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: 1 2 3 Next »
Whoever is doing it needs to get smacked. I’m not a fan of Romney, but this anti-Mormon crap needs to end. I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it a million times.
Bad Candy on November 15, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Why, Rudy? Why?
krabbas on November 15, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Bad Candy
Its relevant – his personal income comes from mormons – mormons are funding this campaign – its totally 100% relevant
Mitt refuses to acknowledge that he is not just a mormon but a direct descendant of one of founders of that faith.
If the mormons hadn’t given him his 8 figure job and financed this campaign then you would be right
But the source of his wealth is his parents and exyended family and relatives personal wealth
EricPWJohnson on November 15, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Romney dunnit!
BJ* on November 15, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I disagree. I think the issue of his religion needs to be talked about NOW. If he ends up being OUR pick to run against the Democrat, he needs to explain his religious beliefs now, before they get blown out of proportion by others. The thing is, that it will be an issue if he is the nominee we pick. It would be better to talk about this issue early and now, than to have documentaries explaining it as a cult when he is actually trying to beat the Democrat.
This way we find out how big the issue really is. If its big enough to hurt him now, it is big enough to hurt him later.
Jay on November 15, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Who has the most to gain?
Mitt, that’s who. This will come across as bigotry of the worse kind. Bigotry on the level we have seen here on recent threads.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 10:20 PM
And bigotry I suspect will raise it’s ugly head here before too long.
Oooops, too late, it’s already here.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 10:22 PM
His religion should have no relevance. I don’t care if Mormons are enthusiastic about supporting him. Evangelicals are enthusiastic about the tax squish spendy open border Nanny Huck.
Bad Candy on November 15, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Rudy is the only one that makes sense. Huck can’t win anywhere else, so he is not a threat to Rudy. And a Mitt win in Iowa leads to NH, then SC, and Rudy is sucking hind teat.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 10:24 PM
I agree that he’s the prime suspect. Huck probably doesn’t have enough cash either to waste on something like this. What about Fred, though? He’s desperate and needs a decent showing in Iowa even more than Rudy does.
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 10:27 PM
I would vote for Romney if he was the GOP candidate, even if he’s in a cult that
–distributes magic underwear
–baptizes for the dead
–thinks Jesus & Lucifer are brothers.
I happen to think that Romney doesn’t really buy that Mormon stuff.
jgapinoy on November 15, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Wait a minute. Rudy’s campaign isn’t concentrating on Iowa, last I recall. He’s not going to win there. Why would he do it?
amerpundit on November 15, 2007 at 10:29 PM
It’s either Thompson or Giuliani. I lean toward Giuliani because a strong showing in Iowa would defy expectations and give him a strong entry into NH and SC.
Slublog on November 15, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Perhaps, but isn’t he 4th or 5th in Iowa? Most support Mitt loses should go to Huck and I don’t see Fred moving up far enough to make a difference with the little he would get. A Huck win in Iowa seriously weakens a guy who has spent more time and money in Iowa than anyone else.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 10:30 PM
And why would it praise McCain?
amerpundit on November 15, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Good call.
Does anyone else think that csdeven’s favorite word is bigot, or its variations? Just a hint – the overuse and improper application of a word robs it of its power. If you keep using it for everyone, we all lose.
nailinmyeye on November 15, 2007 at 10:30 PM
IMO,
Mitt Romney needs to deal with this “Mormon Issue” immediately and a forthright manner- if he wants to get beyond it. The fact of the matter is that Mormonism is considered a cult by many mainstream Christian faiths (including my own). The way to get beyond that fact is to focus on the point that a President has “no faith” but is charged with doing what is right for all Americans.
I’m not a Mitt supporter but here’s a better question than focusing on his faith background……
Why aren’t Hillary and Obama being scrutinized about their faith? Near as I can tell, Hillary only goes to black churches for campaign purposes and Obama was raised a Muslim who later converted to Christianity to attend a violently anti-white church. If we are going to focus on Romney’s Mormonism, isn’t it fair to extend that same scrutiny to the faith of the “rat” candidates?
highhopes on November 15, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Didn’t he say last week that he was trying to raise $3 million dollars? That would do it. He clearly loathes Romney, and this is his last gasp so why not go for broke?
