Redstate

Maybe if you accept that some, maybe not all, but some, of what you call "talking points" are actually facts, in won't be so frustrating.

Just so I know, how exactly are you supposed to promote a candidate you support?

Trash his record and promote his opponents?

You really lost your cool.

I have as yet not written any diaries but I was planning on one that was inspired by the Allan and abortion diary by slimjim.  Now though I'm going to write one on Romney out of spite :P

Look for my second diary by the title above ;)

the article on the home page "A Note to our Readers" from reading it I was under the impression that people on RS here to support a candidate were welcome as long as they were honest about there intentions and who they are.

If I am wrong please let me know, I really don't mean to break any rules.

Jason

Re: "If you think I am hiding it, than look at my signature. Its found on every post of mine."

Now you're getting me really frustrated! I did NOT say you're trying to hide it. That's the problem. YOU NEVER HIDE IT! It's all you write about. It's all you think about. As far as I can tell it's all you and the other Romneyites have in common. You guys are like the Jehova's witnesses on steroids. It's like a **ing cult of Romney, except you never admit that there even is a cult.

When I started researching this project about a week ago I really came at it with an open mind. I wanted to know what made the Romneyites tick. What common threads run throughout their diaries?

What do the Romneyites believe?

We serve Romney, without question or reservation.

What do they think about Health care?

Romney has created the greatest health care system known to man, and it is not socialized medicine in any way. And We serve Romney, without question or reservation.

What do they think about the Marriage Amendment?

Romney supports a Marriage Amendment, and Romney never errs. We serve Romney, without question or reservation.

What do they think about McCain?

McCain is the devil, and he is not as good a candidate as Romney. And we serve Romney, without question or reservation.

If you guys wrote about anything other than Romney, if didn't all have Romney websites as your taglines or homepages, then perhaps you wouldn't come across as being so darn .... WEIRD!!

the same kind of press. I hope Romney proves to deserve it more than McCain.

that deals with the budget and taxes. In fact, Romney raise taxes by about a half billion dollars.

From what I know, you seem like a decent chap, and not a Romneyite clone. So support who you want, even if it's Romney. But do it with all the evidence, and keep in mind that what you hear from the Romneyites isn't just individual bloggers expressing their own opinions. It's a disciplined team of bloggers with a savvy game-plan that often involved brushing over the truth. That's why I've been taking them on in this way.

No, you support your candidate by being honest about your agenda, as well as who you are and who you're cooperating with

I did NOT say you're trying to hide it. That's the problem. YOU NEVER HIDE IT!

Which one is it?

I mean come on, I think you want people to admit we are in constant contact with folks in Belmont over what to post here on RS or something. Get over it, you are looking for something that's not there.

Let me guess- you probably think the Fed. Reserve is owned by the Rothchilds.

'cause that's just silly.  But as for the "minor candidate" attack, I just looked back at some Gallup data from 11/1990, further along in the Presidential election cycle than we are now.  The ultimate Democratic nominee (& President)didn't even show up in Gallup's data as polling above 1%:

Mario Cuomo    7.1    116

OTHER (SPECIFY)    5.7    93

Ted Kennedy    3.0    49

Jesse Jackson    3.0    48

Bill Bradley    1.6    26

Sam Nunn    1.3    21

Lloyd Bentsen    1.3    21

Albert Gore    1.3    20

Michael Dukakis    1.0    16

Romney is doing far, far better in the polls now than Clinton was in 11/1990.  

Of course, on the flip side, GWB and Dole were both wire-to-wire leaders, even as early back as 1998 and 1994, respectively.  Even Reagan went wire-to-wire in 1980, as this '78 Gallup poll shows:

Scale               %

Ronald Reagan    29.1

Gerald Ford    26.5

Undesignated    17.0

Howard Baker    9.8

E. Richardson    5.5

John Connally    5.5

Robert Dole    3.0

James Thompson    2.0

George Bush    1.6

If '80, '96, and 2000 GOP poll numbers from this point in the election cycle are your guide, McCain and Giuliani are the only legitimate candidates.  I disagree with this conclusion, but it's worth presenting both sides.

I think with Romney finishing second in the Memphis straw poll (far from his home base) and the strong showing in the "insider's poll", as well as the net-roots support, and financial backing he's starting to gather, he can't be cast aside as a "minor" candidate.

I'll post it here as well because it fits better here.

Everyone here knows that I am a Romney supporter (Romney-ite?) for reasons that should be evident from my comments and diaries - and it also should be evident from my comments and diaries that I'm no liberal. I also have never even spoken to, chatted with, e-mailed, or otherwise communicated with any other Romney supporters on this site except through comments on this site.

To even have to say that is ridiculous. This site, and the people here, are better than this debate. Let's get on with figuring out how to win 2006, get a conservative agenda in motion in Congress, and win 2008.

Anyone who says the GOP isn't, is willfully neglecting the evidence.

I am a little confused about this diary and some of the posts that follow.  First, let me state that I am a supporter of Romney, not so much in donations as in writing about him on this website.  Second, let me ask why it would bother anyone here that Republicans are voicing their support for a Republican on a Republican/Conservative website?  Is this not what this website is for?  Furthermore, I could do what you have done to the anti-Romney factions.  They all talk about the same reasons as to why they don't support him:  abortion, gay marriage, his pitch fork gets tangled with his tail, etc.  Are these not talking points of the anti-Roms?  How about instead of dark conspiracy theories on how Romney supporters are supporting him, you write about who you would like to see at the top of the ticket in 2008.  Frankly, the only one on the list that I have deep reservations about is McCain, other than that I don't see a problem with any one else.  I just choose to support Romney until the primaries are over.  After that, I will have to do what I can to make sure the White House stays in Republican hands, that is, unless McCain is the candidate.

I enjoyed your take on us Romney people. Being one of them I have to say you offer very little to support your conclusion. I think you need more than 6 people responding to the same basic arguments against Romney as being some sort of an organized effort.

Your article does mistate something about my diary:

In a rambling, sometimes arcane diary he seeks to alleviate concerns about Romney's electability by pointing out that Mormons and Evangelicals agree on many doctrinal and moral questions

Please show me where in my diary I tried who common doctrinal elements between Evangelicals and Christians.

I found just the opposite in my diary as stated here:

First let's be honest, there are many points of doctrine that Evangelicals and LDS disagree upon. If everyone agreed with Mormon doctrine, than we would all be Mormon. Although all but a few recognize that Romney's presidential bid is not meant to be a nation wide Mormon conversion, unfortunately many apparently still view his doctrinal affiliations as somehow handicapping his political judgment and competency.

Leaving doctrine aside, the LDS morals line up with Evangelicals.

I also thought it was very ironic that you stated my Diary was rambling in a diary you write thats twice the size! It really is the pot calling the kettle black.

In all honesty I have never met anyone from Romney's campaign, talked to or recieved an email from them. I have never recieved any orders from anyone or given any. I am just a classical musician in Chicago that likes Romney. But if I had would it really be a big deal? I am very honest about my intentions.

Anyway, I appreciate the time and interest it takes to write a diary like this, knowing that you wouldn't do so if you thought Romney was an unimportant figure.

lol - I suppose this is how organization starts.  I'll figure out how to post it as a diary, if anything because it was a tad long for a reponse!

EJLR

Sorry, i just hit the reply button, the site didnt show the post above it

Your error is not the typical A is correlated with B, B must cause A.  Rather you are making the more sophisticated error of thinking that because A is correlated with B, there must be some C that is the moving cause.  In this case you are arguing that there is hidden coordination.  You never really explain what that is, but appears you think Romney supporters get together and plan, saying:"I'm going to write a diary, be sure to recommend it." and, "here is what we are all going to write about today, make sure you use the same points".

In my responding diary, I point out that if there is a cause C, it is much more likely to be all the MSM articles about Romney, which has then caused several individuals to all start promoting Romney independent of each other.

When you ask people if they are coordinating and we say no, why won't you believe us?  What do we gain by hiding coordination?  Even if we were coordinating there would be nothing wrong with it.

I tell you this and you respond by saying you don't mind us coordinating, you just don't like that we refuse to admitt it.  But that's the point!  We are not coordinating!

I feel like I'm being accused of prefering bagels to doughnuts. When I respond that actually I prefer doughnuts, I am told that no, I prefer bagels and you have proven it, and my refusal to respond point by point to your accusation is evidence that I can't answer, instead I'm just trying to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.  I then respond with a point by point response and you say that it is clear your arguments are superior, I prefer bagels, and nothing I say can prove otherwise.

