Uh oh: Reports of anti-Romney, anti-Mormon push polling in Iowa; Update: 527 org responsible?
posted at 10:11 pm on November 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In an apparent push poll, a research firm has called Iowa Republicans this week praising John McCain and critcizing Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith…
[T]here were “lots of negatives on Romney,” said the recepient of the call in an e-mail, including mentions of his “flip-flops,” hiring illegal immigrants as landscapers and extensive discussion of Mormonism.
“Statements were on baptizing the dead, the Book of Mormon being on the level of the Bible, and one about equating it to a cult,” said the Iowan, deeming them “common criticisms of Mormonism.”
“I think they asked twice if being a Mormon would be an issue,” this person added.
McCain’s camp “emphatically” denies responsibility. Not only that, but:
Another McCain source … said tonight that the calls had been traced back to a number linked to the Tarrance Group — Rudy Giuliani’s pollster.
Giuliani’s spokewoman and a pollster at Tarrance categorically deny that he’s responsible. Romney’s communications director calls the unknown guilty party “repulsive” and “un-American.” Politico links to an AP story, meanwhile, noting similar calls in New Hampshire and connecting them to a firm that worked with Tarrance in 2006.
Exit question: Whodunnit?
Update: McCain’s famously strapped for cash. Would he really be dumping money into stuff like this when he could be putting it to better uses?
Update: An update at Politico quotes the Tarrance pollster as wondering if the poll might have been commissioned by a 527 organization. If so, did they do so at a candidate’s behest, to provide plausible deniability?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Was that a quote from The Real Lincoln?
Texas Nick 77 on November 16, 2007 at 9:39 AM
I caution painting Evangelicals with too wide a brush on this. What this really illustrates is how much Evangelicals distrust Giuliani.
Do not fault Evangelical for what Giuliani is doing to alienate them. Just as Huck is working to alienate conservatives with his nanny-state-like platform.
Neither Giuliani or Huck are true conservatives in the normal sense. And this makes both of them vulnerable running against Hillary.
As for now, Giuliani is the MSM’s favorite GOPer, and why would the MSM place so much credence on Giuliani while also talking up Hillary at every turn? One possibility is because the liberal media elites understand that Hillary really has a strong chance of beating Giuliani and they are afraid the GOP might nominate a different candidate who could more easily beat Hillary.
Lawrence on November 16, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Yes. Start a thread about atheism or Mormonism and it’s hard to tell the difference.csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 9:27 AM
What is really scary is when you and I agree on something.
Lawrence on November 16, 2007 at 9:41 AM
What is really scary is when you and I agree on something.
Lawrence on November 16, 2007 at 9:41 AM
A futile attempt in getting the comments back on the thread.
Texas Nick 77 on November 16, 2007 at 9:45 AM
I disagree with you and R2B on Mitt or a support group being involved. We all knew this was inevitable so there is no reason for anyone on Mitt’s side to put this out there. It was gonna happen eventually (it already had, the radio show that videoed Mitt’s interview).
1) This STILL damages Mitt. Suggesting that Mitt baptizes dead people is not a bell that can be un-rung.
2) McCain’s mom just made an ill-advised remark about Mormons. Using his name in this poll makes it look like he really does think the way his mom does.
3) Huck, not Fred, will garner most of Mitt’s people who jump ship over this.
4) Huck has no chance to win the nomination, but Mitt does and so does Rudy. But Rudy needs Mitt to fail in the first two states.
With all the money Mitt has spent in the early states, a win by Huck would be devastating to his chances in the next states. That leaves Rudy to keep up by losing Iowa to Huck, NH to McCain, and SC to Fred. Rudy wins Fl and the other big states and he is back in the “best candidate to beat Hillary” catbird seat. If Mitt were to win Iowa, NH, Michigan, and place well in SC, the momentum will launch him into the “best candidate to beat Hillary” catbird seat.
