The plot thickens: NRO on the anti-Romney, anti-Mormon poll; Update: Target Point denies involvement

posted at 10:56 am on November 19, 2007 by Allahpundit

An interesting coincidence: the phone number that came up on people’s caller ID during the polling by Western Wats has also come up in the past when used by Target Point Consulting, a firm that’s received $720,000 in fees from … the Romney campaign.

But:

Are these connections damning or do they suggest nothing more than a coincidence? Kevin Madden told NRO Sunday: “[Nearly] every Republican research firm uses Western Wats. They are one of the biggest phone research vendors in the country.” As the pro-Romney site mymanmitt.com puts it: Western Wats “conducts 7000 projects a year … At any given moment they are conducting HUNDREDS of projects.” In theory, they could be working for any number of competing clients at cross-purposes at any time…

[Romney campaign spokesman Kevin] Madden did not deny a connection between Target Point and Western Wats. “If you’re calling to tell me that Target Point has used Western Wats as a call firm — not for these [anti-Mormon] calls, but for other ones — I suspect that could be the case,” Madden said. “I think it would be erroneous to use a peripheral connection between vendors to insinuate any impropriety.”

Here’s Madden’s statement this morning unloading on NRO for making insinuations. Geraghty’s got an interesting follow-up too, noting a quote from a Western Wats employee who appears to know who the guilty party is and insists they’re “not political.” What could that possibly mean? Which interest group would want to know voters’ reactions to Mitt’s Mormonism for non-political reasons?

Update: An angry Target Point unloads on NRO.

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

Allah!

From previous posting, it is clear that you have a disdain bordering on hatred of those who have strong views on faith. Nevertheless, I’ve got to ask why you seem so determined to attack Mitt Romney on the basis that he is a Mormon? Romney’s people are right, it’s positively UnAmerican the way you continue to smear the man on this one aspect of his life alone- while virtually giving Rudy a free pass on his hypocritical Catholicism, Hillary Clinton’s utter lack of faith, or B. Hussein’s Islamic/radical racist Christian ties.

In short, either faith is an issue or it is not when dealing with candidates. You’ve gone out of your way to attack just one man on his.

highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Whoever did this did a great job of covering this by using place that likes Mitt.

Have to ask why only assume it was a republican ploy ?

William Amos on November 19, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Curioser and curioser.

I can believe that some Christian group opposed to Romney might try this. What I don’t get is why — with Huckabee surging — they’d choose to highlight McCain as the alternative candidate.

Doesn’t make sense unless it’s there specifically to be a red herring that throws people off the scent.

John on November 19, 2007 at 11:13 AM

they’re “not political.” What could that possibly mean?

religious

tommylotto on November 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM

In short, either faith is an issue or it is not when dealing with candidates. You’ve gone out of your way to attack just one man on his.

I’ve done no such thing and you’re well advised to quit lying about it. Not once — NOT ONCE — have I attacked Mitt for his Mormonism. On the contrary, I’ve defended him in various comment threads for the simple reason that my non-faith is even more despised by the public than his faith is. The fact that people are asking questions about his campaign’s possible role in this doesn’t mean they have anything against Mormons. It simply means they’re trying to figure out who did this. And you try to smear me like this again and I’ll haul your ass out of here. Got it?

Allahpundit on November 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM

John on November 19, 2007 at 11:13 AM

I don’t understand either. However, let’s run with that theory for a second. Say it was a Christian group looking to bring Romney down. Would they really want to promote Huckabee? When it was learned the callers highlighted McCain, many (including I) jumped to the conclusion McCain had something to do with it. Promoting Huckabee would’ve led to a similar outcome.

amerpundit on November 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Yeah, AP’s hasn’t attacked Mormonism at all. Calm down hh; this is news that needs to be covered, and has been.

Vizzini on November 19, 2007 at 11:18 AM

And you try to smear me like this again and I’ll haul your ass out of here. Got it?

Allahpundit on November 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Got it, alright. I interpret your comments and actions one way and since you don’t think I’m being “fair” to your position suddenly I’m a liar?

highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Got it, alright. I interpret your comments and actions one way and since you don’t think I’m being “fair” to your position suddenly I’m a liar?

highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Nevertheless, I’ve got to ask why you seem so determined to attack Mitt Romney on the basis that he is a Mormon?

