Hmmm: Senior VP at polling firm blamed for anti-Mitt, anti-Mormon calls donated to … Romney; Update: Why was a known Mitt supporter on the call list? Update: Romney camp denies involvement
posted at 4:32 pm on November 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
And he’s not the only one at the firm, Western Wats, who has. David Freddoso searched the FEC database and discovered that one of the firm’s professional callers maxed out a donation to Mitt in March. A search of my own revealed that a programmer there also donated $500 to him in July. And the aforementioned senior VP, Jeffrey Welch, kicked in $500 of his own as recently as September 30th. Except for one other person (whose job title isn’t given) who donated to Alan Keyes, those are the only donations listed for Western Wats in the FEC’s files. Question: Why would a rival (or 527) looking to push a scummy poll on Mitt select a firm for the task where at least two employees and one executive are known to be sympathetic to him? The mystery candidate would want to minimize the chance of his identity being leaked by whichever firm he retained. This would seem to maximize it. Read this post by Liz Mair making the case for why Mitt’s opponents wouldn’t or couldn’t have done it. Hmmm.
For the record, the firm hasn’t admitted to making the calls. They haven’t denied it either, though, limiting their statement on the subject to a denunciation of push-polling generally (which these calls arguably weren’t an example of). As I’m writing this, Rudy’s campaign has sent around an e-mail with a statement from Giuliani declaring, “There is no room for this sort of thing in politics. Our campaign does not support or engage in these types of tactics and it is our hope other campaigns will adhere to the same policy.” Stay tuned.
Update: Given the point about leaking, using this firm would be risky for any entity except the Romney campaign itself. Mitt strikes me as an honest broker, though, and his candidacy would be fatally damaged if it turned out to be him. I can’t believe his team would have done it.
Update: Soren Dayton makes an excellent point. Why would an Iowa state representative known to be a longstanding supporter of Mitt have been placed on the call list? That would guarantee that word of the polling would get back to the campaign and become publicized.
Update: Mitt’s communication director has released a statement: “We reject any insinuation that we are behind this. We have the most interest in getting to the bottom of this situation.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
What? Where and how?
Romney quite rightly objects to the fact that donors don’t need to be disclosed. Like here in a story dated 11/12, which precedes this latest controversy:
Gotta love the irony of the last sentence. Great job with campaign finance reform McCain! In any case it could be a 501 C4 like this group^^ behind the push-polling.
Also, Riehl World View notes in an update that Western Wats has call centers in the Philippines, so it would not be necessary to go through Mormon heavy Utah.
Buy Danish on November 17, 2007 at 3:07 PM
More…
Western Wats has 9 locations in the U.S., one in Laramie, Wyoming, where they have access to University of Wyoming students as staffers, and one in Canada.
For some reason I can’t seem to find a source which shows all their locations.
Do all jobs go through the Utah headquarters, or can they can be solicited directly through a branch office?
Buy Danish on November 17, 2007 at 3:37 PM
That was a good post, it was clear, I was just joking around. Found an opening for a one liner and took it.
right2bright on November 17, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Buy Danish,
I would GUESS that all jobs go through the Utah Headquarters. I’m involved in marketing research for my career, where I would be a potential client to someone like Western Wats. In most cases, they have many telephone centers to execute calls, but all the salespeople and account executives work out of one office. I would think that is what is being done here.
Just so that everyone knows this, Western Wats executes the calls…they don’t have anything to do with how a survey is written.
Everyone has given some interesting theories on this board. I’ll be pretty pissed off if this is a fellow Republican doing it. Sadly, whoever is responsible for it, it’ll be spun as a rogue associate, and has nothing to do with the campaign. Remember in ‘88 when Dukakis fired Sasso over a dirty trick?
asc85 on November 17, 2007 at 5:30 PM
It doesn’t matter. Mitt didn’t do it, McCain didn’t do it (that’s why Mitt should have kept his mouth shut about McCain), Rudy didn’t (he doesn’t care about Iowa). Fred is asleep somewhere.
It will be some wacko group, that someone tries to tie to a candidate (like offices in Utah). May be (but doubt it) a republican group, but not with any affiliation.