I will be very disappointed if it turns out to be Rudy.
When I hear 527 I think George Soros, but wouldn’t it be ironic if it was Campaign Finance McCain?
Buy Danish on November 15, 2007 at 10:33 PM
I doubt its Fred, unless one of his lower people did it on their own, given what an effing mess his campaign is. Rudy is a possibility.
What about McCain? He’s taken a lot of shots at Mitt. I know there’s those questions about shady smears against McCain in his primary against Bush. I know that would make conventional wisdom that he’d avoid those sorts of things, but you never know.
Bad Candy on November 15, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I just can’t believe McCain would tip his hand by including questions in the poll praising himself.
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Associated Press update. Ben writes:
amerpundit on November 15, 2007 at 10:35 PM
That is exactly what Mitt has been saying in response to the bigots who think his religion has anything to do with his candidacy. He always uses the word “faith”.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 10:36 PM
That is where I would drop off the bloodhounds.
MB4 on November 15, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Hmmm…supporters of McCain from a seperate org?
It could be a sloppy move by a subordinate too. I get your skepticism, but I look at McCain, and he’s clearly gunning for Mitt, which is where my hunch comes from.
Bad Candy on November 15, 2007 at 10:40 PM
But Ben updated:
amerpundit on November 15, 2007 at 10:41 PM
If you look at the polls McCain was referring to when he said he polls better than Rudy against all the dems, which threatens Rudy, it looks more and more like this is a two for one stone throw. Cast McCain as a religious bigot, and put serious doubts in the minds of those who do not have the context to understand the actual teachings of the LDS church.
It’s Rudy guys.
Or Mitt, because the backlash on this will be vicious and quick. Something the bigots on this site haven’t had to experience yet, but will see it’s effects very soon.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 10:42 PM
I’m fascinated by how eagerly some leap onto the P.C. “you’re all bigots!” bandwagon. Especially since some of the same people, in other circumstances, would be among the first to decry such political correctness.
So let me ask the obvious question: if its bigotry to ask some rather pointed and relevant questions about Mitt’s Mormonism … what if he was Muslim? As in a fundamentalist Muslim? What if was a Scientologist? What if he was a Branch Davidian? A Moonie? An Hasidic Jew? Greek Orthodox? Wicca?
Would the response still be the same in all cases? If not – why not?
I’m just curious where exactly the “you’re all bigots!” crowd draws the line here. There is a line, right? I mean somewhere, at some point, it becomes prudent to ask questions … doesn’t it?
Note carefully: I’m not saying Mitt’s Mormonism is across that line. I don’t personally much care (or know enough about Mormonism in general … or Mitt’s beliefs in particular … to have an opinion). But when I hear people toss out words like “bigot” in an attempt to silence questions … I get curious.
Usually I don’t see that tactic among this crowd. It is a very common tactic elsewhere. It’s the “the debate is over” style of argument.
So how about it? Are you all just religious rights absolutists? If Mitt was a follower of the Late Great Jim Jones and the Kool-Aid Krew … would I be a bigot for raising my hand and asking a couple questions?
More to the point: wouldn’t it be a little easier and way more effective to address the substance of people’s questions, rather than call them “bigots” for asking? Call me crazy, but if there really is no problem with Mitt’s faith and his potential presidency, the questions should be easy to answer.
If you have good answers, and people won’t accept them, well, then maybe you can call them bigots.
Professor Blather on November 15, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Maybe the South Park guys are behind it.
krabbas on November 15, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Its real difficult to poll in Iowa
here’s the 2004 result
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/
this is what the polls were saying at about the same time in the race
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=762
EricPWJohnson on November 15, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I like your thinking on this…
nailinmyeye on November 15, 2007 at 10:48 PM
There is no threat to ANYONE from the LDS church. No one at all. There isn’t one instance of it with all the LDS people who have EVER served in government. From Ezra Taft Benson to Dingy Harry to Orrin Hatch.
So there is no rational reason to make the leap to Jim Jones or Muslim extremism.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Kerist. Romney’s made his fortune at Bain & Company and Bain Capital. Are those Mormon firms?
Do you think the fact that he attended Stanford, graduated first in his class at BYU, and has a joint law/business degree from Harvard might have qualified him to get hired somewhere?
