Talk:Mitt Romney 2008 presidential campaign

Criticism Section
I am not and have never been a big fan of criticism sections. I would like to integrate the section into the article. I understand there has been discussion of this above but I think it can be done in a very npov way, as some of the "criticism" isn't really criticism. What do other people think? Turtlescrubber 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me if you can find an eloquent way of doing it. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that some (or all) of it doesn't belong in the Campaign development section because it isn't pertinent to the development of his campaign. Specifically the Marriott board section...I don't think that belongs in the article at all. Joseph Antley 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Marriott has also been criticized in the past for allowing alcohol in hotels even though he himself doesn't drink. His reply was that if a hotel wants to stay in business, it needs to sell drinks. (Apparently, drinks are high markup... I'm assuming that porn is even more cost beneficial, and therefore crucial to a competitive edge.) Rawkcuf 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

Linear Regressions should not be used
This makes much more sense

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070817bi.gif myclob 14:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions
To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions, I've added links to sites that summarize polling data in a similar manner, but use different methods for plotting averages. I will keep maintaining the charts on this site, since it includes more data than the images in the attached links. Thoughts, questions, suggestions, etc. are welcome. This example is from the Republican California primary section, but similar links appear on this page.  --Robapalooza 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"criticisms for events not taking place while he was campaining"

 * I restored some sections that were recently deleted. The deletion edit summary said that they were deleted as "criticisms for events not taking place while he was campaining."  Things that a candidate did before they began campaigning that receive significant media coverage as controversies during the campaign should be included in a campaign article (e.g. Bill Clinton's marijuana use, John Kerry's service in Vietnam).  In any case, the criticism of Romney for using state troopers as security while campaigning for president is obviously a criticism of events taking place while he was compaigning.  -Fagles 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "allegations of animal abuse" since I don't think it got enough media attention to deserve inclusion. As for the part about travel costs, it probably should be re-written to mention that (according to the Globe article) that Romney pays for his political travel, and its common practice for state police to escort governors on out-of-state trips.   New England  Review Me!/ Go Red Sox! 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Campaign Advisors
I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Rawkcuf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkcuf (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater Removal
I realize I am new here, but WP:BLP would seem to indicate that the Blackwater section merits removal. There are no secondary sources cited to indicate that there is a "controversy" here, and BLP specifically warns against "claims that rely on guilt by association". Unless a third party citation can be found which notes this controversy, it should stay removed.

I have also removed the hunting section on similar grounds. DJ Creamity Oh Yeah! 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about the campaign. I would agree with you if you were referring to the biography, but this is different. The mention of Cofer Black's qualifications as advisor to the campaign do not in any way conflict with WP:BLP. I believe there is need for this issue to be discussed, a consensus to be reached before a decision should be made. In order to facilitate that discussion, I would appreciate your not erasing my comments. I recognise your right to your opinion, but until a consensus has been reached, I would recommend you not rush to erase my comments on this discussion page. I'm not certain what the problem is regarding 'guilt by association', but for people who look to a candidate who is hard on terror, you will find one in Romney since his choice of staff speaks volumes. It is neither positive or negative it is simply a fact. 222.2.98.43 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Rawkcuf.
 * Unless you've contributed under a different IP/username, this appears to be the first time that you've made a comment on this discussion page. As far as BLP is concerned, non-biography articles that are about people still have to comply with BLP. It could be argued that the issue is against the campaign itself and not Romney, but anyway you look at it, just because Blackwater is "bad" and its VP is on Romney's campaign staff, does not mean that complaints about Blackwater can be included on this page and to use those complaints against Blackwater as evidence that there is a controversy about the Romney campaign, that would be against WP:SYN. You actually need to find reliable sources that document complaints about the VP being on Romney's campaign staff. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have contributed to this very talk page on five different occasions. All comments have been erased in a couple of days (as is evidenced in your own surprise.) The request to not erase my comments was directed at the anonymous eraser. Bobblehead, since Romney cited Black by name in the debates, and since Black is a major advisor to the campaign, it is only natural that mention be madein an article on the campaign. Romney's major campaign theme, as can be seen in the top banner of his official website: http://www.mittromney.com/HomePage is 'true strength for America's future'. He has spoken out about the effectiveness of intensive interrogation, and the doubling of Gitmo (all sitings can be found in the article) With Romneys stated admission that he is deferring decisions on security matters to the well qualified Black, we are left to assume that Romney's stated policy is based directly on the advice of his advisor, Black. For an article on the campaign to be written, the original author of campaign policy issues (especially when mentioned by name on nationwide primetime) becomes a prominent figure to the campaign. Whether or not complaints have been raised about certain staff members should be basis for inclusion in the article warrants little weight. (Would complaints about any other issue affect its mention in the article?) How prominently they feature in the campaign would. If complaints are necessary for Bobblehead, I submit: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/23/leading_gop_candidate_romney_taps_blackwaters  This complaint is registered by the worlds foremost authority on Blackwater, Jeremy Scahill.222.2.98.43 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Rawkcuf.

