Redstate

It may be that someone supporting a rival campaign funded the anti-Mormon calls - then when got scared that it would come out who they were supporting and thereby hurt their candidate. So...they decided to obfuscate by putting out there that it was actually the Romney Campaign (or an unofficial proxy thereof) all along.

Once we get to the bottom of this, I very seriously doubt we will find that Mitt Romney or anyone very high up in his campaign had anything to do with these calls.

Hillarys' campaign accepted $850,000 from a wanted felon and it hardly made a ripple.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Just getting back and have seen the updates. What makes you think ANY republicans had anything to do with it? Me thinks you jumped the gun.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Thomas but that exactly why I think you jumped the gun.

I'm pretty sure most Mitt supporters would have preferred we wait until March of 2008 at the earliest to explore this. On the other hand, we could have run this even earlier. Kinda hard to stay in the current event loop, sometimes.

I still have some questions Gage hasn't answered, but that's me.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

And actually "read" the "article," I'll personally submit to my fellow "Directors" that we should "consider" "it."

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation for this... perhaps too much time spent reading this site?

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

...I admit, I do use them liberally.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

but it seems to me they are writing a story about what someone else has done research on. They also clearly state "Today, we want to be clear that whatever the case is, we do not blame Mitt Romney personally for these phone calls."

And they clearly point that regardless who is behind this, they are the ones making an issue of his faith, not him, nor the directors of this site.

The only people who should be apologizing are the people making the calls AND anyone who tactically supported them by making hay over the scandal.

There are plenty of enemies afoot, no candidate needs to manufacture more.

Bingo! The bottom line here is this: The company behind the calls has people on its payroll that donated to the Romney campaign. Therefore Romney must be directly responsible for the calls.

That's the logic of the conspiracy theorists here. Never mind that this company is based in Utah where Romney is polling at around 80% and has raised a good chunk of his funds. It's not terribly hard to find Romney contributors around those parts. And I failed to see the Western Wats-Target Point connection that Hemingway is talking about. He took a huge leap there.

Look at the phone numbers cited in the story. I'll grant you that Hemingway didn't put it right up front, but it is there.

Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com

What strikes me is how little in the way of hard facts have been proffered by the Tin Foil Hat crowd.
Unless you can find it on the Internet they are not interested. The Salt Lake Tribune, historically full of animus for Mormons, actually did some spade work by interviewing people at Western Wats and found
"The chief executive officer and other executives are not Mormon.. Moreover," not one board member is Mormon," "That's a connection that just isn't there," Western Wats Mormon founders have had no interest in the firm since 2004.

telemarketing firm, whose owner is a MR supporter, has been fingered as the firm involved.
And from MR to Hugh the Romney side has been hyper sensistive and very defensive on romney confronting the honest questions people have about LDS. I don't have a problem with LDS. I could easily vote for Romney. But his dodge and weave and apparent game playing does not bode well for him.

...I believe Ron Lindorf sold the company three years ago. WW is owned by a private equity group, none of which are Mormons or Romney supporters.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Private equity firms, when they buy companies, don't dictate the day-to-day operational activities of their investees, like whether or not to take on a contract to make bigoted hit-calls. The directors who "come with" the company, i.e., the non-private equity appointed ones (in many cases, the entirety of the board), in 99.99% of cases do (I say this as a former corporate finance lawyer who dealt extensively with private equity acquisitions when practicing). So the question is, or in my view should be, are there connections between those people and the Romney campaign or Romney donors or Romney supporters-- or any other campaigns, other donors, or other supporters, for that matter. And we know that a Senior VP at Western Wats has donated to Romney, along with several other employees, among other things.

Does that conclusively prove anything? No, it doesn't. But this point about a PE firm owning WW is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and in my view, a red herring.

Note: I attempted to post on this at my own site yesterday, but was experiencing problems. If you want more detail on the point, visit mine in about 15 mins.

Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com

...in that case, do you know for a fact that Ron Lindorf remains a member of the board to this day and is actively involved in the company?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

he is one. I don't think he is, in fact. I'm just saying the PE point is irrelevant here.

Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com

Do generally put in their own CEO's and directors. They don't just buy an operation and leave it to it's own. They buy it with the idea of using the basic model of the purchased business with their own management savvy and create better results.

They don't dictate the day to day operations, but the senior management at the acquired company they have installed does.

The point here is that WW is not owned by a Romney supporter as was being claimed. It's owned by a company who represents large amounts of investors who bought the company with the idea of making it a larger success.

I know you are not trying to indict Romney with your poitnt, but who owns the company is certainly not unimportant.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

we've both made the same points, but you've ended up in a different place somehow. You recognize that PE directors, where installed, aren't there to get into minutiae like OK'ing individual contracts like, say, this one (totally consistent with my experience, as a lawyer, working on numerous PE investments and with numerous PE investee companies). You put responsibility for day-to-day operational stuff on senior management, and presumably by implication, the non-PE elements of it.

My argument is that PE firms' representatives don't comprise the entirety, or usually even anything more than a small majority of senior management, and in any event, not the part of it responsible for making decisions about taking on specific contracts such as this one. So, what I'm saying is, let's look at who's really running the show-- i.e., the non-PE types, who are actually involved in day-to-day operational issues. And I think that's consistent with what you're saying, actually, though for some reason, you seem to still think that PE ownership of the firm is really important. It's not, except insofar as it shows that Ron Lindorf doesn't own it.

Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com

You were probably wondering if there was an echo.

But, my point was that St. Louis was responding to Hunters painting of the picture that thee was a Utah company with Romney supporters behind this.

St. Louis Conserv. was making the point that it's not quite the story Hunter is making it out to be. By the way people on some of the blogs have amde this sound, you would think that WW is a mom pop telemarketing company that is Ran by Romney's best friend.

The Private Equity angle shows that the situation is not what Hunter in the post above was painting but rather a company who is ran by people on the top levels who are more interested in turning substantial profits than helping Romney with the Mormon question.

This doesn't mean it wasn't a friend of Romney, but it does show a different angle to the story.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com

The Salt Lake Tribune, historically full of animus for Mormons, actually did some spade work by interviewing people at Western Wats and found
"The chief executive officer and other executives are not Mormon.. Moreover," not one board member is Mormon," "That's a connection that just isn't there," Western Wats Mormon founders have had no interest in the firm since 2004.

big complaint about McCain-Feingold in relation to this matter, it seems to rest on the notion that it doesn't go far enough, and that c4s and 527s continue to preserve donor anonymity.

Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com

....McCain-Feingold should be repealed, all donation caps should be eliminated, and there needs to be immediate and full disclosure of all donations, with stiff penalities on those that fail to do so.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

McCain-Feingold should be repealed, all donation caps should be eliminated, and there needs to be immediate and full disclosure of all donations, with stiff penalities on those that fail to do so.

Well said (and I say this as a McCain supporter).

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

if Romney were making this point.

Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com

.

repeatedly throughout his campaign. He wants to repeal the law, get rid of contribution caps, and increase disclosure. He has personally stated this on numerous occasions.

But he is not playing straight withhis audience. He is so obviously in the pocket of Romney but won't admit it. And this telemarketing push - even if it is directly tied to a campaign - Who gives a fig? It is backfiring big time.
the big loser here will be Hugh, especially if it turns out it was done by a MR supporter or his campaign.

First, "Reply to this" is your friend.

Second, It's 38585. It might not mean anything to you but it does to me.

The reason the finger was pointed at McCain so quickly is because he was directly mention in the poll and on some level would benefit. It was also mentioned that he is employing a vocal anti-Mormon in SC and I mention at the beginning of all of this that he could have taken on some of the anti-Mormon staff that Brownback had. I don't think that McCain himself would do anything like this, but in a "staffer gone wild" scenario, McCain's staff makes more sense than Romney's.

Now, my point earlier is that there really isn't any new news. The Directors have gone out on a limb here and are assuming that Gage is behind all of this when Mark Hemingway's article doesn't prove it (only
suggests the link). The fact that Gage has done bussiness in the past with Western Wats doesn't actaully PROVE anything.

But the point I was making is let's all slow down and stop the finger pointing.

Pam

What bunk. I started looking into this story from the angle that McCain could be behind this, but if you think about it for all of three seconds, it's obvious he wouldn't benefit and his camp wouldn't be capable of doing this, anyway.

