By Justin Rood

Jan 7, 2008 8:53am

Romney-McCain ‘Dirty Tricks’ Calls Dispute Builds

New Hampshire’s top prosecutor is pushing to discover the identity of the funder behind alleged "dirty tricks" phone calls that hit Republican voters in the state last November. Meanwhile, campaigns for the two candidates named in the calls blamed the other for the operation. New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte made a public plea for information about the matter Thursday, after a polling company allegedly involved in the affair rebuffed a state subpoena for information. "The voters of New Hampshire deserve to know whether any presidential candidate violated New Hampshire’s law," Ayotte said in a statement released to the media. THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS Photos Dirty Tricks on the Campaign Trail Blotter 2008: ‘Dirtiest Presidential Campaign in History’ Blotter Whose Push Poll Is It Anyway? Going Negative on Clinton, Obama; Positive on Edwards Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team? Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage The 20-minute phone calls reportedly sounded at first like a traditional poll, but led to a series of questions portraying Romney and his Mormon faith in a harsh light. The calls also reportedly portrayed rival GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, Ariz., in a positive light. McCain asked Ayotte to investigate the calls last November and called them "disgraceful" and "outrageous." Romney also asked for an investigation into the calls, which have been characterized as "push polls," or quasi-polls designed to "push" a negative portrayal of a candidate, not gather data. The two campaigns have pointed fingers at each other over the calls. On Thursday, McCain campaign official Chuck Douglas said, "We have long suspected" that Romney had funded the calls "to test the Mormon issue." Romney’s camp, which has reportedly blamed McCain’s campaign finance reform legislation for making the calls possible, said those comments were "outrageous and irresponsible" and said Douglas should quit McCain’s campaign. Douglas later said he was speaking for himself and not the campaign. Attorney General Ayotte said Thursday the calls were made by a Utah-based Republican telemarketing company, Western Wats, which had been hired by Moore Information, a GOP polling firm in Oregon. Moore Information, headed by former National Republican Senatorial Committee chief Bob Moore, has refused to comply with a subpoena served in the matter. The subpoena requested documents pertaining to the phone calls. An Oregon court granted Moore Information a hearing on Jan. 16, delaying the possible release of new information about the calls until after the New Hampshire primary. A spokeswoman for Moore Information said only Moore was authorized to discuss his firm’s clients, and he was unavailable. In a prepared statement, the company said it has never engaged in push polling, and that "confidentiality agreements prohibit comment on specific surveys." An attorney for Moore, Terrence Kay, has reportedly said the poll was not commissioned by a candidate, political party, political action committee or an agent of such a group. Attempts to reach Kay Sunday were unsuccessful. The calls have been the subject of extensive speculation on blogs and political Web sites.  Several bloggers have noted connections between the Utah calling firm and the Romney campaign, including campaign donations from its employees to Romney. Jeff Welsh, a senior executive for Western Wats, confirmed his company was involved in the phone calling, but denied the calls were "push polls" and declined to say who paid for the calls. "I think their information is correct," Welsh said when asked if Attorney General Ayotte was right in naming Western Wats as the originator of the controversial calls. Welsh said, however, the calls were consistent with a "message testing" or "theme testing" effort, in which a customer pays to learn how certain portrayals play with voters. It was not a "push poll," according to Welsh, who noted most "push-poll" calls last less than five minutes.  He would not provide ABC News with a copy of the calls’ script. He said it was "safe to assume" that Attorney General Ayotte’s staff had seen a copy. Welsh said a non-disclosure agreement barred him from naming the customer who paid for the calls. On Sunday, the Romney campaign reiterated it was doing no message testing "of that kind" at the time the calls were made. Welsh said that the firm was not partisan, although members of his company had given money to Romney’s campaign, including Welsh himself. "I had a neighbor across the street, a sweet lady, knocked on my door. I said, ‘I think he’s a good guy.’ I wrote her a check,” Welsh explained. FEC records show Welsh gave Romney $500 last September. Welsh purported to be perplexed by the affair. "The whole thing leaves me scratching my head." This post has been updated. Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

User Comments

Hmmmm, nobody gives a crap about this one huh?

