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 Next »
This comments to this post confirm what I have thought for awhile. There are Mormons who are actively working to get Mitt elected. Again, nothing wrong with that. I just think it behooves you to be honest about your motivations.
csdeven, Your misrepresentation of the facts and your use of the bigot card are tactics of a cult. It is called brainwashing. The repeating of a word or mantra until it becomes ingrained in the mind. I think you have done more damage to Mitt Romney’s candidacy than you can imagine because the commentators on this site are too smart to fall for this. You are not an honest broker of information. Mitt was my second choice before you came along but if this is typical Mormon behavior then I don’t want you anywhere near the levers of power.
Bill C on November 16, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Who gives a rat’s ass about Mitt Romney or any of the candidate’s religion in the GOP – the Party of Lincoln?
If you do – you may not be a real bona-fide generational Republican, but a hybrid manufactured in the 1980s to win votes.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Christianity is anti-Mormon.
Mojave Mark on November 16, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Sure, social conservatives should leave the party and not vote for the GOP..I am sure it wont cost them many votes at all.
EnochCain on November 16, 2007 at 12:54 AM
So you are judging a whole religion on one psoter on a blog?
What’s typical Mormon behavior? What kind of statement is that?
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 12:55 AM
So, what you are saying is that you judge a candidate by those who chose to support him and not by the candidates credentials? Thanks for telling us what your standards are. That’ll be useful in later threads.
I think I am going to start being your greatest ally. Everything you say I am going to totally agree with and if anyone uses bigoted comments toward you, I will respond in kind.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:57 AM
This is a stink bomb tossed into the Republican midst by Hillary supporters. Repubs are so darn ethical, they’ll be chasing their tails for weeks trying to figure this one out!
Question the timing.
T J Green on November 16, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Look – stay in the party but show some tolerance, you’re a Christian aren’t you? Then act like one, love your brother as yourself, follow the Golden Rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you, behave toward others as you would like to have them behave toward you. Turn the other cheek, I never had a problem with religious Republicans but lately, you guys are channeling the most anti Christian rhetoric with regards to Mormons.
I am not voting for Mitt Romney but I will defend the nasty attacks. How many times do we have to listen to you people yell and scream about being hated and victimized and your freedom of religion is being violated, and Christmas is under attack, Muslims are getting foot baths and jews are putting up Menorahs during the holidays in town square, blah, blah blah.
Stop your yarlin’ and leave the Mormons alone. They are Christians like you. And you are a member of the Party of Lincoln, think about what Abe would do, please.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 1:07 AM
…but I will defend against the nasty attacks.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 1:08 AM
The company you keep, csdeven. You yourself said that there are other Mormons on this site. I assume you know this because you are in contact with them. I believe there might be a concerted effort to slander Romney’s opponents by you and other Mormons. You have outed yourself as a partisan for Mitt, you have been spinning Fred’s record in the worst possible light, and you have engaged in name calling. All this is pretty strong evidence that your efforts are part of a concerted effort to get Mitt the nomination. I find these tactics repulsive and I won’t vote for someone whose supporters engage in them.
Bill C on November 16, 2007 at 1:10 AM
I was raised a Christian yeah but have not been to church in years…and believe it or not Christians are also individuals and not the borg so each and every one has their own opinion…I do like how you paint all Christians with a broad brush like you are getting angry at others for doing with Mormons.
EnochCain on November 16, 2007 at 1:11 AM
She is probably behind it, and any so called intolerant Christian should either join the Constitution party or line up behind her.
Because real Republicans – real long term in the Party with pure GOP in your blood for generations – don’t act like this.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 1:11 AM
You seem pretty intolerant yourself.
EnochCain on November 16, 2007 at 1:12 AM
It doesn’t “probably” contain falsehoods, it is an indisputable fact that the biographical details he provided are false, and he continues to spread more falsehoods^^by claiming that Romney’s parents controlled Bain & Company. The bottom line is that we are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
When someone peddles outrageous lies like that it helps to consider what that persons motivations are. While I have not used the “bigot” word, I think it is safe to say that Eric displays all the attributes of an ignorant and bigoted person, and indeed you will be hard put to find any scholarship in his remarks. It’s funny how the two qualities of ignorance and bigotry so often go hand in hand.
