate when not all opponents can spend or are spending the same kind of money to influence the results.
If you are going to claim that Romney is not paying people to show up at events, your are being hoodwinked and are going to end up looking foolish.
And I am sure that plenty of you would prefer I take a high road approach so that what your candidates have been and are doing won’t see the light of day around here. It is not going to happen. Better that your candidates take the high road so that nothing questionable with respect to them requires discussion.
This is exactly the problem with the Romney campaign. He has a lot to offer, but because of the way he has campaigned the discussions around here and in the general media more often than not are about controversial subjects such as his policy flip-flops, his claim to be a lifelong hunter, and now his “investment” in straw polls. All of this is Romney’s fault, not somebody else’s.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Every picture tells a story… and here is one of em’
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85772001@N00/456703549/
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Tommy,
No offense, but all those quotes of yours are dodging the meat of the topic. Apparently Fred doesn’t remember the 1994 quotes, but doesn’t dispute them either (2007). And he voted pro-life in the Senate on issues such as PBA, human cloning, and MBA (1998 – 2000). And according to Darla St. Martin, Fred was opposed to abortion.
But the fact remains, quotes from Thompson show that he supported abortion rights in his 1994 and 1996 Senate campaigns. It’s great that he flipped on the issue…I wish every pro-choicer would flip on the issue. But you are still dodging the fact that Thompson previously supported a woman’s “right to choose”.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Republius, if it’s so easy to prove, then prove it. If you cannot prove it, you know no more than I do. I don’t understand why that’s so hard for your to accept. If you can’t prove it, then it’s mere speculation. Speculation is not the same as fact and not the same as truth. If you speculate, it’s fair game for me to attack your lack of credibility. The Democrats are attacking the Republicans in a very similar way: back in 2003, “everyone knew” that Saddam had WMDs. We knew until we couldn’t prove it was true, and then the Dems “knew” that he didn’t have them, even though we couldn’t prove that, either. Your whole line of reasoning is flawed, and I’m trying to do you a favor by pointing that out. Every time you attach this kind of logic to one of your comments, you basically destroy the whole argument you’re trying to make.
Again, this isn’t about Romney, this is about the value of information posted on this site. Whether it’s Romney or Guiliani or McCain or FDT, if you post something along the lines of “everyone knows that XYZ is engaged in corrupt and possibly criminal behavior,” you’ll be attacked unless you can prove it. It’s as simple as that. Dress it up however you like, but it’s distasteful and unprofessional.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Murphy:
There is one quote that says that. Nothing more. He has never been quoted saying it again. Any report that has said so is just coming directly from that one quote. He never supported Roe vs. Wade. I personally don’t care what he did or didn’t do 14 years ago. What he said in his quote, if you read it thoroughly, is that he said something to render that verdict of the reporter that he was pro-choice. The reporter wrote the story from their perspective. Somebody else picked up on the story, and then another, and before you know it, Fred was pro-choice. Every one of you trying to say he was pro-choice is basing it on one quote. If anything you ever say is taken out of what you meant to say in the first place, and is the only thing that is used against you over and over again. Wouldn’t you get annoyed at the whole thing? I mean come on, ONE QUOTE. It’s not like he went on msnbc and made a big deal out of it.
Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4 You can’t possibly compare the two.
I don’t care what his views are, I just get irritated when people twist them around to use against him.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
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.
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.
National Right to Life says Thompson has been reliably pro-life and his voting record sustains that view.
- Bill Hobbs, Elephant Biz, March 26, 2007
http://www.elephantbiz.com/2007/03/independent_blog_has_ties_to_r.html
Pro-abortion Planned Parenthood can’t find a thing to like about Fred:
“Listed below is the name, state and party of each of these senators along with Planned Parenthood’s rating of them.
Name State Party PP rating…
Fred Thompson TN R 0% ”
http://www.all.org/stopp/rr0111.htm
NRLC says Fred is [still] pro-life:
“With 54% of the vote, pro-life former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander (R) won the seat of retiring PRO-LIFE Senator Fred Thompson.”
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL11/senate.html
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Romney is not “paying” people to show up at events. If anything, his consultant is guilty of sponsoring delegates to events–something completely within the rules of straw polls. And as far as we know, this is only reported to have occured at one even.
Now Republius, please describe for me how you think this recruiting takes place. Perhaps something like this:
Romney Rep:
“Hello there, you look like someone who is interested in making some quick money! I’ll tell you what, come with me tonight for this political meeting–it will only take you a couple hours (Oh, and don’t worry about that national championship basketball game going on tonight–this will be much better).
“At That meeting, I will pay for your ticket to another event in a few weeks. You will need to be there from 9:00 AM to Noon–don’t worry, it’s a Saturday so you won’t have to take time off work. All you have to do, is show up and vote for a guy named Mitt Romney”
The bewildered voter:
“So when do I get my money?”