McCain isn't playing in Iowa, it appears, and that's the state where raising concerns about Mormons and Mormonism might actually sway some voters' opinions (at least if one believes that a lot of evangelicals have concerns about Mormonism, and if one thinks Iowa has enough evangelicals for this to matter). In New Hampshire, which is where McCain is aiming to play, theological concerns are less relevant to the electorate. Guns and taxes are big issues up there-- if McCain was going to benefit from an attack on Romney, it would be if issues like those were raised. And they weren't. Meanwhile, the pro-McCain stuff in the calls was all about McCain's military experience-- hardly new information that was going to benefit him, electorally.

Also, dare I mention that the McCain camp just doesn't have the money for this kind of thing? If you think it's McCain, or that there was a good reason for the finger to be pointed at him, I'd be interested in seeing how you justify that in light of his, er, financial woes.

I agree that Hemingway's post doesn't conclusively prove anything, or move the ball as much further along as those of us who want to get to the bottom of this would like, but I think you're off-base with the rest of this.

Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com

First off, I've said on many occasions that I don't think McCain himself would be invovled. He would benifit from these calls as much or more than any other Republican canidate (especially Romney).

Wheter he's "playing" Iowa or not is irrelevant. Would he not benifit if Romney stumbles out of Iowa? The question for the Romney dunit folks would be why in the world would Romney want to highlight the issue when he's already cruising in Iowa? The call weren't all about Romney's religion they also highlighted that he and his sons didn't serve in the military while highlighting McCain. Also it doesn't matter that it wasn't "new information", only that it highlighted the difference.

If McCain's camp doesn't have the money for this type of operation then how would some renagade Romney staffer have the money?

My only point is that there are many others who benifit from this more than Romney, McCain being near the top of that list.

the Directors call it unfortunate that the Romney campaign and "mouthpiece" Hugh Hewitt blame McCain. I would like to see a direct quote by Romney or his campaign that lays the blame for this directly on McCain. Not a quote related to McCain-Feingold.

Since we all seem to be "push polling" conspiracy theories here, how about this one- McCain most certainly has had conversations with his mother about the candidates, and he knew that if she was allowed to speak freely, that she would utter that anti-Mormon and anti-Romney tirade. My conspiracy theory is no less plausible than that which the Directors have placed front and center.

Let's have the NH attorney general do his work and maybe we'll get to the bottom of this and perhaps end someone's campaign. Now that would make for a good Directors' editorial.

How about some honest to goodness Socratic inquiry: Who indeed would sponsor a poll that bashes your religion, your family and your integrity?

Ask yourself who has the most to gain and who the least to gain form the push poll? The only candidates are anti-Mormons and/or Nutroots have the most to gain and least to loose.

I completely agree. This article is reckless and irresponsible and I personaly don't think it should have been placed on the main page with such prominence.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

I would leave it, for the moment, at "premature".

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Fair enough.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

If the Romney camp hadn't made a big public issue of the calls, they would not now be in a position to look so bad as doubts are being raised about their source. It's stupid politics.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

It was and would have been a big issue no matter what Romney said or did. He may have squandered some of the good will by focusing on McCain-Feingold, but that's a different story. I guess calling for an investigation was "stupid poltics" in your book also?

Some of the most politically tuned-in voters in the country get an amateur push-poll call, and it's a major issue? What's next? Being upset because some crank manages to get his self-published newsletter distributed in the parking lots of two of the local KKR chain in New Hampshire?

Dignifying this silliness with a call for an investigation is indeed stupid, on every level.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

You left off amateur "anti-Mormon" push-poll call. That was the theme coming from the pundits and media types. Also the fact that it's someone, anyone going negative is always a good story. So, yes I do believe that even small event like this could cause a large media storm.

Of course the other theory (Dan's and maybe yours) is that Romney cooked this thing up all by himself simply by over reacting. Never mind the fact that he was relatively slow to react, with McCain being the first to issue a statement
.

You left off amateur "anti-Mormon" push-poll call.

You mean I left off "anti-Mormon" from "amateur push-poll." Regardless, by definition, an anti-Mormon ad in Iowa and New Hampshire is amateur-level stuff; of all the voter sets in the country least likely to include Moron Voters, those two rank at the top.

This makes it an even bigger non-story, but you have an axe to grind, so let's continue.

That was the theme coming from the pundits and media types.

Interesting question: Why? Why would anyone care if it hadn't been brought to their attention?

Also the fact that it's someone, anyone going negative is always a good story.

My fat white butt it is. If it's the aforementioned crank in the grocery parking lot, it's a good story in the same way that Troofers coming up with a new theory on steel lattice strength is a good story. It's only a good story if you can show, definitively, that a campaign, or someone a campaign is failing to control, is doing this. Otherwise, it's background noise, and at best, a chance for the Romney camp to whine a little.

So, yes I do believe that even small event like this could cause a large media storm.

Thank you, Mr. Gleick.

Of course the other theory (Dan's and maybe yours) is that Romney cooked this thing up all by himself simply by over reacting.

My theory is that this is so much harmless hokum, and that it won't matter past Wednesday unless someone develops a link to an actual campaign. I think if Romney had ignored it, or just dismissed it with, Well, this was stupid, but what are you going to do? he would have looked a lot better, and the story died a fast death.

Then again, politicians from the Commonwealth appear to be abysmal at handling negativity, so maybe it's too much to ask that of him.

Never mind the fact that he was relatively slow to react, with McCain being the first to issue a statement.

How he reacted, kid. How he reacted. Not when.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

What does the level of sophistication have to do with the media's reaction? How amateurish is this push poll considering we (all but the Directors) still don't know who it is?

"My theory is..."

Except that there are very few headlines on this story that mention Romney's reaction, specifically McCain-Feigngold. At most it's a add on to the whole story.

What does the level of sophistication have to do with the media's reaction?

The "media" would neither have known nor cared had it not been brought to their attention, and had reactions not been what they were.

Look, you have an internal narrative. Run with it. I don't mean to try to talk you out of it.

One note:

How amateurish is this push poll considering we (all but the Directors) still don't know who it is?

Well, you forced us to tip our hand. We actually uncovered that it was Mitt Romney himself who did this. Seriously. He got a briefcase of money, flew on a private jet to Utah, paid cash for the calls, then flew back before anyone was the wiser.

It's amateurish for the reasons outlined, not for the reasons you're reading in your head.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

"The "media" would neither have known nor cared had it not been brought to their attention"

WOW, how incredably insightful. Would any story be written if it wasn't brought to their attention?

"and had reactions not been what they were."

You mean Romney's reaction, right? You should look at the actual articles from the past week, not many of them centered on how Romney reacted. Of course this doesn't follow your internal narrative.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Romney+push+poll&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&as...

"We actually uncovered that it was Mitt Romney himself who did this."

Yes I know, I read the orginal blog this morning.

"And as for Alex Gage and the Romney associates who are apparently behind these efforts" -- The Directors

...which not only confuse your ability to read several-hundred-word long pieces, but also fifteen-word sentence fragments you've excerpted. On general principle, I try not to argue with people in the middle of religious ecstasies, so have at it, kid. I'll just know not to take you seriously in the future.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Your the one who insisted on using sarcasm, I just went along with it.

The fact is that the Directors have gone out on a limb here and have accused those close to Romney of being behind this, without any real evidence. Your (Thomas) insisting that this was a nonstory propped up by Romney is not only presumptuous, but just plain stupid if you go back and read the stories (as I tried to get you to do).

It's extremely sad that someone of your stature here at Redstate would withdrawal to religious accusations in a debate. You are in a very bad position to be giving people crap without being able to take it.

First, I've actually read the thing that set you all off.

Second, I've actually written in response to what is actually written in the comment to which I'm responding.

Last, I'm capable of understanding written English.

I am accusing you of being incapable of reading something because you have something else dictating what you're actually reading. I use "religion" as a shorthand for raw rage, indignation, or some other emotional, non-rational state of mind. You may substitute liberally until that makes sense to you. Whatever you substitute, I have no desire to argue a point with someone who won't do me the courtesy of reading what's actually written.

Good day.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Still doesn't change that this would have been a big story no matter how/when Romney reacted.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

My theory is that this is so much harmless hokum, and that it won't matter past Wednesday unless someone develops a link to an actual campaign.

That being the case, why was it necessary for the Directors to place this editorial front and center and further the feeding frenzy, as evidenced by the response here?