I’m no fan of Mitt (duh), but no way…this is suicide, even you would run from Mitt. And he just isn’t that type of dishonest.
right2bright on November 17, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Although they have no input on how a survey is written, can a company turn down a job if they feel that questions are inappropriate? How far up the ladder do the details of these jobs go? Could a Sales Rep sell the job and execute it without upper management knowing who the client was and what kind of questions were being asked on a survey?
I know in this case that Western Wats has already denied that they do any push-polling.
r2b,
I can’t imagine that any of the Republican candidates did it (except perhaps Ron Paul because he’s such a kook fringe candidate) but it could have been a 527 or 501 C 4 group. The problem is that they are largely protected from disclosure rules and they can operate as rogue groups, with or without a candidates approval (although they are not legally permitted to coordinate with any campaign).
It is fair to go after McCain for his idiotic campaign finance legislation which has made a great big mess of things, hurt Republican’s prior fund-raising advantages, and invited more secrecy and corruption- in addition to the obvious First Amendment issues.
Buy Danish on November 17, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Sigh… this just shows why Romney is going to be unelectable if nominated.
Yes, it’s a nasty little push poll, but the MSM/DNC are going to do so much worse if he’s the candidate, and all their probably justified complaints of bigotry will be like spitting into a hurricane.
Religion is not race; the secular left treats the former as untouchable but the latter as a malady of crazy superstition afflicting the ignorant. There will be 24/7 coverage of this and people will be quoting lines of the Book of Mormon at him while asking him about his underwear.
Try to remember all the things, true and untrue, that they’ve said about George W. Bush the last 8 years, and now try to imagine Bush was a Mormon too. I don’t think any candidate can survive that.
TallDave on November 17, 2007 at 8:16 PM
HMMM. . .
This seems interesting, in light of the issues on this thread.
Troy Rasmussen on November 17, 2007 at 9:59 PM
That last post was from the NYTimes in the headlines of the HotAir home page.
Troy Rasmussen on November 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Of course it is fair, that is not what I said. Surprise you didn’t understand.
Mitt brought it up in the arena of these phone calls, that links McCain to the phone calls. It was very snaky for a man of such “integrity”. He could have brought up the McCain bill at some other time, besides a conference on the phone calls. If you don’t get that, you are really blinded by your love. It was an underhanded thing to do.
McCain never said, “We wondered why Mitt was such a supporter of Craig, with all of the rumours, we just felt they were just friends, I guess it was more than that.” Get it? The phone calls had nothing to do with McCain. The calls could only help Mitt play his victim card…get it now?
You’re to much in love to be objective.
right2bright on November 17, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Hey Sherlock, Rudy isn’t even really campaigning in Iowa…His campaign has already said super Tuesday is what they care about. For every rock thrown at a Republican candidate, remember, Mitt is the one that has the most to gain by playing the victim card…and Mitt didn’t do it. Some wild card group did it.
right2bright on November 17, 2007 at 10:14 PM
R2B,
I’m sorry, but what I said is based on facts, not “love”.
This was Romney’s response to the push-polling story:
Regarding Rudy, he is campaigning in Iowa now. Things change.
Buy Danish on November 17, 2007 at 10:43 PM
OK…obviously I’m just speculating here, but certainly Western WATS could have turned down the work if they wanted to. I guess it’s possible that someone could have pushed it through, but I would be very surprised if most of the senior people didn’t know about this project. Western WATS isn’t that big of a telephone center, where one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing.
Unfortunately, this is going to really hurt Western WATS in the short run, if not the long run. I don’t do much telephone work, but if I did, and I felt someone else did comparable work, I’d go with someone else. Regardless of whether this happened to a Republican or a Democrat, this was really unprofessional.
asc85 on November 17, 2007 at 11:39 PM
I just read the statement of Western WATS on their website. They’re denying that they engage in “push polling,” but they don’t deny doing the project, and claim they can’t talk more about it due to client confidentiality. I’d have to see the survey, but clearly, WW is splitting hairs here to cover themselves. Perhaps it’s not “push polling” by a very strict, literal definition. But in fact, what was done was wrong. Shame on Western WATS. They’re going to have to do much more damage control to retain their current clients. If I was currently working with them, I would find their response to be completely disingenuous.
asc85 on November 17, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Back in 2003, when Bobby Jindal ran for Louisiana governor the first time, he didn’t win an outright majority in the (open) primary and was forced into a runoff against Blanco. The dems pulled a fast one during the runoff campaign and Jindal pretty much ignored it until too late. But the damage had been done, and “Katrina” Blanco was elected. The voters there probably regretted their decision after Katrina hit N.O.La.
Point is, I agree with you on the probability of a Soros-funded radical left group pulling this stunt. They aren’t above it, and think they have nothing to lose.
Texas Nick 77 on November 18, 2007 at 3:56 AM
…so independent research is proving my point, that twisted Mormon logic is convoluted to “justify” the creepiest logic.
Mitt’s campaign manager immediately hurled the word “bigot” at anyone scrutinizing his candidate. Not to be outdone, Mitt himself taints anyone who differs with him as Un-American, inferring anyone unwilling to recognize in worship the Mormon polygamous god as Un-American. On the Jonathan Martin Politico blog, Mormons write that people who fall away into apostacy either 1) got hurt feelings, or 2) were too weak to obey Mormon doctrine. No mention made of those who leave upon realization of the awful hoax and rape of faith by those in authority. The Mormon psyche can not tolerate dissent as legitimate, an unfortunate display of American fascism gone global in their madness to be “right” in wrong.
Though political purposes are manifold, the sympathy card is specifically something both Mitt and Hillary need as they both will stop at nothing to win. Deflecting responsibility, Un-Presidential Mitt blames his own friends’ faults on McCain in a dastardly disgusting weasel maneuver displaying sabotage. Mitt’s friends just had to try that series of questions about Mormons on Mormons…curiosity killed the cat.
maverick muse on November 18, 2007 at 5:34 AM
Where do you loons get this stuff? Psyche? Are you $hitting me?!
His faith has zero to do with this. His family, business, and political life has always worked within the rules of society. There aren’t any patterns of strange behavior. He doesn’t have a website devoted to the destruction of other persons religious faith. He doesn’t picket churches of different denominations on Sundays. He doesn’t have tract pamphlets that he passes out door to door, denouncing the faith of others.
He does have a stellar record of working within society’s framework to create very successful businesses, save the Olympics, run an entire state, and raise his family. So all these accusations of poor judgment are gibotry of the worst order.
Lets see some examples of unsociable behavior and we’ll discuss it as it relates to his qualifications as president.
I mean really, has he ever lobbied for a dictator, given legal advice to terrorists, funneled campaign cash to his son, chase tail around Washington DC and BRAGGED about it, or authored a bill that is an assault on free speech?
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 6:00 AM
Here is a little friendly advice: Read the article before you begin to froth at the mouth. I agree, it’s most likely an independent group, but Rudy’s decision to move in Iowa, so soon after this story broke, is very curious.
Read the NY Times article,
then open mouth and insert foot.Troy Rasmussen on November 18, 2007 at 8:42 AM
Thanks for confirming what Mitt said about McCain. It was snaky and it didn’t work (except for a few blinded by devotion). Tying McCain into the phone calls was uncalled for.
right2bright on November 18, 2007 at 9:20 PM
So tell me Troy, seeing as you are all knowing. And seeing as before you post anything you read all of the papers, and listen to all of the news shows. 12 hours before this broke, Rudy wasn’t making a big deal out of Iowa, and I don’t think he is now. He just doesn’t want to feel indifferent.
I don’t read the NYT, I am sure you get most of your information from them. You are strong believer in their accuracy and integrity? The NYT is your paper of record? I haven’t quoted them, or read them in 2 years…and if I miss an article from them, I don’t consider it a loss. I wait for their lies and deception to be quoted by others and exposed by others. Apparently you quote them with impunity.
So before you froth at your mouth, look at where you get your information. If it is the NYT, then let me froth more and say you are a foolish man/woman.