Romney Rep:
“What money? No, you don’t understand, we give you a free ticket to this second meeting where you can shake some guys hands and get some free coffee and muffins and influence the political future of America with your vote”
Republius, this, in effect is what you are trying to say took place. Would you like to offer your rendition?
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“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.”
Yet, again, this has been thoroughly rebutted by Evangelicals for Mitt. Every contributor on that site is from Tennessee. They remembered Fred being widely reported as pro-choice (one stated that he agonized over voting for Fred, since it would have been his first vote for a pro-choice politician0. They then used this wacky tool called Google to determine that there remembrances were actually based on fact. Fred was reported as pro-choice. There was at lreast one hard quote confirming this. And Thompson never once said anything to suggest that papers’ were mischaracterizing his abortion views. That sort of “well, duh” realization, hardly requires aid from the Romney campaign. I’d turned up the material in literally 5 mins sorting through Lexis Nexus. These accusations are so patently and transparently ridiculous, that I’m almost starting to wonder if they’re satire.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Classic, SC Conservative. Classic.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Tommy,
1. There’s only 1 quote because Thompson’s in his political honeymoon, he has not yet faced serious vetting.
2. Nobody who is against “the right to choose” would say the following (even once):
show some evidence.
Again, I’m not going to hold Thompson’s former position against him, so long as he is pro-life now. But you may as well admit to the facts instaead of trying to wiggle out of them.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Ok, my #66 got messed up from syntax,
Tommy,
1. There’s only 1 quote because Thompson’s in his political honeymoon, he has not yet faced serious vetting.
2. Nobody who is against “the right to choose” would say the following (even once):
3. If the quote was incorrect, Thompson would have said so. Instead, he hemmed and hawed about his bad memory.
4. Where there’s one quote, there will inevitably be more quotes.
5. If you’re going to claim that the Romney campaign fed opposition research to a grassroots website (EFM), show some evidence.
Again, I’m not going to hold Thompson’s former position against him, so long as he is pro-life now. But you may as well admit to the facts instaead of trying to wiggle out of them.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Of course, he’s had one reported quote. ONE. Nobody, besides second hand sources has shown my one cent of proof as to what Fred said.
That’s the whole point. I LIVED HERE IN TENNESSEE MY WHOLE LIFE!!! I REMEMBER THE CAMPAIGN AND VOTED FOR HIM IN 1996, WHEN I WAS OLD ENOUGH. I REMEMBER THE WHOLE THING, AND THERE WAS NOTHING MORE THAN HEARSAY. THAT’S THE ONLY QUOTE I CAN FIND, BUT HE’S ALWAYS SAID HE DOESN’T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM. HE HAS ALWAYS SAID THAT ROE V WADE IS BAD LAW, AND IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE STATES.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
what he said any other time.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I’m not saying Romney said that. I took a direct quote from a different website and cited it. I didn’t accuse Romney people putting it out there. THE QUOTE I TOOK IT FROM DID>
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I COULD CARE LESS IF ROMNEY’S PEOPLE PUT IT OUT THERE. I’M JUST SAYING IT’S NOT ACCURATE.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I don’t think that many of your who are going after Republius have actually read the story that he blogged on.
The Salon story clearly outlines the way in which this happens:
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Show me a quote were Thompson said “I support Roe vs. Wade” and I’ll shut up about it.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Murphy and Mark:
I guess it’s ok when Romney has his words completely twisted around about the NRA, but Fred was different.
And one last time. I didn’t accuse Romney of anything. The article I posted did!
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Now I am not accusing Romney of doing any thing that many, many other candidates have done before him. My point is that straw polls have absolutely no predictive value whatsoever.
The only other comment I would have is that Team Romney should have known that people would call BS when he is at between 4%-5% in scientific polling in SC. So who is he trying to convince here? Anyone who pays attention to this kind of thing sees right through it.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
That quote is exactly the problem with Republius’ logic in this piece, though — Lynch was already going to support Mitt Romney. They didn’t pay him to attend the convention or vote in the straw poll. They simply paid his dues to become a delegate. There was no quid pro quo. Any candidate could do this. It is within the legal and ethical boundaries of party conventions. In fact, every smart candidate, Rudy and McCain included, probably do this.
So the question is, why the incredibly negative tone toward solely Romney in this piece? Why the accusation that he is buying voters at these polls? Why the insinuation that without money, Romney would lose these polls?
It’s just a bizarre logical leap.
No one ever claimed straw polls were great measurements of the overall race, just that they are one singular way to measure support in a local area. If Romney’s organization is better than McCain’s or Giuliani’s or other candidates, so be it, but you don’t have to get bitter about it.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I can just see it now: after Romney comes in 1st or 2nd at the Ames straw poll, Mitt-bashers galore will shout, “But he just bought that win!”
