The Candidates
Featured Archives
Numerous sources are now reporting anti-Mormon push-polls running in New Hampshire and Iowa. Apparently, the call starts out ok and then delves into some nasty rhetoric:
Among the questions was whether a resident knew that Romney was a Mormon, that he received military deferments when he served as a Mormon missionary in France, that his five sons did not serve in the military, that Romney’s faith did not accept blacks as bishops into the 1970s and that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is superior to the Bible.
…
“The first 15 or 20 questions were general questions about the leading candidates,” she said. “Then he started asking me very, very negatively phrased questions about Romney. The first one was would you have a more favorable, less favorable, blah, blah, blah, impression of Mitt Romney if you knew that his five sons had never served in the military and that he considered working on a presidential campaign as public service or some such question.”
Hugh Hewitt says: If the campaign that used appeals to religious bigotry is identified, it will be over for that candidate.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:11 am
I see McCain’s $3 million loan is already being put to use.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Why is it bigoted to point out that Mormons didn’t accept blacks as bishops until the 1970’s? Unfair to Romney, maybe, but not bigoted. People throw that word around as if it has no meaning. It’s like when black people at my school will call me a “racist” if I make fun of rap music or ebonics.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:17 am
TLG,
Making fun of the way someone talks that is directly related to their race is rascist. It’s not born out of love.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:22 am
I would also say according to the definition at http://www.dictionary.com this seems to be a biggoted call:
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
I don’t see how playing to someone elses bigotry to get votes is not bigotry.
And the fact that someone has to use this to when shows how scared they are of Romney.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Why is it even relevant that Romney’s sons did not serve in the military? We have a volunteer military.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:44 am
So far we have McCain and Rudy denying. I doubt either one would be so brazen.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Jason #4: My old trusty American Heritage says a bigot is A person of strong conviction or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him. So the calls would seem designed to awaken or inspire the bigotry of others.
Frankly, I’m more surprised that this type of stuff hasn’t occurred in the race so far. From my perspective, Karl Popper’s paradox is the last word in such matters: that a free and open society cannot tolerate the intolerant.
Romney’s clearly not high on my personal favorites list, but I wish him and his team well at coming up with an appropriate, effective way of addressing this type of nasty smear.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:52 am
This sort of push poll would be absolute poison for any campaign that could be associated with it. Undoubtedly- if only out of self-interest- I cannot see ANY campaign doing something like this. This would have to be from a renegade group.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I think this is probably an independant group unaffiliated with any candidate, but it is highly inappropriate and repulsive nonetheless, after all we are all still Republicans, leave this kind of personal attacks to the Democrats
November 16th, 2007 at 8:52 am
TLG,Making fun of the way someone talks that is directly related to their race is rascist. It’s not born out of love.
Um, no, it’s not born out of love: ebonics is idiotic. It’s not because they’re black. It’s because they’re talking like idiots. I poke fun at white people that talk that way, too.
I don’t see how playing to someone elses bigotry to get votes is not bigotry.
The conotation of ‘bigotry’ is obviously negative — why should I not be wary of the Mormon Church, given its history of racism and its utterly delusional beliefs about Native Americans? To say nothing of the skin curse metaphor/truth/whatever you guys say it is now.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:02 am
TLG, that’s a matter of opinion. They might say you talk like an idiot. Jonathan, I don’t think Republicans have any kind of moral high ground over Democrats when it comes to negative campaigning. As far as which campaign did it, it was probably an independent group, but if it WAS a campaign, Huckabee would be my first suspect.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
TLG, that’s a matter of opinion. They might say you talk like an idiot.
Since when are we the party of gushy cultural relativists? What’s happened, beloved Republican Party?
Anyway, if they think I sound like an idiot, I’ll take it as a compliment inasmuch as I use English whena ddressing people.
Jonathan, I don’t think Republicans have any kind of moral high ground over Democrats when it comes to negative campaigning. As far as which campaign did it, it was probably an independent group, but if it WAS a campaign, Huckabee would be my first suspect.
McCain would have been mine. Why would Huckabee risk this?
November 16th, 2007 at 9:08 am
ahem — when addressing.
There’s a little problem with the computers here at North Hagerstown High School. The text box expands to about 1.5x its original size and I can’t see about a third of what I write. If I make a typo sometimes, then, I’m unaware of it. But that’s only when I’m at school.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Were you posing as Anybody But Mitt the other day? McCain is a possibility too, but I just have a feeling Huckabee, because of his background, would be more likely to distrust Mormonism. I never thought I’d get called a cultural relativist by TLG.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Were you posing as Anybody But Mitt the other day? McCain is a possibility too, but I just have a feeling Huckabee, because of his background, would be more likely to distrust Mormonism. I never thought I’d get called a cultural relativist by TLG.
Um. When I pose as anyone, I always put “(TLG)” at the end, like “ThatRomBotGuy (TLG),” which I find funny because it’s a spin-off of my name and I get to poke fun at you Rombots.
I am quite positive that Huckabee distrusts Mormonism, but he’s in no position to go negative.
You are a cultural relativist if you say that ebonics is a legitimate use of the English language; that I’m a “racist” if I poke fun at ebonics, like Jason did and you backed up. You: “Yeah, yeah, proper English is just a matter of opinion” — No, sorry.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Jonathan Martin has some very late breaking updates on this story at Politico.com
November 16th, 2007 at 9:28 am
So far, I’ve read theories that McCain did it, Rudy did it, Thompson did it, Huckabee did it, *Romney* did it, and even Hillary Clinton did it.
I think the question that matters for each of us is . . .
Should it be proven that our preferred candidate is in fact behind the smear campaign, will we have enough integrity in ourselves to drop our support of that candidate, or will we try to justify that the tactic is
okay? I believe that if you don’t strongly condemn this kind of thing under any and all circumstances, then
you are no better than the people who did it — perhaps worse because the difference between them and you
might only be that you are lazy or lack courage. There is no equivocating. You either condemn this kind of
activity or you don’t.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Everyone knew this was coming, it has just arrived earlier than expected. I hate to tell you guys, but my money is on a pro-Giuliani group (ie, Pat Robertson) for two reasons. One, Giuliani stands to lose the most with a Romney victory, and two, his campaign employs some well known mud-slingers.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:28 am
#16
“In an apparent push poll, a research firm has called Iowa Republicans this week praising John McCain and critcizing Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith.”