Posted by: oobe | January 7, 2008, 9:53 am 9:53 am

The two latest polls are mixed. McCain ahead in the CNN/WMUR/UNH by 6% (note: CNN is engaging in “push polling” in their poll. They asked the folks in NH “Do you think this country would elect a Mormon/” I CAN’T BELIEVE THEY ASKED THAT……..CORRUPT!).
The second poll Suffolk has Mitt up by 3%.
I simply can’t believe that CNN/WMUR/UNH had a question on their poll regarding Mormons! How much more CORRUPT can the “dirty reporters” get in our wolfpack press?
I’ve been telling folks all year that the wolfpack would not stand by and let Mitt win the GOP nomination. Folks thought I was parnoid.

Posted by: Allen Ridge | January 7, 2008, 10:12 am 10:12 am

McInsae is very desperate. His campaign is falling apart. He DOES NOT have Americans interest at heart. He is an AIPAC stooge and bad for this country.

Posted by: TBT | January 7, 2008, 10:18 am 10:18 am

When a crooked poll hurts a media-favored candidate, the response is quite different I see! How many times have polls done the exact same thing to non-media-favored candidates and nothing happened as a result, other than the successful supression of the candidate’s support?
The worst example I ever saw: a poll question asked “Do you support Bush’s decision to invade Iraq?”; then answers were loaded: “Yes, Saddam is a threat and must be dealth with”, “No, war is always wrong”. Notice that the answers imply that the assertion that Saddam is a threat justifying attack is presented as an accepted fact.

Posted by: Edward Mann | January 7, 2008, 10:41 am 10:41 am

Why is it always the Republicans who pull this crap?
In NH we still have the old party chairman in jail fir violating election laws. Seems he had all the Democrats phone lines jammed so they couldn’t give people rides to polls!
Is their only way of winning cheating as it seems to be pervasive with the Republicans?

Posted by: concordcan | January 7, 2008, 11:26 am 11:26 am

ROMNEY’S RECORD ON IMMIGRATION
According to Luntz’s Focus group last night after the Faux Forum, they all said they liked Mitt and didn’t care much for Fred – wasn’t surprising. I will have to concede due to all of the time Romney was given it appeared he won. That is because between John and Mikey, he did dominate. But he won with style not substance, although Mitt kept his hard line on immigration. I must admit his position now is dead on, but let me remind folks of things he has been quoted to say and do concerning immigration before it became a hot button issue.
AGREED W/ BUSH / McCAIN PLAN. In 2005, Romney called the McCain-Kennedy-Bush comprehensive immigration reform bill “reasonable” and defended the Senate bill. “I think that an amnesty program is one which all of the illegal immigrants who are here are now citizens and walk in and get your citizenship. What the President has proposed and what Senator McCain and Cornyn have proposed are quite different from that…those are the things that are being considered, and I think that those are reasonable proposals.” (Mitt Romney Interview, The Boston Globe, 11/30/05)
SUPPORTED ALLOWING ILLEGALS TO STAY WHILE APPLYING FOR CITIZENSHIP. In 2006, Romney said that some illegal immigrants in the U.S. “should begin a process towards application for citizenship.” “Gov. Mitt Romney expressed support…for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship…Romney said illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship. ‘…those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.’” (Evan Lehman, “Romney Supports Immigration Program, But Not Granting ‘Amnesty,’” The Lowell Sun, 3/30/06)
ALLOWED SANCTUARY CITIES. As Governor, Romney allowed three sanctuary cities to operate in Massachusetts: Cambridge, Orleans, and Brewster. (Yvonne Abraham, “City’s Sanctuary Status Mocked,” Boston Globe, 7/5/06; Lisa M. Seghetti et.al., “Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement,” Congressional Research Service, RL32270, 11/14/06; Town Resolution, accessed 10/1/07)
Folks the serious problem lies not in the fact that Mitt has changed his positions on immigration, but he denies his record exists. You Decide. We need some truth in Gov’t.
SUPPORT FRED THOMPSON!!

