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

ce Romnifique!—ce formidable!—oh, to be so gifted with dissociations and double-binds, like our hero, Mr. Romney

November 7, 2007 in 2008, analysis, campaign communications, campaign communiques, campaign literature, conservatism, election 2008, Evangelicals, gaffs and pratfalls, GOP, incompetence, media, mitt romney, republicans, rhetoric, romney, strategy, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: double bind, double bind theory, ElectionCentral, Eric Kleefield, Jonathan Martin, pat robertson, Rudy Giuliani, sleight-of-hand disqualification, talking points memo, TMP

“Mitt Romney was asked today in South Carolina whether he thinks Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani will have an impact in attracting Christian conservatives to the Rudy camp. His answer, Jonathan Martin reports: ‘Not at all.'”—writes Eric vom Kleefield in a TMP ElectionCenter post titled Romney Downplays Robertson’s Endorsement Of Giuliani

“I don’t think that the Republican Party is going to choose a pro-choice, pro-gay civil union candidate to lead our party,” Romney added … etc.

Note the sleight-of-hand disqualification, a species of double-bind in which the respondent changes the content of the question or statement:

“I don’t think that the Republican Party is going to choose a pro-choice, pro-gay civil union candidate to lead our party.”

The statement is Functionally equivalent to: I don’t think a good little boy or girl should choose such a option.

First injunction: you will make a choice.

Second injunction: to be a good little boy or girl, you will choose what is my choice; hence, you effectively have no choice.

Our intuition: Romney has confused conservatism with some sort of creepy-nightmare-paternalism, a blunt-instrument American Caesarism, only the Caesar is the caricature of an uptight-screwball, seething-with-impotent-rage middle manager, affordable-tract-housing suburban father circa 1963.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

P.S. Here is the problem for Romney: how many Evangelicals know who e.g. Weyrich is?—or Bopp, despite his cool name? But everyone knows who Pat Robertson is—whether you agree with him or not, you know who he is, and you know that he is a staunch believer etc.

Good! Then the debate footage of Romney’s (in)famous “Gotta Call My Lawyer” response must also be fair game for rival campaigns

November 4, 2007 in 2008, campaign communications, campaign communiques, campaign literature, campaign management, election 2008, gaffs and pratfalls, GOP, media, mitt romney, republicans, romney, the dark soul of Mitt Romney
Tags: debate, debates, ElectionCentral, Eric Kleefield, fox broadcasting, Greg Sargent, kevin madden, talking points memo, TPM

“The Romney campaign has sent a letter to Fox News saying that they will defy the network’s request that all the GOP campaigns ‘cease and desist’ from using Fox debate footage in ads or on their web sites, I’ve just learned,” reports a breathless Greg Sargent in a TPM ElectionCentral post titled Romney Defies Fox News’ Ban On Use Of Its Debate Footage

Today the Romney camp went up with a new ad bashing Hillary. As Eric Kleefeld noted below, the ad contains a smattering of that debate footage — despite the fact that Fox’s lawyers sent a letter to the GOP campaigns last week demanding that they refrain from using it.

So we checked in with the Romney campaign to see what was up. And Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the campaign has informed Fox that they were defying the request.

Say, what? Kevin Madden gave a straight answer!? Is Sargent absolutely certain that he spoke to Madden himself?

Here is the problem for Romney: Sen. Clinton is not the only candidate who can perform horribly at a debate. See:

Romney’s “gotta-call-my-lawyer” response to the Iran question object of scorn, derision, and belly-laughs among other GOP candidates—how will Romney respond?