C’mon, we all know what these straw polls are and how they work. Every candidate knows, and every candidate with a modicum of political sense tries to exploit them for positive press. There’s no story here.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Tommy,
The quote from Fred saying “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman” is exactly what I’d expect from someone who supported abortion rights. I think the burden is on Thompson’s campaign (or folks like you who are supporting him) to produce evidence showing Thompson’s quote to be inaccurate. Do you have any pro-life quotes from Thompson in 1994 or 1996? Did Thompson call that quote innacurate during his campaign, or is his memory failure just a recent thing?
If you think I’m holding a double standard, by all means give me details. You seem to be getting emotionally vested in this without having the facts to support your case.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Kavon (#72), I did read the story. But the story doesn’t support Republius’ statement.
So where in the article is it alleged that Romney bussed in out of state supporters, “leased” fake supporters, or generally purchased the straw poll outcome? Beyond what the article alleges, how does it prove any of these allegations? It does not. Republius did not, and neither did you. I remain unconvinced that this was an innocent, impartial post. It was not.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Gee, HeavyM. Just like all the Romney supporters are twisting a fourteen year old quote around, but when it happens to their boy with the NRA, the reporter got it all wrong. There is a double standard here. I happened to believe Mitt on the NRA thing, but nobody would take Fred’s word, cause Romney is apperantly Holier than thou.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Kavon, Romney’s at 14% in the latest 2 SC polls…
What he would say is that once people get to hear him speak and mingle with him, they are even more inclined to vote for him.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
not aimed at you or JF
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Tommy, not sure what you’re talking about – I’m not involved in the Thompson discussion here…
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
There are very few quotes on the internet from pre 1996 Thompson. trust me, I’ve looked everywhere. I’d send you a 1994 campaign flyer if I could.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Tommy:
I guess it’s ok when Romney has his words completely twisted around about the NRA, but Fred was different.
Huh? How did my name get into this?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Sorry, HeavyM, just frustrated at one or two on here, and trying not to take it out on everyone.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Sorry Mark, I thought you were one of the quotes. I’ve been scrolling up and down to get it right, that I must of got it backwards.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Kavon (#75),
another falsehood put forward as truth. Refuting you two will take hours.
Fox poll (April 1-3), Romney at 14%: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/SC_GOP_Primary_-_web.pdf
This was posted on your own site on April 8 by Jason. What are you trying to pull, Kavon? Do you think we’re idiots, that we won’t call you on this? Didn’t we just have a long discussion about how unscientific straw polls are and how little bearing they have to the real campaign?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
But that’s the point Kavon. That squares with what we’ve been saying the ENTIRE thread. That Romney’s “paying” of supporters, can only be characterized that way by the most activist, agenda driven definition of the word. And as I’ve pointed out here on numerous occasions, on numerous issues, it patently ignores FAIR MEANING (I find it particularly humorous that Republius, who’s started numerous constitutional law threads, engages in this). Paying implies that individuals are being compensated monetarily for some sort of service. That is clearly not occuring here. The individuals who are “paid” are not leaving these conventions any better off then when they entered. And this is a pre-requisite for being “paid”. Furthermore, the costs of these tickets are so obscenely low, that the incentive provided by the “pay” really functions as very little incentive at all. As was pointed out by a poster who attended one of these conventions, these events can last up to 7 hours. And the tickets cost perhaps $15. If someone accepts two dollars an hour, for an event they would rather not go to, then I think they A.) Know very little about the free market and going rates, and B.) Are idiots of the first degree. Not to mention the fact that balloting is, I suspect, anonymous, and no one has any obligation to cast their vote for a particular candidate, even if that candidate did “buy” them off with a whopping $2 an hour.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Murphy, Just like “I’m a card card carrying member of the NRA” or whatever he said would make you believe he was an avid hunter.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Tommy,
I have no doubt that you’d supply the pre-1997 quotes from Thompson if you could. I’d sure like to see them, and if it looked like Thompson was wrongly quoted and he was against RvW in 1994 and 1996, I’d be among the first to say so. But as we have it, Fred (like Romney) seems to have been previously supportive of abortion rights, and now he is against RvW. And I’m sorry if this frustrates you, but until someone can show otherwise, let’s just call it as it is.
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at with the “NRA double standard”. Sounds like apples and oranges.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
It’s ok for everybody else’s words to get twisted, but not Romney’s apparently.
Note to everybody else: I’m not attacking Romney, or you. I’m just trying to prove a point to Murphy
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Tommy, for the record, I’m not going to challenge any candidate on past positions on abortion. I’m not a pure SoCon, as I don’t believe in banning first term abortion, as I believe the practical outcome of that would be a return to the backroom abortion/wire hanger practices, which are the worst possible scenario.
I have no problem with FDT or any of the other main candidates (except Guiliani, I guess) on abortion, but admittedly this isn’t at the top of my list of issues. I’m far more concerned with the GWOT and economy.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
There is one quote that says that. Nothing more. He has never been quoted saying it again. Any report that has said so is just coming directly from that one quote.”