Or do you think that without his parents’ help he would have been an aimless ne’er do well who never amounted to anything?
Sharia Law is fundamentally incompatible with American principles of individual liberty and Democratic ideals. Islam is an ideology, like, say, Marxism, as much as it is a religion so there is no comparison to Mormonism or any Judeo-Christian religion in that respect.
Buy Danish on November 15, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Only a bigot….
thinks Mitts faith is a valid topic for discussion in a presidential debate. What matters are those issues that relate to the performance of his duty. In MA he honored his promises (concerning abortion policy) to his electorate even though his church is vehemently against abortion. He is a servant of the people, not the leaders of his church. Only a bigot would leap to any other conclusion since there isn’t one single shred of evidence that Mitt did, has, is, or will do anything other than what he has been doing as a public servant.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 10:57 PM
I’d tell you not to feed the bigoted trolls, but I just got done serving them up a seven course meal.
lol
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 10:58 PM
I had seen that on Drudge, so that’s why I said I would drop off the bloodhounds there, rather than the firing squad!!!
MB4 on November 15, 2007 at 10:58 PM
No way McCain did this. Rudy is used to getting down and dirty in NY politics. The two people who desperately want Mitt to finish second in Iowa are Huck and Rudy. If Mitt finishes second, 1) Huck wins, 2) Mitt is toast and Rudy cruises to the nomination as the Mitt early primary wave never happens.
As AP points out, Huck has been notoriously bad with raising money. This smells like Rudy to me. No one will care how dirty it is if Mitt is finished after Iowa. Everyone will move on. No one remembers the dirty tricks of the winners, or holds it against them.
RW Wacko on November 15, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Well I lived in Utah for 6 months and they did make it a little inconvenient, as I recall, to get beer sometimes, but not too bad. That’s about it.
MB4 on November 15, 2007 at 11:03 PM
This Mormon talk drives me nut’s,for what it’s worth,
after WW2,my grandmother had a sister,both from England.
My grandmother married a Canadian soldier,her sister,a nurse
married an American Airman and they settled in the great
state of Utah.I was a young kid,It was the summer of 72′.
I went to Utah for two weeks,I have no idea if my grandmother’s sister converted or not,but i met all the extended families,if they weren’t American, they could of past for Canadians,absolutely great people.I still have fond memories of apricot’s picked right off the tree’s
and the d!mn airforce breaking the sound barrier exactly
at 10 in the morning,a sonic boom every morning.
So my point is Utah,Mormon, are normal decent good people,
including Mitt Romney.
canopfor on November 15, 2007 at 11:05 PM
HAH! Try to buy a bong in a head shop! They actually have signs that say…
“We do not sell bongs! We sell water pipes. DO NOT CALL IT A BONG. If you aren’t sure what it is, just point!”
Bwahahahaha!!!
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Try to think of two documents that are more antithetical to each other than the U.S. Constitution and the Koran.
Try to think of individuals who were more antithetical to each other than the founding fathers of the United States of America and the founding father of Islam.
MB4 on November 15, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Agreed. Trying to say Mitt is somehow not a success, or deserving of his success is ridiuculous. He has been wildly successful with everything he has touched. He is clearly a leader in every respect. He is extraordinarily respected in the business community. There are lots of kids born to rich people who don’t go on to become millionaires hundreds of times over, become a governor, and have a chance to be friggin’ president of the greatest country in the free world. Give me a break, the man in impressive. I still don’t know if I’d vote for him, but give the man some credit.
RW Wacko on November 15, 2007 at 11:07 PM
In September of 1960, Kennedy met with a large group of protestant religious leaders who grilled him about how his catholicism would effect his performance as president. He put together a very good case, and defended himself very well against their attacks on some of the most goofy and arcane tenets of catholicism. And admit it, you can find some pretty goofy things in every religion. Romney would do well to have the same sort of exchange with protestant leaders today, to defend his religion rather than say that his religion doesn’t matter.