I don't know whether to laugh or scream.

Where is the smoke?  People don't conceal something unless they gain by the concealment.  What do we gain?  Being organized would actually be a plus!  I wish there was coordination.  So why won't you believe us?!  That is what is upsetting us.  When you say we are concealing our coordination, right after we tell you we are not coordinating, you are calling us liars.  I don't like it.  It's rude! It's insulting.  Knock it off!

I am willing to cut Romney some slack because of his family's personal experience with abortion.  (A woman engaged to marry into the family died from an illegal abortion).  When such an event occurs, and is the only tangible way for a person to connect to the issue, is it any surprise that a personally pro-life, politically pro-choice position is the result?  As Romney became involved in politics he has shifted more and more towards the pro-life position.  He himself identifies the stem-cell research debate as key in his changing view.  Massachusetts researchers wanted to create embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them.  This didn't sit well with Romney (or with many people).  But if it is wrong to destroy an embryo in a test tube, what does that mean about aborting an unborn child?  Logically, Romney's discomfort over stem cell research has driven him towards a pro-life position.  This has happened to several people- I think it is rather unfair for us to deny Romney the ability to change his mind as he became more aware of the negative effects of abortion on society, and moved beyond just his family's personal experiences with abortion

issue I can assure you we are concerned about coordinated shilling on our bandwidth in support of any candidate.

Define "coordinated shilling," if you would, please.

I've been reading this thread and the one that lead to it (the previous thread was on Romney and the Abortion issue) and though I'm normally reluctant to post anything on blogs I must admit that I find Red State quite insightful and felt this "issue" could use a healthy amount of responses.  

I'd like to state why I'm supporting Mitt Romney at this early stage.  Also, I'd actually like to say that it would be great to be a part of an organized effort.  I'm currently in Cairo and am about as detached from that possibility as anyone could be!  I feel that the fact that people are coming forward to support the Governor early on is great, and I'm not sure there is anything to gain from proving that some of this enthusiasm is slowly taking shape as an organized effort - if it's this abundant, sooner or later it will be organized and no one will deny this when that bridge is crossed - what would be the point?  The purpose of blogs like these, I suppose, is for people to organize when they agree on things that can help promote a Republican platform in our government.  As long as the next Republican candidate is committed to a few things I believe in, including lowering my taxes, than I feel I'm still reading the right blog.

I've made an early commitment to Governor Romney's potential presidential bid because he is, whether we want to call it this or not, the most "electable" of all possible candidates for a number of reasons - from the very tangible to the most trivial.  He has solid support from key figures in key states: strong ties to an affluent business community in the Rocky Mountain Area by virtue of his success as head of the Salt Lake Olympics; from family, associates and friends in that region and from people who share his religious denomination (many of whom don't automatically support a Latter-day Saint, if that had been the case Orrin Hatch may have done much better when he ran for President in 2000 - I am a Latter-day Saint and would be reluctant to embrace a candidate because I share that commonality with him or her - that would be fanatical).  I feel this will serve the Governor well in the entire Rocky Mountain region and even make him competitive in Arizona and California.

In California Governor Romney has a solid base of support in Orange County that any Republican candidate must secure if he is to gain statewide support there.  In Iowa the press has done plenty to demonstrate a vigorous sense of enthusiasm for his candidacy; at this juncture it would be redundant for me to stress the points the press is already making there.  The governor has done well in presenting himself, his successes and his views for America's future when he's visited Iowa.  His support in Michigan is perhaps as strong as if he had been a governor there too, despite his enthusiastic and loyal love for Massachusetts.  His family ties in Michigan don't hurt.  Between Iowa and Michigan an organized effort is certainly coming together on the volition of potential supporters for a possible bid in 2008.  With a home in New Hampshire and as the Governor of a neighboring state, he can certainly count on a great deal of support there.  The importance of New Hampshire is obvious, of course.  In South Carolina he has received a more favorable response than anyone ever expected, largely based on his effort to introduce himself to potential supporters there.  Senator John McCain's supporters should know how critical this state can be.

The Governor has delivered in MA when it comes to education, I'm impressed by the fact that he's tackled the issue of bilingual education boldly and has helped students there lead in math and science scores by refocusing K-12 on basics.  His interest in developing a closer relation between the private sector and education could bridge a widening gap between what students accomplish in schools and what they take to the real world.  With regard to higher education the Governor has the right idea by tying the issue to immigration: let's make sure we keep our brightest American students and focus on keeping those who have come here from abroad, so that we may develop a stronger economy that runs ahead and not at par with or behind emerging Asian economies.

The rise of Asian economies (and military power) is an issue of paramount importance and I feel strongly that the Governor's approach would be a positive one in an overly antagonistic international relations environment.  He will employ his understanding of the private sector wisely to keep America ahead.  As an American, our place in the world matters greatly to me and I would much rather see a strong and healthy business relationship with Asian countries - so long as we are ahead of them in research and development and offer an example for them to emulate.  I believe the Governor would do a great job as President in this regard.

For a governor, he is well experienced in security issues and I think his experiences abroad will greatly enhance his ability to tackle foreign policy with greater ease than most people coming from a governor's office would.

Age is on his side and his experience in politics is well balanced with his experience in the private sector.  As a Governor he is statistically at better odds of being elected President though this is more the type of material for political trivial pursuit.  He's a charismatic and persuasive speaker and has managed to earn support in some key areas where many questioned his ability to earn support (such as South Carolina).  

If anyone is concerned about an organized effort coming together on behalf of Governor Romney at this point, it shouldn't be Senator John McCain and his supporters.  The Senator is a fine statesman with a great deal of support and although it's been a surprise to many that Romney has emerged as a potentially competitive candidate Senator John McCain is leading in most polls.  A competitive race between Senator John McCain and Governor Mitt Romney might present a dialogue between two civilized candidates that America has not seen in a long time.  I welcome organizations for each of the candidates.  If anyone knows how I can be part of a Romney organization drop me a line - AFTER we make sure we remain the majority in the House and Senate this November

EJLR

I check Red State frequently  and see what has been written.  I run into a lot of Romney stuff and I'll recommend the good stuff.

That is, to borrow a line from Goldstein.

Anyway, I like Romney. I thought he was the 2004 convention's best three-minute speaker. He'll be a good presidential candidate. I may not vote for him; I don't know who's running yet.

But all this boosterism is a bit much. Not only here, but Kathryn Lopez is really getting on my nerves.

Leverkuhn seeks dialogue, not diatribe.  I think that's all he's saying.  (I am curious where the Allens, Rudys, and McCains are.)  I think much of the dialogue, however, is defense of Mitt Romney, not a coordinated effort.  

From a messaging standpoint, all successful campaigns are founded on consistent messages that stay on a straight rail, no deviation, no flip-flops.  I don't believe the accused are coordinating, just corroborating kindred souls on a common forum, which is very easy to do.  From a campaign point of view, more power to them.

What's interesting is, this next political cycle will host the two most emotional topics: politics and religion.

Comment:  You are a man of your word, I will give you that.  You promised a well-documented post, and you delivered.

Quote: "If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will."  --Abraham Lincoln.  If you are determined to find signs of coordinations, you surely will.  Especially when it concerns a solitary man with a finite record.  Obviously there is going to be a large amount of overlap between people.

Definition: Occam's Razor: The simpliest answer is usually the right one.  You can believe that a group of people seeking a 2008 candidate to support finds a dream prospect, and with growing excitement begin to share with their co-political travellers their find.  Or you can believe that there is a vast, nefarious conspiracy going on, directed by a man who tries to sell himself as being squeaky-clean; a conspiracy that is hatched a full two years before the election by a man whose primary attraction is his reputation for honesty and integrity, whose campaign would be completely and utterly ruined if word leaked out to a hostile press.

Your choice.

Question: Are you giving into sour grapes, even just a little?  Romney obviously is causing a sizeable group of fairly intelligent people to get excited about his possible 2008 run for President.  Is it possible you are either jealous that your candidate isn't getting the same ground-swell of excitement, or you have become so cynical that you are jealous that others are feeling excitement anyone?

Consider the question to be rhetorical.  You don't need to answer, just think about it.

I do appreciate you calling me an "honest" Romneyite, but I think if you will look closer at Romney, you will find the others are just as honest.  We have found the real deal.  At least give him an honest look.  What harm would it do?

