Mitt Romney for President My Man Mitt

Here is the audio from the Hugh Hewitt show. Don't adjust your browser. I really do speak that fast:

QUICK IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION. In the audio it sounded like I confirmed that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon to be more important than the Bible. The audio actually cut out. I said "this is UNtrue". Just to be clear :)

So, lets review.

1) There is ZERO evidence linking TargetPoint the anti-Mormon calls
2) TargetPoint VEHEMENTLY denies they are behind the calls
3) As I indicated on Hugh’s show… I asked my source about Gage’s denial. His response: “Yeah, we knew it wasn’t them already.”

Today. Mark Hemingway attempted to apologize and wiggle out of a untenable corner defending a theory that has been refuted on every side you turn to.

Late tonight, and to their credit, Kathryn Lopez from NRO admits: "Mark noted some interesting publicly available connections Monday but there is no real evidence I've read that the Romney campaign had anything to do with it."

Then, RedState issues a non-retraction, failing to apologize to Gage & Company for maligning their integrity. To boot, they add another theory to the pot.

Here's the quote of the day from RedState: "we should not be afraid to ask a very plausible question based on, if nothing else, real world experience in politics: did a friend of the candidate hit him in a well meaning but misguided effort to help him?"

So, we can dismiss any evidence that's not there and instead rely on RedState's "real world experience". What?

Labels: Alex Gage, Anti-mormon, anti-romney, mark hemingway, mitt romney push poll, nro, push poll, redstate, target point consulting, targetpoint, western wats


	2 Comments: Heard you on Hugh Hewitt! Great job!! This is my first time visiting this site (After hearing about in Hugh Hewitt). I'm glad you clarified the comment about Mormonism and the Bible. You're right, it did sound like you said "true." You had me a little concerned, but I'm glad you clarified. I'll be back. Keep up the great work. By Marie Poindexter, at November 21, 2007 at 11:14 AM Fantastic job, I'm glad you were able to articulate the issues at play so well. It will be interesting if anyone does eventually own up to this. I won't hold my breath. This story is getting a little play over at CNN. Again, Thanks for the work you do. By Stephen Hampton, at November 21, 2007 at 1:21 PM Post a Comment


	1 Comments: The nice thing about Mitt Romney is that he is someone you can trust, implicitly. He has a nice family, doesn't beat or cheat on his wife, does what he says he'll do, and so forth. He's shown time and time again in different areas of his life what kind of character he has. This appeals to lots of voters like me. I want someone I can trust will do what he or she says they'll do. I want someone, like Mitt, who will do everything in his power to prevent another war from starting, say, in Iran. Now, with every good thing there are always negatives. The negative is that if someone can prove (and make it appear) that Mitt is sneaky and under-handed, some of that support goes away. Such people have no problem turning a despicable act of religious bigotry into a nefarious plot by the victim. They might even repeat the religious bigotry, saying it is justified (I've seen that a few times on some of the comments sections on the links you've provided). The good side to all of this is that it reminds us of what kind of person Mitt is. Those of who familiar with conspiracy theories, spin doctors, and even just plain old propaganda, won't fall into the trap. We'll stick with Mitt and when the truth comes out it won't surprise us very much. By Anonymous, at November 19, 2007 at 2:56 PM Post a Comment

UPDATE: Quick clarification. I had previously asked my source about the notion that Romney is behind the poll. He said it was "nonsense". I should clarify that this is his opinion. From my conversations I gather that he does not know exactly who is behind the survey but thinks that a Romney motive is "ridiculous". Again, he is understandably tight lipped on all this.

Numerous anti-Romney blogs are alive with fervor just hoping that Romney himself conducted the anti-Mormon calls to help his campaign. They cite political connections with the data collection firm and the fact that its based in Utah.

Couple of facts here:

If you are political campaign wanting to conduct research over the phone or Internet this Utah-based firm would be one of your first choices.

The firm "Western Wats" is the biggest data collection firm in the country. Probably a good number of political entities have used it.
"Western Wats" employs more than 1500 people
The company has numerous call centers all over the country (not just in Utah)
The company does not write the scripts nor do they analyze the data
The company does not do "push polls", but they do conduct "message testing" (sometimes even this is controversial)
Fortune 500 firms use their services all the time
There are dozens of projects going on at any given point in time.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sick and disgusted about these calls... but to pin them on Romney's campaign is just projecting anger at Mitt.

In short, while it may have been founded by Utahns it can hardly be called a Mormon firm. The connections to the Romney campaign are far and few between and coincidental in my mind.