Especially: It's stupid politics.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

If we'd said this was the work of Mitt Romney or his campaign, instead of what you said, I'd think you have a point.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Fine - I read too much into the title. Standing down.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Listen, it is clear that *someone* placed these calls. By definition, this story involves a conspiracy. If you can think of a way in which a conspiracy is somehow not involved, I'd love to hear it. This goes for the rest of the people (including Hugh) who are invoking "conspiracy theory" at every opportunity. Unless you are suggesting that one single person managed to pull this off.

The problem that you (and Hugh, and others) have is not really that there's a conspiracy being mentioned, but that it's being laid at the foot of your guy. And so you scream "conspiracy theory!!!@#!!" to dismiss it. Not bad as political plays go, especially given the general Republican reluctance to believe in conspiracies, but pretty thin nonetheless.

I note that a lot of these same people were all too eager to believe that this was a conspiracy organized by someone in the McCain camp.

Oh yeah, and part of the reason that Republicans tend to disbelieve conspiracy theories is that we have the feeling that most conspiracies involving people in politics simply can't be kept secret, at least not for any amount of time. I'll note here that it took about 24 hours for people to start connecting the dots on this one.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

This kind of article reminds me of the 9/11 truth stuff that so many of the Ronulans buy into.

The reason I'm complaining is that this blog was placed on the front page and it doesn't have any hard evidence to back it up. This is basically spreading rumors and gossip.

If you'll notice, I haven't suggested who may be at the helm of this "conspiracy" because I don't know. It's irresponsible to jump out on a limb and suggest it's the Romney campaign without any direct proof!

If it is the Romney campaign, that's fine. Go ahead and put it on the front page. If not, then this was a mistake and it should be addressed accordingly.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Up there, in very clear words, is the site's position. It says something. The bots get upset because it doesn't say what they want it to say, so they attack it for saying something else.

If you're intent on seeing something there, have at it; just don't impute it to us.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

"Conspiracy theory" is often used to mean more than just a theory about a conspiracy. It may be used to describe such a theory which is also more complicated than alternative theories.

For instance, 9/11 perhaps was the result of Islamofascism or maybe a Jewish cabal. Both are theories about conspiracies. But only the Jewish cabal theory is a "conspriacy theory" in the usual sense.

Saying that McCain or Giuliani did it isn't a "conspiracy theory" in the usual sense of the word. Saying Romney or associates did it is.

You could go even further, and suspect that a rival campaign chose Western Watts in hopes that people would suspect that Romney did it to himself.

Apprently, in "the usual sense of the word," conspiracy theories involving operatives from the McCain or Giuliani campaigns are not conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theories involving operatives from the Romney campaign are conspiracy theories.

My ability to divine "the usual sense of [a] word" must really be slipping.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

My first two paragraphs explained what the usual sense of "conspiracy theory" is. My third paragraph merely applied that explanation to the present facts.

Let me know if this isn't clear, so you can understand my explanation rather than deflect it with another sarcastic mischaracterization.

It just proceeds from the ridiculous assumption that McCain or Giuliani being behind this is somehow the "simpler" explanation than Romney or someone connected to him being behind this. In light of that, your comment got the response it deserved.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

The reason that the Islamofascist theory is simpler than the Jewish cabal theory is that the Jewish cabal theory depends on the Islamofascist theory. The Jewish cabal theory can only be reasonable insofar as the Islamofascist theory is reasonable.

In order to prove the Islamofascist theory, all you need to do is give evidence for the Islamofascist theory. In order to prove the Jewish cabal theory, you need the evidence for the Islamofascist theory and additional evidence that it was really a Jewish cabal all along.

Same for the Romney situation. The push polling is the evidence for the Political Rival Theory. Only on the strength of a Political Rival Theory could someone come up with a RomneyDunIt theory.

...is that I redacted a lot of commentary after the blockquote, because I really don't think at this point that the Romney campaign is coordinating this, and I've made it a point to try to avoid own-goaling our Party's campaigns on the front. I haven't always succeeded, but I've tried.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I wasn't criticizing you or the other Directors in the least. I think you've handled this very well.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Thomas posted Madden's press release which states unequivocally that the campaign was and is not involved with the calls.

1. Romney's camp was the one that actually tried to benefit from this story.

2. The simplest explanation is that this was done by someone sympathetic to, but not affiliated with, one of the campaigns. And once you start with that assumption, it's not that bizarre to think that someone thought that Mitt would benefit from a story about him being the victim of bigotry.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I'm not saying that this post blames Romney directly. Obviously it doesn't. When I talk about "RomneyDidIt" I include his supporters.

The point is that blaming this on Romney or supporters doesn't make sense and is a misdirection from more obvious questions.

I was about to point out just that.

The "sympathy for attacks on Romney's faith" theory does not jive with the actual push poll. The poll also attacked him for not sending his sons into the military. If a Romney supporter wanted to generate buzz about the evil of bigotry, why throw in unrelated attacks, instead of spending more time on bigoted attacks? It dilutes the supposed strategy, and risks that bigotry doesn't even come up as a specific item in the push polling story.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

1) The Jooooooooooooooos!
2) ???

Number two is that the Romney campaign is actually beset by someone within or without but aligned who thinks he's doing a good thing. This would make the campaign both clear of all insinuations, and in the unfortunate position of having to take a close associate to the woodshed.

I am agnostic on this, except to note that I don't think the ad/poll campaign was coordinated at any level by the Romney campaign. If that's true, Mitt needs to just drop out right now. If it's true, it would also mean that Mitt Romney is dead, and something with an IQ of 30 is running his campaign.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

...it would be so stupid and it is so unlikely that the possibility isn't worth mentioning.

My point is that any plausible culprit is enjoying discussion of that possibility immensely.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming everyone on Team Romney lacks the Superbonehead Power required to effect something this dumb. In every presidential campaign, there is someone well-placed who has that power; the only relevant question is whether they can be controlled all the time.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

What I'm saying is that the stupider an action is, the less plausibly it can be ascribed to someone's strategy. As you have pointed out, something this dumb would require Superbonehead Power. Like an asylum escapee off his meds.

Someone trying to think their way to the bottom of this must decide which is more likely: a drooling lunatic push polling against his favorite candidate in key primary states, believing that this will give that candidate a boost? Or a rival campaign or supporter (D or R) engaging in what is unfortunately an all too common political practice?

And while he was an idiot, he wasn't crazy. Gotta tell you, the idea of a loose cannon loosely affiliated with any of the campaigns looks equally likely to me.

I agree that this belongs to no campaign's strategy, in all likelihood. I disagree that no one affiliated with one thought this brilliant.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

What I'm saying is that the stupider an action is, the less plausibly it can be ascribed to someone's strategy.

that this was really stupid whoever did it. Stupidity needs to be taken as given. Unfortunately, given that, you cannot reason your way to a solution to the question of who did it, because the actions of stupid people are difficult to figure out.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I'm not saying push polling is a brilliant strategy, but it's not necessarily stupid. Unethical, yes. But many campaigns over the years have thought it through and decided for better or for worse that it was good strategy.

In other words, for a Romney supporter to do it, he would have to be jaw-droppingly stupid. For someone else to do it, unethical, but not necessarily stupid. After all, this has hurt Romney some, and certainly not helped him.

As you said, actions of stupid people are hard to predict or explain. The stupider they are, the more random their actions look, and the harder it is for rational people to ascribe meaning to them. What does this mean?

First, it's a mistake to try to ascribe some strategy to the Romney campaign such as "he's playing for sympathy" for an act so stupid that it resists rationalization. Yet people are trying to rationalize this hypothetical strategy to give it an air of plausibility.

Second, if you want to figure out the background probability of an unpredictable stupid person taking a given course of action, just look to history. There have always been stupid people, but history is not chock-full of examples of push-poll suicide. It is full of straightforward push poll attacks, however.

I'm not saying push polling is a brilliant strategy, but it's not necessarily stupid.

You misunderstand me. I did not mean that pushpolling is necessarily stupid. I meant this push poll was stupid. It should have been predictable that it would get everyone focussed on the push poll and not on the issues the poll seems to have tried to raise. Add to that the very weak efforts at track-covering and it was always likely that this would bounce back on the author. It probably will, as I don't see it staying a matter of pure speculation forever. It probably already has, in that it has probably damaged several campaigns (at least two) and may hit more - almost certainly including whichever one it was meant to benefit.

I come back to my previous point (which I think is below rather than above). Why use a company based in Utah? For a Romney supporter this would be stupid as it would inevitably generate unwelcome speculation. For a Romney foe it would be stupid as it would run the risk of a leak to the Romney camp.

That is why it is impossible to use reason to pin down the culprit. Once you have eliminated suspects for whom this strategy would have been stupid you have eliminated everyone. And yet, we are left with the fact that someone apparently did it, despite the fact it was stupid.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Those crafty Brits. Sent by tne Guardian, no doubt. :>)

If the latter, try re-reading. If the former, Reply To This.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Your entire comment will have merit.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

"Overplaying the Bigotry Card"

As far as I have seen, they have barely touched the issue. In fact, I will say, I have seen more ink here than I have seen from the Romney camp. Also, they have only responded after being asked by the press. This is not something they have lead off with. In fact they have asked for an investigation. If anything is being overplayed, is this conspiracy theory with little to no facts... Any Presidential candidates can be linked to this if you twist things enough. But the attack was on Romney. I don't see any real analysis here.

If Romney had said “NO COMMENT” imagine what you would have been saying then. What response would you expect out of him? What should he said. How perfect do you expect someone to be? Are you now supporting McCain-Feingold and the monstrosity it has created?

If anything is being Overplayed, its this Articles and its twisted attempt to blame either Romney or one of his supporters. Yes, I read the article, and while it doesn’t directly point the figure at Romney, it sure tries to insinuate that he his responsible. Romney just happens to be a convienate target for you.

If Romney had said “NO COMMENT” imagine what you would have been saying then.

"Bravo." There is a great deal to be said in ignoring stupidity and bigotry.

Are you now supporting McCain-Feingold and the monstrosity it has created?

Yup. Hey, for fun, you can Google my position on President Bush's signing of that law on this very site! Let me know what comes up.

Yes, I read the article, and while it doesn’t directly point the figure at Romney, it sure tries to insinuate that he his responsible. Romney just happens to be a convienate target for you.

Spelling and grammar errors notwithstanding, did you see something about us saying we don't believe Romney is responsible? Anywhere? Maybe?

I love Romneybots. They make the day so enjoyable.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Really is demeaning and unjustified. So, does that make you a anti-romneybot?

It's quite obvious that you guys stepped into it and don't have the guts to admit you goofed. I would be just as upset if you had made a false claim against any other candidate. And yes, no matter what you think you tried to say, it came out as an attack, and unfounded one at that. Now, you can reduce this to name calling, but it doesn’t change the facts.

One of the great scourges of my continued efforts to keep discourse here above the IQ 100 level is bots of whatever kind -- folks who are so completely enamored of their preferred candidates that they literally cannot read anything remotely critical of anything remotely connected to their candidate that they respond with non-sequiturs and attacks on strawmen. Ronulans, Romneybots, Giuliani-bots (I need a better word for this), BrainDeadFredHeads, McCainiacs -- name it, we've got them.

Given this, I can't help you with your problems.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

You can't see what is apparent to so many. If this was an unfair attack on any candidate, I would be just as outraged, even if it was an unfair attack on Hillary itself. Its seems that you are so invested in this article you can not see the trees from the forest. Its obvious from the response that many, many, readers think this is an unjustified attack. Instead of eating a little crow, you come down to the lowest common denominator.

So, let me read this right. Your right, everyone else is wrong, and therefore they must be a bot.

It’s funny, I actually, came to your defense (slightly) in a later post. When someone said you would be in trouble if this proved to be wrong. While I think you guys are dead wrong on this article, I don't think I have to be a Romneybot to point that out. Name calling is childish, and the last refuge of the guilty.

Its obvious from the response that many, many, readers think this is an unjustified attack.

It's obvious that many, many Romney supporters think this is an unjustified attack. Note the difference.

Instead of eating a little crow, you come down to the lowest common denominator.

I'm not nearly at the lowest common denominator yet. I'm at the "searching for an explanation why I'm getting the same complaint from a group of people with the same political bent, and no complaint from those with no such bent." That von, my regular sparring partner who's usually the first to tell me I'm being a horse's rear, thinks the statement is all right, tells me I'm probably ok here.

So, let me read this right. Your right, everyone else is wrong, and therefore they must be a bot.

I'll let you know when you're reading it right.

While I think you guys are dead wrong on this article, I don't think I have to be a Romneybot to point that out.

Maybe, but so far, everyone doing so is a Romney fan.

Name calling is childish, and the last refuge of the guilty.

Or of the bored moderator who's tired of people who can't read what is written chastising others for things not actually written.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Good Heaven's, man - it's not even a good song!

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

But it works for derision. You use the tools you have in the toolkit, even if they give you a headache later.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

She ain't hard to look at, though.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

...statement which accused NOBODY, and YOU'RE not invested in your candidate (who was NOT accused) at ALL.

Thanks so much for telling us that the splinter in your eye does not preclude you from searching for one in ours.

How about, "When-I-was-Mayor-of-NY-bots"?

------------
"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." - A. Lincoln

But it lacks a certain zing, youknow?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

But when said rather than read, could be misinterpreted... I'll just get back to my PB&J and leave this to the professionals.

------------
"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." - A. Lincoln

"Giulians." Or maybe "Rudymentalists."

Liz Mair writes daily at www.lizmair.com

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

n/t

Better than Rudymentalists because I hate the environment. Unless the comment is that we're mental for Rudy, which is guess is cool.

In any case, I'm not sure we get to nickname ourselves.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

Ronulans, Romneybots, Giuliani-bots (I need a better word for this), BrainDeadFredHeads, McCainiacs -- name it, we've got them.

How about Giuli-idiots?

----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us

...or energy for bots here. And this?:

It's quite obvious that you guys stepped into it and don't have the guts to admit you goofed. I would be just as upset if you had made a false claim against any other candidate.

If you can't read English (or, heck, if you simply can't read) then we have nothing to discuss. Stop making up your own reality and then attempting to shoehorn us (and what we clearly wrote above) into it.

There's only one reality here, and you've left it in the dust while on your quest to Battle the evil Windmills of candidate accusation (none of which has taken place here).

except their question, it's very legitimate...

"Do the facts at this point really merit that kind of accusation?"

Merit precisely what we said.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Facts:

1) Western Wats has worked with Target Point.
2) Western Wats is located in Utah.

On the strength of these facts, the statement says:

"And as for Alex Gage and the Romney associates who are apparently behind these efforts"

Fact 1 is meaningless.

A) Western Wats is tied to the Tarrance Group (Giuliani connection) and probably every other Republican campaign.

B) Target Point also has a Giuliani connection (Brent Seaborn)

That leaves us with fact 2 to conclude that Alex Gage and other "Romney associates" are "apparently behind these efforts."

...including the link, and suggest that you look for phone numbers.

Good luck.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I assume you mean the Hemingway article? Thanks for pointing to what you think is the relevant part, because otherwise I wouldn't have guessed.

The article mentions the phone number to show that Target Point Consulting used Western Wats to conduct a poll three months before the attack calls. That establishes that Western Wats has worked for Target Point Consulting. I noted this as fact 1.

Now, if you'll only read what we wrote, you'll find your mind at ease.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

...for demonstrating that my previous comment did in fact line up with the linked article.

And I have no idea what you think I'm missing from your statement.

As I said above, the "web of connections" basically comes down to Western Wats being located in Utah. That, to me, is far too tenuous to lead to this kind of statement:

"And as for Alex Gage and the Romney associates who are apparently behind these efforts"

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Well you said that Gage and Romney associates are apparently behind this. I don't see it.

If you read the NRO article the reference to Gage and his company (the only accusation from NRO worth considering) do business with Western Wats. Some of this business was done within the last few months. The evidence is even more circumstantial considering this is a large company doing a lot of business. The Romney campaign (which include Gage) has flatly denied the charges, which by your theory, means they are lying or it was a renegade staffer. The renegade staffer scenario doesn't add up because of the cost.

Thus the reason Romney supporters are confused why the Directors would put themselves so far out on a limb.

Last sentence. Here.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Or are you replying to something other than the Director's opinion? I only wonder because you seem to be addressing something else altogether.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I fall on my face in shame.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I'll miss spell a bunch of stuff so no one will give your transgression a second thought. No need to thank me, its my pleasure.

Jim Tomasik

----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us

I was stating an argument contrary to the one that you're supporting . . . the "Romney (or somebody dang close) did it" theory.

