This morning, in the wake of the resurgence of Mormon-gate as a story, I've been doing some digging around. While I had hoped to write something on where we stand now, and what we know, including the results of my digging this morning, at an actual publication (as opposed to my own blog), with a few hours to go before everyone switches off for Thanksgiving, I'm bailing on that idea.

1. As I read through the latest this morning, one point sprung out at me. It was the same point that sprung out at me when I found out last week that an Iowa State Rep. who had endorsed Romney was called. And that was, whoever commissioned this survey wanted Romney team members called. I say that without inclusion of the words "evidently" or "apparently" because it seemed to me that including people on Romney's payroll or publicly affiliated with the campaign in a call sample would be bad, and non-standard, practice. Including more than one such person (and thus far, we know of three included in the call sample) to me evidenced something beyond negligence.

2. Turns out my assumption, that it would be totally non-standard practice, to include those on payroll, at the very least, in a call sample is correct. In speaking to a top Republican pollster this morning, I have been told that normally, people working for or associated with campaigns, and members of the media, are excluded from calling lists in the first place-- presumably because of bias that might be evident, which could raise questions about the accuracy of the result. There are two points relevant to this situation to glean from this. First, it is definitely not standard to call people receiving money from a campaign-- as was done here. Second, pollsters determine who is called, not the firm conducting the calls.

3. This is consistent with other information I've obtained today. This morning, I spoke to Jeffrey Welch of Western Wats. We talked about the responsibility that Western Wats takes in relation to polling. Jeffrey underlined to me that Western Wats does not advise on, nor determine, who gets called as part of a given survey. They also do not advise on, nor determine, what questions are asked as part of a survey. Responsibility both for determining a call sample and survey questions rests with the consultant who instructs Western Wats. In other words, whoever instructs Western Wats designs a survey; Western Wats simply executes it. (Jeffrey also reiterated that Western Wats does not engage in push polling.)

So, a top pollster and the firm alleged to have made the calls in question both agree: consultants determine the questions and the call sample, calling firms solely execute the project.

Why is this relevant? Well, it indicates very, very strongly that whoever orchestrated the calls wanted these particular respondents-- who could be counted on to run to the media complaining about the calls-- contacted. Certainly, it was not up to Western Wats (allegedly) to determine who was called, so it wasn't an accident, mistake, oversight , or even deliberate action (perhaps to aid a candidate that some at the firm seem to strongly back) on their part that led to these people being called.

Of course, this still doesn't move us that much closer to determining who commissioned the calls-- but we do at least know now, with a very high degree of certainty, that the party that pushed them wanted people who would rush to the media, and had pre-existing biases included.

That again raises the question of who would benefit, not just from calls like this being made, but from them hitting the headlines so fast and so furiously. I revert to my position that the calls (and especially the publicity) in no way benefit McCain. They do not benefit Rudy (he wasn't even mentioned in the calls, and the only very early primary state he might beat Romney in is New Hampshire, where there's not much of an evangelical community to get stressed about the Mormon factor). They do not benefit Thompson. Again, he wasn't mentioned in the calls, and frankly, a look at early state polling data suggests that he's in no position to catch much of anyone, let alone Romney, let alone by orchestrating this kind of thing. The calls might benefit Huckabee, but in Iowa only, and calls were also made in New Hampshire and South Carolina-- suggesting, at least, that the number of calls would have been sufficient to be expensive enough that the Huckabee campaign wouldn't be able to afford it (meanwhile, I'm guessing that only handful of Huck supporters could, most if not all of whom would probably not be able to engineer something like this on their own).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Romney does benefit from this, or at least members of his team seem to think so. In the words of one of them, "when people attack his religion he becomes an underdog, and people like underdogs." Moreover, we already know that at least one non-Romney-affiliated respondent developed significant sympathy for Romney as a result of the call.

Again, I'll underline that nothing, up to this point, conclusively shows that anyone associated with the Romney camp, let alone that the campaign itself (including the candidate) engineered the making of these calls. But, the more digging into this story occurs, the more it looks likely that someone affiliated with Romney in some form (rogue consultant, supporter or donor) may be responsible.

If Romney’s as polished as he is supposed to be this just seems to be to big of a stretch.

Are you aware of Romney's hire of Warren Tompkins?

Romney's men: Warren Tomkins and Terry Sullivan

Warren Tompkins has been described as South Carolina's most prominent Republican operative -- he runs what may be the state's most visible political consulting firm, TTS Strategies, and is the go-to guy for national strategists who need help understanding the nuances of South Carolina politics and want access to his network of contacts in the state.-SNIP-

Tompkins' firm recently got into a bit of trouble when the news surfaced that a firm executive was behind the Fred Thompson smear site PhoneyFred.org. Tompkins distanced himself from the ensuing flap by

Before it vanished, the front page of the website featured a picture of a regal Thompson dressed in a frilly outfit more befitting a Gilbert and Sullivan production than a presidential campaign. Under the heading, “Playboy Fred,” the site asks the question: “Once a Pro-Choice Skirt Chaser, Now Standard Bearer of the Religious Right?”
Nowhere on the site does it indicate who is responsible for it. But a series of inquiries leads directly to the website of Under the Power Lines, the political consulting firm of Warren Tompkins, Romney’s lead consultant in South Carolina.
The website is hosted by a company called bluehost.com, a firm based in Orem, Utah. An inquiry of that website about phoneyfred.org returns the following statement: “Domain phoneyfred.org is still attached to your politicalnetroots.com account as Addon,” the site states. “For security reasons, you must remove it BEFORE you can continue. After detaching phoneyfred.org from politicalnetroots.com, you should experience some brief downtime on phoneyfred.org while its DNS propagates to your new account.”
The site www.politicalnetroots.com brings up the homepage for “Under the Power Lines,” which lists Tompkins as “Partner, Consultant,” along with Terry Sullivan and Welsley Donehue. [MICHAEL D. SHEAR, ROB PEGORARO - Washington Post]

Tompkins serves as a senior advisor to Romney while Sullivan is his South Carolina campaign manager. Donehue runs the daily operations of their political consulting firm, Tompkins, Thompson and Sullivan, including direct mail efforts and a number of Web-based ventures.

Under the Power Lines is the “NetRoots base” for their clients, which includes Romney, and is led by Donehue and associate Tim Cameron. They have done websites with a look similar to the “Phoney Fred” site for Reps. Nathan Ballentine and Keith Kelley as well as state senate candidates Scott Talley and Shane Massey.

The same group also runs A Daily Shot, a pro-Romney blog covering South Carolina politics that has been particularly critical of Thompson lately. Of the last five posts on the site - as of 9:30 P.M. Monday - four dealt with Thompson.

Photos: Washington Post

___________

UPDATE: The New York Times notes that palMITTostate.com, Romney’s “volunteer” South Carolina grassroots Web site, is listed on the same account as Phoney Fred and Under the Power Lines.

September 11, 2007 12:14

Warren Tompkins Plays Dirty? No Way!!

Posted by Jay Carney | Comments (39) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) |

And so, on page A3 of the Washington Post, appears my favorite political story of the day -- about the link between South Carolina's feared and (in some quarters) revered GOP hitman, J. Warren Tompkins, and the creation of an anti-Fred Thompson website called PhoneyFred.org. Tompkins is serving as Mitt Romney's top South Carolina adviser -- a role he has played often in his 25-year run as the most powerful non-elected man in Palmetto State politics. It was the role Tompkins played for George W. Bush in the Bush campaign's smackdown of John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary. For those who don't recall, that was the state where "mysterious" pro-Bush forces waged an under-the-radar slander campaign against McCain, who had just demolished Bush in the New Hampshire primary. The Bush campaign -- including Tompkins -- claimed no complicity in the slander, an assertion taken at face value by exactly no one with any experience in South Carolina GOP politics.

PhoneyFred.Org disappeared from the Web shortly after the Post's reporter, Michael Shear, began asking the Romney campaign about it. Thompson spokesman Todd Harris (a McCain 2000 veteran) called on Romney to fire Tompkins. As this SC blogger pointed out last year, Tompkins' power in the state has been ebbing. And his role in Romney's campaign hasn't done anything to lift the former Massachussetts governor out of fourth place in South Carolina polls of the GOP candidates. We'll see what happens.

UPDATE: The “campaign of sleaze” to which Chris Matthews refers was the one waged against John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican presidential primary. It is interesting to note that Warren Tompkins - who was a consultant to George W. Bush at the time - all but admitted responsibility.

Here is the account from Newsweek magazine:

Bush knew the drill: in 1988, after his father had lost in Iowa and barely survived in New Hampshire, his campaign had been rescued by going negative and driving hard right in South Carolina. The architect had been the late Lee Atwater, the infamous bad boy of GOP politics. George W had worked closely with Atwater in that campaign.
Atwater’s right-hand man in South Carolina had been a soft-spoken, deceptively mild-mannered good ole boy named Warren Tompkins. Now Tompkins stood up in the motel room and ticked off the groups they needed to win: the Christian Coalition, the right-to-lifers, the evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention. “We aren’t going to pussyfoot around,” said Tompkins in his whispery voice. “We play it different down here. We’re not dainty, if you get my drift. We’re used to playing rough.” McCain was coming up in the polls. “We’ve got to take this guy out,” said Tompkins. [Emphasis added] Media man Stuart Stevens was delighted with the Bush campaign’s new hard line. He was prepared to make a series of ads that would, as he put it, go “boom, boom, boom.” “Now I can make these attack spots,” he exulted. …
Voters were told that McCain was a liar, a hypocrite, a philanderer and a jerk. They were told he was not a hero at all but a Manchurian Candidate, brainwashed or broken in captivity and sent home to betray his comrades in arms. They were told that he had had sex with some of his jailers; that he had married a drug addict; that he had had extramarital affairs, one with the singer Connie Stevens; and that he had arranged a murder to cover his tracks. They were informed that the McCains had adopted a black child (an allusion to their dark-skinned 8-year-old Bridget, whom his wife, Cindy, had brought home from one of Mother Teresa’s orphanages in Bangladesh). They were told that Bridget actually was not Bangladeshi at all but McCain’s own love child, one of several he had sired with American black hookers. They were told that the McCains had to adopt because he had infected Cindy with a venereal disease that destroyed her uterus. [Pumping Iron, Digging Gold, Pressing Flesh: The Favorite Son… Newsweek, Nov. 20, 2007]

Tompkins is now running Mitt Romney’s campaign in South Carolina and apparently Fred Thompson is his latest victim. No one in South Carolina familiar with Mr. Tompkin’s tactics is surprised.

http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2007/09/11/matthews-condemns-romney-campaign-attacks-tompkins-record/

From another thread: “To: greyfoxx39
Romney’s team responds [from the Corner at NRO]:

Team Romney on Push-Poll Connections [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

After reading the Hemingway piece, Kevin Madden, Romney for President campaign spokesman replies:

Let me be perfectly clear: our campaign was not and is not involved with any efforts to engage in alleged push polling calls against our own candidate.

The insinuation made by the National Review post is highly misleading, and I emphatically reject the entire premise of the headline and the theories promoted by anonymous political consultants cited in the posting.

Even cursory reviews of news reports would indicate that the research firm in question, Western Wats, is a prominent research collection company that was used by firms that are currently employed by rival campaigns. But, our campaign has been careful not to accuse anyone, especially since we have contacted the Office of the Attorney General in New Hampshire in an effort to get to the bottom of this matter.

Again, our campaign is not involved with efforts against our own candidate, and I reject outright even the slightest insinuation to the contrary.

7 posted on 11/19/2007 10:12:30 AM EST by StatenIsland”

It would be more than bold if Romney did what you’re accusing him of then started bringing state attorneys to the party. Sounds ridiculus to me. I won’t have a horse in this race until the primaries are over. By the time Kentucky’s primary is run the nomination will already be decided.

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.