Morris: “[Romney] doesn’t have to win, place or show”—but: Romney himself has promised to “absolutely” continue airing viciously negative personal attacks on his rivals—so whatever happens in Iowa, the GOP is the loser

January 3, 2008 in 2008, analysis, campaign communications, campaign communiques, campaign finance, campaign literature, campaign management, conservatism, election 2008, GOP, Iowa, media, mitt romney, policy, polls, republicans, rhetoric, romney, the dark soul of Mitt Romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: abuse, advertising, amanda carpenter, anger, constant attacks, dick morris, dickmorris.com, hatred, hostility, Iowa, loose cannon, negating campaigning, negative advertising, negative attacks, negativity, New Hampshire, slime, the palmetto scoop, townhall.com

[ …] “[Romney]’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game,” writes Dick Morris in a dickmorris.com post titled EYES ON IOWA: WHAT THEY NEED

But a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan, and he would limp into Super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only. […]

Hence: Romney needs nothing; Romney needs no one. Campaigns organized on a more rational basis—campaigns more tightly coupled to far broader bases of funding, support, and the pursuit of mutual goals—are constrained in what they can say or do. Their complicated relationship to their own emerging coalitions demands constant learning, experiment, evaluation, and review. Romney, on the other hand, is a solitary and apolitical apparition that rises or falls of its own resources: Romney is beholden to none, Romney is responsible to none.

So what price does Romney pay for relentlessly sliming his rivals?

“DES MOINES, IOWA–Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he would ‘absolutely’ continue running negative advertisements against his adversaries as the election continues,” writes Amanda C-C-C-C-Carpenter (it’s cold in Iowa) in a Townhall.com blog burst titled Romney Promises More Negative Ads

Romney said this at a campaign rally at Principle Financial building in downtown Des Moines when a questioner asked if he planned to keep going negative on opponents … etc.

Credit for this find goes to Adam of The Palmetto Scoop, who issues this conclusion:

[…] This means that, unless Romney is out of the race after the New Hampshire or Michigan primaries, we can expect to see millions of dollars worth of negative campaigning in South Carolina. And the worse Romney does tonight and next week, the dirtier it will be.

Oh joy […]

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

Advertisement

eyeon08.com: “If someone is trying to slime Mitt Romney with his religion, do they really go to a Utah-based call center run by people in Romney’s world?”

November 16, 2007 in 2008, analysis, election 2008, GOP, mitt romney, republicans, rhetoric, romney, triumph of unreason
Tags: agente provocateur, dirty tricks, eyeon08.com, negative attacks, negativity, provocateur, provocation, slime

… “It seems clear that there was an attempt to link this to the John McCain campaign,” writes eye of eyeon08.com in a post titled The strange anti-Romney push poll

How do we know? According to Jonathan Martin, a bunch of the questions were positives about John McCain. Did McCain do this? Of course not. It doesn’t make any sense for them to be doing these in Iowa, where they basically aren’t competing. They are low on cash. And everyone knows that John McCain is a war hero. What’s the plus? Furthermore, as recent activity as indicated, they understand that they need to go through Rudy Giuliani, not Mitt Romney.

Third, there was also an attempt to muddy the waters by linking it to former vendor for Giuliani’s pollster. Although there is plenty of evidence that the Giuliani campaign is not behind it, at least not directly.

I have another question. If someone is trying to slime Mitt Romney with his religion, do they really go to a Utah-based call center run by people in Romney’s world? Wouldn’t they know that it would get out? What does it tell us if it doesn’t? … etc.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.