I support Romney for a number of reasons.  Chief among them: I am a (gasp) Mormon.

Which begs the question: why would a non-Mormon support Romney?

Well, I tend to agree with Romney's supporters that he is the only candidate who has some of the characteristics that make people want to vote for him:

(1) He is a governor, not a senator.  He's been the chief executive of a state, not 1 vote out of 100.  Therefore, you won't find the kind of votes that crippled John Kerry's and Bob Dole's candidacies.  Instead, you find that he took a stand on issues that the GOP base and swing voters care about: low taxes, gay marriage, and health care.

(2) He is EXTREMELY articulate.  When he had his interview on C-Span 2, I wanted to stand up and cheer after every comment he made.  He said exactly what I wish that I could articulate if asked the same question.  He would force liberals to abandon the "conservatives are dumb" meme.  He would also force them to abandon the "conservatives are all corrupt" meme, but that is kind of a different topic.

(3) He is a good-looking man.  Now I'm sounding petty.  I'm sounding like someone who's putting style ahead of substance.  But I'm serious: swing voters can't find Iraq on a map.  Swing voters often don't know which party is the one that raises their taxes and which party is the one that cuts their taxes (I have to credit the liberal spin machine for that one.)  But swing voters can ALWAYS tell you which candidate is better looking.  And, sadly, swing voters are much more likely to vote for the better looking guy.  McCain has many strong points.  But no one calls him good looking.

(4) He doesn't have a tax increase or an amnesty proposal on his record.  The amnesty proposal will hurt McCain.  The tax hike in Arkansas will hurt Huckabee.

(5) No scarlet letter.  I feel like I'm in the middle of some kind of "great awakening".  No longer are marital infidelities ignored.  They are considered by voters more telling than a candidate's record on the issues.  Kerry's flip-flop on Iraq didn't destroy his candidacy.  But proof of an extra-marital affair (in the last 15 years) would have crippled him.  McCain's record is somewhat suspect (one divorce).  Giuliani's biggest liability is his two divorces and the undeniable assertion that he cheated on his second wife.  Gingrich has to deal with the fact that he's been divorced and every ugly detail will probably surface (or at least be speculated on) by a media cartel that loves to skewer conservatives who have human frailties.  

The lack of a scarlet letter his huge.  You can't talk about politics to swing voters.  They care more about the tabloids than the weblogs.

Is that honest enough?  Or should I post another novella?

While free republic does have some childish posts, the administrators on that site will remove them.  You can just hit the report abuse part and their posts are removed.  yes there are a few childish and wacko people on there, but thats true of any place.  At least free republic moderators police the threads and actively remove the egregious kook posters.  You cant say that about dkos or DU.  If dKOS or DU admins used the same standard as freep admins, the site would probably shut down.

I still disagree about the intelligent debate part, it comes off the wrong way to me.  I think all blogs and discussion forums have their share of intelligent debate, after all, most people who visit them care deeply about politics and want to engage in discussions about them.  

I know it when I see it.

but the rerunning of campaign talking points will wear out quickly.

It would seem to me that the goal of the Romneyphiles would be to get away from he dross you are regurgitating and maybe try to make that qualitative jump from diary to frontpage.

If we want Romney is electable and Mitt has great hair, we can always go over to The Corner and reak K-Lo

bucko, ask away.

There is no veil and no threat.

On this thread we have an admission of you guys logrolling Romney diaries. If that continues it will be a concern.

And it is obvious our ideas of "original" are at great divergence.

This is not a question of pro/anti-Romney. It is simply a statement that this site is not going to be used for your fun and games. It is a matter of the integrity of the site. You want to be all-Mitt-all-the-time with this stuff, register a domain and have at it.

Erick has an email address. You don't like what I'm saying, take it up with him. I'm more than willing to live with what he says, I don't think you'll be anywhere near as happy.

that you like Romney. Sure, that's obvious. But you've never admitted that you're working as a team here at RedState, which you clearly are, or that your primary agenda at this site is to promote Romney rather than any other cause. That's what you've hidden.

Look, I'm going to make it real simple for you, Jbonham76. Here's your diary record at Redstate. And here's your comment record at Redstate. Notice a pattern? Well I have, and I've seen the same pattern in several of your friends posting histories. When a group of people all take the same position, write about the same things, use the same talking points, and hardly ever write about anything else, what else am I supposed to think but that you are on a team? And it's the fact that you won't admit it that's really bothers me.

Do I need another hobby? Maybe. Sometimes I've thought that myself. But I'm not the one who is somehow incapable of writing about anything besides "Romney deserves to be President," so you saying that to me is a little hypocritical.

who they are and we can weigh their opinions accordingly.

Personally, this obscene fawning over Romney just convinces me we don't need a Massachusetts Democrat as president. But that is neither here nor there.

I've always felt that Redstate was worth more than just being a hub of '08 commercials.  That's why I've refrained from spamming Redstate with my preferred candidate's latest action.

I've always believed Redstate is a place for commentary and analysis, not commercials.

That's not to say that I don't like '08 discussion, I love it.  However, I hate propaganda, especially when Republicans purposely spin to other Republicans on this site, and much of what I've read as of late has been just that.

I'll continue to post noteworthy news bits on RS on my preferred candidate, but I'll leave the rest of my time on RS for analysis and commentary.

I generally state in a post when I'm cross-posting it.  I didn't for the 37% problem piece I listed here as the author mentioned above.  I am Jeff Fuller.  I have never hid this and have actually been pretty open about being a Romney blogger (my Iowans for Romney URL pops up under every comment and is listed in my "user profile" which any member can look at.  

This comment

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/7/4/104852/2018/4#4

to one of my diaries politely asked (not accused) if I was a "hired gun" (pretty flattering to be thought of with a "professional blogger" when I'm just some hack who's just doing this in my spare time.)  

My response is here and I'll paste it in below.

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/7/4/104852/2018/7#7

Romney's got me for free baby!     By: jjfuller72

I've got a great job and blog in my spare time.  My wife jokes that blogging for Romney has become my "other full-time job."  Fortunately, I don't require tons of sleep.  

I've been interested in Romney for years . . . back when he was giving Teddy a run, and especially during SLOC and winning as MA gov as a Mormon Republican.  I knew then that he was "one to watch."  

I fall in line with him politically.  I'm a solid moral and fiscal conservative (but not like a hardcore Freeper).  I became a full-on supporter when I deeply investigated his plan for the Mass Healthcare initiative.  This strongly interested me as a physician.

I started a blogsite (Iowans for Romney) 2.5 months ago and have since had the chance to meet him here in Iowa.  No official affiliation.  

I was asked by Romney's Iowa PAC people recently to serve on his PAC's "Iowa Avisory Board" which is just stating that I'm a politically inclined person who is "For Romney" (Actually, most of the other people they asked to sign on are more the political "heavyweights" of local politics, so it was sort of an honor that they would want me on board).

My blogsite that should pop up at the bottom here does have that disclaimer.  

Jeff Fuller http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/

I've posted 16 diaries here on Red State and the vast majority of them are policy related (Healthcare, Immigration, Homeland Security, Gay Marriage/MPA, etc . . .) and not about "electability".  It's this policy substance of Romney that I'm trying to get people to know about . . . that he's more than just the "pretty face/good interview" kind of candidate.  Those who come to know more about him (or luckily, get to know him) are invariably impressed that this is a man who has all the tools to be a great POTUS!

I can't shake them! I can't phase them. I can't get them to stop using the same darn talking points over and over and over again.

Romney is electable.

Romney is the man to beat.

Romney will win Iowa.

Romney is better than McCain

I'm about at the hair-pulling point. I'm going to stop now before I break my computer.

This tome tells us a few things.

1. Romney's people are organized.
   
2. They prefer RedState over other con blogs.
   
3. People who don't support Romney are looking over their shoulders, their comments to the contrary notwithstanding.

It's pretty far fetched to this scribe (who is a Romney supporter and consultant) that we should be collectively shocked that the campaign is coordinating its message, even its message in blogosphere.  How is that any different that what campaigns do with Old Media?  It's not.

And the thought that only the Romney camp has a coordinated RedState strategy is, at best, flat out wrong and, at worst, designed to draw attention away from the the other camps that are doing the same.

The whole point of the writer's post seems to suggest that the number of Romney supporters on RedState is disproportionate to his support in the hustings, or that their claims are not supported by the MSM or other 3-party sources. And, that this coordiated effort is somehow nefarious.