And “friendly advice” doesn’t cut it, stupid advice is what you gave me….Read the NYT before commenting…HAAAHAAAHAAHa, who’s the fool? Troy’s the fool.
right2bright on November 18, 2007 at 9:29 PM
No, none of these, but he did spend some time, a lot of time with Craig…he definitely bonded with Craig…if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
right2bright on November 18, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Mitt Romney’s new ad.
(From the NYT)
csdeven on November 19, 2007 at 9:21 AM
You’re welcome!
What Mitt said about McCain was the truth. It wasn’t a personal attack, he didn’t say that McCain made the calls, he was attacking McCain’s policies.
McCain-Feingold is some of the worst legislation to come down the pike in our lifetimes. It has opened the door to more corruption, more secrecy and less disclosure - and it has curtailed our First Amendment rights in the process. McCain’s legislation created this monster of 527s and the like, one of whom is undoubtedly behind this smear campaign.
By the way, on what do you base your conclusion that “it didn’t work”? You don’t even understand what happened, yet you have analysis of the outcome. Amazing!
You are also making a complete fool of yourself (as usual) about Rudy vis a vis Iowa. It was Hot Air who posted the story from the Times but your response is to behave like a toddler and make ridiculous accusations like this:
Why don’t you dispute specific statements made in the story and back them up with factual information if you think it’s all a great, big lie?
Most of us take much of what is reported in the Times with a pound of salt, but then again most of us can separate partisan propaganda and opinion from straight reporting.
Buy Danish on November 19, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Take your personal animosity towards me somewhere else. Ever since I spotted you for lying, you lie in wait for me. Obsess over someone else.
Until you admit you lied and apologize, don’t respond to what I write, and I won’t respond to what you write. I can’t trust you, your obsessed with me and in a different way, obsessed with Mitt. You should get out more and enjoy life.
No one on this site, when making a comment, needs to back anything up in detail. In fact, I stated your lies in detail and it didn’t stop you. So facts don’t mean as much to you as your infatuation with me.
Move on, you make me nervous…thank God you don’t have my address.
right2bright on November 19, 2007 at 1:46 PM
My “infatuation” with you? You imply that I am stalking you? That’s Chutzpah for you! YOU responded to a comment that I made here.
I in turn responded respectfully here.
Then you threw in a snarky and factually incorrect comment here.
At that point you exhausted my patience, but note that I supplied fact and information not just opinions in my responses.
Moreover, despite your false claims, you have NEVER shown that I have lied about anything, because I haven’t. You could search and search through the vaults and you wouldn’t be able to find anything, and indeed, when I have challenged you to back up your phony allegations you haven’t because you can’t, and this is the pathetic excuse you use:
Nope, according to r2b’s rules you can accuse people of having a “dirty” mouth, lying, stalking, that I “slandered” you, and all sorts of falsehoods, but you are under no obligation to support those charges!
How very convenient for you!
Buy Danish on November 19, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Let’s try this one more time. I already, several times showed where you lied. You stated you did not call me any names, I showed where you stated several times with “not2bright”, I had other examples, but since even the most obvious was ignored by you, why waste my time? You can pick and choose, I did not follow those links, since I am sure they do not include the one where I showed the quote stating you never dissed me, and then the one where you did.
I will say this again, move on, people do not care about our “issues”, they do not care you have a bone to pick with me. And they certainly read where I proved my point.
So here is the deal, you don’t respond to my posts, I won’t respond to your posts. That way you won’t hijack the posts with your petty insinuations.
And thanks for taking my advice, and not calling people names.
right2bright on November 20, 2007 at 10:50 AM
I see Mormon Derangement Syndrome is still alive and kicking in the comments, unfortunately.
WasatchMan on November 20, 2007 at 3:30 PM
BlahBlahBlah. Give it up r2b. I called you not2bright. I have never denied that. You cannot find anything to prove your false allegations that I am filthy mouthed liar and your excuses are pathetic and…here we go again…idiotic.
I certainly am under no obligation to make any ‘deals’ with you. If you think I’m just going to let you babble on uninterrupted while you make false statements about Mitt Romney (or anything I happen to catch) you’re wrong.
You are under no obligation to respond to me at that point.
It’s entirely up to you.
Buy Danish on November 20, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]