National Review has a copy of a 1997 letter to a constituent where Fred Thompson said he was pro-choice.
I think the quote from Slate is pretty instructive. Apparently Romney is covering the registration fees of his supporters. So apparently the straw poll results that people are touting don’t mean much. And, apparently, Republius’s accusation that Romney is bribing people is also baseless, and libelous, and totally irresponsbile.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Tommy,
I’m not twisting Fred’s words. I’m quoting them. I’m sorry if this bothers you.
I fail to see what your point is on the NRA thing. Are you saying that because people have twisted Romney’s words on the NRA, than they MUST be twisting Fred’s words on abortion?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I’m saying that the media twists someones word around and then takes it at a different meaning than was intended.
For example: Someone takes something Fred said, and summarizes it to what they though they heard, and uses it as a quote.
Someone takes something that Romney said about NRA, and twists it around, and it’s a quote.
S—–
You defend Romney saying it’s not what he meant, but not Fred.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Henry Heavner (#94), you summed it up nicely. We should probably leave it at that.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Let’s see the letter. Or it’s no better than any of my Campaign flyers.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
BEBACKLATER
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“You defend Romney saying it’s not what he meant, but not Fred.”
Romney’s campaign said they were misquoted. But after numerous media outlets reported that Thompson was pro-choice, his senate campaign didn’t. The obvious inference is that the reports were more or less accurate. I think Thompson supporters are in for some nasty surprises if they think no more evidence will come out that Thompson was pro-choice in the 90s. We already have a direct quote, a constituent letter, and lots of reports in media outlets, bubut I would not be surprised if there’s more out there. I’m betting that the other campaigns are holding off on oppo research until Thompson officially announces.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
“Let’s see the letter. Or it’s no better than any of my Campaign flyers.”
With all due respect, the National Review is worth a lot more than your campaign flyers. Sorry.
Especially because the NR article about the constituent letter is from 6 years ago, long before anyone was really concerned about this campaign.
http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr070600.html
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Gosh… I guess I’ll skip being a little tongue-in-cheek next time
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
One look at Romney’s horrid position in big national pols (3-8%) tells you all you need to know about what’s really going on with his “victories” in a bevy of straw polls covering tiny SC counties. He’s putting his Mormon money to good use…
more on Romney
http://political-buzz.com/?p=158
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Whew! Sometimes I wonder if there’s going to be anything left of the Republican party, let alone the candidates themselves, by the time this primary’s over!
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Nice timing for your troll post, Pee.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
HeavyM,
Amen to that! In the grand scheme of things, all of us are on the same team – and I worry how effective we can be as a team when the primary is over after ripping each other apart for a year.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I like Romney and Thompson. I’ve been starting to favor Romney based on the idiotic attacks on him. When Thompson gets in the race he’ll probably pull even in this category, but so far its all Mitt all the way.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Hold up a minute
“Thompson supports various restrictions on abortion but also includes the line, “I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area.”
Where does it say he is pro Roe Vs. Wade. It doesn’t. If he said he was believed it was a wasn’t the governments position to make for her. That means “It should be left up to the states.” THAT DOES NOT MEAN PRO ROE VS WADE.
He never ran as a pro-choice candidate.
Henry, Not once have I attacked Romney as a person, or as a politician. Anything negative said about him was a quote from another article I used. FDT’s camp aren’t the one spreading rumors about anybody, unless that Evangelicals for mitt was a rumor.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Which takes me back to my original point some fifty posts ago. Murphy compared Thompson to Romney in that sake sayinit was the same thing. No it’s not. Thompson, pro-life or not, never said he was pro-choice on national television with the Youtube to prove it. Thompson ran from a “support the sanctity of life” to quote the campaign flyer. Maybe that says he’s personally pro-choice, but it does not say he supports ROE V WADE. You are the ones turning it around.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Tommy,
Nope. It means he doesn’t think government should interfere with a woman’s choice. In other words, women should be free to abort their babies.
If Fred had said “I believe the FEDERAL government should not interfere with STATE convictions and actions in this area”, then your interpretation would be correct. As it is, you’ve just got some wishful thinking.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
It means he does not, and never has, supported a national legislation governing it one way or the othere.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
No, it means, that the government shouldn’t interfere with it either way. IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE STATES TO DECIDE.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
States are governments. Saying that the “government” should not interfere means that states should not have laws against abortion. That is “pro-choice.”
Evangelicals for Mitt have flatly denied all that stuff and AmSpec never came up with a source for it.
Incidentally, I just looked at the source for the Thompson quote and its worse when taken in context.
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6230
Question: “Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?”