The 1960 video was on C-span III a day of two ago. I recommend it if it’s replayed. Maybe it can be found on the C-span web site.
jaime on November 15, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Wow we’re bigots for expecting our immigration laws to be enforced and now we’re bigots for even having questions about Romney’s faith. Maybe his religion should be a big part of our decision about him. Honestly, it hasn’t been a part of my thoughts but csd sure seems to think nobody should talk about it.
As for the push poll, sounds like normal DEM dirty tricks to me and it’s not too early for them to sew seeds of distrust.
Buzzy on November 15, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Take a look and ask around, MOST people do not think it should be a topic for discussion as it relates to his presidency. The standards of decency and decorum disallow for it. You want to learn about Mormons? Go ask an LDS missionary. But don’t try to strengthen him or degrade him on the teachings in his church. Look at the man’s accomplishments. He’s doing something right to be as successful as he is and not have the baggage some of the other candidates do.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 11:14 PM
By the Way,the grand strategy all along,is the media
sh!t distubing and a non controversy of the Mormon
religion to create infighting between Republican’s,
and the media is trying to drive a wedge between Christian
Conservatives and Republican Mormon’s,that’s how simple it is.
canopfor on November 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Why? I don’t mean that sarcastically at all. I’m honestly interested in why people might oppose Romney based on his religion alone.
Slublog on November 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM
I hope the perpetrators get caught but I really hope it backfires so its less likely in the future.
Speakup on November 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM
I don’t know much about Mormons but I do know that as long as a persons faith doesn’t cause harm to others its fine with me. Mitt has good values and he wants whats right for this country, of that I have no doubt. If he gets the nomination I would have no problem voting for him. But Rudy’s still my first choice and I fervently hope he wasn’t behind this
Keli on November 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM
csdeven:
Given your Pavlovian reaction to all things Thompson, I suggest you hold off criticizing the irrational dislikes of other commenters.
I’m not disagreeing with you on any point, except for the one where you play the role of “pot” to the “kettle” of those for whom Romney’s religion IS an important political consideration.
Now, I’m not one of those people, but I certainly respect their right to hold different opinions than I.
Harpazo on November 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM
They are playing to the bigots. And the bigots ALWAYS pick up the bait and run with it. Being all self righteous and all.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Wow. csdeven and Buy Danish both completely missed the point of Prof. Blather’s post.
I’m going to do a search of Hot Air’s comments and see how many times csdeven uses the word bigot. By this time it is just comical.
nailinmyeye on November 15, 2007 at 11:22 PM
No one said they didn’t have a right to be bigots. I have never demanded anyone shut up either. But I reserve MY right to call bigots what they are.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 11:24 PM
B/C if he follows the prophet, he’s basically got a Pope.
I’m down with someone who believes in and listens to God. In fact, I want that.
I’m not okay with the leader of the free world, by nature of his faith, answering to a higher human power.
TexasDan on November 15, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Blather was blathering. He stuck his nose into a discussion without reading why it had the context it had.
No one was trying to stifle debate and I am not responsible for his feelings that he was being stifled. I was simply calling a bigot and bigot. That’s it.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 11:31 PM
The prophet in this case being Joseph Smith?
Slublog on November 15, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I think Jay, here, gave very valid reasons for discussing Romney’s, or any candidate’s faith.
I wouldn’t oppose Romney for President solely because of his faith, or because of his faith at all – but I do reserve the right to discuss his, or any candidate’s faith, without being called a bigot for merely doing so.
Some commentors are bent on using that word beyond the limits of its meaning.
nailinmyeye on November 15, 2007 at 11:32 PM
So does that mean you wouldn’t vote for a Catholic either?
Bad Candy on November 15, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Jay made the point that we need to talk about his faith, lest it be brought up by the Democrats, which is valid. I guess my point is that while I may not agree with Mormonism, and think they have some odd practices, I don’t see how those things disqualify a guy from being president, or even merit discussion when judging his fitness for the presidency.
Slublog on November 15, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Apparently the Mormons have even more sneaky, behind-the-scenes money and influence than the Jooos…
WasatchMan on November 15, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Slapping the “bigot” label on a person rather than refuting (and possibly correcting) the content of their bigotry comes right out of the totalitarian Left’s MiniTru playbook.
No matter how accurate a descriptor, publically labeling a person a bigot in lieu of showing them to be a bigot through reason and debate is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.
Of course, if you’re fine with being seen as increasingly-irrelevant and increasingly-shrill, by all means, continue as you are. No skin off of my muscular backside.
Harpazo on November 15, 2007 at 11:37 PM
bigots – those who hold a different opinion from csd. Thanks for at least being transparent in your ridiculousness.
Beyond its limits.
nailinmyeye on November 15, 2007 at 11:39 PM
The comment I referred to as bigoted was clearly bigoted. Why are you defending bigotry?
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Bigot – A statement of surrender during an argument. When two people or disputants are engaged in an acrimonious debate, the side that first says “Bigot!” has conceded defeat. Synonymous with saying “Resign” during a chess game, or “Uncle” during a schoolyard fight. Originally, the term was meant to indicate that one side was accusing the other of being a bigot, but once it was noticed that people only resorted to this tactic when all other arguments had been exhausted, it acquired its new meaning of “indicating one’s own concession of defeat.”
jaime on November 15, 2007 at 11:44 PM
You assume this is the first time that person has engaged in his bigotry. The LDS members of HA have tried in very kind ways to reason with these bigots. I see no reason to try any longer, so I am relieving them of their responsibility to be nice. I will call every bigot on this forum a bigot and if you don’t like it, stop reading what I post. I’m not paid by how many reads my comments get ya know.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Current head of the mormon church is called the prophet. God talks to him each year on a special day to give the new edicts for the church.
Well, here we go into the “are Mormons the same as Christains” bit again. I’m not trying to bring it up, but it’s central to the question. While I don’t believe in the papacy, I do think he knows Jesus. I can’t say the same for the Mormon church, or it’s head. So yeah, I could vote for a Catholic.
TexasDan on November 15, 2007 at 11:48 PM
I agree with you – to a certain extent. If a person adheres to a faith that fundamentally contradicts most of my core beliefs, either religious or social, then I think I would need to discuss that person, and their faith, in assessing my opinion of how well they represent me and my values.
I don’t happen to think Romney’s faith contradicts most of my core values. I don’t agree with him about the nature of God, but that wouldn’t stop me from voting for him.
nailinmyeye on November 15, 2007 at 11:51 PM
You really think so? I am not done by any stretch of the imagination. Bring up a opposing argument with me and I’ll make mince meat of it. Use bigotry and you’ll get it right back in your face.
Don’t ever assume that the words you use to signal your defeat are used the same way by others.
csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Really? Why don’t you tell me exactly what it is that I said that “missed the point” of Professor Blather’s post? Or the truth of the matter that you missed the point of my post?
Agreed, but I’d go back even earlier to the Declaration of Independence which is really the prologue to the Constitution.
Buy Danish on November 15, 2007 at 11:53 PM
I am trying to defend the integrity of the English language.
To quote Inigo Montoya – I do not think it means what you think it means.
nailinmyeye on November 15, 2007 at 11:55 PM
So, translation: “Kiss my ass, Harpazo”.
Alright then. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt (that you’re not an irrational prideful douche, as others here advocate), as I have tried to do from day one that I started posting here, but you obviously don’t want there to be ANY doubt as to the state of your rationality and humility.
Enjoy your meteoric descent into irrelevance.
Harpazo on November 15, 2007 at 11:59 PM
As I care very much for the integrity of the English language, let me correct an error!
Or is the truth of the matter that you missed the point of my post?
Buy Danish on November 15, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Try defending decency and criticize the bigot for using bigoted statements in the first five minutes this thread was up. Here:
No so much of a crusader now are you?
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Well – it isn’t so much what you said, as what you didn’t. Blather’s post was about the inappropriate application of the term bigot – csdeven’s favorite reply here – and you replied with a statement about the incommensurable comparison of Judeo-Christian faiths and Islam. Now, while you might be technically correct on that point…that was not the core of Blather’s post.
Your one point did not overcome, let alone address, what Blather was talking about.
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Is that why you are here? You want to feel relevant?
Get a life lady, it’s only the internet. Ya know?
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Eh, I suck at English!