LOL. We have a suspect!
November 16th, 2007 at 9:30 am
the calls were traced to a rudy pollster.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1107/AntiRomney_antiMormon_calls_being_made_in_Iowa.html
looks like rudy is doing it and trying to make it look like mccain is behind it. pretty disgusting.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:32 am
There is no equivocating. You either condemn this kind of activity or you don’t.
It says something about their electability and where their strategy is going.
I’d have to seriously rethink my support for Giuliani if it turns out it was his team unless everyone is roundly fired and criticized heavily. I’d support Thompson if that did not happen.
That said, I don’t think it’s Giuliani. He has no incentive to do this.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:33 am
pro-Giuliani group (ie, Pat Robertson) for two reasons. One, Giuliani stands to lose the most with a Romney victory, and two, his campaign employs some well known mud-slingers.
Giuliani has very little to lose from a Romney victory in Iowa, which has been anticipated thus far. Rudy’s strategy has never been an early state one.
He has no incentive to do this. So if it is indeed his team, I imagine it was not done with the consent of his top advisers or Giuliani himself.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I don’t believe this is something John McCain would do probably his mom did it LOL.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:34 am
“Another McCain source, however, said tonight that the calls had been traced back to a number linked to the Tarrance Group — Rudy Giuliani’s pollster.”
I personally don’t think it was mccain. I would wager it is Rudy. He has the most interest vested in stopping romney.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:36 am
It probably wasn’t Giuliani himself, but it may well have been Robertson. That is actually a very conservative position you’re taking on ebonics and probably the one most right-of-center people would agree with, but to me, isn’t it like saying that Parisian French is the only true French and people who talk Canadian French sound like idiots, or something of that nature?
November 16th, 2007 at 9:36 am
22 is that why rudy guys are always hyping up hucky? if what you say is true, they wouldn’t care if huck took him out on iowa. rudy has plenty to lose by romney doing well in iowa given he is leading in nh by 15 points. if rudy loses nh to romney and romney took iowa, goodbye rudy advantage.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:38 am
“In an apparent push poll, a research firm has called Iowa Republicans this week praising John McCain and critcizing Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith.â€
Obviously, McCain’s mother is behind all of this. . .
November 16th, 2007 at 9:48 am
That is actually a very conservative position you’re taking on ebonics and probably the one most right-of-center people would agree with, but to me, isn’t it like saying that Parisian French is the only true French and people who talk Canadian French sound like idiots, or something of that nature?
It’s a perversion of English; putting slang on a pedestal and calling it useful and proper.
If anyone were to walk into a job interview speaking like that (”Yo, you gon’ gimme dat job”), it would show an utter lack of respect for the seriousness of the situation and the person would have no chance of being hired. (Well, unless it was for a record deal.)
You don’t go to high school. I do. The way some people speak when using ebonics is utterly unrecognizable — not as in “oh, don’t talk like that,” but rather “what the hell did you just say?”
November 16th, 2007 at 9:49 am
#23 LOL. I always enjoy a laugh in the morning.
There is also a yahoo article stating that the firm conducting the calls has been identified and has been paid $400k by Giuliani this year.
I never buy the excuse “they were acting without my consent.” That is pure BS. These push polls cost money. They aren’t some Maryland hillbillies making prank calls; they are professionals working from a script.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:50 am
22 is that why rudy guys are always hyping up hucky? if what you say is true, they wouldn’t care if huck took him out on iowa.
If Romney loses in Iowa, Rudy is is guaranteed the nomination.
But he still has an excellent chance at it even if Romney wins.
This push poll would be too much to risk.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:51 am
They aren’t some Maryland hillbillies making prank calls
Hey! I live in Western Maryland, dammit.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:51 am
And we only make prank calls when we’re out of deer to hunt!
November 16th, 2007 at 9:52 am
How about the only candidate who has the support of neo-nazis… Ron Paul
November 16th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Let the race begin! Romney must prove he can get past these types of attacks if he wants the nod. Everbody knew they were coming sooner or later. We all wish things like this didn’t happen, but they do. you can’t be the president of the us without getting past these types of things.
May the best nominee win!
November 16th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Forbes.com is saying that the polling was done on behalf of the Guiliani campaign by a company called Western Wats. Western Wats is located in Orem, UT. I work in the building right next door. There is already a news van or two outside the building waiting for the company to open. This is going to be big!
November 16th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Forbes.com is saying that the polling was done on behalf of the Guiliani campaign by a company called Western Wats. Western Wats is located in Orem, UT. I work in the building right next door. There is already a news van or two outside the building waiting for the company to open. This is going to be big!
Oh, goddammit. You’ve gotta be kidding me.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Oh shit
November 16th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Mormons have some serious issues…I think Mitt needs the “speech” and needs to address some of his religions kooky beliefs….The problem with romney and his mormonism is that it will cost enough votes in the Bible Belt South that Hillary will win some red states and the presidency…I personally don’t mind having Romney as President…but their are those out there who can’t overlook the Mormon thing for what it is…A cult…
November 16th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Maybe Rudy needs a taste of his own medicine: “Which candidate would you be more likely to support, a successfull businessman and governor (who happens to be Mormon) or a corrupt Italian-American mayor with ties to organized crime?”
November 16th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Sorry, here is the link:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/11/15/ap4346522.html
November 16th, 2007 at 9:59 am
“If Romney loses in Iowa, Rudy is is guaranteed the nomination.”
Why is that? Is it because Romney is up 15 in hew hampshire and has the money and ground game to compete in every state thereafter? I have to disagree with you.
Rudy is not in that strong of a position right now. it will take a lot more than a loss for romney in iowa to knock him out of contention.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:59 am
For the Record…I like Romney…I just don’t think he can overcome his mormonism
November 16th, 2007 at 10:04 am
“Why is that? Is it because Romney is up 15 in hew hampshire and has the money and ground game to compete in every state thereafter? I have to disagree with you.”
What happens, then? Huck wins Iowa, Romney wins NH, Rudy wins NV, (who knows what’s going on up in Michigan?) who wins SC? Who knows? But a three-way race is certainly great for Rudy. A two-way race is fine for Rudy, but a three-way race is even better.
Romney’s whole strategy relies on him dominating — and I mean dominating, not winning one or two — early states.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Rett, those who would not vote for a mormon are the same poeple who would not vote for a baptist preacher. For those who care about religion in the south (those you claim won’t vote for a mormon) Romney will be taking he same positions they have in the general, hillary won’t. It is hard to imagine they would stay home rather than vote for someone that will advance their own poltiical agenda.