Thompson answered: “Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
This tells us two things: (1) it was explicitly in the context of a question about Roe v. Wade that Thompson Thompson said the choice should be left to the woman and (2) Thompson had apparently already made comments that were worrying conservatives.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Tommy,
he doesn’t say that the ultimate decision should be left to the states. He says it should be left to the woman. This is clearly pro-choice. States are governments.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Thompson has since become pretty solidly pro-life. I think the only way this hurts Thompson is if he keeps acting like he was never pro-choice and more quotes come out that show otherwise; or if Republican voters decide that pro-lifers who were once pro-choice are unacceptable.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Tommy,
You know, DaveG made a pretty good outline of this a while back http://race42008.com/2007/03/27/where-does-fred-thompson-stand-on-abortion/, and the summary of it was basically:
Now perhaps it’s true that we have no quote of him saying “I support RvW”. We’ll see. But you’re just playing semantic games by trying to make Fred sound pro-life, when he supported legalized 1st-trimester abortions for all women, and opposed any government interference with that.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Hasn’t he backed off that since, Murphy? Isn’t he now pro-life in all situations except rape, incest, or life? Or does he still think that abortions in the first trimester are ok for any reason?
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Look, this is getting nowhere. I’m not going to change my mind, and your not going to change your mind. We don’t have to even call it a draw. You’re going to think your way, and i’m going to think my way. You’ve got reinforcements here. I don’t. The reason I come to this site is because I enjoy friendly debate, and also because there aren’t any specifically pro Thompson people here, except for the occasional that stumbles in here leaves a quick remark, then doesn’t hang around here. I don’t want to hate Romney, and I don’t want you to hate Thompson, neither one of us is convincing the other. So I’m willing to let it go, and just drop it, or we can keep this up and end up hating each other.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I don’t want it to end up being like David and starting a feud between our two candidates and saying things that offend each other.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
and David, if you read it, I didn’t mean to imply that it was your fault on that one, and neither am I implying that it was Romney’s people’s fault. Just that I didn’t want it to end up where Romney’s boys and I can’t stand each other.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I’m not offended. Like I said, Romney and Thompson are my top two and if I’m favoring Romney right now its mainly because (1) Romney’s in the race, withstanding scrutiny and making commitments and Thompson isn’t, and (2) Thompson supporters say some dumb things about Romney.
You strike me as a good, well-intentioned man, one I’m proud to have in the party, but your interpretation of Thompson’s quote is completely untenable. Its no shame for Thompson to have been mildly pro-choice at one point and it only makes him and his supporters look bad when they deny it.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
For one, just drop it. I’m not changing my mind on something that we interpret differently. Or I will go on til all night to get the last word. #2 A lot of Romney’s (not everyone), at least around here, has been bashing the other candidates on a regular basis. Giuliani and Romney’s people are the one bashing the other candidates. I’m the only positively pro Fred Supporter here. Republius has never once said he was pro-fred, although i think he is obviously in favor of Fred or Newt. Go read back on some earlier posts Henry, and see who’s doing the bashing.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
It’s the Romney and Giuliani supporters who don’t even want Thompson in the race.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Henry,
I honestly don’t know if Fred supports making abortion illegal in all situations except rape, incest, or life. All I know for sure about his positions is that he previously supported 1st trimester abortion rights, and he now opposes Roe v Wade. And while those two positions aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, that would be a tad unusual.
Tommy,
I have to completely agree with Henry’s second paragraph. I’m not out to “get” Thompson, nor am I out to offend you. But when you twist Thompson’s pro-choice quote around to make it fit his current pro-life image, that’s going to generate a lot of skepticism. And nothing prolongs a discussion like resistance to hard evidence.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:23 pm
edit: Republius is in favor of Fred or Newt getting in the race, not that he supports them. Plus, he’s the only pblogger here that posts anything at all good about Thompson. Y’all are the ones who said Thompson quit the senate cause he was lazy or weak (not looking up the fact that he left the senate when his daughter died) in the main blogs posted.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Tommy, don’t include me in that generalization about Thompson’s laziness. I’ve never said any such thing.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
but I’m not twisting Thompson’s words around to the way I see it. That’s the way I see it. There is no use because I’m not going to change my view, and you’re not going to change your view. So instead of getting in the last little word, I’m saying let’s drop it. I have other things to do than sitting around all night digging up pro-life and pro-choice quotes or opinions about Thompson. I’m letting the argument go without trying to throw in some little dig at the end. I am asking for both of us to just drop it.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I didn’t include you, but when Henry comes on here saying well these Thompson people are saying mean things. I’m the only definite Thompson person here, and have had to deal with that constantly. I don’t doubt that some people on my side of the party are slinging mud, just like some of Mitt’s have been slinging mud at me.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
but here, they don’t because I’m pretty much all there is, except for the occassional quick remark from somebody who then doesn’t stay to help me out anyways.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Question for Romney’s supporters…
Would it be acceptable if Romney used campaign funds to pick up known supporters of his on the day of the South Carolina primary by bus, give them coffee and danish on the ride to the polling place, and take them home after voting?