It just doesn't make any sense and that you're speculating far beyond what NRO did is unacceptable.

Talk about "eating your own young."

Didn't I read somewhere "you've managed to create out of thin air the kind of bigoted attack that cheapens the process and expects the worst of the American people. Nice strategy, folks. We hope you're happy."

I bet you didn't realize that those exact words help describe exactly what you have done here. Even NRO has admitted wrongdoing in going forward with the story http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGE0MjJiNjc4MTI4MjkzOWY3M2QxNmRjMGM...

We're all expectantly awaiting your mea culpa

However, don't I remember some RedState directors/editors going "whole hog" denying the LA Times story that Fred ever did any consulting for an abortion rights group? We all see how that turned out. At least you were defending the GOP guy in that situation against the MSM. Now you're on the wrong side guys. It's saddening.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

Even NRO has admitted wrongdoing in going forward with the story

NRO has done nothing of the sort, except to print a letter from Gage and to note that Gage wasn't contacted. Learn to read.

However, don't I remember some RedState directors/editors going "whole hog" denying the LA Times story that Fred ever did any consulting for an abortion rights group?

Do you? I wasn't one of them. In point of fact, I don't think I cared enough about that story to notice.

Here at RedState, we don't control front-page or diary content except to delete actually objectionable stuff. We have front-pagers with a spectrum of views, who share those views regularly and without warning. To the point, that I know of, we have 3.5 Contributors or Directors who favor Fred, all of whom may write or not as they feel fit. We have 2 who favor Giuliani, ditto; 2 who favor McCain; one Huckabee fan... who hasn't, for some reason, written. Most of the rest of us are in sit-back-and-wait mode.

I know it upsets you guys that YourManMitt has utterly failed to convince anyone here to care about his campaign, but you need to learn to distinguish between "not caring about" and "opposing."

At least you were defending the GOP guy in that situation against the MSM. Now you're on the wrong side guys. It's saddening.

Those worthy of a defense should have it. Those unworthy should not. Those incapable of distinguishing between a direct attack and an essay that explicitly exculpates someone deserve our pity.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

"EDITOR'S NOTE: NRO did not contact TargetPoint and should have. —KJL"

I read that as an admission of wrongdoing. You, in your own update to the Directors' statement, said that an unequivocal denial from Gage would be entirely sufficient to "put a stake in this, right now." It follows that you (and the Directors?) would find the failure to even try to contact Gage to be a fatal flaw and a wrongdoing in the NRO article.

Ditto that above.

Going further, I'm glad the directors didn't think/say that Romney did it himself. But they knew darn well that if Romney's cheif strategist did it, this would severely cripple the Romney campaign. Thomas' constant implication that this was really a "pro-Romney" piece falls on tin ears.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

And this is part of why:

Thomas' constant implication that this was really a "pro-Romney" piece falls on tin ears.

Thomas never implied that. Never. He simply stated, using a direct quote, that the site neither blamed Mitt nor his campaign.

Does that constant whine make it as hard to hear as it apparently is to read?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

That reply is CREEPY!

You now refer to yourself in the thrid person.

And you say RomneyBots have issues?

I'll backtrack a bit and rephrase . . . "Thomas' repeated responses that this was a Romney-neutral piece falls on tin ears"

Your vitriolic responses and bullying style only confirm your true feelings (That is, if I'm really talking to Thomas . . . you guys aren't sharing accounts are you?)

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

I confess to a whole host of problems, none of which is indicative of decay of the prefrontal lobes. I'm therefore ahead of some people that way, at least.

I'll backtrack a bit and rephrase . . . "Thomas' repeated responses that this was a Romney-neutral piece falls on tin ears"

You misconstructed that sentence. "Thomas'(sic) repeated responses that this was a Romney-neutral piece fell on indifferent or accepting ears, except for the ears of Romneybots, upon whom it made a noise like rain on an aluminum roof." Scan this thread, and behold the number of non-Romney supporters experiencing (a) outrage (b) reading comprehension problems or (c) both. My quick totaling suggests a grand total of zero.

Your vitriolic responses and bullying style only confirm your true feelings

Your account postdates my frisky period, July 2004 to roughly December 2005. Nothing here is on a par with how nasty I used to be. What you're experiencing now is a mild reaction to the fact that the presence of too many bots on a thread not only increases the number of comments demanding that bots learn to read, but also lowers the collective IQ of the discussion to closer to room temperature. It's frustrating, but it's not a problem of which you're likely aware on a day-to-day basis, so I don't expect you to comprehend.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Some of your gems during that "frisky" period were absolutely splendid reading.

For the longest time I had one in particular - cannot recall to whom it was directed - on a hot-link. Something about goats banging their head against a brick wall, or somesuch.

Poetry - brutal, viscious, hardcore, poetry.

Unfortunately, I lost the hot-link 2 HDD crashes ago.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The link is here, but we've had archive problems the last few months -- it doesn't even show on a Google search.

The text (because I'd like to hotlink it -- it's actually my favorite):

My dear brother Sardo Numsie!
by Thomas

Ah, MKS, I've been looking forward to this for a while.

You've been banned.

Why?

If I may employ an animal metaphor -- and I may -- your ends of conversations around here are like nothing so much as the repeated butting against a stone wall of a brain-damaged, spavined goat, unaware that he's not really doing any damage to the wall, bleeding out of the stumps of his horns, and not even understanding why he attacked the wall in the first place. Your writing suggests that you are the one hyena that decides to move from carrion to fresh prey in one fell swoop by leaping, snarling, between a lion and his fresh kill, only to wonder why your packmates aren't there right behind you.

For further clarity: It's not because of your noxious opinions, nor because you're a Kossack. This lady, though her opinions and her take on certain religious beliefs are so noxious as to actually produce nausea in me -- and I can eat a marinara and boudin pasta dish while watching a colonoscopy on the Discovery Channel -- is not in the targeting scope right now, because she has the good grace to act like a guest in someone else's home.

You, however, have come into our house and peed in the vase our beloved late aunt gave us, and now, simply, we must pour your water down your throat and smash Aunt LiuLiu's vase over your head.

It is because your every word is an insult to the proprietors of this site; to the editorship; to your fellow commenters; to the readership; to writers, readers, and speakers of English everywhere; to Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, and indeed, the line of Anglo-Saxon and English monks who helped guide a rather limited Germanic tongue into the incredibly fluid, fluent tool it is today; and, in all likelihood, to every one who tried to teach you grammar, spelling, logic, and/or manners from the day you were born to the present.

I suppose I owe you a litany of your mendacity, idiocy, and all too frequently a combination of the two:

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

And here.

Really, that's just a sampling from the last couple of days. (By the way, Griswold was decided in 1965, which is not, in fact, the early Sixties.) To get the full, crippling weight of the keen intellectual acumen you bring to bear every time you waste bandwidth here, you've really got to page through every one of your bons mots here.

The upside -- if we may stretch that word past its breaking point to encompass things other than the sheer joy of your exit -- to all of this is that it shouldn't be hard to replicate your, ahem, contributions to date at will. Simply splice together, at random, the words "Conservatives are evil," "Republicans hate America," "you Republicans want to put gays in jail," "I like me," and/or "you all want to ban birth control," along with some utterly turgid legal or logical analysis -- again, we're stretching the language here, so bear with me -- and any commenter on this site can fill what we laughably will call the void caused by your absence.

Kindly let the door hit you on the way out. And please don't waste our time coming back under a different name. Everything else to the side, writing styles are like fingerprints. It takes surprisingly little energy for us to ban you clean and forever if that's what's called for.

'Saith He is terrible: watch His feats in proof!

One hurricane will spoil six good months' hope.

He hath a spite against me, that I know,

Just as He favours Prosper, who knows why?

Farepoorly.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Like I said - splendid.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

what we call tasteful without being gaudy.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

I find it a flaw, and a stupid error. I'm still waiting on the unequivocal denial.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I'm sure you're hoping/praying for vindication by some new evidence . . . but you're looking worse and worse by the minute for having not offered any kind of "Update" or "Response" to Gage's editorial letter.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

It's fine if you want to make a fine semantic distinction between wrongdoing and doing something wrong, but if someone else doesn't, it probably isn't grounds for telling him to "learn to read."

As far as the unequivocal denial. Gage said this: "To set the record straight: TargetPoint Consulting has absolutely nothing to do with the calls in question."