What the H^%$ is your problem? For you to complain that I insulted you after you began by insulting me is mind-boggling. My comment made perfect sense and if you don’t understand it that’s your problem.
How am I supposed to respond to someone who complains that I didn’t write what you want me to write? If you have something to say, say it! Don’t tell me what I’m supposed to say. This is an absolutely absurd complaint. This is getting like Alice in Wonderland.
I am not under any obligation to write what you want me to write, or to interpret posts the way you want me to, nor am I going to apologize for getting more and more irritated by your increasingly bizarre comments.
Goodnight.
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Ha ha – don’t try it – I said in my post –
.
And lately has been over the last year and a half. There are many Christians who have no problems with the Mormons, but there are many within the GOP who do – they are the problem. Anyone who wants to channel Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley can join ‘em, but you do not belong in the GOP with that attitude. If you want to play the victim about your own individual faith and then turn around and attack another Christian – well that’s just so Democrat, so Huffington Post, so Kos, so Keith Olbermann and so freaking pure loon in it’s least common denominator.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 1:20 AM
rtead my post my friend, read my post.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 1:21 AM
So they will still dodge the question – the reasons Mitt didnt get some key endorsements, the religious right, the evangelicals, a third of the platform of the republican party is religious in nature
But Romney gets a pass cause he’s a mormon
Rudy been blasted for not sticking to his Catholisim
Freds been blasted for not carying the bible and giving sermon speeches to evangelical gatherings
Ron Paul’s be blasted for running an almost agnostic campaign
But WE CANT SAY THE “M” WORD HERE
go figure
EricPWJohnson on November 16, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Well anyway to wrap it up I have nothing against Mormons and I do not know anyone who does and as far as the people who do I do not see the point in wasting time bothering with them..I will however say there is a difference between people asking questions about Mormonism and people being bigoted towards it..labeling everyone a bigot is not exactly the best way to win them over….and on that note goodnight everyone.
EnochCain on November 16, 2007 at 1:26 AM
And who cares if you have been to Church, you are a Christian with your own private relationship with God I’m sure.
I’m not going to judge you about when you last attended, that’s your deal, just like Mitt’s is to worship as a Latter Day Saint.
Who are these Conservatives who decipher one’s faith while they are so sure their own is being threatened? I mean – what right does any Evangelical or Born Again Christian have to question anyone’s faith, let alone Mitt Romney’s? Where does this imagined self serving inalienable right to do so come from?
Perhaps Pat Robertson but I can assure you, it’s not coming from God or Jesus Christ.
Everytime they get going about Mitt and Mormonism I can smell the brimstone waffting out of my computer screen, and it smells like Fred & Shirley Phelps.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 1:36 AM
First off it wasn’t always the case and what do you want Mitt Romney to built a cross and wear a crown of thorns?
I mean really what exactly are you looking for? For some kind of penance?
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 1:39 AM
For the record: I’m LDS, but (1) I haven’t decided who to vote for; (2) with the possible exception of Ron Paul, I haven’t made negative comments about other GOP hopefuls; (3) I haven’t been in contact, let alone worked in concert, with anybody on this site, LDS or not; (4) I’m sick to the vomit point with the word “bigot.”
sulla on November 16, 2007 at 1:44 AM
The reason Rudy is being criticized is because he is jumping on the religious band wagon and that isn’t who he is, at all.
Fred was very candid about where he stands, he is what he is and if the Christian Right doesn’t like him, they can lump it. he’s a Christian, enough said.
And Ron Paul is old world GOP, the real deal, small gov’t, anti-meddling-hands-off-foriegn-policy but strong defense, low taxes, like from my grandfather and great grandfather’s time – long before they made a bunch of empty promises to the Religious Right for votes. He isn’t pandering to anyone.
The problem with the Mitt factor is that the Evangelicals have this half cocked view of his faith which is so anti-Republican, really a strong example of anti GOP principles.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 1:48 AM
oh yeah. I’m also (5) mostly a lurker, and (6) usually late to the party, and therefore (7) largely irrelevant to the discussion.