I don't know if Romney will get the nomination or not.  But 18 months out from New Hampshire and Iowa, it think it is a bit early to say who is the winner and who is in the "also rans" column.  

Bill Clinton was just some hick governor 18 months from New Hampshire and Iowa, soundly considered in the "also ran" column by the party elites and look what happend to him -- and us!

The reason Romney has been attractive enough for me to look closely, is that he lacks the obvious downsides of so many early projected entries into the 2008 field.

Under no circumstances would I ever vote for Senator McCain; The New Yorkers (Giuliani and Pataki) are blatantly liberal Republicans; Senator Allen is to me perfectly undistinguished; Senator Frist flip flops like Senator Kerry; Speaker Gingrich has too many personal issues to win; and so on.

So after Governor Pawlenty hit some trouble, and Governor Romney started to get attention with some solid right-wing leadership, had an apparent track record of keeping taxes from going up while reducing his state's deficit, showed experience with good leadership outside of government, and had a clean personal life, I got interested.

but I wish McCain, Allen, Gingrich, and Guiliani supporters were making the same concerted effort to inform us about these candidates. There have been several diaries about McCain, but few from supporters. There have been diaries about Gingrich and Guiliani, but not to the level of the Romney diaries. And I know almost nothing about George Allen.

I would like to be able to make a very well- informed vote when my state's primary rolls around.

I want more, not less.

I support Romney. If you think I am hiding it, than look at my signature. Its found on every post of mine. I don't know how you can claim otherwise.

I think you are trying to score anti-Romney points by writing an article that ironically most people don't care about. I know you don't like him and you are worried he has a very good chance so why not attack those that are doing a good job of promoting him.

To me I wouldn't care if people thought there was some sort of cooridinated effort, which there isn't. If it did exist I don't think anyone would even care exept the few on RS who are devote Anti-Romneyites.

Even one line of it? There is a heck of a lot more there than what you allow, as anyone who reads it can see.

Look, I don't think the Romneyites are automotons, but they've gone out of their way to behave like it. They write the same way. The write about the same things. They hardly ever write about anything else. They all joined the site in the same time period. The all use McCain as a whipping boy (not that I'm a big McCain fan). If you write something against their candidate they all respond almost immediately. Every move they've made on this site over roughly the last three months has been synchronized. In short, they act like a highly disciplined team, but they won't even admit they are a team. If you can't see that it's you and not me who has a problem.

Hey everyone!  Don't bother reading that missive . . . the source of this "cooridated effort" seems to have stemmed from something I wrote a couple of months ago and posted on my Iowans for Mitt Romney website ( http://iowansformitt.pbwiki.com/How%20to%20Help%20Mitt%20Romney%20Win%20the
%20GOP%20Nomination ) where I mention 12 of my ideas on how to support Romney.  In the text 2 of the 12 items MENTION RedState:

4.  Blog and message board in support of Romney and refer others to good Romney blogsites. Search out online communities that would be interested in knowing about Romney and inform them. Some conservative political sites that always seem to like to debate 2008 presidential hopefuls are Red State and Free Republic Free Republic. Sign up for these sites and participate in the commentary! Some other sites that get a lot of comments to stories are Townhall and the Washington Post Political blog: The Fix. For example, this story about Romney's letter encouraging U.S. Senators to support the Marriage Protection Amendment attracted over 100 comments within 12 hours of being posted."

and

"12. Vote for Romney on online polls; rate positive online articles about him highly; "Recommend" Pro-Romney Red State Diaries (members only, but I recommend signing up)."

My list generated some excitement among the Romney  Bloggers . . . who are ALL not paid; we just do this because we like and support Romney thinking he would make the best POTUS among the current GOP field.  Many of the Romney blogs linked to this list I wrote and I got some good feedback on it.  

NOW IF THAT CONSTITUTES A COORDINATED EFFORT (more like a "conspiracy" the way the author puts it) THEN I'LL TAKE FULL CREDIT OR BLAME.  

I didn't mean to "ruin" RedState.  I post most of the stuff on Free Republic as well (though there are quite a few "crazies" there . . . RedState seems much more of at "thinking man's" Republican Blog--Hey, maybe that's why Romney supporters gravitate here . . . because Romney is a great thinker and his supporters like this kind of dialogue.  I'll start posting at some other sites as well (thanks for the recommendations!)  

it's pure frustration. I've never dealt with so many non sequiturs as when I'm dealing with the Romneyites. The Romneyites who've responded to this diary haven't actually addressed a single one of my points. They just say, "you've lost your cool," or "that's a conspiracy theory." They don't refute anything; they just change the subject.

I wholeheartedly agree. I would love to learn more about Huckabee and Brownback as well.

It would seem to me that the goal of the Romneyphiles would be to get away from he dross you are regurgitating and maybe try to make that qualitative jump from diary to frontpage.

Well thats your opinion of our posts, no doubt influenced by your opinions of Romney. You would be hard pressed to cite everything you have written to be of high quality. I asked a fair question that was quite respectful to you and instead you gave me back this.

Great editing, once again.

Please show me where I have run campaign talking points and regurgitated others ideas that have been posted before. I thought I was making a good point not to do this.

I wish you would have made before. Please note that I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the "37% problem" diary. I also wish you would acknowlege your coordination with other pro-Romney bloggers here, which I know you wont do, but at least you acknowlege your affiliation with a pro-Romney website, so I take a measure of satisfaction from that, and I appreciate it.

See #34.  To jjfuller72's great credit, he linked to where he did just that.

That's all most of us here want: just that degree of openness about where people are coming from.

I do not know what this problem is, for I am not in a position to diagnose it, but you really need to lay off the caffine.  You make Romney supporters out to be automatons with no brain.  I think in doing so, you show all of us that you, in fact, have no brain or any means of intellectually disagreeing with a Romney supporter.  You can give us the reasons that all others give us, i.e. abortion and gay marriage, but other than that you have nothing.  All you have is a conspiracy theory that Romney supporters have hijacked RedState and that it is very pernicious.  

We have an even smaller group...perhaps two or three posters who seem to believe that Romney is the Anti-Christ!

Like the Pro-Romney posters, they NEVER post on any other subject than the governor...and the tenor of their posts border on hate speech.

This seems to be a polarizing topic...and with more than two years before the 2008 election I do not look forward to the beating this horse is going to take!

I know his record isn't perfect once you actually dig in and look.  I'm just explaining to you why some people have been attracted to Romney, since you said in your diary you didn't understand it.

I've actually been trying to fight through the fog on abortion lately, and I'm just about convinced that he's actually just another liberal.

Though when my source for this is one of the pathologically anti-Romney posters, I'm still skeptical, heh.

"It's a disciplined team of bloggers with a savvy game-plan that often involved brushing over the truth."

You have yet to prove this, or even come close. Just because you continue to say it doesn't make it so.

I don't see the evidence for that. The people backing any candidate tend to echo themselves as to what that their candidates strengths are. The line on Rudy seems to be "Electable, great on the war, will pull in cross-over voters, strong leader". All the Rudy backers say these things. It does not follow that they all are reciting from a list of talking points from Rudy Central HQ.

I think a better objection is that many of these people are single issue commenters and posters. I tend to ignore those types.

had that same ambiance

It was meant for people who think if one person backs up another it's a coordinated effort.

Listen, I understand what you see and why you see it. What I'm saying is I started one of the original state "For Mitt" web sites and I can assure you there has been no coordinated effort, just a bunch of independent people doing the same thing. It's a viral, grassroots phenomenon.

I agree that it ticks off regular RedStaters when people only post Romney threads, but these folks are simply eager to promote a candidate who speaks to what they are looking for in a leader.

The fact is this: RedState is growing in popularity and is seen as a go-to, thinking-man's Republican site. That is why I proudly donated money and intend to do so again. But that popularity will also attract people trying to promote a candidate they believe in. I've only been here for six months, but I would expect the editors would want that kind of attention, not only from Romneyites, but from supporters of any candidate.

Interesting thought.  streiff definitely made it sound like this type of posting would be a no-go.  But I'm not sure a list of ideas for supporters, one of which is "go write diaries" and "recommend pro-Romney diaries" really could be considered "agitating" on behalf of Romney.  It's not like spamming the site, or having loads of friends who don't follow politics indiscriminately sign up and repost the same information.  I mean, presumably the people are over at the "Iowans for Mitt" site (or whatever it's called) for a reason.  They're committed to the candidate.  