If you are not satisfied with his answer, you will not be satisfied with any answer he could give, save perhaps one that explicitly adopts the question as you formulated it. And to demand your particular formulation - especially in the context of his sharp rejection of the charges, both in letter and spirit - would amount to silly game-playing and side-stepping editorial responsibility.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Take off your coat.
Don't you know you can't win?
You're no exception to the rule,
I'm irresistible, you fool.
Give in.

You claim I can't read?

You're waiting on an unequivocal denial?

What part of Gage's response is equivocal?

To set the record straight: TargetPoint Consulting has absolutely nothing to do with the calls in question. To be even clearer: TargetPoint Consulting has NEVER and will NEVER conduct a push-poll.

You must be really full of yourself (selves) if you think Gage owes it to you to phrase his response exactly how you state it.

Unbelievable.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

You said:

"I know it upsets you guys that YourManMitt has utterly failed to convince anyone here to care about his campaign,"

Well a chief contributor Leon Wolf just "signed on" with Romney . . .

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/im_tossing_in_with_romney...

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

However, good for Leon and for y'all. Now you all can stop being professionally upset.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Thomas said: "I know it upsets you guys that YourManMitt has utterly failed to convince anyone here to care about his campaign"

Yeah, that's why Dan McLaughlin has a five part series about why Romney is unacceptable, right?

http://www.redstate.com/redhot/dan_mclaughlin/2007/nov/20/re_romney

The fact that he uses the vast majority of his FrontPage status to bash Romney definitely proves to me than he doesn't "care about [Romney's] campaign"

It's fine that he does so (his choice and right), but he's probably the biggest offender in the "eating our own young" vibe that I'm seeing here. All apparently in an attempt to promote Rudy as his favorite.

As for most of the others, I realize that many RedStaters are cranky that Fred has been fizzling . . . but to take it out on our other candidates is absurd. Fred's been digging his own grave.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

Yeah, that's why Dan McLaughlin has a five part series about why Romney is unacceptable, right?

You mistake "wanting no one else to care" with "caring."

The fact that he uses the vast majority of his FrontPage status to bash Romney definitely proves to me than he doesn't "care about [Romney's] campaign"

Identify which of Dan's pieces dealing with Mitt Romney have appeared on the front. I'd appreciate links too. And be sure not to confuse diaries with front-pagers!

It's fine that he does so (his choice and right), but he's probably the biggest offender in the "eating our own young" vibe that I'm seeing here. All apparently in an attempt to promote Rudy as his favorite.

Dan is saving us the heavy lifting of identifying weaknesses in one of the candidates. Had I the time and inclination, I would do the same with Giuliani, Huckabee, and yes, all-be-sainted Fred. (I am part of a pact that requires us to draw straws for who gets the right to take down McCain.) Skinned knees, in other words, are part of the process. Quit the moaning, Francis.

As for most of the others, I realize that many RedStaters are cranky that Fred has been fizzling . . . but to take it out on our other candidates is absurd. Fred's been digging his own grave.

Now you're just flailing -- because Erick is unabashedly with Fred, you think the rest of us case. How tender. How cute.

Seriously, Francis.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The data right now looks fairly damning, but of individuals, not of any given campaign, and we'll be the first to say not all the data is in yet. Every illiterate attempt to tie what we've said to a denunciation of a specific campaign is at best misplaced.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Just read the title of your article.

So I am unused to the method of reading that allows you to divine from a sentence fragment the world of meaning you've drawn. I'm just a lawyer, so I'm used to reading past headings. It's actually one of the few things lawyers do that I recommend for the general populace.

Including, say, you.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

So...the Directors are going to weigh in on EVERY political event of similar magnitude, regardless of who the candidate is? Count me skeptical.

The anti-Romney bias of the directors of this site is well known and well documented. Much ado is made of anything that might potentially make Romney look bad - even if it has to be couched in terms that basically say "I'm not judging or saying it's true or not...I'm just throwing it out there" - while anything that might make Fred Thompson look bad is swept under the rug and commentators denounced as uncivil (and in some instances banned) for even bringing it up.

The standard of proof applied to Romney is MUCH lower than the standard of proof applied to many of the other candidates in the presidential sweepstakes. Therein lies The Directors' most damning bias.

Are you seriously saying that every one has the same feelings on every candidate -- and that all work to torpedo the same candidacies, while puffing up others?

What I'm saying is that The Directors' feelings on at least one candidate is unified.

...with evidence?

In between getting two newspapers out before Thanksgiving, I'm more than certain that I can prove that with a few simple searches. That is of course if it doesn't prove as mind-numbingly obvious as defining the word "is" for Clinton.

Thomas's arbitrary "game" however is...well...beneath me, quite frankly.

You don't get to make those accusations -- especially the ones about banning -- without offering concrete proof. Your accusations are beneath everyone; but if you make them again without citations, there will be issues.

Cool?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

..my question, instead.

I checked the "About" section and only a few seemed to be listed. All of the Directors really should be listed somewhere. If they are, please direct me to the link that lists them all.

I have requested research to do in re: the Directors and their statements regarding presidential candidates and Romney in particular.

Thank you.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide a link or a list where all of the Directors are listed.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I do not see what you are talking about. Please copy/paste.

That said, all of the directors really SHOULD be listed in the "About Us" tab.

Last paragraph.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

What are the status of the following RedHot contributors:

Neil Stevens
Ericka Andersen
Streiff
Alexham
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Blackhedd
Haystack
Robert A. Hahn
Dan McLaughlin
Kevin Holtsberry
Adam C
Mark I
Leon H. Wolf
Michelle Oddis
Soren Dayton
Moe Lane
Hunter Baker
Charles Bird
Academic Elephant

Moe, Leon, Bob Hahn, Dan, and streiff are also moderators -- i.e., they can ban people.

I think that all should be listed in the "About" tab.

And agreed -- we've neglected that because we've been working on RS 3.0, and more clarification of names and roles will definitely be included in the next version.

These people don't owe you an explanation of who they support. This is not a governmentally-sponsored nonprofit. These guys can support or criticize whoever they want to and they don't owe you or me or anyone any apologies. I don't see any need for quotas on who supports who. Get over it.

Is that there is rampant anti-Romney bias by the people who control this site. I've stated that they're entitled to their opinions, but they're not entitled to pretend to be unbiased when they have clear biases.

I was challenged on this, and so now I will go about building the case for my premise.

Everyone's biased. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. You are implicitly accusing RedState of having an institutionalized bias against your guy, and my personal response is a) you're a consipracy theorist, and b) even if there was, that's their prerogative.

You're still don't seem to get the point, but I bet you get that a lot.

They are welcome to be biased as long as they don't pose as being unbiased. It is this pretense of being unbiased that I think everyone should find rather insulting to their intelligence.

What especially annoys me are the posts by Erick et al where they basically say, "Oh man...I hate to do this to Romney, but did you see this!? I'm shocked! Just shocked!" Or I think Erick even recently wrote something like, "This is actually not something I'm generally inclined to write. (Romney hit piece to follow.)" After which I really had to laugh. Yeah...it's not at all like Erick to go around attacking Romney.

I was asking for the names so that I can prove that there is a clear anti-Romney trend by the people who officially direct/moderate/contribute at RedState and they should fess up about it instead of pretending to be mere impartial observers of the GOP primary race.

an example of the anti-Romney trend goes back to October, 2006 during this exchange I had with streiff:

The Rebel-My relevant question to you since you seem to have made up your mind on Romney for 2008, is if he wins the nomination, will you support him? Wholeheartedly?

streiff-No, I won't support him wholeheartedly because I think he's an empty suit who will run the national party into the ground the same way he's run whatever passed for a Republican party in Massachusetts into the ground. But if he wins the nomination I will hold my nose and vote for him.

No bias there, quite up-front, in fact. But if you read any recent streiff postings, nothing has changed in the past year.

"the people who control this site."

OH, you mean "own"

Some may own equity and some may not. RedState is not a publicly traded company and...isn't it now owned by the publishers of Human Events or do they just have a partnership?

In any event, I'm not completely aware of the equity structure of RedState, nor do I pretend to. So, yes..."control" was the correct word.

My usage is usually extremely accurate and calling it into question is usually a futile endeavor.

I don't commit to candidates in public on this site -- I have certain obligations here, I think -- but suffice it to say I can think of two of the top five whom I'd put waaaaay lower than Romney. I can think of one who barely edges him out, and one whom I'd prefer, but not by a country mile.

