eyeon08.com: “Is there any evidence that this poll contacted anyone in Iowa who was not a Romney staffer or supporter?”—also: Romney completes step (1) of the Romney crisis protocol

November 21, 2007 in 2008, analysis, argument, campaign communications, campaign communiques, campaign literature, election 2008, gaffs and pratfalls, GOP, incompetence, mitt romney, policy, polls, republicans, rhetoric, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: byron york, corruption, ElectionCentral, eyeon08.com, Greg Sargent, National Review, negative attacks, NRO, push polls, ridicule, scandal, stonewall, TPM, tpm electoncentral.com

“Is there any evidence that this poll contacted anyone in Iowa who was not a Romney staffer or supporter?”—asks eye of eyeon08.com in a post titled ‘Voters’ Who Broke Story on Romney Calls On Romney Payroll

If not, is there any evidence that the calls actually occurred? Could this be a story manufactured by the Romney campaign? After all, Western Wats only seems to talk through another Romney official, Justin Hart.

Second, were they directed by either Boston or Des Moines to deliver these messages? If so, were they told to hide their relationship with the Romney campaign?

Is Romney auditioning for FEMA Administrator?

Romney’s response? To stonewall and ridicule. Says Greg Sargent in a TPM ElectionCentral post titled Romney: Theories About Me Polling Myself Are Like 9/11 Conspiracy Theories:

A CNN reporter just asked Mitt Romney about all the theories that his campaign is behind the anti-Mormon calls. His response? Push the 9/11 button…

Key quote: “It’s the same kind of conspiracy theorists that you’re raising that say, `Oh, we brought down the World Trade Center ourselves.'”

The emphasis is ours. This is the first step of the Romney crisis protocol, to stonewall and ridicule. Byron York walks us through the full process. We append our comments below.

… In our discussion, I mentioned to Romney a similar statement by Rep. Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican congressman from South Carolina, who recently recounted a meeting he had with Romney. Inglis told him, “You cannot equate Mormonism with Christianity; you cannot say, ‘I am a Christian just like you,’“ according to an account of the conversation by Bloomberg News. “If he does that,” said Inglis, “every Baptist preacher in the South is going to have to go to the pulpit on Sunday and explain the differences.” I wanted to know what Romney thought about that; Romney wasn’t eager to talk.

“Did Inglis say that to you?” I asked.

“I don’t know,” Romney said. “He may well have.”

“You don’t recall the conversation?”

“I have a lot of conversations. I don’t recall the exact words of people, but if he says he said that, I’ll take his word for it.”

“What was your reaction?”

“I don’t recall the conversation so precisely that I can describe my exact reaction to that.”

Recall precisely. My exact reaction. Sometimes one forgets that Romney was trained as a lawyer, but not on that day. I tried one more time. “Well, okay, if you have been told that by other people, what is your reaction to the substance of what they are saying?” “You know, the term ‘Christian’ means different things to different people,” Romney told me. “Jews aren’t Christian. That doesn’t preclude a Jew from being able to run for office and become president. I believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world and is the son of God. Now, some people say, well, that doesn’t necessarily make you a Christian because Christian refers to a certain group of evangelical Christian faiths. That’s fine. That’s their view. Others say, no, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God and the Savior should be called Christian. That’s fine, too. I’ll just describe what I believe and not try to distinguish my faith from others. That’s really something for my faith to do and for the churches amongst themselves to consider” …

So: Here is the full Romney protocol as we understand it.

(1) Stonewall and ridicule: “Did Inglis say that to you?” I asked. “I don’t know,” Romney said. “He may well have.” “You don’t recall the conversation?” “I have a lot of conversations. I don’t recall the exact words of people, but if he says he said that, I’ll take his word for it.”

(2) Muddy the waters: “You know, the term ‘Christian’ means different things to different people,” Romney told me.

(3) Blur distinctions: “I’ll just describe what I believe and not try to distinguish my faith from others.”

Please note that (3) is precisely the reverse of what Inglis has asked for:

… Inglis told him, “You cannot equate Mormonism with Christianity; you cannot say, ‘I am a Christian just like you,’“ according to an account of the conversation by Bloomberg News. “If he does that,” said Inglis, “every Baptist preacher in the South is going to have to go to the pulpit on Sunday and explain the differences” …

Conclusion: The Romney protocol is designed to dis-clarify and deconstrue (dis-articulate)—it is a technique of equivocation.

Our prediction? Expect steps (2) and (3) very soon. Well, unless step (1) proves successful for the hapless candidate.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

Advertisement