Lastly, as we speak Mitt has the lead, the organization, and the politics to beat out Rudy. He has no reason to take such a risk in order to paint McCain as a gibot. Mitt isn’t the desperate candidate. Others are.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 9:46 AM
I can be right sometimes. ;-)
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Finally worked my way through all the diatribes in this thread. WHEW!
Yep, a liberal doing this would be in character.
Texas Nick 77 on November 16, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Imagine that, look what I found…want more (sorry I attacked Mitt for being a flip-flopper…how is he on gun control, abortion…this week)?
Just one of several, I don’t think we need to go further…(although I did attack you pretty severe for your constant bleeting of derogatory comments, it was tough love, but you got the message and stopped)
I agree, but Mitt supporters will milk this for all it’s worth. The victim and bigot card are the most powerful cards you can play. With them you can stop any argument, or investigation into someones personal life. It is used as a shield by “victims”, it stops any argument. Like this…”I have a question of where Mitt receives his money, most of his corporate sponsers seem to be Mormon”…stop, you are a bigot, you cannot look at his personal life because it is so intertwined with his religion. Or, why did he get to go to France during the VietNam war, stop, he was on a mission you cannot….or why was Bechtel given $294,000,000 in incentives, for almost $2 billion in overruns on the big dig, is it because they are Mormon and and heavy contributor to Mitt…Stop you bigot, you can’t use that word…Is Rudy chummy with the mafia (he is Italian), yeah you might have something there…you know it puts a shield around a very important parts of his life.
Cards are played to stop the debate…
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Perhaps talking about his religion would make a difference–cannot say that it wouldn’t but some of the anti-Mormon blather out there sounds as if it’s coming from people who know up front that they are not going to change their minds and are going to push this thing as far as the public will let them. It did not seem to make a difference in MA though and no one seems to be pushing this aspect. Also, if he did become President, the merest whiff of impropriety in this direction would come crashing around his shoulders. Personally, I think it’s safe to dismiss the religion angle.
jeanie on November 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Woh! Gotta go buy a lottery ticket! CSD and I agreed again!
Texas Nick 77 on November 16, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Great things come in twos. A couple days ago, I got a fortune cookie that had two fortunes in it. On the back are lucky numbers. I never play Power ball, but I certainly will this week. :-)
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 10:11 AM
not2brite,
I’m just stopping by briefly to prove you wrong once again! In order for me to “slander” you (or more correctly “libel” you) I would have to make a false statement about you.
Find the false statement.
It’s even harder to prove now since your claim that your rant (which was indeed foul-mouthed) had an effect on me is demonstrably false and doesn’t make you look like the sharpest tool in the box.
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 10:18 AM
In the primaries I would vote for Romney over Giuliani, Huck and McCain, despite his religion.
But I will vote for Duncan Hunter over all of them.
… hey, I can always hope.
Lawrence on November 16, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Let me see, I proved that you made disparaging remarks, when you said you didn’t…and you ignored that.
Let me guess…I take my time to post where you lied about me, and you ignore that also…
Move on, let it go,I just proved you lied. I don’t need to do any more than this.
Imagine that, look what I found…want more (sorry I attacked Mitt for being a flip-flopper…how is he on gun control, abortion…this week)?
There is your lie, I don’t need to waste my time, you have done it for me. Game, set, match…
Now please, this is boring people…don’t be a “girlie-man”.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 10:37 AM
The Baptists will endorse a Mormon.
Wait. No they won’t.
gabriel sutherland on November 16, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Let’s check off the obvious:
Rudy…too early and Iowa is not on his radar, plus he can handle Mitt (or he thinks so) in a debate
Fred…doesn’t have the organization to pull this off, too early for him to get desperate
McCain….Cash strapped (although his mother could be making the calls)
Hunter…Not enough money, doesn’t seem to be his strategy
Huck…He is making a surge, why stop the momentum
Paul…He has not come back from Mars yet, but his people are capable of anything..but this takes some brains..its a no
Tancredo…only if Mormons are illegal immigrants
Mitt…come on, even I who think he is a weak knows that he wouldn’t do something stupid…weak? yes, stupid? no.