Sorry, buddy.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

"I don't commit to candidates in public on this site."

But you do have your preferences and your biases - although you're not disclosing them to the people who read what you write. And if you think that you are filtering out your preferences and your biases, then you are fooling at least one person.

Go here.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Is the candidate that most frustrates the hopes and dreams they have for each of their respective preferred candidates by crushing them all in Iowa and New Hampshire...and by moving into striking distance in 3 of the next 4 primaries.

So...The Directors' motives are clearly transparent.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I think that you're probably just about as unbiased as to who you prefer to win the presidency as The New York Times is.

I quite frankly prefer someone who throws their biases out there for all to see so that people can evaluate their comments in light of them than for someone who is clearly biased to pretend to be above the fray.

Fair and balanced is better than unbiased because the former is actually achievable, the latter is, in most cases, not.

...personal biases. Who am I for? Who am I against? Whose candidacy am I trying to torpedo? Whose to prop up? Eh?

The Directors' opinion on at least one candidate (not including the one who shall not be named) is unified.

Find me at least one piece by a director that is as glowing and gives the unequivocal thumbs up that Fred Thompson has gotten. The "I may not agree with him on some things, by by God I agree with him about this" coverage that John McCain has gotten in post-debate coverage and especially of late.

It's fine for each of you to have your opinions about the candidates. What I probably really detest the most, however, is The Directors' continually deny their anti-Romney bias.

I think they deny it because they really have no good reason to explain it. But posts such as this assure readers that they haven't given up the neverending pursuit of a good reason, that's for sure.

...intentionally excluding your's truly?

I don't know how RedState Directors' meetings are conducted: how y'all decide to write about a particular topic, how y'all decide not to write about a particular topic, and how the final opinion is approved. And when I write about the Directors' I, for the most part, don't mean any one in particular or individually. Rather, I write about them collectively. But my analysis isn't statically constrained to merely what they write under the "The Directors" byline but also includes what the Directors write individually if there are discernible trends. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm referring to each and every single last Director - although in some instances that could be the case - but rather the Directors on balance.

Ron Paul?

Anyone who's read my work can imagine the catalogue of horribles I can throw against Rudy Giuliani. Anyone who knows my family is from Louisiana can imagine why I shudder at a Huckabee Presidency. Anyone who has read a single comment I've written about John McCain can guess what I think of him, and no, it's not nice. (I even had a comment with eleven reasons to hate the man once. Seriously. Google.) Anyone who knows the hours I work and the effort I put into everything can imagine why I'm not doing cartwheels at Fred Thompson taking the 2008 GOP nod against a workaholic shrew. My problem with Romney, at the most basic level, is a joke compared to all this: I think he's a liar. That issue pales against my problems with the rest of this crowd.

You want to know my bias? I think all of these folks are deeply, darkly, fundamentally flawed. On paper, we have a phenomenal field. In practice, we have moral midgets standing where we need giants. I dislike the whole stinking lot of them at this point, and any preference I might have -- which changes from day to day -- is based purely on which inspires the least nausea from moment to moment.

Erick is unabashedly a Fred guy. Ben has taken no position. Jeff has taken no position. Mike has taken no position. Clayton has taken no position. I'd as soon chuck them and have someone wake me in 2012: That is my position.

Understand?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Your not helping the situation. Yes, of course people are bias, the Directors are bias and your calling them out is just as trival as them calling out Hugh in the blog itself. Most everyone has "their guy" and a long list of reasons that he should be it.

They've done their best to be objective but it seems they've jumped the ship. Let's all just settle down work through this and not be so quick to go for the throat.

blood all over the floor, everybody cut up and I don't know who to stab.

Reading through this entire thread -- BR you are coming across as a paranoid conspiracist. Everybody is out to get your guy? sheesh!

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

Name me one front page poster who is for Romney. I can't think of any. Haystack, Erick, and I think Neil are for Fred, McClaughlin is for Rudy, Adam C. is for Rudy or McCain,Leon is undecided after being for Brownbacj You are pretty against Romney from what I recall. Did I get it about right? So yeah I would say I know who the directors are fairly well and what I know doesn't exactly disprove Bannana Republic's point.

It's not fair to say that there's an anti-Romney conspiracy on Redstate. It is fair to say that such a conspiracy makes more sense than this Romney(orFriends)DunIt conspiracy, but that's not saying much.

It is also fair to say that where the people making the editorial decisions all prefer other candidates to Romney, and Romney is a major stumbling block for these candidates (Huckabee and Thompson, for the so-con vote / Giuliani in the two-man race / McCain if he ever takes Giuliani's position), that statements favorable to Romney will be less common, and a little more anti-Romney material will seep through the cracks. The Directors are people, after all.

But then again, I'm past the age where I fall in love with Presidential candidates. I don't particularly like any of the top 5 -- and of the bottom 2, let me tell you, anything nasty I've said about Romney pales in comparison to what I've said of them.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

....and name where, for example, Thomas or I have shown this "anti-Romney bias" and have propped up any other candidate.

"Romney was himself -- to me, a 100% canned politician who offers nothing whatsoever that would differentiate him in any way from any canned politician who has ever come before him"http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/post_debate_reax_the_huckabee_mccain_show
the 100%-typical-politician known as Mitt, http://www.redstate.com/blogs/jeff_emanuel/2007/sep/16/what_the_heck_is_...

Did I say anything about Thomas? Also I didn't say either one of you was propping another candidate up did I?

And Neil still thinks Romney would be a reasonable guy to nominate.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Much ado is made of anything that might potentially make Romney look bad - even if it has to be couched in terms that basically say "I'm not judging or saying it's true or not...I'm just throwing it out there"

Citations. 10 points each.

while anything that might make Fred Thompson look bad is swept under the rug

Citations. 20 points each.

commentators denounced as uncivil

Citations for commentators being denounced as uncivil for saying negative things about Fred Thompson by Directors. 10 points each.

(and in some instances banned)

Citations for commentators being dbanned for saying negative things about Fred Thompson by Directors. 50 points each.

See if you can get to 200.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I acknowledge I'm more sensitive to anti-Romney bias then perhaps I should be. However, I think it's pretty obvious to regular readers of RedState that Romney generally gets rougher coverage here then some of the other candidates. And, as someone who is also a big fan of Fred Thompson, there's no question he's treated with kid gloves on this site. For example, how likely do you think it is that Erick or any other director would post a link to this type of piece: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002631128

The irony, again, as someone who leans Romney but also wants Thompson's pro-federalism push to catch on with other candidates and the party as a whole, I sometimes come to RedState looking for ammunition to counter anti-Thompson pieces. I rarely find it because that would necessarily entail someone around here admitting there are anti-Thompson pieces in the first place.

I'll say this right out: I have spent the last year and change talking up the need to focus on the Congressional races and the State and local races in 2007 and 2008. No one has listened, which is fine; but my attention has been elsewhere during all this time. I don't know about positive Fred stories or negative ones, except that I see them posted about here. Ditto Mitt, Rudy, Mike, and John.

I think the pro-Romney people are confusing "there are no active voice in favor of Mitt" with "RedState has an anti-Mitt bias." For the record, I'll be much happier with him as a candidate than two of the other current top 5, and one of the two that beats him does so by a hair, and would require a purgative suicide on my part to get over. But I don't write about Presidential nominees on the front much (except for something nice about Mitt a while back), and the only Director who does is a FredHead.

Eh. I give. Y'all think what you like.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

and I think you're right that more attention should be paid to the congressional races - particularly the Senate. The House seems to be a lost cause this cycle and the difference between a Democrat majority of 15 versus 25 seats is not all that significant when the majority is all that matters in the House.

The Senate is a different story. Each individual seat can make an enormous difference in what happens to our country over the next decade. Republicans really need to join ranks in supporting good Senate candidates. Could be just as important as the outcome of the presidential race.

"For the record, I'll be much happier with him as a candidate than two of the other current top 5, and one of the two that beats him does so by a hair, and would require a purgative suicide on my part to get over."

Haha! Why don't you just spill it? If someone wanted to invest the time, they'll be able to figure out your list anyway. I've already got it have finished, just from this post:

1.
2.
3. Romney
4.
5. Giuliani

And as I know you are strongly prolife, I would wager that Huckabee does well, as does Thompson.

I guess:

1. Huckabee
2. Thompson (close to Romney "by a hair")
3. Romney
4. McCain
5. Giuliani

How'd I do?