Please point me to where Allah attacked Mitt on his religion. And if you think Rudy’s gotten a free pass around here, you haven’t been paying attention.

amerpundit on November 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM

amerpundit on November 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM

You make a good point. I just think if they’d wanted to try and take out two candidates at once they would have attacked Mitt and then talked up Rudy. That way everyone assumes Rudy is behind it and the least socially conservative guy in the race gets blamed for the dirty trick.

But McCain? It’s still weird.

John on November 19, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Allah- welcome to the club. Question the Romney campaign, get personaly attacked.

One other thought- I think the word ‘bigot’ is gettin’ WAY overused in our culture these days. It seems like the ‘thought police’ are right there to jump on anyone who doesn’t agree with ANY GROUP for ANY REASON. That’s Un-American.

Ex-tex on November 19, 2007 at 11:23 AM

For the record, Allah has been a lot tougher on Fred than Mitt. I think the Mormonism insinuation is bogus.

Sort of like this push-poll was.

John on November 19, 2007 at 11:25 AM

From previous posting, it is clear that you have a disdain bordering on hatred of those who have strong views on faith.

Allah hasn’t done that.

But I’ll say something on this. It’s long-since become apparent to me that the religious right, and their ‘strong views on faith’, are posed, if not flat-out eager and willing, to destroy the Republican’s chances for victory in 08.

Vyce on November 19, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Geez there are many reasons to disagree with Romney and none of them involve his faith.

William Amos on November 19, 2007 at 11:29 AM

John on November 19, 2007 at 11:23 AM

I too think McCain is a strange choice, but Rudy’s not exactly known for his, uh, religious qualifications. Tearing Mitt down on religion, while promoting Rudy, probably wouldn’t be the strongest argument.

However, there are others in the field besides McCain. Fred, Hunter, Paul, etc.

I wonder why they simply wouldn’t leave a second candidate out, and let people assume it’s a 527.

amerpundit on November 19, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Allah- welcome to the club. Question the Romney campaign, get personaly attacked.

One other thought- I think the word ‘bigot’ is gettin’ WAY overused in our culture these days. It seems like the ‘thought police’ are right there to jump on anyone who doesn’t agree with ANY GROUP for ANY REASON. That’s Un-American.

Ex-tex on November 19, 2007 at 11:23 AM

This is the first I’ve seen of highhopes, and Fraud!heads have zero room to talk because questioning the might of Fraud! Thompson is an invitation to have all sorts of insults and innuendo thrown at you.

I can’t remember how many times people have thrown crap at tommylotto for being a lawyer because he happens not to buy Fraud!’s shtick. tommylotto doesn’t even have Romney as his first choice, he prefers Rudy, IIRC.

Moreover, most attacks on Romney are unfounded nonsense, such as r2b and EricPWJohnson’s endless tirades about how Romney got everything handed to him because his parents are super-wealthy.

BKennedy on November 19, 2007 at 11:31 AM

It gets curiouser and curiouser. Maybe I should go down to the local Western Wats (they have a calling station locally) and see if any of them did any of these calls.

I don’t think Mitt did this. McCain, either. I COULD see Rudy, but not likely (this is political poison to any Republican campaign that did this). Possibly Paul? My guess is either some unknown preacher that cannot stand the idea of a Mormon getting any votes, or some Dem campaign.

Vanceone on November 19, 2007 at 11:34 AM

And for the record, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Allah attack Mitt for his faith (or indeed much on anything else, except Mitt’s garden setting for his ads). So lay off Allah–he’s pretty good in my book.

Vanceone on November 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM

BKennedy on November 19, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Nice obfuscation. The only people I’ve seen hurl the bigot epithet are tommylotto and csdeven.

jaime on November 19, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Here’s another Christian pulling for Romney, who thinks “highhopes” is all wet. On the contrary, I think Allah has been amazingly even-handed with his coverage of the candidates. Certainly much more so than I could ever manage to be. Even though he is an avowed atheist, he’s been very respectful of each candidate’s religious persuasion and rhetoric, and almost entirely lacking in the cynicism I would have expected. Pound sand, “highhopes.”

As for NRO’s article . . . Gawd, what bilgewater. This is politics, so nothing is impossible, but this article is all circumstantial evidence aimed toward the conclusion mentioned in the title of the article. They reluctantly admit (late in the article) that all this stuff may mean nothing, “but . . .”.

In contrast to Allah, NRO has made up their mind about Romney, and are trying to smear him.

Splashman on November 19, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Allah

don’t mention he was rich……….

EricPWJohnson on November 19, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Beyond our wildest dreams, next to Rockefeller he will be by several factors the wealthiest American to set foot in the Whitehouse if he gets elected

EricPWJohnson on November 19, 2007 at 11:57 AM

BKennedy

no he just answered an ad in the paper :)

and Hillary just invested 1,000…………….