Wacko Christian conservative group…likely
Any far-left group…likely to probably, this smack of their way. And they don’t understand religion, attack one and others will defend…they just don’t understand faith.
Any dem candidate…unlikely to probably, but the most obvious is some splinter of Hillary campaign.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Why is it taking so long to figure out who is responsible for the calls?
Romney ‘08!
davenp35 on November 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Almost a perfect post.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Oh man. The only reason I keep coming back to this is because it is so comical. Let me try to parse this:
You did miss the point of Blather’s post, which had to do with inflammatory rhetoric, rather than the tiniest perceived disagreement with you, csdeven, or Mormonism. His point was not to compare Mormonism, it was to say that to call people bigots for spirited debate, and not for, you know, actual bigotry, is kind of dumb. Yeah – what you didn’t say was anything that had to do with what he actually said.
But, how is my pointing out this lacuna in your interpretation an insult?
Is it my prerogative, or my freedom, to address a point that I think is incorrect? Obviously you hold that out for you, csdeven, others who agree with you…but me, not so much. I’m just an insulting jerk, I guess.
I don’t remember anywhere on this thread where anyone said that religion should be a litmus test for the presidency. Could you point it out to me?
I actually agreed with you about Islam, here:
Further, any religion, faith system, or political system can be taken as an “Ideology.” So, I’m not really feeling your point here.
I did, in fact, take issue with the substance of your comment – but do we really need to rehash that again? Nah.
Actually, I believe I agreed with you on two occasions, rather than giving you a “poor grade.”
What’s the matter – can you not handle affirmation?
Alas, Buy Danish – We could have been friends.
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 11:05 AM
IF anti-Mormon calls turn out to have been made by a Mormon owned firm, by Mormon callers is it still BIGOTRY??!
Ex-tex on November 16, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Good luck mate. I’ll be playing when I return.
Texas Nick 77 on November 16, 2007 at 11:17 AM
1) There has been nothing said in this thread about anyone that can’t be forgiven.
2) I understand why you are focused on that part of his comment. BUT he did go on and put a finer point on what he was saying. And that finer point was a comparison to vile, violent, and insane religious fanatics.
3) If that is what he meant, he should have left it at that.
4) Lastly. It is ALWAYS a mistake to take up someone else’s argument. You see Blathers main point as one thing and others see the finer points he put on it as his ultimate position. It is glaringly obvious that he did not come back and try to settle it. Hmmmmmm. Perhaps he was being duplicitous and couldn’t figure a way to extricate himself? I’ve seen him do that in the past.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 11:25 AM
No. It’s worse than being a gibot.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 11:27 AM
A lot of people want Mitt to do a his own version of the Kennedy speech. If I were his adviser I would tell him not to as well. For one reason:
He’s running as a Republican. Kennedy had the media to spin the speech, to set the template for interpreting it. He was a Democrat — their man. Mitt on the other hand would at best have the media giving equal time to the most esoteric and most odd-to-the-majority doctrines they could find and ignore the core tenants of his faith that matter and that he shares in common with mainstream Christians. Surly Christian exclusivists (yes I made up that word) who would suddenly get a platform to peddle their wares. They’ll find every Pastor and Preacher with an anti-Mormon message to give the spotlight to.
If he was a Democrat I would tell him to go for it and give the speech. The media would help to make the post speech analysis fair and positive. But, this isn’t the 1960s and he isn’t a Democrat. He’s a Republican in the hyperpartisan politics of today.
jusstjones on November 16, 2007 at 11:29 AM
What people forget,is that Kennedy kept that “Catholic” stuff alive. He wanted the controversy, it helped him by not having to answers some tough policy questions, he knew that the vast great majority of voters could care less about him being Catholic (come on most every one knew or had friends that were Catholic). Kennedy was masterful, he kept a “non-issue” alive to make him look good. He always had an answer to his critics. And, as we have seen, the victim and bigot card is powerful..it shuts up critics, and everyone supports the one getting kicked. Mitt will do the same; it keeps people from looking at his disastrous abortion record (and flip-flop), gun control record (flip flop), corporate pay-outs to contributors, his tax and fees policies, his flip flop on being a conservative.
Oh no, I just dissed Mitt, hellllpppp I’mmmmm aaaaaa BIIIIIGGGGOOOOOTTTT.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 11:44 AM
No those statements weren’t bigoted, and if that’s all that you stick to fine. But, I do think it is unfair to make someone’s religion the basis of judging a candidacy, and often stems from bigotry or intolerance.
The only one I think I could safely call a bigot is:
But, I wonder do you disagree with my analysis of the differences between Kennedy’s position and Mitt’s?
jusstjones on November 16, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Absolutely, I would leak a little out to make sure I (Mitt) was thought of mainstream.
Big difference between Catholic and Mormon. And now, more than ever, there is a real disconnect between “journalists” and religion. Even if he were a Dem, if would be difficult because of the disdain the media has of religion. Keep it off the burner…but I don’t think the libs will. They know it is to their advantage to play that out. One of the reasons Mitt is a weak candidate. A shame, but that’s how politics is (are).
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I meant absolutely agree.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:17 PM
However, I do think we should throw in someones faith or lack of, when judging character. Everyone has a way of profiling people, selecting people to support or be their friends. And many, many things come into play. One of those is someones faith. And that could be; do they live by their faith? Do they hold your faith in disdain? Do they use their faith to further their ambitions? Do they use their faith to make it a better world? Does their faith guide them, or demand them to accept certain beliefs that you feel harmful, or wrongheaded, etc.
That is why the word bigot is such a farce. I would not vote for someone as a leader if they started a “Jim Jones” type religion, sorry, I scratch them off as acceptable leaders. Maybe they say the right things now, but what of them later?
So we take the obvious, and the subtle, and we mix it with a persons history (talking about a candidate), and with that, the history may be the overriding reason, or if you have to make a choice and all thing equal, maybe the religious affiliation would be the deciding factor (especially if they do not follow the tenets of their religion, and use it as a “voter leverage”)…after all you can’t flip them and call heads or tails.
Everyone pretends to be “logical”, but taking in all considerations is logical. Faith, the way they look, their leadership qualities (we don’t know them, so we use visuals), we still make 85% of all of our decisions on emotions…as we should. Not everything is a formula.
Nothing is less pragmatic, then a pragmatist.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:32 PM
No, as usual you are just plain wrong. I notice how YOU used the gibot word to deflect the factual vacuousness of your assertions. Mitt has answered every one of those accusations, and more people than not, accept them as valid explanations.
You refuse to because it doesn’t fit your desired reality. Mitt was the governor of a liberal state. He made campaign promises that he kept in spite of his personal views. Now he is in a forum where he can use his personal views without violating campaign promises. That is valid, rational, truthful, and cannot, by any stretch of reason, be considered a flip-flop.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Well it was worth it just to get csdeven not to call someone a bigot for dissing his boyfriend.
Mark this day down as a turning point for csdeven.
And then go over the the other thread, and look at the update link. It has many of his flips highlighted, and recorded.
Nice words though, you must be using a new thesaurus.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:54 PM
right2bright,
If you want to say that it was rude for me to call you “not2brite”, fine, you can do that. However, that is not slander, libel, or “dirty-mouthed”! The fact that you don’t know the difference makes you…well, never mind.
This is exhausting!
You began with this comment:
You singled out this paragraph:
First of all, why do you keep mentioning csdeven to me? My comment had nothing to do with his comments! He and I are two different people with different opinions and a different vantage point. I haven’t even been reading his comments (although I have read some of the Moonbat responses to them about vast Mormon conspiracies afoot).