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

an outraged Romney releases bitter and negative attacks on decorated combat veteran and distinguished statesman, the honorable Senator John McCain

October 15, 2007 in 2008, campaign literature, campaign management, election 2008, GOP, mitt romney, republicans, rhetoric, romney, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: anger, ElectionCentral, Erik Kleefield, Gail Gitcho, hatred, John McCain, negative attacks, negative campaigning, ReliablePolitics, Rick Evans, TMP

“Mitt Romney’s campaign has now fired back at John McCain’s recent attacks on the candidate. Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho released this response,” writes Erik Kleefield in a TPM ElectionCentral post (mis-)titled Romney Campaign Hits Back At McCain’s “Flailing Attacks”

Romney flak Gail Gitcho: “Angry attacks from campaigns without any new ideas on how to bring change to Washington aren’t what voters are looking for” … [Romney campaign anger, bitterness, pathology, projection, cynacism, and despair omitted]

Meanwhile Rick Evans of ReliablePolitics asks “[is] John McCain Gaining Ground?” based on hypothetical general election polls that show McCain gaining, and Romney tanking. Conclusion: there is no downside to either being attacked, or attacking, Willard Milton Romney. Why is this case?—Romney’s unprecedentedly high negatives.

We explore the issue of Romney’s negatives elsewhere:

• Romney has the most negative image at this point of any of the major candidates for president, claims Newport of USA Today’s GallupGuru; the Romney campaign’s death-by-internal-memo part (ii)
• Romney’s negative attacks on others and his negatives in the polls–what is the link?

Here is what we concluded then, and what we still hold to now:

Again, see:

Rasmussen poll: Romney unelectable in general election; polarizing figure; 25% of republicans say they would definately vote against Romney

Allow us to articulate our argument in more familiar terms. It is common wisdom that a candidate whose negatives are high should not go negative. The negative campaigner may bring down her rival or rivals, but not without bringing herself down as well. Does any remember Dick Gephardt’s bitter attacks on Howard Dean and how they backfired on him? Neither do we. But the same was once said about Gephardt as is now said about Romney by Geraghty and others. Gephardt, however, was at least limited by the poverty of his campaign and Gephardt’s own loyalty to the interests of his party.

Romney has high negatives and has clearly gone negative. He has a far smaller-narrower base of support but far, far more resources than Gephardt ever had. And: Romney has far less of a commitment to the success of the GOP than Gephardt, a loyal soldier to the end, had to the DNC.

So: Imagine a Republican Dick Gephardt, on steroids, angry, alienated, estranged, adrift, and with no larger sense of party loyalty to restrain him, a man surrounded by hirelings, contractors, and highly-paid specialists, as opposed to the usual politicos, interest group players, and party insiders that surround other candidates, i.e. people with larger and longer term interests at stake. Now imagine that this hypothetical Republican Gephardt with nothing to lose but everything to gain has both the will and the resources necessary to slime and vilify whatever candidate or candidates he chooses.

This is Willard Milton Romney.

And this is where we are at this historical moment.

These are interesting times for the GOP … more

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

Romney and Madden huff, puff, and wax indignant about Rush Limbaugh’s comments on anti-war soldiers—result: no one cares

October 1, 2007 in campaign literature, election 2008, incompetence, mitt romney, republicans, rhetoric, romney, stupidity, the dark soul of Mitt Romney
Tags: blame, bloviate, bloviating, ElectionCentral, Greg Sargent, Huffington Post, Iraq, kevin madden, negative, Rush Limbaugh, soldiers, TPM, veterans, war

“Mitt Romney becomes the second GOP Presidential candidate to denounce Rush Limbaugh with this statement sent to the Huffington Post by Romney spokesman Kevin Madden,” writes Greg Sargent in a TPM ElectionCentral post titled Romney Becomes Second GOP Prez Candidate To Blast Rush

Romney?—is this is the same misguided candidate who compared the comfortable lives of his privileged sons to soldiers on the field of battle? See:

• latest Romney outrage: claims sons show support for their country by “helping me get elected”
• watch a hapless Romney get spanked by Deputy Sheriff Mark Riss over Romney’s claim that his sons were serving thier country by serving Romney—as opposed to say, wearing a uniform and carrying a rifle

About the effectiveness of Romney’s frequent bursts of void-of-moral-courage rage, please see:

• the reviews are in: Romney’s “grandstanding” about Ahmadinejad ineffective, counterproductive
• Romney’s inflection point—the strange rhetoric of a troubled campaign
• Romney the scold of the GOP (ii); Continetti: Romney hates fake people

Also please reflect upon what Romney’s judgments and opinions—frequently offered—say about Romney:

Romney’s language of blame indicates a personality that believes itself powerless and uncared for

yours &c.
dr. g.d.