Ah well. carry on.
sulla on November 16, 2007 at 2:08 AM
Oh man I was in the wrong thread. Although looking at this perhaps it answers some of my questions, perhaps not. I don’t know. You see many of the people in this thread seem to be from a different group than the one in the Georgia “pray for rain thread”. In those threads there is an individual attacking the bible and any who believe in it with a surprising amount of vitriol. While in this thread we have csdeven once more on the attack against “bigots.” As big as the thread got (401 posts) i find it hard to believe that you, csdeven weren’t over there defending against this rather loud and fervent bigot. Or is it only the Mormons who you draw your protective cloak over when the cold weather comes? The rest of us can go to hell, or rather the Telestial kingdom? If you’re not a Mormon, or being “bigoted” against the Mormons specifically, then you don’t count?
p.s. yes I know that the Telestial kingdom isn’t hell. Just a lesser Heaven.
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 2:19 AM
Isn’t most of this anti Mormon stuff rehashes of Alex Jone’s Illuminati/Neocon/Moromon conspiracy theories? The whole “the Mormons are where he got his wealth” idea sounds very prison planet.
The LDS in the Bronx were the most helpful and selfless church I worked with when a ran an F.I.A. there, and sure they handed me a book ‘o Mormon but they were no different than the rest of the Christians in behavior and character except they were slighty better.
And the idea that Mormonism and Islam can be equated is ignoring the the 1400 years of rape and murder that is Islam’s history as well as the decades of assimilation efforts by Mormons who have changed their religion to better fit in with mainstream America.
The only thing the two religions share is some peoples disdain for them.
Rob Taylor on November 16, 2007 at 2:26 AM
I’m also LDS, and I do not think that there is any “concerted effort” to get Mitt elected. csdeven I do not know if he is LDS. Judging from some of his comments, I think he knows a fair amount about the church, but I don’t think he is.
That said, I too have run into a great deal of Anti-Mormonism on this site. Is it bigotry? Most of it is probably not. Some of it is, though, from people who know better. Especially when I or another LDS person try to straighten out the falsehoods they spout, and they don’t listen. That’s when it crosses the line from ignorance into bigotry.
The question is raised, how can anyone vote for a “cult.” Mormonism is not a cult; it is at least the 5th largest Christian denomination in America, and there are more members out of the US than in it.
I like the “Mormons aren’t Christian, so I can’t vote for them” argument. Lemme guess, Jimmah is your favorite candidate? He, after all, is the most “christian” of the last few presidents. Bill Clinton is the next.
Look: There has never been a credible argument made against the LDS church that we teach or practice anything other than Christ’s teachings on how to act. If our conception of God is so deadly dangerous, that you are willing to froth at the mouth about how we are not followers of Christ… I submit that most Mormons follow Christ’s teachings better than most so-called “Christians.” We preach the golden rule. We preach moderation, temperance, patience, strong families. What is so frightening about that? Look at any big disaster in America recently: who is usually among the first on the scene? The LDS church, that’s who.
Are we Christian? I submit our fruits show we are. Quibble about our theology, but our proof is in the pudding. We preach individual responsibility, self-reliance, chastity, and on and on.
In other words, who would YOU rather have babysit your kids: A faithful Mormon, or some so-called Christian who spends all their time yelling about how those evil Mormon cultists cannot be trusted, and if you pay 14.95 right here, they’ll give you this book explaining how evil Mormons are, and blah blah blah?
As to “He will take orders from Salt Lake! The Horror! The Horror!”–what, exactly, would the LDS church order? Does the church issue orders to Hatch or Reid? When a leader of the LDS church served under Eisenhower, did the LDS church somehow suddenly run agriculture policy in the US? Not at all. If one of the top leaders of the LDS church was a cabinet secretary (and later became prophet of the Church) and didn’t try to take power, why would they order MItt around?
That whole “he will take orders from SLC!!!” hyperventilating smacks me of “The Joooos run everything!”