Facilitating the outcome of a straw poll that will garner local and national media attention is unethical, regardless the irrelevance of said event.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I don’t hope that Thompson stays out of the race. He’s perfectly welcome to enter. I think he’d be a good addition to the field, though he’s my third choice at this point. And I’m not someone who’s said anything about Thompson’s alleged laziness (though I realize you weren’t accusing me of this). I just don’t think it’s accurate to suggest that Romney’s supporters are constantly attacking other candidates. I’ve seen literally no evidence of this. What I have seen, is a general attack against Giuliani’s recent abortion comments. But it’s hardly an attack onthe man, his ethics, or his morality, with baseless allegations. And while it may seem that Romney supporters were the most disillusioned by Giuliani’s late abortion pratfalls, I think that’s more a function of the fact that about 40-50% of posters here (from my best estimates) are Romney supporters and another 35-45% are Rudy supporters (who obviously aren’t going to be terribly harsh, though to the credit of some, they recognized his mistakes). The few McCain supporters, and the few Brownback fans seemed to every bit as up in arms. We just happen to cast a big shadow.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Argo, how about this? You prove it happened, and then I’ll comment. The rest is hypothetical.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I’m obviously not a Romney guy. But the dems use campaign funds to pick up dead people (not sure whether they feed them danish’s or not)for general elections, so I wouldn’t hold that against the Romney fans whether they did it or not. It might be unethical, but not against the law in a straw poll, from what I understand. So until someone came out with definitive proof, or an admission; I’ll take their word for it.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I didn’t say all of Romney’s supporters are attacking others. There have been some here though, and at an obvious greater number than Thompsons because I’m the only one, and I haven’t attacked him (although some would make the case of Republius or possibly DaveG., but I’ve never heard them say they were for Thompson, just put up some Thompson friendly posts since nobody else has).
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Matt, I was refering to a blog started by Kavon where he specifically asked whether Thompson should runthere was a Bunch of Romney and Rudy’s saying that he shouldn’t.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Argo,
Sure Argo. I can’t say I’m a political activist, yet anyway, but I recently watched a movie covering the 1968 election, from the perspective of the Bobby Kennedy campaign, and his supporters and activists did just that. I assume it’s fairly common, or at least not atypical in get-out-the-vote drives. Now I don’t know about the free danishes business. It’d probably depend on whether or not the danishes were tasty enough to have a coercive force:)
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
JF,
I’m not trying to prove anything happened. How would you answer the question I posed?
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
For those who are concerned about ulterior motives, my potential support list for the Republican presidential primary, as of today, is: Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thompson. From what I have seen and heard, I cannot support John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, or Tom Tancredo in the primary; and the rest of the GOP candidates do not, at least as yet, seem viable to me.
I will support the Republican nominee in the 2008 general election, whoever they may be.
And I would point out that I have addressed the weaknesses of Gingrich, Giuliani, and Fred Thompson as I see them.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Argo, I would say that there is nothing wrong with it, if these supporters were previously known to be Romney supporters, were qualified to vote in the straw poll, and, most importantly, those people were not otherwise compensated.
Now, what is your impression of literally buying a straw poll? And why haven’t we heard from you about how unethical that was?
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Ah, my mistake Tommy. I personally don’t feel that you’ve been negative at all regarding Romney. At least not relative to some other posters on this site. And I think you’ve done a really bang up job, promoting Thompson, in a sometimes not entirely friendly environment. Because of your postings, I’ve gone from thinking I’d practically quit the Republican Party if Thompson gained the nomination (though I’d always been willing to vote for him, simply because there’s no real reason not to), to thinking that while he’s underqualified for the office, he’d be a reasonable and acceptable candidate. A big step up I think. And while I agree with the rest of the “Romneybots” here about your interpretation of Fred’s previous abortion views, I don’t think it’s that relevant based on current evidence. Kepp up the good work.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Given the amount of response to a post about straw poll tactics, I can only imagine how inundated the site will become once the debates and negative advertisements occur…
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Tommy, Nobody who is currently supporting a candidate wants Thompson in the race. I think it hurts the big 3 the most, but that is probably because they have the most to lose.
It only makes sense that you don’t want a competitor in the race unless you believe he will take away support exclusively from your competition. Thompson has the potential to get Giuliani’s soft support as well as other candidates more conservative support.
Huckabee, Brownback and Gingrich supporters should be the most anti-Thompson since he immediately and directly damages their chances at the nomination and at the VP slot. There just aren’t very many of them to voice their opposition to Thompson.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Thank you republius. I am not one concerned, was just stating the fact that some here seemed to suggest you were pro Thompson since you went after Romney and Giuliani just recently. For the record, I never said you were pro anybody, just pointing out the fact that some here thought you were.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Thanks for your honesty, Republius.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
” but when Henry comes on here saying well these Thompson people are saying mean things”
I misspoke. The people who say loony things about Romney probably support a variety of candidates.