RfC at main article
FYI, there is a Request for Comments occurring right now at the main Mitt Romney article, for anyone who may be interested. The subject is Romney's four polygamous great-grandparents.Ferrylodge 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sixth Grader Work
The entry under the "McCain's Response to Romney" section needs some desperate TLC.

READ:

In addition to Romney's hunting statements, McCain's reply also referenced reports that a landscaping company Romney had hired illegal Guatemalan immigrants to do the work. It is important to note, that Romney said he didn't ask them what their legal status was for fear of a lawsuit. He said that you don't just go up and ask things like that. He said it while at the Sept. 5th Republican debate. At the second debate, in South Carolina, McCain said he hadn't changed his views "because of the different offices that I may be running for."

I can even imagine a fifth grader writing something better, but I will leave it to you guys to decide.

RRM MBA (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
Okay, so.. there's been a rather lengthy discussion on User talk:Qworty about the changing of the "Religious beliefs" section to include the idea that Romney's beliefs have changed. The sources added by Qworty don't actually say that his beliefs changed, only that his opinion on governmental involvement has changed. This issue sort of dips into a question of WP:OR and WP:SYN, and I believe that this article should not get involved in this. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t · c ] 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it's impossible to tell (short of mind-reading) what a person's beliefs are, as opposed to that person's statements and actions, I suggest we just remove the religious beliefs section from this article, since none of us has psychic abilities. There isn't a single source that can prove what Romney's religious beliefs are.  All we have are Romney's political statements about his beliefs, and those statements shift back and forth depending on what month it is, what state he's in, and what his current position is in the polls.  (Fourth place, as of yesterday). Qworty (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

YouTube Debate
I find this section definitely riddled with NPOV issues...The word 'flip flopped' NEVER ABSOLUTELY NEVER belongs in an encyclopedia. Very negative connotation there. Also, the rest of the section is merely a quote, and a statement that there was a question from a snowman. There wasn't much notable stuff that happened at the debate itself, so I propose getting rid of the entire section, unless some thorough, NPOV analysis is done on the debate itself, and it shys away from the word Flip Flopped. Mientkiewicz5508 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate was significant in that McCain demolished Romney on the issue of waterboarding and Huckabee did well enough to overtake Romney in polls in Iowa and nationwide. This debate marked the rise of Huckabee and the beginning of Romney's slide in the polls.  Therefore, the debate is notable and belongs in the article, and all of these facts should go into that section.  If current trends continue, it may turn out that this was the beginning of the end for Romney, the turning point that sealed his fate. Qworty (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, while I find your insinuations ridiculous (and beside the point) the fact is that these 'facts' you speak of aren't referenced or included in the article, and would fall under the category of 'original research'. There's no definitive way to show/prove that Romney "got demolished" or that Huckabee's rise in Iowa polls was due to this debate. Right now the section is incredibly irrelevant, and will remain so unless someone can definitively prove either of those points and insert them into the article. Mientkiewicz5508 (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not "insinuating" anything. I'm describing the importance of this debate explicitly and straight-up.  And yes, there are reliable sources out there--lots of them--to support the facts.  Qworty (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, then if you are so certain the sources are out there (and are unbias, reliable sources) incorporate those 'facts' and their respective sources into that section. I'm just saying as it stands right now the section is irrelevant and lacking a NPOV. Mientkiewicz5508 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

George W. Romney's march with Martin Luther King, Jr.
I heard this morning that Mitt's dad marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. during the civil rights era. Should this be added? I also have heard that Mitt cried upon learning that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints had decied to admit black people to membership. Shouldn't this go in too? CApitol3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Romney did say he "saw his father march with Martin Luther King in a civil rights protest" and then later when reports surfaced that George Romney had never been involved in any civil rights march nor did he match with Martin Luther King, Jr. Mitt said he saw them in a figurative sense and said when he said "saw" he didn't mean with his own eyes. It definitely should be included because it has been a big campaign development. There is plenty of information out on Fox News.com and MSNBC.coma and CNNPolitics.com to source the whole thing. As for the crying when Blacks were allowed into the Mormon church, you would definitely need to have a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards AND it should probably go on his main Biography page, not this Presidential election campaign page. Rtr10 (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The George Romney MLK thing has conflicting reports at this point. See
 * The Politico
 * Romney campaign
 * The Phoenix
 * Washington Post
 * And the current article does cover this question, see the 'Republican primary campaign events' section. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

opposition?
i feel as if there has been sufficient opposition to romney to warrant an opposition section on his page. see Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign%2C_2008 and John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008. for a starting example, see http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/concord-monitor-not-romney/ and http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/08/opposition_to_r.html and also his continued employment of illegal immigrants to do his yardwork (this is only mentioned in the article in a john mccain quote). i am actually very surprised that this hasn't come up anywhere, since it impacts his campaign. DrIdiot (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't have any standard for how these campaign articles are structured; there are several variants currently being used across the 15 different articles for 2008. I know 'Opposition' sections are used in several of the articles, but to me they are kind of silly — of course political candidates have opposition, that's the whole point!  Something like the employment of illegals for his yardwork belongs in the chronological narrative of his campaign.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know how such a section would have any more consequence than Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign%2C_2008. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As User:Wasted Time R mentioned, all political campaigns have opposition. It wouldn't be politics with out it. I do not personally think an "Opposition" section is warranted, I do how ever find it quite strange there is no Criticism/Controversy section in this article, because that definitely is warranted in my opinion. Especially in one of the most negative campaigns in this election that has been met with much criticism and controversy. Public opposition through public criticism would naturally fit into such a section and I believed we should look further into that. Rtr10 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stating "most negative campaigns in this election" is a clear indicator of a strong POV. Please try to keep editing and content NPOV. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thebuckstopwithbuck same as The Buck Stops With Buck Buckaroo?
If so, he should wait for a neutral third party to link his highly sought endorsement, lol. Justmeherenow] ([[User talk:Justmeherenow|talk) 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Or should we mention Romney's Daily Kos "endorsement"? Justmeherenow (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Kos's Mitt for Michigan/Democrats for Mitt campaign is not an endorsement of Mitt Romney, but is rather an attempt to have Democratic voters f'up the Michigan Republican primary and keep the race a three person race.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising- 65 million raised?
There is no source used for the $65 million raised and that it is the most raised by any Republican ever. 4th Quarter Fundraising statistics have yet to be released, so I don't even know where this information would be sourced from. The figures seem a little odd to me and unless they are sourced soon, they should be deleted. As of September of 2007, Romney had only raised $44 million. I am adding "citation needed" tags to both of the statements. Rtr10 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Religion Section, also, I do not beat my wife
Or have one for that matter.

The way the religion section opens up is pretty ridiculous. Romney is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly referred to as the Mormon church). The practice of polygamy has been officially forbidden by the LDS church since 1890,[85] and Romney personally described it as "bizarre".[86]

This is a very non-sequitor opening. I'm not a fan of mormonism, but I'm pretty sure if you asked a mormon what they were about "we don't have multiple wives" would not be the first thing out of their mouths. Unless you asked "Hey, aren't you a mormon, those poeple who have multiple wives?" It just seems like a very aggressive description of Romney's religion.

I've never been more tempted to post anonymous grafiti on wiki. I wanted to change the quote of Romney from "Romney personally described [polygamny] as 'bizarre' but 'awesome'"

Liquid entropy (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This introduction on Romney's stance on faith is not a commentary on the LDS faith and its controversies. If there are objections to the LDS faith because of policies over 100 years ago, these things should be discussed on the LDS pages, not the Romney presidential campaign page. Inappropriate sections were removed. DavidBailey (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Current summary of political positions is hardly NPOV
I'm very concerned that the current summary of political positions on this page is showing only the most controversial positions and statements of Mitt Romney, and is missing many of his other positions. To give a NPOV and even-handed treatment, I recommend we adopt the method used in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 where we don't include any summary, but just point to the main article. If there are topics that need to be addressed there, they should be addressed in that article. DavidBailey (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I hate doing summary sections of Political positions articles, because any nuance or balance or development a given view gets reduced to short and often imprecise political spectrum labels or clichés. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

McCain and Romney squabbles appropriate for article? Where?
This text has been moved from the main article. Is it even appropriate for this article? If so, what kind of section should it be in? It probably needs rewording to be more factual and less argumentative.


 * In February 2007, Romney's advisor Gary Marx sent an email to 100 influential social conservatives questioning John McCain's pro-life record (McCain has been consistently pro-life on abortion, while supporting stem-cell research) since 2000. Commentators criticized the Romney campaign for portraying McCain as not having had a pro-life record when Romney ran on a pro-choice platform when he ran for Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 and when he ran for  Governor of Massachusetts in 2002.


 * After Romney criticized McCain for his stance on immigration, McCain said, "In the case of Governor Romney, you know, maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because it’s changed in less than a year from his position before. And maybe his solution will be to get out his small-varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn."  In addition to Romney's hunting statements, McCain's reply also referenced reports that a landscaping company Romney had once hired had employed illegal Guatemalan immigrants to do the work. At the September 5th Republican debate, Romney said that he didn't ask them what their legal status was for fear of a lawsuit, nor did he find those types of questions to be appropriate. At the second debate, in South Carolina, McCain said he hadn't changed his views "because of the different offices that I may be running for."

My take is that back-and-forth between campaigns is probably not important enough to be placed in the main article, but I'm open to suggestions. DavidBailey (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Campaign Suspended
Just received word that CNN is reporting that Romney has "suspended" his campaign. That is curious wording. I haven't found anything in print yet and am unable to watch TV right now to verify. Mike R (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now there is a short article at CNN.com here. "A candidate may "suspend" his or her campaign rather than dropping out…In this case, he or she is entitled to keep any…delegates…. Candidates who officially drop out must forfeit statewide delegates." Mike R (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, John Edwards did the same thing. --Kvaks (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on the party as far as what "suspended" means. For both parties if a person drops out of the campaign, they lose all of their state-level delegates and the delegates are free to choose someone else. If a Republican suspends their campaign the state-level delegates are not automatically released, it is up to each state party to determine if the person retains the delegates or if they go to someone else. If a Democrat suspends their campaign, then they keep all of their delegates. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been an on the fence voter,today Mr Romney helped me. Al Gore congratulating him for global warming stance. I can now cross Mr Romney off my list of contenders. thank you jim walsh 55438 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.101.141 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090720060925/http://projects.washingtonpost.com:80/2008-presidential-candidates/endorsements/candidates/mitt-romney/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/endorsements/candidates/mitt-romney/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070906212235/http://www.spartaninternet.com:80/2008/byCandidate.asp?tab=3 to http://www.spartaninternet.com/2008/bycandidate.asp?tab=3&id=14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3777300.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-02-06-2354800962_x.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealthpac.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/FEC_press_release
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Ask_Mitt_Anything
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tiptonconservative.com/article.php?viewID=746
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/NEWS08/70816023/-1/news08
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/mitt-catches-heat-ads-article-1.237640
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208015944/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/12/06/499942.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/06/499942.aspx
 * Added tag to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=indBV102NuQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070816%2FNEWS08%2F70816023%2F-1%2Fnews08
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927033209/http://www.messengernews.net/News/articles.asp?articleID=11710 to http://www.messengernews.net/News/articles.asp?articleID=11710
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215042925/https://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Granger_Endorsement to http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Granger_Endorsement
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mittromney.com/homepage

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)