Are They. Aren't They. Where Are They. Who Are They.

By Erick Posted in Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

ImagePaging Romneybots. What's up with this? The other day, Streiff posted this post about the tools Zinni and Ross being advisors to Mitt Romney (along with Bremer, would you really *want* those guys to be known as your advisors?).

He was subsequently asked to post the full list of advisors, which he did. But it seems that someone needs to clarify the list. After posting it, the list turned out not to be online, at least at the time of posting. I certainly trust the Romney staffer who sent the list, and I assume it is a misunderstanding, but now it seems more than one person on the list of advisors might not be one. Kissinger is on McCain's finance team and the rumor mill suggests Victor David Hanson and one or two others are not, or at least do not consider themselves, "Foreign Policy Advisors" to the campaign.

I assume there is an innocent explanation to all of this, but it seems someone needs to do some explaining before this controversy blows up into a 1994 debate situation. In the meantime, my suggestion for the Romney campaign mascot is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Ed's Note: Today, the Romney staffer who sent the list sought to clarify that they were not a board of "Foreign Policy Advisors," but rather experts Gov. Romney talked with. That had not been made clear at the time of the original posting, subsequent emails, nor in the thread related to the post. So, perhaps just an innocent misunderstanding over semantic. And yeah, were the primary held today, I'd still vote Romney, but Rudy is looking more and more attractive in that candidate sort of way.


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | We May Need To Find SomeoneComments (5) »
Are They. Aren't They. Where Are They. Who Are They. 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

We used the term "advisors" - they didn't. To be sure, in hindsight he could have insisted on a correction, but hey - that's hindsight that wasn't informed by the belief that someone like eyeon08 would draw the conclusion they did.

His on-line communications guy (nashvegas) was on Redstate responding to the post. He could have easily clarified that these were ACTUAL advisors, but just guys he's spoken too. If you give your opponent enough ammo(ie unclear assumptions), they will defeat you.

"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain

There are two possibilities:

(1) Given the context of everything, including streiff's story and the reaction, we're seeing world-class incompetence worthy of that other guy from Massachusetts in 2004; or

(2) We're seeing a pattern of sophistry and dishonesty that began with the candidate and tricked down.

I'm open to either.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Of the situation, and come up with those two. Or, you could take it on its face.

RS) Romney has two crappy foreign policy advisors

Romneyfolks) But wait, the gov sits with plenty of folks to talk about foreign policy, here's a list!

EyeOn08) Someone on that list is officially signed up with someone's campaign.

Romneyfolks) To be clear - we didn't say that all those folks had an official role on the campaign.

Tossing the incompetence book over this is a little extreme. I'd be stunned if with those standards, there's ever been a campaign in the history of the Republic that lives up to "competent"

I'm not proud of this.

One thing I learned, doing that, is that when you're a PR guy, trying to do damage control and its several sister trades, you had better be dead-on with any corrections, updates, or backshots, because (1) you're presuming to tell someone else that they're wrong, and (2) you're sticking your head up in the artillery range in so doing. The end result of failing to have all the i's dotted and t's crossed is that you have the very folks you corrected pulling out the large bore weaponry and opening fire.

Now, you're putting a nice spin on this, which is your right. However, if Romney's campaign hasn't learned that lesson yet, they'd better learn it fast, because we're just a web site. We don't do oppo research.

By the way, your spin doesn't actually make them sound any better, more competent, or more capable.

Just noting.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Hey, it's your right to look for the worst, or the sinister, or the idiotic in every republican campaign worker you encounter.

I'd prefer by starting at taking folks at their word. Certainly the ones that are generally on the same team.

I haven't picked which of this group of losers I'm going to throw my support -- for what insignificant good it would do -- behind. And of course, I'm not being paid to stump for any of these yahoos either. However, what we're doing here hardly qualifies as "not taking someone at his word," even though with Romney, the jokes practically make themselves.

Rather, I'm offering the friendly note that uninterested potential partisans like yours truly are, so far, underwhelmed; and that the efforts to date from this particular collective fart are not winning at least some of us over.