*half finished

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

hurumph. nt

1. Thompson
2. McCain
3. Romney
4. Huckabee
5. Giuliani

Is there going to be a prize drawing?

When someone gets it right, and it encapsulates feelings I hold for more than one calendar day.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

We want today's list, Thomas!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Guilty as charged. A complete lack of enthusiasm is driving me to all sorts of depravity.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Even today you've changed your feelings. Before you said that your issue with Romney "pales against [your] problems with the rest of this crowd" (thus placing him 1st?). In a matter of minutes he dropped to 3rd!

It's how I measure the other pluses that makes everything variable.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

We have a huge clue! He says only my Romney was right. That means your Giuliani can't be right, either. I can't imagine him being above four, though.

I want to play.

We know that Romney is in the middle. I think Mellow was way off regarding Giuliani and Huckabee. Thomas recently commented (iirc) that a country run by a populist, even one he agreed with on some issues, would not be one in which he wished to live. Huckabee is not first, he's last. (Agreed, by the way). Who else is below Romney? We have two clues. Thomas has been very critical of McCain, and the number two would require a purgative suicide by Thomas. Suicide is a sin in the Catholic Church. Pushing Thomas to this would have to be something in serious conflict with another Catholic doctrine. I suspect some humour on Thomas's part when he said that number two ousted Romney by a hairsbreadth as I think he is referring to a candidate with far less hair than Romney.

That leaves the lazy former Senator as the workaholic lawyer's reluctant first choice. Thus:

Fred Thompson.
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
John McCain
Mike Huckabee and emigration.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Put me out of my misery.

At least let me know if I was close.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

would be to flip Huck and McCain, but if we are all allowed an infinite number of guesses the game becomes pointless.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Kidding, of course.

Who "pointed out just recently that the stakes are high on both sides"? Hm?

You know what? I don't think anyone here -- at least, no Director or Contributor -- is saying that Mitt did this; in point of fact, we've gone overboard to say we don't think he did.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

William Reston at Race42008 put up a post entitled "Let’s Be Clear of the Stakes"

I thought the last statement of the article here was an over strong indictment of Gage and by association Romney.

If you can't read the part that says, "Today, we want to be clear that whatever the case is, we do not blame Mitt Romney personally for these phone calls," I cannot help you.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I thought the post was pretty judicious with some good caveats.

But you reach a SOLID conclusion in blaming Gage. What if it wasn't Gage & Co.

Second, I'd really like Gage to say something like, "Unequivocally, no." to this:

"Did the Romney campaign or Target Point pay for phone calls -- survey, push, or otherwise -- from Nov. 15-17 in IA, NH, or SC that asked questions about Mormonism?"

Do that, and we're going to have to re-examine.

In fact, let me update!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Isn't Gage part of the campaign? Wouldn't Madden's statement fall under that umbrella?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

At a minimum Madden's press release is an "unequivical No" from the Romney campaign which is the first party that you are requesting it from.

I would consider Gage part of the campaign when it comes to Madden's statement because if it were him he would be linked to the campaign anyway. I doubt they would be as definative if they though there was a chance that Gage was the loose cannon. I do agree with you though, I would like to see Gage deny it was him/company.

No one is asking for that denial from the Romney campaign. We have it. We had it. We have had it.

As I told someone else today, I categorically refuse to hold a campaign responsible for every act by any member except the candidate. I wouldn't do that to Rudy Giuliani, to Fred Thompson, to John McCain, to Mike Huckabee, or even to Ron Paul; I won't do that to Mitt Romney. It's entirely possible that someone -- Gage or someone else -- inside the campaign has done A Very Bad Thing and needs to go to the woodshed for it.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I realize that you and the Directors aren't acussing Romney nor his campaign of any of this.

The two updates you have are contradictory/confusing, you should take out any mention of the campaign so your point is clearer.

It very well could be Gage, I hope not but stranger things could happen. At this point it could renagade staffer for anyone (any party) or even a non-political third "party". The fact that Gage did buisness with Western Wats is a link, but a pretty weak one.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I feel validated, now I can go to bed.

I think you would be able to distinguish the substantive difference between saying "It's entirely possible that someone -- Gage or someone else -- inside the campaign has done A Very Bad Thing and needs to go to the woodshed for it." compared to your initial statement, "And as for Alex Gage and the Romney associates who are apparently behind these efforts". I agree fully with the former statement. I take issue with the second.

We are taking it under advisement.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

They will have egg on their face, and they will owe a big apology, but I don’t think the world will end for them. I think it will be worse for the NRO author, but Redstate will go on.

While I detest the article itself, It is an open forum, and he have had plenty of opportunity to rebut.

:-)

This is my favorite conspiracy theory explanation thus far!

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Either he's lying through his teeth or he's telling the truth.

If it's a lie then Romney's campaign will crash and burn once the truth is revealed.

If it's the truth then the Romney (some staffer) dunit theory is nothing and we're back at squre one.

We've said nothing either way. Impatience does not become you.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

It's fairly clear at this point that the Romney campaign has nothing to do with this. Some clarifications are in order.
__________________________________________
First State Politics

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

However, at the same time "The Directors" seem to be asserting that: a) those that believe Romney have "willingly [lost their] objectivity at the drop of a hat [so] that [they] cannot see reality beyond [their] preferred campaign's or judicial nominee's spin" and (b) Alex Gage and other Romney associates have "managed to create out of thin air the kind of bigoted attack that cheapens the process and expects the worst of the American people. Nice strategy, folks. We hope you're happy."

Well, the "first part" "refers" to "Hugh Hewitt," not "those who 'believe' 'Romney.'" The "second party" was based on the "data" "provided."

The inability of "The Directors" to give Romney, Alex Gage, and Romney associates the benefit of the doubt simply feeds into the perception that this website is biased against Romney. By the way, when I refer to benefit of the doubt, I am not talking about inserting an "apparently" into the piece. I am talking about forgoing the piece until more evidence comes out.

That would be March 2008, right?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

If you're not a Democrat, that is actually pretty hard to do.

With regard to HH, I read the initial post as saying that HH had lost his objectively because he believed the Romney camp in this particular situation. Which, if true, would seemingly condemn all others that likewise believed the Romney camp. However, your clarification suggests that you were referring to HH's general loss of objectivity with regard to all things Romeny, which is something I agee with you about. HH goes too far in his defense of Romney sometimes.

I think it is just unfortunate that "The Directors" as a whole came out with this post without waiting for a little more substance to back it up. Right or wrong, it feeds into a perception of an anti-Romney bias.

If we are insufficiently supportive of Romney, well, that's because there's only one Director with announced support, and the other four of us have not weighed in with an opinion.

Incidentally, "Directors" is our collective title. I don't know if you mean to, but the use of the scare quotes is insulting.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I also won't use the scare quotes. Incidentally, who are The Directors?

...Erick, Thomas, Ben Domenech, Clayton, Krempasky, and myself.

All powerful, The Directors came to Earth in the fifth century BC with the goal of turning the human race toward the Republican Party. It was they, not Al Gore, who invented the Internet. Today, they run a blog called RedState.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

button -- someone might just have some idea who the H*** you are replying to with this post!

As in radio and tv.. I am sure you have heard of him.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The point of this article is that Romney is overplaying the bigotry card. If this is true, the it is logical to conclude so is Hannity. Mitt Romney was just on his show talking about the NRO article and Sean said these attacks on Romney's religion was a form of Bigotry.

The thing that has come out is that the attacks on Romney come for a 527 (created by McCain-Fiengold) which allows attacks without declaring who was initiating them.

The point of this article is that Romney is overplaying the bigotry card.

No, it's not.

If this is true, the it is logical to conclude so is Hannity.

If A, then B; if C, then D; ergo, if E, then A!

Mitt Romney was just on his show talking about the NRO article and Sean said these attacks on Romney's religion was a form of Bigotry.

Shocking! Who could agree with that? Did he come out in favor of baseball, apple pie, and Mama too/

What does your comment have to do with anything?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Seems like the point of this article is well hidden, why don't you explain what it is in easy to way to understand. Seems no one seems to get what your point is.

We generally try to change gears when we're at our peak, or not long after. < /snark>

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

But quite unfortunately, it's not at all surprising - given their target.

This wasn't there when I started writing my post. You stole my thunder.

I think you were more polite about it. Well said.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

nm