No worries, it happens.  Glad you remembered

IS that the club for growth will eat him alive.  They had a series on him "Mike Huckabee is a liberal" a few months back i believe.

If your community members are urging each other both to write pro-Romney diaries, and then indiscriminately to recommend pro-Romney diaries, then that's exactly the kind of thing that's going to cause problems at Red State.

ESPECIALLY if supporters of other candidates (paid or otherwise) start to use the same tactics, the effect will be to degrade Red State for the rest of us.

Indeed, the evidence suggests the coordination has been disciplined and well planned.

Was there a secret meeting of this shadowblog cabal I wasn't invited to? Am I just a 'useful' idiot of this pernicious group? Have we checked the IP addresses of these Romneyites... are they all from Utah?

Seriously... My support of Romney is based on a few things that add up to a lack of character or experience from the rest of my choices.

Newt - Adulterer, Deceitful Divorcer and Extreme Political Baggage.

Rudy - Adulterer, Deceitful Divorcer and a Liberal.

McCain - Whom I've labeled McInsane (Check every third thread for his deficiencies).

Allen - Who? Virginia Senator up for POTUS. Has no real experience, chubby and looks like a gaptoothed hick (I have a gap in my teeth so I'm immune to prosecution here).

So who the hell am I supposed to support at this stage? I've got one candidate to choose from for bleeping sake! Romney. He's charismatic, can win in blue states, won't be 'worse' than Bush.

While I do keep an extra eye out for well written diaries about Romney, I do try to be selective about which ones I recommend.

That is the position I recommend to other Romney supporters.

where you got encrypted messages from an IP address in Oslo that contained the link to the secret-Romney-talking-points generator.

...if you think these beats are bad...

"Wait 'til they get a load of me..."

Where'd you dig that one up!  :)

On this thread you have the admission of one person who advised visitors to his website (which I've never been to until today) on one occasion six weeks ago that they should come here. To achieve the effect you describe, the diairists would have had to go to his site and comply. This is a far reach from a coordinated effort.

And if "(y)ou guys are perilously close to abusing the forum with this schtick" isn't a veiled threat, I don't know what is. Legitimate abuse of  the forum would and should invite discipline of some sort. I respectfully submit that the promotion of Romney is not abuse, and is no different than the wonderful promotion of the Michigan GOP by Saul Anuzis.  

With all due respect, this exchange casts doubt on your impartiality in this matter. If I have to be banned for questioning an editor, so be it.

1. In your diary cited many areas of moral agreement between Mormons and Evangelicals: honesty, integrity, devotion to country, work ethic, and even the Marriage Amendment. These are both moral questions and doctrinal questions in as much as both Mormons and Christians base their morality on their doctrine. But why are you objecting to this point? I explicitly conceded that you were right about there being areas of moral (and doctrinal) agreement. I simply also pointed out that those areas of agreement had nothing to do with whether or not Evangelicals would vote for a Mormon.
   
2. Actually my diary is even mor than two times as long as yours. I don't deny it. It had to be because the issues in question were so complex, and because the evidence of Romneyite coordination had to be explained in detail.
   
3. Re: "I appreciate the time and interest it takes to write a diary like this, knowing that you wouldn't do so if you thought Romney was an unimportant figure." Don't do yourself an injustice. This diary was nine tenths about you and the other Romneyites, and one tenth about Romney. If you guys would only own up to what you're doing there would have been no diary from me at all.

My pro-Romney diary, which didn't even set out to be a pro-Romney diary but one just to make sense of the talking points by all the anti-Romney folks around here, was even preceeded by a diary (a long, long time ago) where I made the claim that Romney could not be our candidate in 2008. Talk about flip-flopping, or is that an evolving view?

I'll take People Who Changed Their Minds After Mulling Over the Facts for $500, Alex.

I've been here since February, and I have yet to post a Romney diary, despite my strong support of his candidacy. I have posted many comments in his defense, but no diaries.

I'll simply ask you this: If Romney is an also-ran (based on a two-month-old poll), why is he consistently mentioned by bloggers and respected journos alike as the man to beat in Iowa?

He's released a list of some 50 supporters in Iowa, and a list of Bush Pioneers and Rangers, which has been called the "longest and most geographically diverse."  

I would submit to you that activists in Iowa and Bush Pioneers know the real deal when they see it, and they are lining up to sign on with Mitt Romney.

BTW, I support him largely because he's the only candidate who's been successful in the private sector and shown he can slash a budget in the public sector. He's a turnaround specialist and is whip-smart, and he's been a buck-stops-here executive his whole life.  

I'm serious about how much I like Romney and want him in the White House.  I'm really committed to it/him after several months of weighing the field.  

I thank Neil for recognizing that this is not a coordinated "lets spam Red State" effort . . . or at least that wasn't the intention.

I say your acting like a democrat when you accuse someone of being an idiot and a hick, i didnt accuse you of being one, try reading the post instead of jumping to conclusions.  Its common knowledge that democrats always do this to republican supporters, accuse them of being idiots and hicks.  Once again you try and avoid the arguement.

Free republic is not the extreme wing of the party, there are extremes on all blogs, but its a very small fraction of free republic.  Try actually reading the posts and the people there.  It is a common tactic i've noticed among some romney supporters, you bash free republic as extreme, and childish since romney has almost no support over there.

Romney lost the free republic side poll to "sit it out", and most everyone over there sees him as just a flip flopping opportunist.  This angers you, i understand.  As such you call them childish crazies.  Nice try, you dont agree with someone so you attempt to marginalize them.

There is just as much 'chilidishness' as you claim on any blog as there is on free republic.  There is a bunch here, i guess red state is a bunch kiddies too?  Hell the whole blogosphere is just a bunch of snarky kiddies using your evidence for determining it.  

So someone doesn't agree with you? Too bad, but that doesn't make them childish

of the six diarists whose diaries I studied. So I did not single you out. If you wish to be counted with them, that's your business.

The only thing I have to say is that if yours is only a "rough informal coordination" it has produced remarkably precise and streamlined results. I too am losing my patience, but please note that I have thus far avoided using the word "liar."

And of course, we are not talking about a crime. WE ARE talking about honest debate, and I truly believe that means putting your cards on the table. I also believe that at least some of you haven't done that.

And I did not say you were working for the Romney campaign. I certainly have my suspicions about some of you, but in my diary I specifically said "We don't know if they act on behalf of Romney or any official Romney-related organization such as CommonwealthPAC. I have my suspicions, given their tightly disciplined posting behavior and the other factors I've mentioned, but without hard evidence from the Romney camp itself I can't prove it, and I'm not going to Massachusetts to look."

I hope that clarifies my position, even if it doesn't satisfy you.

You've all heard of the "Dean Scream?"  . . . . His moment when he took credibility away from himself.

You have just witnessed the "Leverkuhn Scream"  I was going to try to discredit him, but I'm glad that he did the job for me (I mean "us" automatons--in coordinated obeisence)

to deny that about 95% of all the Romney diaries are rewritten talking points, you need to go blow smoke up someone else's butt.

The stuff you guys write is sophomoric and one step above cut and paste.

You wanted respectful advice, I gave you respectful advice. Devote a little time and energy since you are using borrowed bandwidth. Write something that might get promoted to frontpage. You don't want to do that, fine. Means nothing to me.

Take this anyway you wish it. I don't care. But rest assured of this. You guys are perilously close to abusing the forum with this schtick.

I can only speak for MYSELF.  I do not work for Mitt Romney.  I have no ties to his Commonwealth PAC.  I am relatively new to politics (9-11 really vaulted me into caring much more than I did).  That being said, I believe Mitt would make an ideal President.

As you know, Presidential cycles arent as long as they used to be.  With the internet, cable news 24/7, talk radio, etc....all this talk is around us all the time.  It is NEVER too early to discuss who you want to see running your country.

I can understand your point about there being ALOT of "Romneyites" on here....but what does that tell you?  I know alot of them....and I know they have no affiliation with the man or his campaign at the moment.

The internet is a huge vehicle for today's Presidential candidates.  To deny as such would be putting your head in the sand.  All you have to do is look at Howard Dean (pre-scream) to see that the internet is an amazing tool for fundraising and getting the word out.

It SHOULD be telling you that either :

A. ALOT of people feel he is most qualified for the job, and want to spread the word.

or

B. The other candidates' people dont have such a strong will or desire?

Think its bad now?  Just wait till Romney takes IA...... :)

What my sign on name was, I will look it up in my old emails or something. I belong to a lot of forums (most automotive) and I loose track of all my user ID's.