EricPWJohnson on November 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM

MSNBC is saying it was Romney that it was a testing of weaknessess on mormonism research

wait – now they say they are still confirming

EricPWJohnson on November 19, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Could the Mormon church have commissioned the poll?

JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 12:22 PM

On the contrary, I’ve defended him in various comment threads for the simple reason that my non-faith is even more despised by the public than his faith is.

Didn’t think that was true, but…

A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine Americans’ willingness to tolerate a Jewish president (Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President at the time). Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for “a generally well-qualified person for president” on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:

Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
Baptist: 6%
Woman: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38%
Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
Atheist: 48%

JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Thanks for digging up that poll, JiangxiDad. Very interesting, especially the change in the Catholic & Jewish numbers over 70 years.

I’d love to see how that Muslim number has changed in the last 8 years.

Hard to believe the “Gay” number, though. Seems way too low. But maybe I’m just projecting. Y’think?

With the Mormon number, the obvious question is how many of those are Dems, how many Repubs?

Splashman on November 19, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Which interest group would want to know voters’ reactions to Mitt’s Mormonism for non-political reasons?

Quakers for a cleaner moon?

csdeven on November 19, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Splashman on November 19, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Here’s the link. More interesting info there.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 12:49 PM

I don’t mean to sound like a schill for AllahPundit, but I don’t see how anyone who has read AllahPundit posts could say that he smears. He mostly posts information he finds, presents possible connectors, and asks questions; as he did in this case. What is the cliche appropriate to highhopes post? Out of left field?

Jens on November 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM

And you try to smear me like this again and I’ll haul your ass out of here. Got it?

Heh. Did you smirk and take a sip from your cup of coffee when you typed that?

Just kidding!

Dudley Smith on November 19, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Ap does smear, many posts have him smearing people and their beliefs…believe me, I will never submit another ani-iPhone post, he’s ruthless.

right2bright on November 19, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Vyce on November 19, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Bingo.

Beyond our wildest dreams, next to Rockefeller he will be by several factors the wealthiest American to set foot in the Whitehouse if he gets elected

EricPWJohnson on November 19, 2007 at 11:57 AM

SO WHAT??? Let me tell you something Eric. If Harvard decided to make a one time exception to its grad school admission requirements and lowered them to the bare bottom so that poor, underprivileged you could get in, AND if they gave you a full scholarship plus room and board, you wouldn’t make it through the first week- even if you had a full time tutor (also paid for by Harvard) helping you out.

Just some of the Current Romneys

http://www.forbes.com/peopletracker/results.jhtml?startRow=1&name=Romney&ticker=

EricPWJohnson on November 19, 2007 at 12:03 PM

SO WHAT? Are they qualified for their positions, or are they ignorant boors and dumb as a rock like you?

Indeed, do we even know that they are all related, or do you just assume that anyone with the last name of “Romney” are family members who get special help from the Mormons?

Buy Danish on November 19, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Ap does smear, many posts have him smearing people and their beliefs…believe me, I will never submit another ani-iPhone post, he’s ruthless.

right2bright on November 19, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Nobody likes the Associated Press r2b.

Allahpundit occaisionally does some lighthearted trolling on his own topics, but aside from posting Christian v. Athest flamebait, err, “theological discussion topics” on a fairly regular basis there’s nothing that isn’t cool about AP (the blogger, not the Al-jazeera in America.)

BKennedy on November 19, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Would anyone be surprised if this wasn’t really push polling? I would think that there are any number of people who would consider this for future attack ads, or the Romney campaign itself to try and figure out how to counter. Man we conservatives really don’t miss a beat in assigning the worst case blame at the drop of a hat.
Either way it is not a bad idea for any campaign to see how this plays.

sweeper on November 19, 2007 at 2:14 PM

for the simple reason that my non-faith is even more despised by the public than his faith

We’ve finally found Madalyn Murray O’Hair!

peacenprosperity on November 19, 2007 at 3:23 PM

religious

tommylotto

Ding!

gabriel sutherland on November 19, 2007 at 3:38 PM

As for NRO’s article . . . Gawd, what bilgewater. … this article is all circumstantial evidence aimed toward the conclusion mentioned in the title of the article. … all this stuff may mean nothing, “but . . .”.

Splashman on November 19, 2007 at 11:50 AM

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
- Mark Twain

MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 4:41 PM