This was the specific paragraph that I chose to respond to (emphasis mine):
I responded that it is fair to ask about Islam because it is an ideology, something which separates it from all of the above examples. If a candidate is a Muslim it can be legitimate to question their “religion” – precisely because it is more than a religion, it is an ideology, like Marxism. Certainly if someone is a Marxist it is fair to take that into account, and it is not “bigoted” to do so.
My ONE comment about Islam being an ideology was a direct and germane response to Professor Blather’s question, so you are way off base when you say that I “missed the point”. Did he ask a question or didn’t he? Did I answer it or not? There is only one right answer to those questions!
If you don’t agree with my response, or if you want to argue that all religions are ideologies, that is a totally different thing from saying that I missed his point.
As for what I “left out” I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. How can you tell me that I left something out? That is what I meant by my “ghost writer/blog nanny” comment.
You now say that no one “said” that religion as a litmus test, but it would be patently false to deny that people are doing that. Time and again people have said that they won’t vote for Mitt because he is a Mormon. Period. Just because they don’t use the phrase “litmus test” does not mean that they don’t have one.
Regarding the “insult” comment, you are the one who first went down that road. When I said you “insulted me” my point was merely that it was hypocritical for you to complain that I had “insulted” you since you had criticized my ability to comprehend Professor Blather’s post and stated that my comment was somehow incomplete, albeit in your estimation. It was not an “insult” per se, but it was “insulting” in a manner of speaking.
Finally, I do not wish to get into a marathon discussion with you at this time about your assertion that “any religion, faith system, or political system can be taken as an “ideology”. Suffice it to say that I believe Islam stands out in that regard because it is in direct conflict with our founding principles of liberty, equality and so forth (and there is a world wide effort by some forces to conquer us, and replace our system with Sharia Law, so it is not something to be taken lightly).
I would be willing to say that Atheism could be put in that category, because some, but not all, Atheists want to destroy the foundations and traditions this country was founded on and replace them with something more akin to Marxism. (Obviously Allahpundit, for instance, does not fit that description but if he were running for office it would be fair for voters to ask where he stands on certain issues). If a candidate was that sort of politically-correct avidly secularist Athiest then it would be fair and not “bigoted” to question that candidates intentions and perhaps decide not to vote for him based on that ideology – particularly if one can show that it, like Islam, is in conflict with our principles.
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 1:03 PM
A Mormon could not be elected U.S. President in 2008, any more than a Muslim, Jew, Branch Davidian or Wiccan could be. It’s not prejudice so much as unfamiliarity and lack of common ground with the majority of Americans.
Religion is not race; it DOES make for a difference in philosophy.
TallDave on November 16, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Exit question: would you vote for a Scientologist?
TallDave on November 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM
csdeven derangement syndrome.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Yet he has a political history one can examine for any sign of behavior traceable to religion.
jusstjones on November 16, 2007 at 1:14 PM
You flatter yourself – you cute little martyr you!
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Race can make for a difference in philosophy, probably more so than religion. African-Americans vote over 90% Democrat. Not too many religions vote in that large a percentage for one party.
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Let’s see- the calls were made by a company called Western Wats. Western Wats seems to be VERY WIRED into BYU. HMMMMM
Someone’s got some ’splainin’ to do…
“A confluence of need and curiosity created an opportunity to provide preliminary answers to some of these questions. Brigham Young University (BYU) and Western Wats Center (WWC) joined forces to explore some of these issues”
From:E-interviewers add human touch to Web-based research
Editor’s note: Karl G. Feld manages quantitative research for clients of Western Wats Center, a Provo, Utah, research firm. Steven Wygant works in the office of assessment at Brigham Young University in Provo.
http://www.quirks.com/articles/a2000/20000712.aspx?searchID =3430167
“Published:July / August 1999Authors:Steve Wygant and Ron Lindorf Surveying collegiate Net surfers — Web methodology or mythology
Editor’s note: Steve Wygant works in the assessment office of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, teaches research methods at BYU, and consults on Web/e-mail research methodologies for clients of Western Wats Center, a Provo-based data collection and processing company. Ron Lindorf is president of Western Wats Center. ”
From YaHoo…
” Strangely, the “research firm” used to do these calls is based in Utah. According to J.A. Miles, it has call centers in Provo and Rexburg and the firm’s founder and chairman is on the advisory board at BYU’s Marriott School Center for Entrepreneurship.”
and from a blog found on Google:
http://arandomstranger.blogspot.com/2007/11/employment-hist ory.html
“Let’s hear it for my former employer, Western Wats, who made foxnews.com today in this article about Mitt Romney being a dastardly Mormon.
Two things: everyone at Western Wats is as Mormon as they come, and I wonder if Romney’s campaign would do this type of over-the-top questioning to make the issue become taboo and keep others from doing a more-subtle form of it.”
Curious and curiouser… don’t ya think?
Ex-tex on November 16, 2007 at 2:20 PM
How about his buddy, Kerik? He didn’t know about any of that stuff? he didn’t know Kerik was banging Judith Regan in the apartment donated to the workers at ground zero? He didn’t know as the mayor that the apartment donated to the workers was made off limits to everyone by Kerik?
peacenprosperity on November 16, 2007 at 2:56 PM
CSdeven Et Al
You can call me a bigot, worse if decorum allows
Mitt Romney was given millions upon millions of dollars both through his firm and through donations from mormons
He is a direct decendent of two of the 12 disciples of the LDS movement
The LDS movement does have some serious conflicting views with the mainstream of christianity.
If he were Lutheran and was receiving all or most of his money, his personal wealth from Lutherans – I would be raising the same issue
Because its relevant
Again
Never heard a peep from you screamers when Freds faith and attendence and beliefs were attacked
Not a peep
I’m not attacking his religion but since his campaign is for PRESIDENT NOT A LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD and is primarily being funded as such
The question became relevant
dodging it by attacking and declaring me a bigot is fine
but the question will remain on the table until he answers it
EricPWJohnson on November 16, 2007 at 3:06 PM
You posted four times. Nobody acted in a bigoted manner towards native Americans, unless you equate ignorance as bigotry. So you left. You say you got tired of reading bigots, and morons defending bigots, but on these “Mormon threads”, thats really all you have.
A Evangelical makes a statement about Mormons you call him a bigot. Another defends the first, the first makes another statement you call them both bigots in your reply, etcetera. There are a few others defending LDS, but you are the loudest voice against bigotry.
Before leaving this thread last night you posted 28 times leaping in with both feet five minutes after it was first started. The Georgia “pray for rain” thread was up for nearly six hours before you posted about rain dances. You seemed to be “trolling” for bigots, as the replies you received seemed to be confused about what point you were trying to make. When you explained you did so by trying to make the case that they were bigots for not acknowledging your point. They apologized, for the most part, for their ignorance, and you were gone.
In the “Mormon” threads you just seem so much eager to defend the faith, so to speak. No matter how many “bigots” post, no matter how many “morons” defend them, you are always right up there in the vanguard.
I just find this extremely dishonest. You’ll fight the good fight against bigots, but only so long as they don’t mention the Mormons, or native Americans apparently.
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Sorry forgot the quote.
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Which is why it is such a hot potatoe for him.
Eric wins the prize for getting to the heart of the matter!
If the nomination of Romney becomes about his conflicting views with mainstream Christianity, his political platforms become overshadowed.
This is a tought issue, because on one hand it is a liability for him to embraces his relgious views, and on the other hand it is a liability for him to deny his religious views. Either way he causes himself more problems, so the best thing he can do for himself is leave the theological questions on the table.
Lawrence on November 16, 2007 at 5:24 PM
csdeven
no reply.
Second post, first in response.
third post, second in response
Forth post, third response. Also this is your reply that implies bigotry, and Esthier’s reply to you.
And that was it. Apart from your initial post, all the times you were part of that thread, you gave up so fast to all those “bigots and morons defending” them.