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Or, are you blathers sock puppet now? You know what he MAIN POINT was? Blathers meaning was quite clear regardless of his “note”. HE and he alone made the connection from Jim Jones and Muslim extremism to Mormonism. There is no comparison and no rational examination of any facts anywhere could lead a person to make that leap. Notice he didn’t make a comparison to Christianity, or The United Way, or some other positive example. Nope. He went to the negative for a reason. A reason that there is ZERO evidence of examples from other LDS public servants to justify such a leap.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:09 AM
It is very possible that it isn’t any of the other candidates but simply a group (or individual) who hates Mormons.
bnelson44 on November 16, 2007 at 12:10 AM
I don’t know that I’ve ever been too much of a “crusader.” I do know that your repeated retreat to the accusation of bigotry anytime anyone dares espouse an opinion on the Mormon church that is contrary to yours – and you said as much yourself above – is rather comical at this point.
I don’t pretend to agree with every comment here, or with EricPWJohnson’s comment itself. But, to retreat to the comfort of the “bigot” accusation each and every time, I think, is inappropriate for rational debate.
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 12:10 AM
It seems like a classic ‘mob’ type tactic which points directly to Rudy. Praise McCain to make it seem like it’s from him, throw stones at your major opponent Mitt.
While Mitt’s Mormonism is not an issue, that video of Mitt talking about his ‘pro-choice’ position to be elected to governor is. His mandate for health care deadline is today. . . er, well yesterday. If you did not have health insurance by today in Massachusetts, you are subject to a fine. That will come to roost in January and we’ll see how it works out.
I think Mitt is a fine man. I do not care so much about his faith because when I look at his family, I recognize a good man (I have the opposite opinion of Rudy). However, Mitt has a couple of ticking time bombs that are going to be difficult for him to overcome. The main issue with his Mormonism is going to be their ‘racist’ past against African Americans. However, that isn’t much different than the ‘racist’ past of the entire country. But if you think that blacks didn’t vote for R’s before, he’ll get the fewest black vote of any president since blacks got to vote. . . not because he’s racist, but because of the history of the Mormon church.
But this trick is classic Rudy. If Rudy is your guy and Rudy stays in the race, expect only negativity because Rudy has enough negatives for any 3 people that will come out. . . and his only response is always. . . ‘well the other guy is worse.’ ie I’m not Hillary. I really hope Rudy doesn’t win. As a proud American, I’m not looking forward to his campaign at all. . . I don’t expect a single positive outlook for America coming from his campaign.
ThackerAgency on November 16, 2007 at 12:12 AM
They are playing to the bigots and the bigots Always pick
up the bait and run with it.Being all self righteous and all.
Csdeven on November 15, 2007 at 11:21PM.
Csdeven:”They are playing to the bigot’s”,let’s let the
media and Liberal’s use the word “Bigot”.
As we all know,Liberal’s most,not all are g!dless.
Republicans on the other hand,religion goes hand in hand,
my point is,if you think about it,the Lib’s,CNN have been doing hit pieces on all religion’s,less so on Muslim’s for the last 4 years especially,and now the media is enjoying
the fruits of their labour,(sorry about the bad pun)again
to cause infighting,just look at this thread,is this coincidental,I don’t think so.
canopfor on November 16, 2007 at 12:14 AM
That’s hyperbole. I call bigots what they are every time they rear their ugly heads. Just because you only pay attention to the comments I make to bigots is your problem, not mine. You are on a crusade against me. Why is beyond me. Why you defend the bigots is beyond me also.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:14 AM
My comment which included a response to Professor Blather is here.
It is wholly germane to PB’s post.
But, if I ever need a ghost writer or a blog nanny to fill in what I didn’t say I’ll keep you in mind.
/sarc.
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Because of the possibility that Mormonism is a cult.
Bill C on November 16, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Dude – in your zeal to defend your church, or, maybe it isn’t your church, I don’t know, you attack the stupid comparison he made instead of actually addressing his plea for rational discourse without your obsessive use of the term bigot.
Besides – you are wrong:
Those aren’t “positive” examples of a religious faith? Greek Orthodox is Christian, brotha! Be careful there cs – by the standards you are using, someone might be tempted to break out the “b” word on you…
Why am I even having this conversation?
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Rep or dem, religious or no, a bigot IS a bigot.
What do you want me to call the bigots?
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:16 AM
I realize this comment was not directed to me, but I cannot let this pass. EricPWJohnson’s comment contained factual errors. How do you “agree” (or “pretend to agree”)with a blatant biographical falsehood?
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Says the commenter who spends more time on HA alone than I do in front of a computer screen all day. Take your own advice, hypocrite, and stop getting all frothed at the keyboard over stuff like politics or somebody else’s opinion of a guy you probably don’t even know.
I couldn’t care less whether people here consider me relevant or not — the opinions of strangers don’t concern me. I’m here because I find the articles interesting and the discussions occasionally entertaining. As far as you go, I was trying to give you advice out of graciousness and in the spirit of decorum. You chose to spit on that; so be it.
And I’m no lady, in any sense of the word, so piss off beta boy/girl/whatever the hell you are, go back to screaming “bigots!” and “haters!” before I decide it’s actually worth my time to squash you.
Harpazo on November 16, 2007 at 12:21 AM
THIS is not positive and this is the comment that he used to put a finer point on his argument.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Sure you do. You think telling me I am headed toward irrelevance is some sort of bad thing. Ergo, you wouldn’t want to be there. You are protesting too much.
And sorry for the “lady” remark. Your style just seemed so, well, sissy-ish.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Bill C on November 16, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Is there anything about how Mitt Romney has conducted his private or public life that is in the least bit “cult” like?
The implication that he is some zoned out zombie cult member, or that he holds sway over people as a cult leader, is ludicrous.
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 12:30 AM
For one thing,I think that many people, all the time, agree with blatant biographical falsehoods. “Bush lied, people died…” and all that.
But, I didn’t say that I agreed with him. The statement probably does contain biographical falsehoods. The point is, would I label the dude a bigot for saying it. Well, that would depend completely on if he knew that they were biographical falsehoods when he made the statement, and the motivation he had for making it. I do not know the answer to either of those questions, and hence, am willing to give a guy the benefit of the doubt.
The alternative is to immediately and incessantly label a person a bigot who may merely be uninformed. If that is the case, forcefully calling the guy a bigot may likely further solidify his belief in a falsehood because you have offended him, and vilifies a person who may merely be ignorant of the accurate information. If you were to, I don’t know, say, provide the corrected biographical information (which I saw in a comment that you attempted to do), then you may change a person’s opinion, and all here would be edified through a more through investigation of the truth of the matter.
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Bill C on November 16, 2007 at 12:32 AM
You are an artful dodger. Slickly avoiding the questions, always bring it back to your outrage of the least bit of criticism of the Mormon church.
And with that, my “crusade” as you call it, is over. Goodnight.
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Sorry – should have read: least bit of perceived criticism of the Mormon church.
Cheers.
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 12:36 AM
The answer is no. And there are a lot of decent Scientologists. In fact, I am appalled that the German gov’t in discriminating against them. But I still think their beliefs are loopy. I feel the same way about Mormonism but I would never choose to stop you from exercising your right to worship as you choose. That being said, I don’t blame anyone who would not vote for a candidate who belongs to a religion because they think that religion is strange. It goes to judgment. It is not bigotry to question someones judgment.
Bill C on November 16, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Romney received a starting position of Vice President and a starting salary of 7 figures from his parents controlled firm
Didn’t exactly work his way up from the mail room……
and Mormons are financing his campaign – I didn’t see CSDeven or the rest of the bomb throwers screaming at those who asked Fred where he went to church now did they
Anyone?
First big strike against Fred was he didn’t carry his bible in his hands
EricPWJohnson on November 16, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Ok – one more, as, I missed this one:
Did you even read my post? Seriously.
You point back to your original post, which I think I’ve read like 10 times now, your reassert it’s content, and then you insult me.
Where did you learn those mad argumentation skillz? You didn’t address one thing I said.
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Agreed, it’s disgusting and shameful. It’s these crazy tinfoil wearing Social Conservative wackjobs that have invaded the GOP. They think they are the only ones with a fast track to salvation, blah, blah blah. I am just sick of them, I wish they would leave already and join the Constitution Party where they damn well belong. They would be much happier, they wouldn’t have to find someone to attack and burn at the stake.
What’s holding them up for heaven sake?? Get the hell out and leave Mitt Romney alone.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »