Posted on 09/11/2007 8:50:15 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
...it somehow disappeared real fast once the Post contacted Romney's folks.
Should he apologize if he didn't know about or approve the site? Is it somehow his fault then?
He acted quickly and decisively. He denounced the tactic.
Brilliant, I conspire with someone to do something unethical and then I speak up and denounce it. Nobody would be smart enough to see right through this
No, but he should denounce the slimy tactic and fire the consulting firm responsible.
He's done neither.
The Democrats play the same game. Disgusting!
What counts is how the candidate reacts after it is brought to his attention.
No he didn't. He just claimed he wasn't responsible.
I guess “the buck stops here” doesn’t mean much to you, does it?
It’s just not a fun way to live, always thinking ill of others and assuming you are being lied to.
Neither is living like a patsy falling for every transparent trick in the book, over and over again for fear of being “negative”.
If someone is known to say what people want to hear in order to get what that person wants, in this case a vote then a wise man would measure his words with a grain of salt.
Sort of like hitlery didn’t know anything about Hsu.... yeah right.
Same tactic, for sure.
Wrong again! The article clearly states "created by Wesley Donehue, a business partner of Warren Tompkins".
Working for and being a partner are vastly different.
Why don’t YOU get it straight?
The business associate is a SUPPORTER of Romney. It is the SUPPORTER who did this. Tompkins did NOT do this, and HE is the advisor.
It’s really quite simple, and I said it pretty clearly the first time, and I don’t normally get snippy but there’s enough misinformation out there that I don’t take kindly to having MY words misrepresented.
If the site wasn’t affiliated with the campaign all he needed to do was say so and leave it at that. maybe throw in a “freedom of expression” for good measure and allow the site to stand.
His big involvement and cries to anyone who will hear about how ethical he is in getting it shut down goes to prove how close he was too it.
Craig pled guilty even though he was innocent and Mitt shut the site down even though he wasn’t connected to it.
You have ANY evidence of a conspiracy here? Or just a theory unsupported by facts that fits your world view?
A funny thing to think of on a day when another group is ridiculed for their conspiracy theories.
IN fact, it’s so easy to see “right through this” that it seems almost incredulous to believe it was a “conspiracy”.
You don’t think Romney, who has had no trouble saying bad things about others directly, needs to have some 3rd-party operative putting this stuff out? The bloggers are already doing this stuff, everything on the site apparently was just like stuff people here at FR have already dug up.
You think Romney, had he wanted to do this, would have had to use a business associate of a paid advisor? You don’t think he could find a volunteer somewhere who had access to a web address?
It's being reported that Tompkins is being paid $12K a month to work for Romney's campaign. His business associate is responsible for the website. The man is associated through business with a paid adviser for the Romney campaign, sets up a website that attacks Thompson, and we're to believe the Romney campaign was completely clueless until the WaPo brought it to their attention?
Give me a break! I've got it straight. You're the one who's either clueless or in collusion.
I wasn’t getting into the details of the relationship, but if you are the partner with someone, the two of you work for the same company.
But in fact, being a partner in a firm like this probably means there is even LESS of a tie than if the one guy WORKED for him. So I was inaccurate.
Two people can partner just to share expenses, and have little to do with each other’s business dealings. It happens a lot with law firms and political consultants.
If a SUBORDINATE had done this, you might more reasonably tie it to the owner of the company.
Try as many people might, it’s not really accurate to blame people for things their “partners” in a business do. I guess if they are really BAD people we could say that you shouldn’t have partnered with them, but in this case nobody is saying that it is unethical for a person to set up a site like Phoney Fred, and at the moment nobody is arguing that the site was full of false statements of fact.
We have a site like that on Rudy right here.
The argument was that Romney was involved, and the fact that a partner of his advisor was involved is NOT as damning as if it was a WORKER at his advisor’s firm.
Like "Evangelicals for Mitt"?
Let's break it down, shall we?
Of course it does. But only the "bucks" for which he's responsible.
Does it seem reasonable to you that he should be responsible for the behavior of everyone even remotely associated with anyone who works on his campaign? That's an impossible, unfair standard. It's a standard that no other candidate is now or ever has been held to.
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.