That first post seemed to indicate that you were more confused that only Christians were being attacked. Yes it did support the side of “what harm can prayer do?”, but in comparison to threads such as this one, it was extremely tame. There was no condemnation of atheists in that thread as bigots, despite the fact that an argument that that is exactly what they were in those threads was even easier to prove than in these “Mormon” threads.
At one point you say that the vitriol is far and beyond what the subject calls for. Yet if somebody simply makes the theological argument, with out any vitriol, that the Mormons can’t be Christians due to the differences in doctrine you jump out screaming “BIGOT”.
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Holy crap. You can infer from my posting habits anything you like and I’m not going to sit here and tell you I normally stay out of the religious threads because all they talk about is religion. I am also not going to explain to you that this thread is a political thread and the gibotry leveled toward a candidate is more of an issue for me. I will also restrain myself from also getting into my defense of Fred and his religious habits.
I will also not go into the history that Eric has of attacking everything LDS. Heis a gibot and in the post just before yours, he confirmed that he was, but tried to justify it. Mitts ancestry has nothing to do with anything. When a well known and respected evangelical endorses Mitt the support and money Mitt gets from other people is a non-issue.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 5:32 PM
And go take a look in the Catholic thread. I’m sure you will find what you are looking for there.
Your problem is that you have a conclusion you want to reach and you are looking for evidence only in that light.
But, I’m not going to bother explaining that to you either.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 5:54 PM
This is all I need to hear. Without explaining you explained quite satisfactorily. My only issue was that you seemed to be exactly what you preached against.
I apologize for getting carried away, but I tend to continue the attack if I believe that I am being ignored. Too often in the past people will post on boards such as this one and ignore any arguments that may marginalize their own.
It has been said that two things not to discuss at the dinner table are politics and religion. However that is all that gets discussed on this site so of course you get the extremes. People also will say things in the anonymity of boards such as this that they would never say in person.
Your defense of Mitt was done so on religious grounds, in a political thread. I simply failed to separate the two.
And no my problem is not a conclusion i wish to meet but rather that I did not understand your point. That Mitt should not be judged for his religion, but on his politics.
Once again I apologize, I allowed my anger at the insane bigotry expressed in the Georgia “pray for rain” thread to color my perception of the world, including the political threads.
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Fair enough. I hate the gibotry with a passion also.
Peace and cheers.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Who did it?
My thought
Connie on November 16, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Then again, see what Flap thinks.
I came up with questions about Romney himself only a few minutes into investigating.
Connie on November 16, 2007 at 7:18 PM
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the sect based in Salt Lake City, Utah, is formally known, is the fourth-largest U.S. religion and one of the richest, with 12.9 million members globally.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Ya know… it is not bigoted of main-stream Christians to label LDS church a cult, because by main-stream definition LDS is a cult. Buy then it is also correct if LDS wants to call main-stream Christianity a cult. The point is that main-stream Christian doctrine and LDS doctrine are most definitely not the same, and both sides of the issue agree on this, so each side claiming that the other is a cult is a true statement.
So, a bigoted statement would be claiming something about one side or the other, which is obviously not true.
A bigoted statement would be claiming that csdeven is a low-life idiot for defending LDS doctrine. A non-bigoted statement would be claiming that csdeven is defending a cult.
The first sentence is bigoted in that I am making a personal attack on csdeven. In the second sentence I am simply making a true statement about LDS doctrine from my point of reference.
The bigotry most often seen here at Hot Air are all the Straw-man arguments based on false definitions of Christianity that are bandied about as truth and then used to mock God, and/or religion in general.
Now, for all us Christians out there, we need to be careful we are not perpetrating the same type of Straw-man nonsense being perpetrated against us. It defeats our purpose and credibility if we stoop to these same tactics.
