Posted on 09/11/2007 8:50:15 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
"The site was not affiliated with our campaign, but we did make it clear that we did not approve of the site, strongly disavowed it and made sure that it had absolutely no connection to our campaign whatsoever. We took immediate action once we were alerted to it."
I think in one case in THIS article, they quoted "approve the site" instead of "approve of the site", but strongly disavowing is also a pretty good statement against it.
vaudine
I will note not that it matters that I said nothing to defend this when I read about it in the WP, although in retrospect I probably shouldn’t have just believed the Washington Post like some other gullible people were willing to do.
I will note that before the FreindsofFredThompson web site claimed Romney did this, they first claimed by the form of a “question” that it was Rudy doing it.
I didn’t see an apology to Rudy for the claim, but maybe they are working on it.
Actually, even Romney doesn’t have any reason to be threatened by Brownback either, if that’s your standard.
But why are you crabbing and the Fredheads? The tactic was underhanded and don’t you think that people who are purportedly on the same ultimate side could agree on that and condemn them?
Additionally, I’ll be interested to see you provide links to anti-candidate sites that the Thompson campaign is behind.
I’m sorry, that’s not “FriendsOfFredThompson”, that’s BlogsForFredThompson.
Sorry again for the inaccuracy.
South Carolina, where that 2000 push poll asked Republicans the following question:
"Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
Ah yes, the pinnacle of political campaigning.
That is better. The statement in the original article above appears much weaker than that.
"The site was created without the knowledge of Tompkins or Romney..."
Some FReepers have an awfully strange concept of accountability.
Responsible? Yes! Accountable? Perhaps not, depending on the situation. And let's get it clear once and for all. This is no 'remote' association. It's the business partner of a state campaign adviser who was paid $12K a month by Romney's campaign. This 'advisor's partner used joint business resources to present this website.
You Romney supporters are really falling flat with the 'plausible deniability' angle on this one. If it wasn't a big, big mistake by the Romney campaign (national), it was surely a big mistake by those he's entrusted his campaign to in this state.
According to Romney, who I already have trust issues with.
Some FReepers have an awfully strange concept of accountability.
It's be a whole lot easier to believe this wasn't the doing of the campaign if it didn't fit the pattern that the campaign, through its surrogates, has been showing since April in their sleazy attacks on Thompson.
But why are you crabbing at the Fredheads? The tactic was underhanded and don’t you think that people who are purportedly on the same ultimate side could agree on that and condemn it?
Fortunately, not everyone is so blind.
Really? Would you accept the same standard?
Assuming you have children (I don't know...) are you prepared to be responsible for the activities of all your children's acquaintances? Do your kids' friends do bad things sometimes? Shall we put that on your shoulders?
That's essentially what this round of Mitt-bashing tries to do.
Accountable? Perhaps not, depending on the situation.
To me, responsibility and accountability are synonyms. What's the difference between them, in your opinion?
And let's get it clear once and for all. This is no 'remote' association. It's the business partner of a state campaign adviser who was paid $12K a month by Romney's campaign. This 'advisor's partner used joint business resources to present this website.
Remote or not, the guy's not directly associated with Romney. Neither the adviser nor Romney knew he had put up the site. What exactly is Romney supposed to do? ...fire someone who doesn't work for him? ...fire the associate who didn't know the guy had done this?
How is any of that fair or reasonable?
You Romney supporters are really falling flat with the 'plausible deniability' angle on this one. If it wasn't a big, big mistake by the Romney campaign (national), it was surely a big mistake by those he's entrusted his campaign to in this state.
Remember, sometimes people really do make decisions all by themselves, with no conspiracy involved.
Romney has no problem making direct criticism of others. He's done it openly and repeatedly. This kind of tactic just doesn't fit with his MO. He just doesn't work that way.
That's just it. If you begin with the assumption that all the "attacks" on Thompson are being coordinated behind the scenes by Romney, then every one of them will conveniently fit into your conspiracy theory. Denials will be expected and dismissed. Romney simply can't win that one, because there's nothing he could do or say to change your conclusions.
It would be easier to believe that these individuals were acting alone if you didn't assume they weren't. It's all in where you start with your assumptions.
I agree, that’s why I went looking, because I knew I had read a better statement.
That's a cop-out. Please feel free to enumerate the obvious problems with my responses.
The trusty old "you're so obviously wrong I won't even bother to argue with you" thing just doesn't fly very far.
It's not like this is a sudden conclusion. I've been watching this stuff happen all spring and summer, and every smear against Thompson traces back to either the Romney camp or the Clinton camp.
Romney's campaign has earned the lack of benefit of the doubt from their own past sleazy actions.
What is dirty about it per se? Are there are lies? Slanderous accusations?
Or is it a raucous website full of personal opinions and spoofs?
If you review history and look at campaign tactics from the past, this seems rather mild in comparison to the mud-slinging and personal attacks in history, doesn't it? And in most cases those tactics were condoned by the candidates themselves.
There are loads of anti-Romney spoof sites. I am sure some are tenuously connected to other campaigns as well. Are we supposed to fall apart over it?
This anti-Fred website is not connected to the Romney campaign.
The campaign did not officially sanction it.
It is was put up by Romney supporters expressing their personal opinions.
Does the 1stA provide them that right?
How far are we going to go with political correctness?
Will we be unable to express our opinions if they might hurt someone's feelings?
I understand there is a line to be drawn on free speech, but this does not appear to be it. It is a very high standard.
The MoveOn.org attack on Petraeus, our general, in command of out troops in a time of war --- now that seems over the line. And while MoveOn is still free to express their opinion, that expression, given the timing and circumstances, seems worthy of our condemnation.
But this? A spoof website put up by a candidate's supporters mocking another candidate is no longer allowed? Hmmmmm..... it seems thin-skinned girlie men must unite.
If there are lies, libel and slander ----> sue them.
Otherwise, it is just an expression of personal opinions by a private citizen protected by their 1stA rights. Since when is everyone so thin-skinned?
The official campaigns should remain above rude, spoof websites IMO, but to fall apart when someone's supporters put up a spoof website about another candidate expressing their personal opinions really seems over the top.
If I happened to know (or previously partnered with someone) who worked for the Romney campaign, then my 1stA right to put up a spoof website on another candidate should be denied? I don't think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.