Posted by: bgbest | January 7, 2008, 11:56 am 11:56 am

Romney is a dangerous schemer. I have no doubt he is responsible.

Posted by: Ben | January 7, 2008, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm

It’s obvious why, if the Republicans are given any attention by the established media, said attention goes to Huckabee or McCain. Because either would be easier to bring down before November.
Romney, at present, appears to be the most electable of the GOP candidates. He has executive experience, is a fabulous communicator, and has great stage presence. Therefore, you may expect the media to either ignore him, put him in a bad light, or promote his opponents.
IGNORE THE MEDIA!

Posted by: taxnag | January 7, 2008, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm

I agree that the Faux debate put on Sunday was so clearly set to favor Romney it was laughable – no where near the quality or credibiltiy of Saturday’s debate. Fox even used “Political Analysts” associated with the Romney campaign to weigh in afterward. Romney reaks corruption and has flipped, flopped and blatantly lied throughout the campaign. Wake up people!

Posted by: KIKI82 | January 7, 2008, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm

Concordcan,
Incredible. You pretend that only Republicans do this stuff when we have heard how people from the Clinton campaign have called Obama a muslim and a drug dealer.
Both sides have lying hacks that try to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public. You are one of them obviously

Posted by: bno | January 7, 2008, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm

This is an old play from the Karl Rove book of low life tricks to get the neo-cons elected at any cost. Ya’ll WAKE up Rove has done this before, and if we don’t do something about this sort of thing SOON, it’s ALL we’re going to get. Lying liars, and the lies they tell…
Faux ONLY shows those they promote in a favorable light – ALL others are shown as negative as possible (or screamed at to shut up like O’Reilly does) – WHY does ANYONE watch that station anyway?
If everyone stopped watching it, or better yet, boycott it’s advertisers they would have to upgrade or shut down. YOU have the power people,
DO SOMETHING…

Posted by: Sickofitall | January 7, 2008, 8:01 pm 8:01 pm

More GOP dirty tricks,no big surprise. The family values party is more like Mafia family values. Win at all costs no matter what,that’s their creed. Lies and greed is what the GOP does best.

Posted by: AJ | January 8, 2008, 5:45 am 5:45 am

Amost all Republicans and Democrats politician make a habit of lying, cheating, and generally defrauding the American Public. Nothing is going to change that, because they’ll never pass a law that is unpleasant for the public that they, themselves, have to obey.

Posted by: Kaelinda | January 8, 2008, 6:46 am 6:46 am

What amazes me is the mass of unintelligent people who vote for these clowns. Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side that is fit to be our President, the others are too busy slinging mud at each other.

Posted by: Truth | January 8, 2008, 7:28 am 7:28 am

Opposed the 2001-2003 Bush tax cuts — talked liberal speak and said it was for the rich.
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing Authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
The Gang of 14- “prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.”
He wants to join the international criminal court so that foreigners can try our soldiers and people as war criminals.
He’s for embryonic stem cell research which makes babies just another commodity.
John McCain’s political platform is to take all the credit for the surge and success in Iraq when in reality he is not the reason for the surge or success. He has even gone so far as to call it the “McCain Surge”. He supported the surge, but the surge was NOT his idea. Where’s the straight talk?
Maverick? He’s called the Maverick because anytime the liberal media outlets need a republican to criticise or undermine the republican party they go to John McCain.
Who does more harm to the flock? The wolf that is clearly visible on the outside or the wolf covered in sheep’s skin among the flock? McCain has done more to harm Reagan conservatism than any other republican in the last decade or so.
Why must he have to convince conservatives? Because he is not one…

Posted by: ManfromAZ | January 25, 2008, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.