Speaking only for myself, I prefer it if my friends and allies point out where I'm weak before I enter a battle with someone who'll probe for weak spots not to wound, but to kill. But then again, maybe that's just me.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

not the candidate. I've got little substantive opinion about him as yet.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been driven from supporting him to an elaborate shrug.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Seems related to a raging moderate. Or the classic 100 meter mosey.

I find an intense, but considerably less than passionate, ennui about the whole freaking group. That's all.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Who's really, really excited about him who's not:

1. LDS

2. K Lo

3. Paid

I fit that bill.

You can feel free to contact me if you like.

...RS) Romney has two crappy foreign policy advisors

Romneyfolks) But wait, the gov sits with plenty of folks to talk about foreign policy, you're cherry-picking the advisers you listed, quit being intellectually lazy...what? We haven't actually published a list, and you want the list of advisers? Here's a list!

EyeOn08) Someone on that list is officially signed up with someone's campaign.

Romneyfolks) To be clear - we didn't say that all those folks had an official role on the campaign.

I have to go with Thomas on this one. And no, I don't have a dog in this fight - not even a little one.

Hynes posted a link to this on his website a day or so ago. A the time I though it sounded like this was just people he talked too instead of actual advisors. Stephen should have cleared or specified this the other day when we were discussing it. Is it me, or has there been nonstop missteps by the Romney campaign? The gadfly, no comment on Iraq, the "ahh-shucks" response to the illegal immigrant working on his lawn, and now this? You only get so many "rookie" mistakes before your written off as a small-timer.

"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain

Romney is running a good ground game here in Iowa. Had 300 show up at a luncheon today.
www.iowansforromney.com

Take a tiny bit of friendly advice...the quick drop-in to let us know 300 showed up? Ok, moving right along..

Next time - help us out a little more - get some photos and share the story. Who was there? Who hosted? What did he actually say, if anything?

This goes for everyone who's either got a horse in the race, or is simply trying to contribute to the coverage of the race - details, details, details. It's the great advantage of a community blog like RedState. No one can be on the campaign trail everywhere, and the traditional journalists aren't going to share the kind of information that's actually helpful to other activists.

So go out there, chop the workload into tiny pieces, and help all the other folks that care about these elections get more engaged.

I do have to say I have, even though I like to give Leon a hard time about Brownback, I have some concerns about Romney. His "change of positions" bothers me. Like Erick, I like Guiliani too, but he hasn't started saying the right things (yet).

My post said advisors. That was my interpretation of the newspaper article upon which I relied. If they weren't advisors then the first email I received from the Romney campaign should have been to inform me about the error and not to chastize me for "cherry picking" (his words)

your comment about Gen. Zinni and Ambassador Ross being “touted as Romney’s foreign policy advisors” is an instance of misleading cherry picking.

Here’s the full list of those experts with whom Governor Romney has met to discuss foreign policy and the war:

In retrospect I see that the word advisor was not used but neither was I corrected. As we were, at least from my perspective, talking about a list of advisors from which I had "cherry picked" two, I think my confusion is understandable.

After I posted the update and a clearly labeled list I receive this, exerpted here:

I understand that you neither work for me, nor support Governor Romney. But we all have an interest in accurate reporting at RedState and it simply isn’t accurate to characterize Zinni and Ross as Governor Romney’s touted advisors to the exclusion of others like Hanson, Kagan, Kristol, Cohen, etc. I really didn’t mean to imply that you were intentionally misleading your readers … just that your characterization didn’t provide a full picture of those with whom Governor Romney has consulted on foreign policy issues.

[...]

In any case, thank you for appending the full list.

Again, no correction. It seems that the Romney staffer was perfectly happy with my correction.

As to the rest, I don't know and don't much care.

I corrected my post to meet the satisfaction of the Romney campaign when that correction was not required and did nothing to change the story in even the smallest way. At no time was I told this list was not advisors, but, in fact, just guys who Romney had had lunch with.

During the evening after that post, there were numerous opportunities for the Romney campaign to correct the record. They chose not to do so. It's a lick on them.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service