I have to disagree with that claim as well. I don’t think the mormon issue is as big as you wish it were.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I think Mormonism will be like my own Catholicism in the 1960 election. Some people will vote for the candidate because of it and some will not, but I think the effect will be negligible
November 16th, 2007 at 10:07 am
“Rett, those who would not vote for a mormon are the same poeple who would not vote for a baptist preacher. ”
No, those who would be most inclined to vote for a Baptist preacher would be the least inclined to vote for a Mormon, actually.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Uh hello, that Forbes link says no such thing. Also, On Politico last night there was a letter from Western Wats saying they are not working for Giuliani.
If I had to guess I would say this a group not connected directly to a campaign.
Why doesn’t Romney just pay for Huckabee’s ads? For all the good his own are doing him vs. Huck.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:07 am
I think Mormonism will be like my own Catholicism in the 1960 election. Some people will vote for the candidate because of it and some will not, but I think the effect will be negligible
Not in Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, and maybe even Georgia!
November 16th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Looks like Romney’s back in business in Iowa. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus
Romney’s up 13:
Romney- 29
Huck- 16
Rudy- 15
Fred- 14
November 16th, 2007 at 10:08 am
46. I just explained why that was not the case in a general election which is what we were talking about.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:08 am
“Why doesn’t Romney just pay for Huckabee’s ads? For all the good his own are doing him vs. Huck.”
Imagine where Huck would be in Iowa if he had even half of Romney’s money!
November 16th, 2007 at 10:08 am
TLG I have more faith in my fellow Southerners than that
November 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am
49, yeah, but you won’t see ht media talking about it. they are too busy pushing they pro life liberal
November 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am
If Romney is smart he will use this opportunity to not only knock Giuliani out of the lead but also to rally people to his campaign. Its the perfect time to launch an ad called “Faith.” In it he should talk about the good works he and his church do, and even talk about how while once LDS discriminated it doesn’t anymore. The ad would get a lot of free press coverage.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Whats the problem with his Mormonism? Romney is a Mormon, so what. Its not like Romney is going to push his Faith down our throats, puuuuuuhlease!!!
November 16th, 2007 at 10:10 am
John Galt, they don’t care.
Do you really think that these Evangelicals care about positions as much as personality?
There’s a reason that they call Giuliani a liberal and not a moderate or center-rightist.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:10 am
I’d post the poll, but I can never get the format right for polls.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Our country has more things to worry about than what church Mitt goes to. All Mitt has to do is keep reminding people of the stakes in this election. Either we’re going to solve problems in America and keep America strong for the next 30 years, or we’re going the way of Europe. I don’t think Mitt’s religion will be the dominant issue.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:14 am
tlg, for someone who says he cares about civil rights and so forth, you sure do get excited about religious bigotry.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Just because I want rights for all individuals doesn’t mean that I have to respect them.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Martin’s having second thoughts about the Rudy connection:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1107/AntiRomney_antiMormon_calls_being_made_in_Iowa.html
November 16th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I think McCain’s mom is behind this but I wish it were Rudy so his candidacy would implode and Romney could walk to the nomination and save his personal fortune to take down the Dem candidate (and after last night it is most likely going to be Hillary as Obama already lost his fire from his Iowa speech on Saturday).
November 16th, 2007 at 10:36 am
#20 – Galt: Better go back and reread the jonathan martin Politico.com updates again. Next time read the entire updates before you speak!
#18 – Fletcher: Who are the mud-slingers that you say are under Rudy’s employ? Come on, speak up, we’re adults here. If you got names, name them!
November 16th, 2007 at 10:36 am
so where is the western watts building? i work in orem too. isnt it odd that of all places the call is coming from orem? this has got to be a mccain or thompson move. no one else is desperate enough.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Fletcher #54: If Mitt really does have that Mormon speech in a desk drawer as claimed, this would be one very good opportunity to let fly. Of course, if it’s a real barn burner, it may also make sense for him to keep is powder dry for the run-up to the general election.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Has no one consider the possibility a Utah group orchestrated the calls to help Romney by making him appear to be a victim?
It seems as likely as any campaign being involved.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:06 am
EGS #66: I think that would be a definite maybe.
Well planned and orchestrated, it could surely answer the cui bono question quite elegantly. With the right planning, it would also serve to disarm a potential time bomb by once and for all demonstrating that the “Mormon thing” is not a problem.
Yet it’s just as likely to become one of those instances that leaves everyone suspicious of the others and somewhat more angry and paranoid…
November 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am
There is no more speculation necessary. This Wats firm admits to making the calls and we also know it is on Giuliani’s payroll. Most of these firms don’t work with competing candidates in the same political year, much less same market.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:18 am
The motive would suggest that this has to be someone at least somewhat competitive in both Iowa and NH, or these calls wouldn’t be occurring in both states. So the logical suspect is NOT Huckabee, who isn’t even slightly competitive in NH. McCain isn’t even slightly competitive in Iowa, so I think we can rule him out. That pretty much leaves Rudy, which is where the early evidence pointed to. Rudy certainly didn’t do anything as Mayor to end crime in Bernie’s Condo, and one wonders how many Kerik types are still on the payroll. I also wonder if the truth will come out.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Econ Grad Stud,
Re.#66: We Mormons don’t do stuff like that. Get a clue!
November 16th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Brett / Joe,
Any chance you can get us a picture of the vans outside?
email me: justin@mymanmitt.com
November 16th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Rett… I think all Christians need “the speech” to talk about their kooky beliefs.
/sarc off
I find it a bit interesting watching one group of people who believe in a man with mystic powers calling out another group of people who have different beliefs concerning mystic powers.
Can we just look at the man, his family, his success, his history keeping his word and being successful and judge him for himself?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Dave Re 70:
“We Mormons don’t do stuff like that. Get a clue!”
I said Utahans not Mormons. Many of the people in Utah are non-Mormon right?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I demand that Rudy explain whether or not he believes in ritualistic cannibalism! Isn’t that what Catholics believe?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:33 am
“We Mormons don’t do stuff like that. Get a clue!â€
You don’t want to open that can of worms.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Looks like JMac’s the first out of the gate!
Funny how McCain has to keep distancing himself from groups purportedly campaigning for him.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Mr. Guiliani in the library with the lead pipe.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:36 am
#74: Justin, the only thing is, Rudy’s not running on religion, so it’s pretty much a non-starter. Remember the missing leg you guys keep moaning about?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am
MarkG. That’s values not religion. There’s a differene between values, religion and creeds. Just ask Thomas Jefferson.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am
#68 – Fletcher: What is your evidence of your assertion that the Wats firm is on Giuliani’s payroll?
#69 – Dave: BS – don’t be so self righteous! I’ve worked in campaigns in Idaho, and I’ve seen plenty from Mormans and non-Mormans alike.
Western Wats was reportedly the firm used to conduct the commando-style smear campaign against Steve Forbes in Iowa and elsewhere in 1996. One should consider that it is just possible that these calls are part of a “Black Propaganda” campaign. It is also quite possible that the sponsor of these calls or push polls is a 527 group or some other independent expenditure effort.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:54 am
“Romney’s whole strategy relies on him dominating — and I mean dominating, not winning one or two — early states.â€
Actually, I believe the strategy is to win some of the early states, so his message can get out and win with his message. If he does dominate though, that would be a huge plus.
“Uh hello, that Forbes link says no such thing. Also, On Politico last night there was a letter from Western Wats saying they are not working for Giuliani. “
Technically the letter said The Terrance Group wasn’t involved. Giuliani could be working with Western Wats himself, though I doubt it.
“Do you really think that these Evangelicals care about positions as much as personality?â€
This is basically saying Evangelicals are stupid, I don’t agree. Why is there so much contempt for voters this election?
“Has no one consider the possibility a Utah group orchestrated the calls to help Romney by making him appear to be a victim?â€
That’s the LEAST likely scenario.
I suspect Rick Reed and The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:57 am
This would kill Giuliani’s campaign if it came back to him. I don’t see how Western Wats would conduct the poll for any other candidate if they are really being paid $400,000 by Giuliani. However, I do not want to cast judgement. For anyone trying to think that Romney did this himself, he’s not that kind of guy. You may call him phony, attackingt, etc, but he’s never done anything like this. It’s certainly not him.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Econ Grad Stud,
76% of the population of Utah is Mormon. So in many people’s minds they all are. If you weren’t attacking my religion and our devotion to our Father In Heaven, I apologize. I intuited bigotry where perhaps there was none.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I just saw this thread – what in the world??? Are there any updates?
November 16th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The timing for this is very strange. It gives plenty of time to find out who’s behind it before the caucuses. Usually push polls are best used within a couple weeks before the primary when they get mostly ignored by the media.
This screams outside group or outside individual to me.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Anti-Mormon stuff will happen between now and January. And it WILL have an effect, making any Republicans leaning toward Mitt (just 12.8% at this time) wonder if they really want to risk this in the general.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
are any tv news outlets reporting on this?
November 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
#74 That’s one of the most offensive and ridculous attack on catholics I’ve ever heard.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
#82, Greg: The article (an AP Story) states that the Giuliani campaign paid $400,000 to the Tarrance Group (their polling firm)—not to Western Wats.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“I demand that Rudy explain whether or not he believes in ritualistic cannibalism! Isn’t that what Catholics believe?”
Yeah, um, you’re not getting what’s commonly called “the point” –
Americans accept Catholicism. They are unfamiliar with Mormonism and will find it very strange.
The point isn’t whether Catholicism really is stranger than Mormonism, but how it will be perceived.
So stop trying to debate from that angle.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
FROM A CURRENT AP WIRE STORY BY PHILIP ELLIOT (AP REPORTER0 RE THE ISSUE IN QUESTION:
Last year, Western Wats conducted polling that was intended to spread negative messages about Democratic candidates in a House race in New York and a Senate race in Florida, according to reports in The Tampa Tribune and the Albany Times Union, which also said Western Wats conducted the calls on behalf of the Tarrance Group.
That Virginia-based firm now works for Romney’s rival, Rudy Giuliani. The campaign has paid the firm more than $400,000, according to federal campaign reports.
In his statement on behalf of Western Wats, Maccabee said the company was not currently conducting “any work for … The Tarrance Group in the state of New Hampshire or Iowa, nor have we for the period in question.”
Maccabee added that confidentiality agreements prohibit the company from commenting on specific projects or clients.
Ed Goeas, chief of the Tarrance Group, said there is no connection between the Giuliani campaign and Western Wats.
“I know absolutely it’s not us,” Goeas said. “I can say with absolute, no, it’s not us.”
Western Wats also worked for Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1996. Employees said they used such calls at that time to describe GOP rival Steve Forbes as pro-abortion rights.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
As far as who did it, I would say it is more likely Rudy. The fact that he works with the Tarrance Group, and that the Tarrance Group has paid $400k to this Western Wats in the past seems suspicious. Especially if Rudy thought he could get away with it by making it seem like a McCain ploy. I will say though, this has the potential to be VERY damaging to whomever is behind it. If it is Rudy, or anyone tied to his campaign, then he should either come out very loudly against it and issue a personal apology to the people that have been offended and fire EVERYONE related to this type of muddied thinking, or I feel that he will go down hard. I don’t think it is McCain, because he is still trying to backpeddle from the whole Momma McCain thing, and there is a large portion of his constituency that is Mormon. Huck wouldn’t risk his “minister” mantle by getting caught with this type of religious bigotry, and Fred seems to have more decency than to do something this repulsive. Paul is more concerned with stopping the war than anything else, so the only logical culprit would be Rudy. Stay tuned . . . this is going to be big.
And Rett, when you say, “but their are those out there who can’t overlook the Mormon thing for what it is…A cult…” you do yourself a disservice by connecting yourself to those that are either ignorant, bigoted, or both. You need to understand that those types of comments are offensive to the rank and file membership of one of the largest churches in the world. Referring to the Mormon church as a cult makes it sound as though we all meet in our garages, and that we sacrifice goats or something stupid. It is beneath you.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“The point isn’t whether Catholicism really is stranger than Mormonism, but how it will be perceived.”
I hate arguments like that, because they create a fictional group of really stupid voters and then explain how they will think.
I really don’t believe people are hopelessly stupid, which some of the campaigns seem to believe. People will likely realize that bailing on Romney because his religion is different makes about as much sense as if people started bailing on somebody from their religion based on religion.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Team McCain’s statement:
Team Giuliani’s statement:
There is absolutely zero chance that McCain or Giuliani are behind this folks… Way too risky, and too far out of character for both candidates.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
So what if it turns out to be “The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America”, which was started by McCain supporters?
What do we think then?
They are the ones running pro-McCain ads in South Carolina, and Rick Reed, the founder, was part of the swift boat ads.
If it’s them, should we be mad at McCain? Mad at his supporters? I don’t know.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Screaming “bigotry” doesn’t fix the issue.
A Hare Krishna is unelectable. A Scientologist is unelectable. A Jehovah’s Witness is unelectable.
A Mormon, I think, is unelectable.
A Catholic is electable. A Protestant is electable. A Jew is probably electable.
IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THIS: Americans think of Mormonism somewhere between these two groups. Do they think of it as closer to the first group, or closer to the second group?
No matter how loudly a Hare Krisna accused his opponents of religious bigotry, it would not help his chances of being elected President.
So, focus on how Americans categorize Mormonism with respect to other religions. Therein lies the real issue of electability.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Technically, I think, Ed Goeas was speaking of The Terrance Group not being connected, but Giuliani’s spokeswoman, Mari Comella responded by saying, they have “absolutely nothing to do with this.â€
The letter Ed obtained from Western Watts says that The Terrance Group isn’t doing any business with them.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
“A Jehovah’s Witness is unelectable.”
Do you mean a practicing Jehovah’s Witness, or somebody who raised as a Jehovah’s Witness.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Practicing, of course. We don’t hold people to account for their parents’ beliefs.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
There’s already been quite a bit of diversity among the religions of our Presidents. John Adams faced the accusation of not being a “Christianâ€, it didn’t seem to hurt him in the election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz0T68JIHnc
November 16th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Metro:
Most of America has grown up. Anti-Mormon stuff has been raging all year. Post #86 is wishful thinking.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“Practicing, of course. We don’t hold people to account for their parents’ beliefs.”
So, having beliefs is something to be held against people?
November 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Rett,
More republicans people will be turned off by a fiscal liberal like huckabee than they will by mitt’s religion. See 1992/1996.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
My first guess was Thompson.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
But then, I can’t believe any one would be that stupid. Hugh Hewitt is right, bigotry is way out of style and it would destroy some one’s campaign. I wonder if Giuliani’s campaign would appreciate how TLG and Metro are anti-mormoning, anti-romneying for them or would they try and completely distance themselves and disassociate?
November 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
#90 TLG
But Catholicism became more accepted and mainstream because of JFK. It’s a process and don’t be proud because your energy is to promote the bigotry. America will pass you up at some point, it’s already headed there.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
I hope we know the culprit(s) by Sunday so they can be pilloried on the talkshows.
I’d also like to know what Giuliani got for his $400k from these people.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Shawnie, of course Rudy’s campaign would disavow us. I’ve met some of Rudy’s people, and never told them I was MetroRepublican here, for fear they’d run, not wanting to be caught in the same room as me. Assuming they even follow this site, but I’m sure they have some staffer following it.
BTW, you didn’t really address the issue. Are you implying Americans would elect a Hare Krishna to the Presidency?
November 16th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I tire of this religion-bating. It’s a non-issue for the vast majority. It’s a much smaller issue than what state the candidates were born in as far as getting votes. It’s a smaller issue than Thompson’s red truck. Sure it’s controversial, but if you did polling asking “do you think America is ready to elect a black president†you would get a large percent that say NO. Then if you asked them “does race affect how YOU will vote†almost nobody will say YES.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Shoot, Giuliani doesn’t need to hide in the shadows, he should just make a public announcement that if you vote for Romney, “Iya breaka you legs.” No really, I have no insider info in case you wondered. This is a joke. I hope.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Poll for Rombots:
1. Do you think Americans would elect a Hare Krisna to the Presidency?
2. Do you think Americans would elect a Scientologist to the Presidency?
3. Do you think Americans would elect a Jehovah’s Witness to the Presidency?
Let’s establish those, first.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I think the consensus from the articles is that somebody from Giuliani’s camp is behind the anit-Mormon phone calls. Until proven otherwise, Giuliani should definitely be seeking the perp.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Jehovah’s witnesses don’t believe in government, do they? Could one even run for president?
November 16th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
There attackes on the LDS people are totally biased and a flat out lie. Mormons do not believe the Book of Mormon is more important than the Bible. They believe they are equally important.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Of course they are biased – that is the purpose of a push poll. That is also why they are anonymous.
I don’t want to go to far out on a limb, but if this is Giuliani it reinforces the judgment/character issue raised by his promotion of Kerik. And given that he is not exactly in good standing with his own church, its hypocritical to attack another candidate’s faith.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
i think most of these posts are barking up the wrong tree. these days people dont view candidates as part of their larger groups. they take them on a candidate by candidate basis. its like someone who says they will never marry someone from a particular group. they can change their mind awful fast if they find the right person.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I think the anti-Mormon push poll has enough loose connections with team Giuliani at this point that Romney would have gone completely nuts if he were Fred.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
111.
Poll for Metro:
1. Do you think Americans would elect a known bigot to the Presidency?
November 16th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Metro,
Your gratuitous invitations to elicit anti-Mormon bigotry on the basis of absurd guilt by association where there is no association are not remotely welcome by anybody of tolerance and good will. Give it a rest. If Mormons couldn’t get elected, there wouldn’t be so many of them BEING elected, now, would there?
November 16th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
#92 Crowder and #107 Fletcher: Why don’t you anti-Rudy guys at least take the time to carefully read the news stories. Rudy’s campaign paid the $400K to the Tarrance Group, a well respected GOP polling and issue research firm in Alexandria, Va. There is no record or any indication of the Rudy campaign doing any business with Western Wats, and if you will bother to read the statements from Ed Goeas he clearly states that Tarrance has done no business with Western Wats on behalf of Rudy’s campaign.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
#111 – I think that each of those religious affiliations would honestly stand a better chance than a Mormon. As far as I know, there are not organizations that are “Anti-Hare Krisna”, or “Anti-Scientology”. The vitriolic hatred towards Mormons going back for centuries is not so much a disagreement in terms of theology, but a pure hatred to the point of issuing extermination orders for killing Mormons. Granted that was more than a century ago, but so was slavery, and it is a pariah subject, while the Anti-Mormon bashing seems “OK” because people can rationalize it by saying, “but they are just a cult, so it is OK to bash them” For those people that care what a Mormon believes, here is an example. Our 13th Article of Faith states: “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, and in doing good to all men. Indeed we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul. We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” Tell me if you will, what about that is wrong?? Mormons are good, decent people who value the strength of families, the strength of living in a free country, and doing good for those around us. I think all other religions would do well to follow suit. You will rarely hear a Mormon disparage another religion, because we have been the recipient of way too many attacks for our beliefs. Another Article of Faith states: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Again, we are good people with good hearts, and that seemingly gets overlooked due to pure bigotry and ignorance. Sorry about the rant, I am just tired of hearing negative junk about something I hold near and dear, and these are things that I have wanted to post to this site for a while now. (As he steps down from his soapbox)
November 16th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
[...] November 16, 2007 in GOP, Iraq, campaign communications, campaign communiques, campaign management, election 2008, media, mitt romney, polls, republicans, rhetoric, romney, strategy, stupidity, triumph of unreasonTags: agents provocateurs, associated press, j.a. miles, negative attacks, negativity, provocation, Sen. John McCain, terry sullivan, western wats “Numerous sources are now reporting anti-Mormon push-polls running in New Hampshire and Iowa. Apparently, the call starts out ok and then delves into some nasty rhetoric,” writes young Justin Hart in a race42008.com post titled Whodunnit? [...]
November 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I originally was not going to post the following, but since some are so intnent on jumping to conclusions, I will now do so. You may wish to consider the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Propaganda
November 16th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
#120 – I do read the news, and I am not anti-anyone. I am pro-Romney, and I was just guessing if anyone had ties to it it would seem like Rudy due to his relation to the Tarrance Group. I would hope none of the candidates are tied to this crap, and I give Rudy the benefit of the doubt, but that is yet to be proven, and I haven’t heard Rudy himself come out against it other than having his campaing handle it. I would feel a little better about Rudy’s involvement if he were to come out and denounce it, similar to what McCain has done.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
#123 – Are you suggesting that the Romney campaign would disparage his own religion?! I sure hope you aren’t serious. At least any “jumping to conclusions” that I have done regarding Rudy, were tied to some basis is fact. Whether his ties to the Tarrance Group and the Tarrance Group’s subsequent relationship with Western Wats in the past links Rudy to this remains to be seen. But to insinuate that Romney is having a company call people and make disparaging comments about his beliefs is almost as insulting as the calls made by Western Wats were.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
#122 – See #125 . . . and get a life while you’re at it.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Metro, a Poll for you:
1-Do you think Americans would elect an adulterous man with several marriedge?
2-Do you think Americans would elect a man with ties with the mob?
3-Do you think Republicas would elect a far left liberal?
November 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
The reason Mormonism is likely to receive added public scrutiny throughout Romney’s campaign is neither bigoted nor mean. It follows directly from his own campaign.
Look: He’s been running as the social conservative candidate who says his moral convictions and “values” stem from his faith in God. That very idea leads directly to a curiosity among some in the press and the public as to just what that faith more specifically is. Were he not emphasizing the importance of faith in his identity — not rejecting it, of course — his Mormonism would receive less attention.
Nevertheless, Mormonism would receive greater attention than the beliefs of the other candidates in part because Mormonism is novel and new to many people. And unfortunately, many negative biases and prejudices held against Mormonism by those of other religious faiths exist as a result lack of information about the LDS church in general.
And for the LDS members here: I wouldn’t overdo it with accusing others of being bigoted. If there’s any approach to convincing biased, prejudiced, or bigoted people to change their views, simply shouting them down with the “bigot” epithet will most assuredly fail.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
#123 – I am not suggesting anything about the Romney campaign, or any other campaign, one way or another. I am suggesting that before we jump to conclusions about this incident that ALL possibilities should be considered. Clearly, some posting to this site have a preferred identity as to the perpetrator. I have been involved in politics and campaigns long enough to know that there are some pretty exotic characters out there who are willing to employ non-conventional thinking and tactics. That being said, I will end with this question: Why do you and some of the other Romney supporters on here seem so quick to guess Rudy (rather than Huck or Fred) as the prime suspect? That seems to be your preferred outcome. Why?
November 16th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
#123 – I am not suggesting anything about the Romney campaign, or any other campaign, one way or another. I am suggesting that before we jump to conclusions about this incident that ALL possibilities should be considered. Clearly, some posting to this site have a preferred identity as to the perpetrator. I have been involved in politics and campaigns long enough to know that there are some pretty exotic characters out there who are willing to employ non-conventional thinking and tactics. That being said, I will end with this question: Why do you and some of the other Romney supporters on here seem so quick to guess Rudy (rather than Huck or Fred) as the prime suspect? That seems to be your preferred outcome. If so, why?
November 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Today in Nevada Romney responded to the push poll by – get this – denouncing McCain-Feingold!
I was thinking there was no way Romney would have been behind these calls himself, but his response makes me wonder. Push polls existed before McCain-Feingold so how could that law be at fault? Boy, I don’t think this will play well at all.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
93 – bjalder — “I hate arguments like that, because they create a fictional group of really stupid voters”
LOL. This country elected, in Ann Coulter’s immortal words, a “horny hick from Arkansas” for eight years. Come, now!
November 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
#131 Feltcher: Interesting. Yeah, push polls in various forms have been around for decades.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
TLG, I guess that’s one point we differ on. You think voters are stupid for the most part-I don’t.
Regarding Clinton, he’s been really smooth, but George Bush messed up with that whole “no new taxes” thing and the timing of the Iraq war killed him.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
#127 Falz: I will let Metro respond for himself, but my response to each of your questions is: Yes, they already have done so in each case.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“Why do you and some of the other Romney supporters on here seem so quick to guess Rudy (rather than Huck or Fred) as the prime suspect? That seems to be your preferred outcome. If so, why?”
I’m guessing that it’s because McCains camp said that the phone calls tracked back to Giuliani’s pollster.
I (a Romney supporter) don’t think it was Giuliani. I think McCain’s camp jumped to conclusions. I think it was an outside group that supports McCain. Specifically, I think it might be The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
“1-Do you think Americans would elect an adulterous man with several marriedge?
2-Do you think Americans would elect a man with ties with the mob?
3-Do you think Republicas would elect a far left liberal?”
1 – Yes.
2 – Rudy busted the mob.
3 – No, which is why Rudy will get elected.
Thanks!
November 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
111, technically we have elected a Jehovah’s Witness to the Presidency. Though he wasn’t very involved in his church after joining the military, and he changed religions after being elected to the Presidency. He was raised and buried as a Jehovah’s Witness though, and it wasn’t an issue in his campaign.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
“You think voters are stupid for the most part-I don’t.”
Well, then it’s up to you to explain why three-quarters of Americans support the minimum wage and believe that oil companies engage in price gouging. And a majority support rent control. And obviously, very few understand the terrorist threat.
Any thoughts?
November 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Yea TLG, you haven’t done a good enough job bringing your message to the people.
If you just assume people are dumb and will always choose dumb things, then why debate? Hillary is inevitable.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
TLG, I will admit this: stupid ideas often seem like great ideas until you dig into it and figure out the truth. That’s why liberal ideas are so appealing. Sure who wouldn’t love to get two grand when they have a baby-but wait-where is that money going to come from. What effects would such a policy have?
November 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Ah, so you’re admitting that people refuse to engage in research and gravitate toward “solutions” that are patently nonsensical?
It’s not an accident that our government is the size that it is. We started allowing people to vote away the natural rights of others, and once that starts, it’s hard to stop. It got even worse once women were given the vote and the government entered the realm of education, social services, etc., with reckless abandon.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
TLG,
Perhaps it’s due less to the stupidity of average Americans, and more to the failure of the conservative movement to communicate with average Americans who don’t spend much time thinking about the subject.
It’s easier to promise to write someone a check than to explain to them why money doesn’t grow on trees.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“TLG, I will admit this: stupid ideas often seem like great ideas until you dig into it and figure out the truth. That’s why liberal ideas are so appealing. Sure who wouldn’t love to get two grand when they have a baby-but wait-where is that money going to come from. What effects would such a policy have?”
Um, yeah, that’s my point: the average voter is downright awful at critical thinking.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“Perhaps it’s due less to the stupidity of average Americans, and more to the failure of the conservative movement to communicate with average Americans who don’t spend much time thinking about the subject.”
No, it’s definitely the stupidity of average Americans. It’s their job to not take away other peoples’ rights, not our job to tell them why it’s wrong. That’s like saying that a murder isn’t really the fault of the murderer, but the next-door neighbor who heard the screams and panicked.
If someone is going to vote, they need to be informed. And believing one’s self informed doesn’t amount to being informed. It’s your civil duty not to vote if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. No more than one or two million people should be voting.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
“Ah, so you’re admitting that people refuse to engage in research and gravitate toward “solutions†that are patently nonsensical?”
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that, that paints with a really broad brush. Conservative leaders need to win the battle of communicating ideas to the people.
Extremist positions and easy answers are always easiest to convey. What we need to do is convey better, more complicated answers in ways that reach people. That’s the challenge, we can take it up or not.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
TLG on problem voters: Well, then it’s up to you to explain why three-quarters of Americans support the minimum wage and believe that oil companies engage in price gouging. And a majority support rent control. And obviously, very few understand the terrorist threat.
Only three-quarters? If true, that makes average American voters much smarter than their media, entertainment, and academic elites! The rates in those circles must be somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 percent — around 100 percent for Ivy Leaguers. *prodprod*
November 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“Extremist positions and easy answers are always easiest to convey. What we need to do is convey better, more complicated answers in ways that reach people. That’s the challenge, we can take it up or not.”
Yes, you’re once again proving my point. Our challenge is: how do we communicate these ideas to people who are too dumb or too lazy to otherwise understand them and are refusing to engage in critical or counter-intuitive thinking?
November 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Haha, that’s pretty good, MarkG.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
#129 – “Why do you and some of the other Romney supporters on here seem so quick to guess Rudy (rather than Huck or Fred) as the prime suspect? That seems to be your preferred outcome. Why?”
I stated in #92 my reasoning for each candidate, and I think that bottom line, Rudy has the most to lose if Romney continues to lead in these early states. If you take a look at who I chose as my 2nd pick from another thread, it was Rudy, so I don’t hate him, or any GOP nominee for that matter. I think they are all good men, who will serve the country well. I think some are more liberal than others, and some have different views in terms of the direction of our country, but all of them, I believe are good men.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“Um, yeah, that’s my point: the average voter is downright awful at critical thinking.
No, it’s definitely the stupidity of average Americans.
If someone is going to vote, they need to be informed. And believing one’s self informed doesn’t amount to being informed. It’s your civil duty not to vote if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. No more than one or two million people should be voting.â€
Well, the “average†voter is “average†at critical thinking, but voters can’t run around doing their own research. They depend on the News, Politicians, the Internet, etc. to inform their thinking. I think it’s fair to say conservatives are outnumbered greatly in the news and on the internet there aren’t enough conservative outlets; Radio is the one place we’re winning.
While it would be great if people would do more to inform themselves, we need to do a better job getting out the conservative message. While maybe it’s true that “no more than one or two million people should be voting†how would that be enforced? And then it wouldn’t really be a presidential RACE, because Romney would have all the votes locked up.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[...] here to go to Race42008.com’s post. You can contact Election Night HQ [...]
November 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Just some thoughts – I have a piece on my site where I analyze this, and argue that:
a) these despicable calls should end – they’re profoundly unethical.
b) I cannot figure out why Romney felt that it was in his best interest to attack McCain (whom he leads by a wide margin in NH and Iowa) rather than Rudy…
Curious to hear reactions to this thesis…
Permalink to my story-
http://electionnigh.setupmyblog.com/2007/11/16/more-good-news-for-mccain-in-nh-romney-attacks-mccain-for-reprehensible-push-polling-calls-which-mccain-has-condemned/
November 16th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
There are plenty of people who think only ivy leaguers (and that would include those who attended little ivies) should vote and make policy. Romney would be excluded because he did not attend an ivy league college. Of the top contenders, by process of elimination I believe that leaves Obama, who attended Columbia and Harvard. He would have to be granted a pass at having taught at University of Chicago.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“Yes, you’re once again proving my point. Our challenge is: how do we communicate these ideas to people who are too dumb or too lazy to otherwise understand them and are refusing to engage in critical or counter-intuitive thinking?”
First off, by calling them dumb and lazy.
Here’s why, people aren’t so stupid that they don’t catch onto it when people think their stupid and lazy. People are busy and news isn’t as exciting to most as it probably is to you and I.
When I look at the way Romney breaks down the issues, I think he does a good job communicating though, I think he is so far ahead of his time on health care that it won’t be appreciated for possibly decades-some things take time.
Sometimes when Giuliani speaks, I think he is assuming that we’re a bunch of idiots. The time he said he only has two things in common with Hillary Clinton is a good example. He didn’t want to answer based on his social stances, so he deflected the question. It’s as if he thought to himself, “people are too stupid to do any research into my social stances, I’ll just distract them until I’m elected.â€
November 16th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
*by not calling them dumb and lazy-sorry
November 16th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Feltcher, Romney went to Stanford and Harvard.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“Well, the “average†voter is “average†at critical thinking, but voters can’t run around doing their own research.”
Why the hell not?
“I think it’s fair to say conservatives are outnumbered greatly in the news and on the internet there aren’t enough conservative outlets; Radio is the one place we’re winning.”
Again, it’s that illusion of people being informed — you’re slightly missing my point. You seem to agree that the average voter has no idea of what they’re talking about.
“While maybe it’s true that “no more than one or two million people should be voting†how would that be enforced? And then it wouldn’t really be a presidential RACE, because Romney would have all the votes locked up”
Oh, hardy har.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
TLG, I’m glad you took that last part as a joke.
“You seem to agree that the average voter has no idea of what they’re talking about.”
I’m hoping by the time we vote, things will be different, but people aren’t very interested in the election right now.
Nobody has the time to personally interview all the candidates and research what they say. We depend on the Media, and the campaigns for much of the information we use. When the Media is so skewed to the left, conservative arguments don’t get a fair shot. I believe if Conservative arguments were getting a fair shot, we would be the vast majority.
Maybe we differ in views there, maybe not.
We need conservative politicians who are good at breaking down issues, and we need to combat the leftist media any way possible.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Also interesting to note the the Western-Watts is base out of Utah (Who would go to Utah to one anti-mormon calls) and has ties to Romney himself? And now he is using it to attack McCain? Hmmm? Is the Romney campign behind these calls themselves?
November 16th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Paul8148, what are you talking about?
What ties does WW have to Romney? How is Romney attacking McCain?
November 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Stanford, while a great university, is not an ivy.
Murphy,
Romney attacked McCain-Feingold as the reason for the anti-mormon push poll, which makes absolutely no sense.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
#160 – Not sure if you know or not, but some of the nastiest Anti-Mormon stuff comes out of Utah. There are a lot of people living in Salt Lake City and some of the surrounding cities that aren’t Mormon, and in fact detest them. So having this type of stuff originate in Utah shouldn’t surprise anyone. And please show your evidence linking Western Wats to Romney. If your claim is that they are tied because of the Utah connection, then consider how foolish that statement sounds.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
After reading stuff out on the internet today about this whole thing, I would have to agree with those that think there is probably not any campaign stupid enough to try and do this type of push-polling. I agree with bjalder that this is probably some third party organization sympathetic to a particular campaign, but not being directed by any campaing. They probably thought that this would be a cute way to try and pull Romney down, when in reality, I think most decent people will actually sympathize with Romney being attacked this way.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Feltcher,
I thought Paul meant Romney attacked McCain for being behind the push-poll, which is untrue. But there’s a very obvious link between McCain-Feingold and this push poll. From ABC:
Romney has certainly attacked McCain for McCain-Feingold, and that will continue (as it should). McCain’s awful legislation is the reason attacks like this are possible, although McCain is probably (IMO) not behind the attack itself.
And not that it’s relevant, but Romney did attend an ivy league college.
Still waiting to hear Paul’s theory on how Romney is connected to WW. The state of UT as a commonality is too dumb to be what he meant.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
http://www.lizmair.com/blog.php?Index=288
” ….
UPDATE: David Freddoso raises something interesting at NRO:
Western Wats, the company making the calls, is based in Orem, Utah. One of its dialers, Amanda Earnshaw, has maxed out to Romney for the primary. The company’s founder, Ron Lindorf (he sold it years ago), is noted here as a founder of the BYU Business School.
Does it strike anyone else as strange that this would be the firm hired to make anti-Mormon phone calls?
In short, yes. It also strikes me as strange that when I just ran an FEC search for the name “Welch, Jeffrey” (the name of a Senior VP at Western Wats, I came up with this:
WELCH, JEFFREY MR.
CEDARA HILLS, UT 84062
WESTERN WATS INC./BUSINESS MANAGE
ROMNEY, MITT
VIA ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC.
09/30/2007 500.00 27931366119
I don’t want to turn into a conspiracy theorist here, but is it too much for me to ask, what the hell is up, here?
UPDATE NO. 2: It appears that Fred thinks Mormon-bashing robo-calls suck, too. He’s right, though as ever, a little late to the game.
UPDATE NO 3: It appears that another Western Wats employee donated to Romney. Though not as high level as the Senior VP, or as large a donation as Earnshaw’s, this is still relevant. The story gets fishier and fishier… “
November 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
#153 – In your article to which you provided the link you state: “As for the villain behind the calls – the initial signs have led to Rudy Giuliani’s campaign (read the AP article here, for more as to why that’s the case).”
My question to you is: WHAT initial signs have led to Rudy Giuliani’s campaign? No evidence has been turned up–only assumptions and speculations.
My response to your thesis as well as to what appears to be an all-day orchestrated response to this incident causes me to become even more suspicious that it was some kind of “provocation” or what used to be called in the trade a “provokatsia.”
November 16th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
#166 – This is getting more and more stupid by the minute. Is it too far beyond the realm of possibility to think that a company the size of Western Wats, that is based in Orem, UT (VERY high Mormon population) might have a couple of employees that support Mitt Romney?? To go from that to make the insane leap that Romney’s campaign/Romney himself is behind this type of crap is utterly ridiculous. I am sure this “Research” company has numerous clients that they work for, and in this case I believe that they are working for a third party group that supports another candidate other than Romney, and thought that this would be a way to sway sentiment away from Romney. I highly doubt that any campaing is tied to this. The person(s) that should be looked at is who authorized the calls to take place at Western Wats, and who is the client that placed the order for the calls to go out. Not, let’s scan to see how many Mormon employees from a highly concentrated Mormon city work for this company, and then make the ludicrous assumption that Romney initiated this crap.