Argo,
I would have no problem with a campaign providing transportation for its supporters around the county. What I object to is a campaign paying people to support them, which is Republius’ accusation and which appears to be baseless.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Thank you Matt, if you are interested in Thompson’s experience, click on my link on my name and read til your hearts content (all though it might bore you)
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Thank you Henry. I just didn’t want you thinking it was me spreading rumors. I was wrong though. I did go after Rudy one time, but that, believe it or not, I was sticking up for the Romney supporters who he was blasting constantly. I did mention, however in that post, that I didn’t mean to offend the Rudy fans. So if any of the Rudy guys are here, I and didn’t read that post only the attack. I admit, I made most of it up, but it was only to get KT to shut up.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Why do we care what a candidates position was in the past? I think the entire GOP has gotten too self-righteous about this issue if we can’t welcome converts. Just because people have been pro-choice does not make them evil. It does make them very, very misguided and wrong, but I don’t think any pro-choicer views the issue through the same lens I do. It is our job to make them take a look at it through the correct lens.
I am passionately pro-life and very active in the pro-life movement both organizing events and volunteering at a Crisis Pregnancy Center, but I fail to see how this debate between Romney and Thompson advances the pro-life movement or the GOP in general. Let’s get less caught up in politics and the past and more focused on who will be the best GOP nominee going forward. I like both candidates though I think Romney with a southern VP is much more electable and would be a better president on almost every other issue.
I believe that both candidates are currently pro-life. I believe that they are both sincere in their current position. We should be discussing the importance of having a pro-life president, not just a “pro-constructionist judge” president.
Yes that is directed at Rudy. If he had been president he would have never signed the ban on PBA so it would not have mattered what judges he nominated because they never would have heard the case. I recognize that he would be a much better president on this issue that any Dem nominee, but I will wait and settle/vote for Rudy only if I am forced to.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I’ll just add my two cents here and say that this piece is a nice bit of muckraking. We know how the game works and Mitt played according to the rules of the game. Don’t go bitter because he has a better ground organization.
Tommy-
I have been continually impressed by the way to debate here on Race42008. You seem to be a rather open person who doesn’t immediately go negative when he comes upon opposing viewpoints. That is good to see. Fred is actually third on my list behind McCain and “mymanmitt”. I just don’t think he brings too much to the table in the way of talent and experience. I would certainly support him in the generals though.
I don’t really care about the Fred of 1996 just like I don’t care about the Mitt of 10 years ago. Both have been on our side for a while now and that is what matters. I happen to believe that Thompson was more or less pro-choice but it doesn’t matter now – unless he denies it in the face of evidence to the contrary(if any comes to light).
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Thanks, MConservative. I like everybody we got more or less. Mitt is a good man, and I do like McCain, althoughI wonder if he is the guy I’d want with their finger on the nuclear button. Rudy is Rudy, I like him, although I don’t agree with him on a lot of things. I’m starting to warm up to Huckabee as well, although don’t really like his personal attacks.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
JF,
Straw polls are crap, and should be treated by the media as such.
Treating them as newsworthy would be as absurd as considering self-promoting plugs via PR Newswire the same as AP news stories.
As the party of personal responsibility, Republican candidates should, at least for the primaries, hold themselves to a higher standard, letting the true will and desire of voters determine the turnout, rather than facilitating and coaxing the vote of lazier, less motivated individuals with free door-to-door transportation, and a venti latte and danish from Starbucks.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Argo,
Straw polls are *one* test of organizational ability. This ability must be tested in the primaries because it comes in handy in the generals.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
For those who have not read:
McCain leads SC poll
And for those who are interested in an example of why we are so passionate in our support of FDT:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/policy/my_retort_on_torts
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Argo, you should read the 100+ comments before jumping in. If you had, you would know I already agree with you about the straw polls, but it still doesn’t justify your baseless attacks on Romney. You only come out of the woodwork and join in when people attack Romney, but when it’s McCain doing the buying, you seem fine with that. Interesting.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
JF,
I am not fine with the disingenuous act of buying positive press under the guise of a “straw poll”, and manipulating the public as it’s packaged under the pretense of being legitimately newsworthy, when it’s analogous to a girl who sends herself flowers hoping to paint herself as more desirable than desperate to her male co-workers in the office. Whether it’s Mitt, McCain, Rudy, Newt, Fred or anyone who chooses to play the game this way is irrelevant.
By the way, what baseless attack on specifically Romney are you alluding to?
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Your hypothetical situation, which has yet to be proven.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Argo,
It has not been established to my satisfaction that Romney winning straw polls is anything other than a genuine expression of people’s support. On the contrary I would say that his rivals and their allies are becoming downright scared by the accounts that have been surfacing of people switching allegiances to Romney when they hear him speak. This article is an effort to try to stem the growing momentum of the Romney camp.
There are so many levels in which Romney taps the frustrations conservatives have had for years and shows how he can solve them. For instance,
1) Conservatives have been deeply frustrated for years over the immigration problem, but our party’s leader, George W. Bush, has not shown any inclination to really solve the problem. Romney is the only candidate of the main three(to my knowledge) who speaks regularly about his plan for immigration, which includes a fence(who do you think the Minutemen will vote for?).
2) Conservatives are deeply frustrated with a president who is incredibly reluctant to criticize his political opponents when they do outrageous things, who hardly ever uses his veto power, and will not use the bully pulpit. Romney on the other hand has expressed his willingness to veto, has Reaganite communication abilities, and can criticize his enemies and look intelligent while doing it.
For these reasons and others, Romney is building momentum, and if you talked to the people who voted for him in the straw polls, I think they would tell you this isn’t about smoke and mirrors. As Rush Limbaugh has often said, they used to say that about Reagan; that it was just good packaging and marketing that sold him to the American people. But it wasn’t. Reagan built a movement that followed him. We may not recognize what that looks like because Bush was unwilling to actually build and lead a movement as president(I’m leading off from Rush’s ideas there). But Romney is willing, and able, and those who miss that movement’s construction stage will be astonished by the events of the next year and a half.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Indeed Melstrom. One of things I’d note is, the various polls which have come out in recent weeks, detailing changes in the race if say, Newt or Fred don’t get in the race (the questions alternate). Romney’s statistical support is hardly effected regardless. And that because aren’t just supporting Romney he’s there. He’s never going to be a default choice for voters, who are forced to choose based on limited information, or who need to re-evaluate possibilities in light of their favorites declining to run. And I would speculate that this partly stems from the religion factor. So Romney is having to win over his supporters inch by inch. And that takes time, and it takes serious effort (both of which the Romney campaign has). But it’s also capable of being a blessing in disguise, because Romney’s supporters are A.) More solidly in his camp, and B.) More knowledgeable about his candidacy, because it took alot for them to get to the point of supporting him. And both passion and knowledge are the sorts of things that build movements and win intra-party and national debates. Some people refer to us as “Romneybots” here, perhaps as a function of our outrage at baseless allegations and our tendency to consistently defend our candidate against all comers. We appear “stubborn” because other supporters aren’t able to concede certain points. But I think this is largely because we KNOW our candidate, we know the things he’s done, his leadership qualities, his positions on issues past and present, and his general character. And we know all about these things, because it actually required serious mental deliberation to decide to be “Romneybots”. Some, though certainly not all, supporters of other candidates, arrived at that support through less significant deliberation, because they weren’t required to deliberate: Giuliani and McCain are national heroes, Gingrich is a conservative icon, Fred is a White Night actor who instills in many the hope of another Reagan. What’s Romney? Just a candidate. With various positive and negative qualities. Who has to win over his supporters, entirely on his own merits, or lack thereof. I don’t care what you think about Romney the man, or Romney the candidate, but that’s how lasting and healthy movements are built. And it’s a wonderful thing for democracy.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Why is it impossible to believe that Romney can win straw polls (small amounts of voters in very specifically defined regions) and still show poorly in the over SC poll numbers?
It is completely plausible to believe that the overall state polling includes randomly selected voters across the state and those voters did not overlap with Straw Poll voters.
Just because there is a discrepency in the numbers doesn’t mean 1) Romney is doing anything underhanded, 2) that all the numbers are wrong and no matter what Romney is losing.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:54 am
lame excuse. EVen if you pay them, the amount is so minimial if they did not support you they wouldn’t go. Plus all the candidates are free to do it, it is a even playing field. everbody knows these don’t mean that meuch in the large scheme of things, but it does show organizatino which is incredibly important to winning the primaries, everybody knows that. That is one reason Romney is doing better than people like Huckabee or brownback. they lack the adminsitrative and innovative and work ethic that Romney has. He continues to defy through his organizational abilities and competence. The fact that he, with what he has against him, can continue to pull of upset after upset is a demonstration of how impressive his skills are.
he is doing it the old fashioned way: campaigning tirelessly every day and speaking with people face to face. Unlike Guliani who pops his head in hear and htere and then leaves or mccain who just doesn’t show up at all unless he knows he is going to win. People will see that Romney is willing to work for their vote.
Romney is the man! There is a reason he is winnign these. When he speaks people move into his boat.
haters, keep hating, it won’t matter in the end.
April 24th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Tommy,
Thompson, pro-life or not, never said he was pro-choice on national television with the Youtube to prove it.
On the off chance you’re still reading this thread, you may want to check out Fred’s new YouTube video, showing him to be pro-choice during his Senate campaign.
Remember what I said about there always being more than one quote?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE