The AP says the site was created by an independent author named donehue and was disavowed by Romney's campaign.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gr0Xwu5yNACaKvIjgYE37-EJV3RA

Sure, they "disavowed" it AFTER it was traced to them.

Oh, yeah - it wasn't the adviser who did it, it was his PARTNER. Can you say, "plausible deniability" three times real fast?

Sorry, I do not believe in coincidence.

I dont get your logic Jim. The site was up for less than a day. Nobody knew about, not Fred, not the Romney Campaign. How could they disavow something nobody knew about?

The site was taken down after a Washington Post reporter called the Romney campaign to ask about it. Another remarkable coincidence . . .

. . . IF you believe in that sort of thing.

So, the Romney campaign should be absolved because they were found out quickly?

If it walks like a horse and talks like a horse... this is obviously a rookie mistake by an overzealous Romney staffer, and it will hurt Romney among Republicans more than the public.

So, we now have three real contenders for the Republican crown - Thompson, Giuliani and if Iraq news keeps improving (or getting a more positive spin - same thing in Washington, really), then throw McCain back into the mix.

Michael Hale ~ I expect you're right, it wasn't part of any grand strategy or planned at the senior staff level.

BUT the Romney campaign continues to deny ANY involvement, which means the story lives on until it ALL comes out because it just doesn't pass the laugh test. If they had hung it on the "overzealous young staffer" from the start it would likely be over now.

How does setting up straw men to knock down make for a coincidence?

There are no coincidences here.

Someone who doesn't like Fred Thompson started an Anti-Thompson site. That person did so on a server that belonged to a staffer on the Romney Compaign.

As soon as Romney found out about it he had some choices. Allow the person to continue as this is America and they are free to do so. Or, take action and stop the person from being an imbecile (Too late for that!).

The real story here is the lame response by the Thompson campaign. Instead of taking the high road, they decide to smear Romney who obviously had no part in any of this.

What a jerk Fred Thompson is turning out to be. He was my runner up candidate after Romney but he's just been making big mistake after big mistake.

I hope he changes his tune soon or gets out of the race. He just doesn't appear ready for the big leagues quite yet.

Oh, and the answer to your silly question:

Romney aides behind anti-Thompson site?

is an obvious, no.

So, we now have three real contenders for the Republican crown - Thompson, Giuliani and if Iraq news keeps improving (or getting a more positive spin - same thing in Washington, really), then throw McCain back into the mix.

Michael, McCain is out of it. Ive been involved in Republican politics since 2000 and knew many McCain supports then. I know all the same folks now and no McCain supporters. He's toast.

Thompson is looking bad every time he turns around. He says he wants Bin Ladin to have due process? What a joke.

That leaves Rudy and Romney.

Rudy is an obvious liberal on social issues.

So that leaves whether Romney can convince Republicans he's a true conservative or a faux conservative.

Hopefully he'll convince Republicans he's a real conservative before Hillary beats him in the general.

Sorry, Baggi, it makes no sense. You follow the same complete denial the campaign is making, and it simply makes no sense.

The questions must be answered:

1. WHO is the mysterious creator of the site?
2. They didn't just "place" it on the consultant's server. They either had permission to do so, or they didn't. Which is it?
3. If they did not have permission, shouldn't the consultant be seeking their prosecution?
4. If they DID have permission, from whom? And how much did they know about what was being hosted?

Again, the denial reeks. It sounds like a low-level person did it, probably thinking it was funny, but to claim it was totally unconnected just doesn't sell without full disclosure.

So, fully disclose or cover up? Those are the choices.

No need to be sorry. I'll help you understand.

If Paul Mirengorf is working for Romney and John Hinderocker posts bad things about Fred Thompson on Powerline, is Romney responsible because Paul and John share a website server? Of course not, and that is what happened in this case.

The Web site, PhoneyFred.org, was created by Wesley Donehue, a business associate of Warren Tompkins, a South Carolina political operative on the Romney payroll and the candidate's top adviser in the early voting state.

What is this, seven degrees of seperation?

So we know who the "mysterious" creator of the site is and it isn't that mysterious as we've known all along.

We know that they did not have permission to do so by the Romney camp because, "The site was created without the knowledge of Tompkins..." which is entirely feasible considering they are business partners and own the site together.

As to #3, Tompkins cannot seek prosecution of his business partner because they both own the site. Just like Paul Mirengoff wouldn't be able to sue John Hinderocker if John posted negative things about Thompson and Paul was working for the Romney compaign.

And of course 4 should now be obvious.

Sure, one could believe that this was all a big setup by the Romney folks. First they find a supporter like Tompkins who has a business associate not directly tied to the compaign, like Donehue and then set up the negative Fred site. And of course this would be really stupid and out of character for the Romney campaign. The site was shut down immediately, as soon as Romney was made aware of it.

Certainly even Romney haters would admit Romney is a smart guy. Only an idiot would pull something like this.

Romney's campaign put more distance:

Madden said that the site was created by an employee at an Internet firm who placed it temporarily on a server of the Tompkins firm.

"an employee at an Internet firm" . . .

Now, the difference between your example of the Power Line guys is that neither of them is employed by a campaign. Tompkins is a major consultant for Romney.

A more apt analogy is when Hillary was found with records in her library that had been under subpoena for two years. Some explanation is owed for the proximity. Hers was to answer grand jury questions with "I don't recall" some 147 times. But of course she wasn't so concerned about her credibility at the time as with staying out of legal jeopardy . . .

If the campaign wishes to stick with this story, fine. Watch as the other candidates come out one by one to shake their heads and say how sad it is some people won't follow Reagan's commandment.

A "smart guy" should know the best way to deal with political messes is to get out in front of them - especially on ticky-tack stuff like this. Drawing it out only makes it a bigger issue. But go ahead and play the Bill Clinton denial strategy, and see how it works out in the Republican primaries. Maybe it will work.

Pretty interesting dialogue.
All I know is Romney's sucking hind tit (polls schmolls) and might be desperate enough to pull something that keeps him out of 5th place in Iowa.
Mitt held an open call for "netroots" video content on his website to generate buzz, but that has since been pulled/abandoned. And his 5 trust fund kids can't manage a daily post between them. And they're officially On The Campaign with their own group blog!

Anyway, I don't think the Fred campaign would dare use "PhoneyFred.org", even in a false flag way. Collateral reinforcement through the subconscious voter mind of an established meme that Fred wishes to slough off.

"ManiacFred.org" WOULD be suspect since "maniac" oozes unlaziness.

Now, the difference between your example of the Power Line guys is that neither of them is employed by a campaign. Tompkins is a major consultant for Romney.

Originally I thought you sincerely weren't aware of the details and so you were making an honest mistake with this story.

But now that ive made you aware you still find fault with Romney.

Tompkin didn't do it, it was his partner. So your supposed "difference" is silly.

You are in effect saying that if Paul was working for Romney and John posted something bad, then Paul and Romney would be responsible.

Or, you're saying if Kevin at Wizbang was working for Romney and you started trashing Thompson, Romney and Kevin would be behind it.

You see how silly that is?

I'm sure you do. But I suppose if your candidate isn't Romney you will pretend you do not.

The facts are clear. Tompkin works for Romney, Donehue does not. Tompkin didn't set up the website and bash Thompson, Donehue did. Because Tompkin co-owns the servers the website was put up on, Romney had the power through Tompkin to shut it down.

Good for Romney.

If the campaign wishes to stick with this story, fine. Watch as the other candidates come out one by one to shake their heads and say how sad it is some people won't follow Reagan's commandment.

Will they give the compassionate head tilt also?

Seriously though, Thompson is the one who broke the 11th commandment here. Kevin isn't responsible or behind what Jim writes here at Wizbang Politics. But if someone starts calling Kevin names like the Thompson camp did over this for something someone else did, well, that's a clear 11th commandment violation.

Go get'em Jim. Shake your head in their general direction!

Thompson for CEO and figurehead, Romney for COO and Veep, Giuliani for AG, and McCain for co-sponsor with Kerry at bridge naming.
==========================================

This of course is NOT a hypothetical situation, it's a very real one.

AGAIN: if Romney wants to duck and cover, that's his choice. It doesn't answer the questions, and he has no right to complain. Thompson can beat him about the head and shoulders until he comes clean, because Thompson is the guy who was attacked.

When Dave Barry used to "cover" primary campaigns, one feature of his columns on candidates was his estimation of the "percentage of supporters who appear to be weenies."

In Romney's case, it appears close to all of 'em.