Lawrence on November 16, 2007 at 10:08 PM
CADeven
It does’nt matter if I were Hitler reincarnated
The facts are he is a descendant of the founders of the church
Most of his support his millions upon million were financed by Mormons
this campaign is being financed by Mormons
Its relevant – bigger than me and he needs to address it
It appears that now he has by having some of his supporters fake push polling anti mormon stuff for instant headlines and outrage
So now the question is relevant, even more
EricPWJohnson on November 16, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Gibotry has a definition. It is the absolute intolerance of any differing creed etc. Giborty is the mother of false accusations and lies. A person is intolerant of others and then spreads the lies to justify their gibotry.
Look up the definition.
csdeven on November 17, 2007 at 12:29 AM
CsDeven
So when is he going to address the issue?
EricPWJohnson on November 17, 2007 at 1:08 AM
Never, because it doesn’t matter to anyone who is intellectually honest.
csdeven on November 17, 2007 at 7:48 AM
I think that Romney’s faith is relevant to the campaign for a number of reasons. If he actually believes what Mormon prophets have taught then I question his rationality.
Mormon prophets have taught that:
People live on the moon and dress like Quakers
People live on the sun (no statement about mode of dress)
The American Indians are of Jewish descent
Satan and Jesus are brothers
These are just a few of the plethora of bizarre teachings of the church. To ask if Romney really truly believes stuff like this would be quite relevant as to his state of rationality.
Mojave Mark on November 17, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Why are any of those crazier than:
1) A being without a body had sex with a virgin and she had a baby
2) A man turns two fish and five loaves into enough food to feed 5 thousand with food left over.
3) A man was made from dust.
4) A woman was made from a rib from dust man.
5) A man was crucified, left in a cave for days, then he came back alive.
6) A man walked on water.
7) He took evil spirits out of a person and put them into a pig.
8) It just so happened on the day this man was crucified, night time decided to happen in the middle of the day at the exact moment of his death.
9) A magical being who is really three people at one time, claims he can be spirit at one second and the next have a body. Them the next minute he can be spirit again. BUT he refuses to explain what he does with his skin suit when he is in spirit form. I guess ha has the Holy Closet and puts the skin suit on a hanger. BUT…NO WIRE HANGERS!!!
With you holding those beliefs, I question whether you are rational enough to be let out in public.
csdeven on November 17, 2007 at 11:46 AM
So do you believe in the people who live on the moon and dress like Quakers? Joseph Smith himself said they’re there.
Mojave Mark on November 17, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Romney attended 3 universities, ran Bain & Company and Bain Capitol, ran the Olympics, and was the Governor of Massachusetts. Clearly he is a “rational” man. Moreover, his father, George was the Governor of Michigan.
Did Mormons take over Michigan? Massachusetts? Did the LDS church play any role whatsoever in the governance of those states?
What exactly is it that you, and people like EricPWJohnson, think will happen if Romney is elected??
Buy Danish on November 17, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Tell you what, prove your beliefs and I’ll prove there are Quakers on the moon.
csdeven on November 17, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Fulfilled prophecy and the risen Christ prove my beliefs are true and, by the way, rational. For you to believe in people who live on the moon and dress like Quakers is irrational; drink deep the Koolaide.
If Romney is elected it will bring the Mormon cult more into the mainstream which would be an eternally bad thing for those people seeking God’s salvation but ending up with a false gospel and a false hope. As St. Paul said in the book of Galatians:
Paul the Apostle gets it.
I think it would be worse if Hillary gets into the White House so I would vote for Romney if he were the nominee. He would be the lesser of two evils.
Mojave Mark on November 18, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Still waiting for proof. Is it coming any time soon?
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 1:42 AM
I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake. Religion is all bunk.
- Thomas Edison
MB4 on November 18, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Yeah, but the Christian fake isn’t AS fake as the LDS fake.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 2:21 PM
That’s actually true. All religions have their whacky elements. It wouldn’t be a religion if it didn’t stretch the bounds of belief.
Mormons have stretched those bounds way past the point of nutso.
There are degrees of crazy. And I, for one, do not want some nutjob who thinks he’s going to be a God himself someday anywhere near the Oval Office.
Jaynie59 on January 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3