Labels: anti-mitt, Anti-mormon, polling, utah, western wats


	0 Comments: Post a Comment


	1 Comments: Mitt needs to include that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ. This will serve to clearly communicate that he shares the faith in Christ of many other Christian 'denominations' from Protestant to Catholic to Evangelicals. This will quell some of the anxiety that Christians feel towards the Governor. By Steve, at February 19, 2007 at 5:02 PM Post a Comment

Romney's visit in South Carolina had a not so surprising McCain/Anti-mormon moment.

In the Boston Herald we read:

"I don't think that I could see someone who is a member of a faith so contrary to my faith having my support," said state Rep. Gloria Haskins. Haskins is backing Sen. John McCain of Arizona, as are a number of key lawmakers.

McCain has been playing on the Mormon train for quite a while. It was a supporter of his who ambushed Romney with Doctrinal questions not too long ago. This of course seem redundantly hypocritical. On one hand McCain plays the Anti-Mormon card in South Carolina, yet he has taken great pains to run a Mormon coup as seen with Utah Governor Huntsman and Atty. General Shurtleff.

At some point Johnny, you will have to explain to your huge community of home town Mormons your need to use 'em and loose 'em. What will come of this? Probably more of things like this.

***Update***

Thanks to Dave I have this quote to add from Cindy Mostellar, the lady I previously mentioned who attacked Romney's religion last year.

Yesterday, Charleston County GOP chairwoman Cyndi Mosteller, a Baptist, said, "The question is: Does Governor Romney support Joseph Smith's doctrines? We as evangelicals don't believe we can go in and change Paul's doctrine. I don't see how you move around this."

No need to hide your feelings Cindy, just say what you think about Mormons.

Labels: Anti-mormon, LDS Mormon Romney, McCain, south carolina


	5 Comments: It's a wildly amazing coincidence that the people who have a problem with Romney's faith just happen to be McCain supporters. By Anonymous, at January 31, 2007 at 12:17 PM here is her e-mail address: GAH@schouse.org I don't know what to say to someone who says, "I don't think that I could see someone who is a member of a faith so contrary to my faith having my support." What would you guys say to her? If Mormons are too stupid to be in politics, should they be allowed in the military? Should they be allowed in Business? If they are too stupid to be in government, do you want to hire stupid people in your business? By Myclob, at January 31, 2007 at 12:48 PM I separate Romney's religion from his politics. In politics, the specifics of his faith have no bearing on his worth as a candidate. Remember Kennedy? McCain and his minions would have you believe otherwise. Hence, the quotes. However, I argue that values and a moral compass matter. And many faiths help one develop a sound moral compass--even the Mormon Church. Those two women--Haskins and Mosteller--struggle with such an understanding of religion in politics. They play by the old-boys' club rules. In effect, they say, "Your Mormon views are intolerable, so no votes for you." In contrast, Mitt's supporters at Evangelicals for Mitt know when religion is important. What Mitt chooses to believe about Joseph Smith and other dogmas is a personal matter, and won't influence him politically. These women and others need a little education. By Nealie Ride, at January 31, 2007 at 5:32 PM my email to Rep. Gloria Haskins of South Carolina: to: GAH@schouse.org date: Jan 31, 2007 5:50 PM subject: no religious test for the presidency? Rep. Haskins, I've been following both McCain and Romney closely, and ran into your quote in the Boston Globe. I'd think you'd be experienced enough to keep these thoughts private. To oppose Romney on religious grounds alone is unbelievable. What a poor example of leadership! At least raise other objections to cover your concerns for his religion. Oppose past Romney positions if you must, but his faith? Geez! The United States can handle someone who has an oustide-the-mainstream religion if he/she is the best. On religious grounds you have defined Mitt Romney as an intolerable candidate. The specifics of his religion have no bearing in politics. His morality and leadership are paramount. Your quote and old-boys' club religious mentality is deplorable. "I don't think that I could see someone who is a member of a faith so contrary to my faith having my support," said state Rep. Gloria Haskins. Dr. Richard Land (of the Southern Baptist Convention) gets it when he says, 'We're not electing Mitt Romney as pastor in chief." Sincerely, Neal By Nealie Ride, at January 31, 2007 at 5:58 PM For all of you who say that Mitt Romney's religion should play no part in how he is perceived as a candidate, I wonder how it would play out for you if a Wiccan or other Pagan were running? Would you hold yourself to the same principle then? I somehow doubt it. By Anonymous, at August 17, 2007 at 11:34 AM Post a Comment

Audio: Justin Hart on the Hugh Hewitt Show

Latest updates

The "Romney Did It" Theory

MittCast - Mitt Romney Takes on Heckler

More Anti-Mormon Stuff from McCain Camp [Update]