I obviously have no problem with people arguing with me and telling me I'm not so bright, I grew up with four sisters as the only boy. I just didn't think FR was that great.

Take it as a compliment. While I don't agree with you on everything Romney, your posting is usually pretty intelligent (definitly more than mine) and a step above what I encountered on Free Republic.

While I am not a proffesional or an experienced writer I do think Redstate of a higher caliber, something I think the editors here would like to think probably.  Actually if I remember correctly I don't even remember really encountering too much anti-Romney there. I think we get it pretty good from a few here, who I will go back in forth with if I have enough fire in the belly.

Now that Jeff has revealed this, anti-Romneyites at RS will always follow a pro-Romney argument with a link to this comment to "prove" that it is a coordinated effort.

I have been involved with the Romney online movement since the very beginning, and I never saw that thread or discussed strategy with anyone.

to recommend each other's posts, uncritically, without regard to the merits of those posts...they are manipulating the recommend system at RedState. The more recommendations a diary gets, the higher it rises on the recommend list. The higher it rises, the more people read it and respond to it.

This is deliberate manipulation. I know others use this same technique, but it is disingenuous. If a post is GOOD, it should be recommended. IF it provides nothing new, but the same old rehashed info from previous diaries...it should not!

character who styles himself as "a master of wit and sarcasm."

You are not Curls...and tweaking an editor is not wise.

But my main problem is with you referring to him as a gap toothed hick, coming straight out of the liberal playbook.  

You didnt answer my other point about experience, you claimed allen has none, but in reality he has more than romney.  Yes, romney did deal with the private sector before this, but we are talking about government service here now.

Of all the 2008 candidates, allen has had the most experience in public office.  Hes been a delegate, a congressman, a governor, and a senator.

And if it makes you happy, i just made a tag.   I make no claims about being some objective observer here

Did you deactivate your account?  I looked up your account over at free republic and nothing comes up.

Perhaps you dislike free republic because romney is overwhelmingly dismissed on that site.

The way you describe it leaves a bad taste in the mouth

I found it like this, but I was looking for the recent one from when Bill got his presidential portrait--- She had her arm out in a "Heil" pose... PRICELESS.

Now, I like you streiff.  I tend to have a soft spot for onery people, since I can be quite onery myself.

But I have to say your two comments are giving me some frosty chills, and I don't think that what you or any other editor at RedState wants.

No one has admitted to "logrolling".  I certainly don't engage in that, and while I have know a few people to do so (on non-Romney diaries) it was never organized, it was more a, "I saw you recommended me, I'll recommend yours" kind of deal.

All that was admitted to, was that one of the accused "Romneyites" said he had posted a list of things people could do to support Romney.  One of the things he listed was to join Redstate, write diaries, and recommend diaries promoting Romney.  I remember reading this (of course, I was directed to his site from his comments here at Redstate).

Now I think he should have said something about recommending well written and original diaries, but I don't think he meant to organize somekind of take over of Redstate.

Before more threats are made (and they were threats strieff), the Editors (including you) should get together and talk about what kind of additional guidlines for diaries would allow people who support a Republican candidate to participate in the Redstate community, while avoiding a flood of competition for the recommend list.  Once guidlines are more clear, people can be more sure that they won't get banned just because they recommended a diary that they liked., or because too many other (unconnected, and uncoordinated) people wrote a diary on the same candidate that week.

I did not ask him to write this although I agree with him. I hope people can believe me when I say this: We did not conspire.

I know his timing is impeccable, and he does use nouns, adjectives and verbs to produce a sentence, but it is only two independent people with the same idea.

let me just say that I was here long before Romney was on the radar, looking for someone to be the Great Conservative Hope (tm) in 2008.

Frankly, in late 1997, sans a nice web site like this, I began telling my conservative friends that the Governor of Texas was the guy I was going to support in 2000 because I thought he could win and we desperately needed a GOP reprieve to eight years of Clinton.

I've become a Romney supporter because so far he has what it takes to win:

1. Executive experience
   
   
2. Has tangible problem solving experience (Olympics, Health Care, etc) that he can point to on the campaign trail
   
   
3. Conservative on abortion
   
   
4. Conservative on immigration

That's pretty much my list of musts for 2008 in a nutshell.

I'm not a shill of Romney and frankly for every Romney diarist you find, you'll find another one for McCain or Rudy.

support Romney who have written diaries on other topics.

I've never written a "pro-Romney" diary, but I support Romney.  And I've written several diaries on several topics.  

HeavyM has written a pro-Romney diary.  But all of his other diaries are on other topics.

You listed jjfuller as one of your suspects.  But he's written comments that both support and question support for Romney.

As many other posters have told you today, I think that you are over-reacting.

I see your point, but you can be sure that there is plenty of genuine Romney support on this site.

(A humorous contrast is the mounds of support that Wes Clark has on liberal blogs despite his invisibility to the rest of the world.)

don't you think?

I mean, c'mon.  Are we supposed to have our pinkies extentended as we post?  This is the kind of vitriol common to the lib sites.  I thought we were above that.

I give no quarter to the postion -- elucidated here and other places -- that only opinion independent of  bias or affiliation has merit. That's a tactic of the Left and it's willing sycophants in the MSM.

Aquinas said the sin of the artist does not necessarily make his art sinful.  I think the same is true with the posts here.  Whether you support Romney, or Allen, or McCain - God forbid :-) - or Rudy, or Newt, the only thing that matters is whether what your post is true and productive to our discourse.  The reality that is raining is not diminished by the fact that an umbrella salesman suggested you might want to take an umbrella with you.

Looks like your Romneyite conspiracy theory got noticed over at NRO.  

Granted, it was in an article about how someone hired by McCain's PAC was found to be blogging pro-McCain and anti-Romney without disclosing his employment with McCain...

by being honest about your agenda, as well as who you are and who you're cooperating with.  You also might go far by eschewing specious arguments and distorted evidence. Unfortunately, most of the Romneyites have not pursued their goals in this way.

Most people don't go to outside sites and agitate to get other people to write more and more diaries, and then recommend those diaries.

by being honest about your agenda, as well as who you are and who you're cooperating with.

When I talk about Romney, my agenda is to promote his record and candidacy, and hopefully convince people to discover more about him.  

Who I am is irrelevant.

Who I'm cooperating with -- nobody. I have come across other Romney bloggers online, but have never so much as exchanged emails with most of them, and with those I have emailed, the conversation has never about any kind of strategy.

This is a viral grassroots phenomenon. It's happened before. Why can't anyone believe that's what this is? Is it bias against the candidate?  

How is this different from how other people on other issues behave? Most people tend to recommend diaries which they agree with.

I'm not impressed with any of the prospective candidates so far, but if somebody wants to extoll the virtues of their own favorite I'm willing to listen.

...the shareholders' identities are a state secret, so one can't prove that they're not...

...AND COLONEL SANDERS!!

So if he's not very conservative, and if he's not all that electable, what makes him so attractive to the Romneyites on Redstate? Truth to tell, I have no idea. Seriously, I have no idea, and that's what troubles me.

I wouldn't call myself a "Romneyite", but as I currently consider him the best viable option, here's my answer: he's the most conservative candidate who strikes me as both electable and likely to be an excellent executive.  

I'll start with my assertion that he's conservative.  Romney's ten point platform, while not perfect, shows me has priorities that are close to mine.  I won't go through them all here, as it's been covered elsewhere, but he's clearly stating the importance of social conservatism, growth-oriented economic policies, a border-first approach to handling illegal immigration, and a pro-active approach to the GWOT (although admittedly, how he would execute his approach has not been laid out to this point).

Do I have bones to pick with his platform?  Sure.  His health care approach is clearly a stop-gap measure as opposed to, say, Gingrich's approach (taking 3rd parties out from between providers and consumers) which would be a real solution.  That said, it will still be an effective political tool, a palatable sell to the American voter, that may actually lighten our cumulative (fed / state / local) tax burden.  It may also save us from having to swallow a much more damaging pill in nationalized universal health care.  

Much of the rest of his platform has not been fleshed out yet, which makes much of this discussion premature.  But as I said, the priorities are largely right.

In terms of his leadership potential, I'll start with his backstory.  His personal bio shows me that he is an extremely intelligent man who is also an effective manager and leader.  From Bain, to the Olympics, to MA, he has a knack for leaving each situation better than he found it.  His personal life shows me he is a committed family man with a large family.  A lot people say, "so what?" to this, but since you are asking for "Romneyite" opinions, I'll give you mine: it means something.  I know a lot of pro-abortion people.  Most are single or DINKS.  Maybe one kid, two at the most.  Don't know anyone personally who has 4 kids or more, are faithful and committed to their marriage, and are social liberals.  I just don't.   Maybe they're out there, but I doubt they're the norm.

Finally and most importantly, I'll deal with the electability issue.  Conservatism gets us nowhere if we can't get it in the White House.  I've spent time watching full stump speeches from most of the potential candidates (McCain / Romney / Allen / Frist -- not Giuliani, I live in NY and know how he is), and Romney is heads and shoulders the "vote getting" campaigner of the group.  He comes across as natural, bright, witty, funny, and on top of the issues.  That's my personal opinion, and granted it's a subjective thing.  But it's something that is going to be more and more important as we actually get into primary season.  Once the candidates aren't just words on the page, with check boxes next to them (pro-life?  Check.  Strong on defense?  Check.); as they start making 4, 5, 6 campaign appearances each day, and the prep time for each goes down, the candidate who can excel in such an environment has a huge advantage.  And Romney strikes me as that kind of candidate.

BTW, for someone who is criticizing the fact that Romney supporters haven't been posting at RedState for a long time, I should point out that I've got seniority on you, big guy.  My first comment was 3 days before yours!  Now drop and give me twenty.  

I'm not asking you to "support" me or anybody else. I'm not even asking you to stop supporting Romney.

Listen, I realize now that we aren't going to get any further on this line of argument. I think what I've said is true, and you say it isn't. That's probably where it will end. But if you and the other Romneyites I've pointed out really want to prove I'm wrong, it's a simple thing to do. Stop towing the party line all the time. Write about something else, anything else, for a while. Heck, 2008 is more than two years away. Surely Romney doesn't really need dozens of diaries written in support of him every month. Show us something of what you believe besides the "I like Mitt" theme.

handful of "I hate Romney" jerks that post here! Like the "I love Mitt" people, we get the same tired talking points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and....well, you get the idea.

I'll try to post a Diary when I have a chance, if you noticed I don't think I have wriiten very many diaries and the last couple have been very short. I think the one on Marriage Ammendment this issue was partially hashed out.

I have always been very interested in politics, Romney has just sparked to a higher level desire. In the next month I am going to be nominated a precinct chaiman in my local GOP and I do things to support the local GOP. I once sent an email to Romney's PAC, never heard anything back.

I can see why you would get frustrated, but when someone decides to dedicate a post to calling my honesty in question naturally I will respond. Nothing I have wrote to you is meant personally to you, generally I try not to take things like this too seriously.

I've said from the beggining there is no coordinated effort, on past diaries, you just don't like it. I gues I could give you access to email accounts, but proabably not.

I used to post at Free Republic, I think there I was jbird76, but it was pretty high schoolish. That is why I like RS. I read alot of stuff beyond the Romney stuff, most of what I think is already said by people moreknowledgable than myself.

and no cattle. He ain't going anywhere.

I could be faulted for recomending a couple past diaries that weren't the best, but I never agreed to automatically do it-I never really read Jeff's 12 points very closely or thought much about it after I read it.

I have no control over who recommends my diaries. I have never asked anyone to do so. I have recieved several private emails from people saying they enjoyed my writing asking me to post more on non-Romney topics.

Also I have seen plenty of poor diaries make it to the reccomendation page. Using the recomend button too often would hardly be conspiracy.  

Lets get him!! I can't stand jbonham76. He's way too coordinated. Wait...that's me.

He did make this disclosure before; when he was politely asked about it.  He just gave you the link to the comment were he made the disclosure.

The upsetting thing is not that you ask:

Are you guys coordinating together?

But that when people answer: No

You respond by saying: I don't believe you, you are coordinating together in your efforts and attempting to decieve the rest of us into thinking you are grassroots.

That is annoying.  You say you aren't calling us liars when you are.  What else is deception but another word for lying.

came in one comment in one strand, not at the end of the diary in question. Out of the hundreds of comments I've looked over, somehow I missed the disclosure. Pardon me.

at your diary and comment history. It doesn't seem like your posting history exhibits the same pattern as the five Romneyites I've been criticizing so vigorously. So like Mar K you would seem to be an "honest Romneyite."

As I noted in my diary, I didn't have time to look through every Romneyite diary and every Romneyite user profile, so I picked six at random. Take a look at the User info files I linked to in my diary. If you look at them openly and honestly, I don't think you can deny that the patterns I've cited are there. Nobody, not even in this thread, has tried to prove that those patterns exist. Now once you've looked at them, ask yourself if you can understand why I'm so frustrated with these tactics. Having presented clear and compelling evidence of a cooperative effort, I am faced with bloggers who do nothing but deny that effort existed, and worse still, they attack me for pointing it out.

The maxim "Correlation does not equal causation" is used to invalidate such nonsensical arguments as the following:

As stock prices go up, skirt lengths get shorter, THEREFORE, skirt lengths are determined by the stock market.

Have I committed a correlation / causation fallacy in my diary? If so, please point it out. Otherwise, try not to throw around catch phrases from the Phil 101 textbook.

I am very well aware o0thers can see my record. I am willing to admit that I have primaraly written about Romney, I don't think I have stated anything otherwse. I am not going to admit that I talk to other people about what to write. I see whats on RS and I respond. If something strikes my fancy, I'l write about it.

I really don't know what else to tell you. I guess I could lie to make you feel better, but I am not here to support leverkhun.

Jason

Founder Of Illinois for Mitt.

that I wasn't named in this "Romneite conspiracy". This all goes back to "serious" coordination in which I specified there wasn't any vertical coordination, but horizontal coordination. You've seemingly proved my point. For me, I often encourage and promote Romney related material where ever I can find it (other blogs, new service, or websites like Red State).

I'm pretty perplexed by what someone called "borrowed bandwidth". If you are paying for bandwidth through ads then how are we "borrowing bandwidth"?

You seem to take an issue with the topics covered by "Romneites" but fail to notice they stem from reaction to MSM news service and websites.

Your post brings nothing new to the table except your own frustrations and bias.

Romney has created the greatest encryption system known to man, and it will never be broken by the Allen Allies or other forces. And We serve Romney, without question or reservation.

:)

For the record, I have no idea who I'm supporting, but my top three are McCain, Huckabee, and Romney. I recommended this diary because I was really starting to wonder about the constant stream of pro-Romney diaries that focused more on "who he is and why he's great" than any recent developments.I remember one guy just posted some bullet points a while back, with some even repeated, and it made the recommended diaries. I spent a little time goofing on him, but reading "diaries" like that make me wonder about the seriousness of the candidate.

There are a lot more people coming forward saying that they are Romney supporters based on the issues that you deny (though they are not bloggers or part of any effort).  Seems to be a lot more of them than people you accuse of being the coordinated bloggers.  

I think Red State has lots of high level political thinkers who have warmed to Romney.  Our indivudual blogging efforts have just happened to fall upon a somewhat friendly crowd (believe me, the reception I get at Free Republic is quite different!)

I suggest that you post this as a diary . . . then I'll get all my buddies to recommend it!

Seriously though, that was some good insight into the issue.

Cicero is right.  That was old information.  I'm not sure that you have very good reading comprehension skills because you went ahead and just read what you wanted to be there.  If you're going to select out certain Red Staters like me, you had really ought to have researched us better before "exposing" us.  I did a better job of exposing myself (hey wait, isn't that illegal?)than you did!  

When you're just plain wrong and ignorant as to my history on this site then criticize me and others incorrectly you just continue to dig yourself into a hole and lose any credibility you had.

THE EVIL PENTAVERIT!!!

Don't try to bring up logic or reasoning with this guy.  He just don't get it!  

"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still!"

"indiscriminately to recommend pro-Romney diaries."  I don't remember asking people to do that.  I guess I can see where people without adequate cerebral cortical material would blindly recommend any pro-Romney blog, but come on.

As for myself, I have seen some crappy Pro-Romney blogs and I never recommend them.  I would assume that most people do the same.  I've recommended and commented on plenty of non-Romney blogs . . . even some of them "pro-another candidate"

My diaries generally do get recommended quite highly . . . but, and you can look at them, I feel this is because I research the topics, present a different angle, and/or provide informative and digestable material.  This has been happening since I began posting diaries and before I created the 12 point list.  Some of my diaries have been bumped to the front page . . . and by neutral people.  Some have been completely ignored as they were minor posts or poorly written/thought-out.   My first diary, which I thought was pretty creative got zero meaningful response--probably because there was zero substance . . . but still pretty interesting IMO.  http://jjfuller72.redstate.com/story/2006/5/14/235741/081  (to see the picture of the "Vote for Mitt" shirt click here http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/05/secret-weapon-napoleon-dynamite
.html  )

I think of myself as a "straight shooter."  I have never tried to hide my tacit support for Romney and have always had a link to my blogsite where my "disclaimer/disclosure" is highly visible.  I've even made this information visible on Red State (see in thread below) I really do enjoy Red State and hope that I, and other Romney bloggers, are welcome here and not taken "with a grain of salt."  In the end, it's the substance of what I and others write that will matter, and that is what is helping to convince people that Romney is a candidate worth watching closely.  We are all intelligent beings and should not be swayed because a post is "Recommended."

After all that defense of my actions, to "error on the side of caution", I have altered point #12 on the Iowans for Mitt site to read:

"12.  Vote for Romney on online polls; rate positively or recommend articles that you would want other people to read."

I have not altered point #4 as I see nothing wrong with someone openly supporting and defending their candidate of choice through blogging and commenting.

Oh yeah, he got caught with a mistress.

Not a worry with Romney.

Your patterns don't prove your thesis!

Correlation is not causation!

This is the problem, you keep on accusing us of working together and we are not.  We tell you that we are not and you call us liars.  Of course this makes us upset.  Why won't you believe us?

I have posted on many other subjects, but I am not surprised that several of Romney's supporters have only posted about him.  Like many people they probably followed politics and only became excited enough to interact when Romney's name started popping up in the MSM.  There are alot of people who get involved in politics because of their interest in a specific politico.  (Reagan is of course the ultimate example).

Why do you insist on seeing a conspiracy?  Why can't you accept the simpler idea that all of us have become Romeny supporters for own our individual reasons and are not in any form of coordination.  There is of course a rough informal coordination developing-  Since I know there are other Romney supporters here I have started keeping an eye out for Romney diaries- but you keep insisting that there is a deeper level of coordination than that.  You even suggest that we are under direction from Romney's campaign!  You are calling us liars sir, and I am begining to lose my patience with you.

Why would we hide it if we were coordinating?  It's like you are accusing us of a conspiracy to conceal a non-crime.  It would be laughable if you weren't becoming so upset and single-minded about it.

Leverkuhn,

What a well documented, objective, and fact based analysis...HA!  Seriously, I'm speechless.  I'd go point by point, but I still haven't decided yet if people take this diary seriously...

Oh, but actually there IS some pretty incriminating evidence of a certain "jbonham76" which you overlooked.  This shadowy and nefarious character has long stirred my own suspicions...and here we have the admission of guilt, right from the horse's mouth!  Get him!!

Show me to someone else's butt, then.

I submit that in particular, this post, this post and this post, while pro-Romney, all show a level of detail and clear writing, and are clearly original pieces.

Since in between the lines of your comment is a veiled threat of editorial discipline, can we get an opinion from an editor who is not anti-Romney?

I agree in principle.  It's hard to police, though.  I didn't realize this was done other than the informal, 'this guy says stuff I agree with' type of collaboration.  

How does RedState prevent it then?  I mean, these "collaborators" are voting for what (or who) they believe in.  Perhaps RedState is just becoming such a large entity that evolution is unavoidable.  Various campaigns will want to come here to advertise to the base, and the campaigns that have enough motivated followers will be able to recommend diaries about their candidate, and push them up the recommend list.

The system still works though, because the editors would still be able to promote those diaries to the front page that are of quality, regardless of how the recommended diaries list is shaking out.

Or then again, perhaps there could be a separate category of diaries dealing specifically with candidates.  This way, the hordes of campaign supporters that will come couldn't crowd other issues out of the recommended diary list.

in my diary. You have yet to respond to one substantive point I made there, which is characteristic of your faction. You guys just distort, and when that doesn't work you change the subject. Your tactic has been "Accuse the accuser!" It's a very cynical strategy, and (at the risk of really going "too far") a very Clintonian one.

It's great that you want more evidence. By all means look, and look long and hard. But while you look, keep in mind that the "fog" you've been fighting through is a deliberate tactic. The Romneyites use it to conceal and obscure.

You seem to be alleging the existence of some sort of private mailing list where certain posters coordinate their actions here. It's possible that is happening, but I don't know how it can be proven.

Allen has much more name recognition than Romney, at least among anyone who knows anything about football and the Allen family name.

As for Romney, my response is the same as it has been since coming to this site. "Who?" So, post all the Romney Hominy you want. The majority of Americans (hell, the majority of conservatives!) don't know who he is, and all the blogging in the world won't change that before election time.

So let me offer the answers to some much debated questions :

Q : Is there a secret team of Romney supporters on Redstate?

A : Who cares.

Q : Who is Romney?

A : Who cares.

Q : Is there a conspiracy of Anti-Romneyites?

A : Who cares.

And thus concludes our debate. Thank you for joining us. Please follow the lighted exit signs to the door nearest you, and drive safely.

But I have had this coversation with you before. You seemed much more collegial at the time:

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/6/28/122534/293/12#12

One key quote by me to you:

I wrote these Diaries to promote Romney. If you look at comments made in other threads you will notice my signature is is the URL for the Romney website. Also the top of this diary notes its originally a post from the afore mentioned website.

your response (this was a couple of weeks ago, if I remember correctly):

Yes, I noticed the URL signature. Listen, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with stumping for a particular Republican candidate on this website. It is a Republican website, after all. I just said that that fact should be taken into consideration when people read your diaries.  

the first post wasn't me.

You like accusing people of being Democrats when they don't support your ideas, don't you?

Free Republic has more snark and childish behavior than you're average high school lunchroom (not everyone, but some), and everyone knows that Freepers are the extreme wing of the party.

I spend time on FreeRepublic, and Romney gets as much support as he does attacks from my perspective over there.  

"keep in mind that what you hear from the Romneyites isn't just individual bloggers expressing their own opinions. It's a disciplined team of bloggers with a savvy game-plan that often involved brushing over the truth"

I wish I got the memo.  Why wasn't invited... I guess I'm not good enough for your disciplined team

One point I agree with you on is the zealousness (perhaps overzealousness) of the Romneyite diarists (not to be confused with the broader group of Romney supporters, of which I am one).

Mr. Leverkuhn has issued a challenge to these diarists and I hope that they will accept it: write about something else, anything else.

Write about who you are and/or what issues you feel strongly about.

You can keep writing the diaries which support Romney, but throw a little kink in once and a which and write about some other topic.

One thing worth noting leverkuhn, jjfuller did try and expand his diary posts from this site onto free republic.  

He created a profile may 22nd of this year and began posting only romney threads

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=247444

The difference from here and free republic is he has an unreceptive audience over there and most freepers dismiss romney.

I do poke my nose around the blogosphere, but this site most of all seems to have the largest base of romney support

Allen - Who? Virginia Senator up for POTUS. Has no real experience, chubby and looks like a gaptoothed hick

Chubby gaptoothed hick?  You sound an awful lot like a liberal making a comment like that.

As for experience, Allen has more than romney does.  He ran Virginia for 4 yeras(virginia is a larger state than massachusets (7 million vs 6 million)) and has served as senator for 6 years.  Romney is a 1 term governor from MA who can't win reelection in his home state.

As for the who?, well both romney and allen are roughly at the same level of name recognition at this point.  

Free republic is not full of crazies, there are a few people who are out there but every site has that.  I resent the implication that this is a thinking mans site and free republic is not.  That seems to be typical of romney supporters.  You dont like free republic because every time you pump romney up he gets ripped down, unlike here where you actually get some backing.  

So what if they disagree with you?  That doesn't make them crazies.    To imply this is a thinking mans site and romney supporters enjoy thinking dialogue is quite arrogant on your part.  You sound an awful lot like these democrats talking about how dumb Bush is and how dumb his supporters are.  

I don't know why I was commenting on FR. I just realized driving home from working that it was Free Conservative that I was thinking of.

I know I look really dumb, I apoligize.

They are a little more "reactive" on Romney at Free Republic.  Still behind the scenes quite a few of the readers who don't comment have contacted me and thanked me for informing them on Romney.  Some are pretty intrigued by him.