One more thing: Mormons dominate Utah. Utah is the reddest state in the Union. Why is that? And what does that imply about a Mormon candidate–that somehow he’ll be squishy on conservative issues? We should fear the Mormons! They will preach tolerance, chastity, virtue, moderation, and being kind to your neighbor! We can’t have that!
Vanceone on November 16, 2007 at 2:31 AM
Ok, now I have to rethink my opinion of Mitt.
sulla, I don’t think anyone here hates LDS. Maybe someone but the vast majority of us are tolerant. It’s in our nature, we are Americans. I am glad you spoke up. You are more representative of the Mormons I know.
Bill C on November 16, 2007 at 2:33 AM
I’m quite sure he would have been over there defending Christians (since he sees himself as one) if he felt accepted by those who feel as if have the copyright on that label. Likely, as a Mormon csdeven believes the Bible to be Holy Scripture as would happily help you defend it if he didn’t feel like he had to be in this thread answering absurd claims about his religion. Rather, you should ask why the people he has been trying to fend off aren’t in the “pray for rain” thread.
P.S. I think he does himself a disservice calling people bigots, but I’ll have a bit of compassion for the guy considering what I’ve read on here and take him at his word:
jusstjones on November 16, 2007 at 2:39 AM
Just have to put this out there: I am a Latter-Day Saint (That’s Mormon for those who don’t know) and I don’t support Romney. Too liberal for my taste. Not strong enough on illegal immigration, not fiscally conservative enough for me.
If Fred! doen’t start to fire up, I’m thinking we might need to draft Lou Dobbs.
So you damn idiots that think we all blindly follow the leadership in SLC can bite my USARMY SFC a$$!
opusrex on November 16, 2007 at 2:44 AM
All religions can be viewed as cults.
Every religion ridicules other religions, and all are right.
- Schopenhauer
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 2:54 AM
Gibots.
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 2:55 AM
Lincoln wouldn’t.
In fact he would probably be kicked out himself.
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
- Abraham Lincoln
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:04 AM
Mr. Lincoln was entirely deficient in what the phrenologists call reverence. I was once in Mr. Lincoln’s company when a sectarian controversy arose. He himself looked very grave, and made no observation until all the others had finished what they had to say. Then with a twinkle of the eye he remarked that he preferred the Episcopalians to every other sect, because they are equally indifferent to a man’s religion and his politics.
- Maunsell B Field
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:09 AM
Scream bigotry, yell obsfucate all you want
When Romney quits using mormon money in his attempt to purchase this campaign then the mormonism becomes a non-issue
Push-polling is happening because Romney axed plans for him to discuss his religion and its role (which is quite extensive) in his campaign.
this is not a job interview with a government agency
He running for President
EricPWJohnson on November 16, 2007 at 3:13 AM
While it may be fairly said that Mr. Lincoln entertained many Christian sentiments, it cannot be said that he was himself a Christian in faith or practice. He was no disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe in his divinity and was not a member of his Church.
He was at first a writing Infidel of the school of Paine and Volney, and afterwards a talking Infidel of the school of Parker and Channing.
If the Churches had grown cold — if the Christians had taken a stand aloof — that instant the Union would have perished. Mr. Lincoln regulated his religious manifestations accordingly. He declared frequently that he would do anything to save the Union, and among the many things he did was the partial concealment of his individual religious opinions. Is this a blot upon his fame? Or shall we all agree that it was a conscientious and patriotic sacrifice?
– The New York World (about 1875)
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:14 AM
I think most Mormons could care less about what your opinion is of Mitt the politician, but the defensiveness you see in some is an empathy and identification with Mitt being judged based on his doctrinal beliefs.
For instance if someone was denouncing candidate “X” because they were “Y” denomination wouldn’t it be natural for citizen of “Y” denomination to feel a vicarious denouncement of them? And, wouldn’t they also feel as if suddenly they were not full or complete citizens of the country just because of their faith.
I think that is where the defensiveness of Mitt comes from, and that it isn’t off base or undeserved. I would hope that all Mormons would come to the defense of Mitt whether they vote for him or not: If Mitt can’t be a full participant in political process based on his religion than neither can they. Article XI my friends — there is no religious test.
Now certainly I accept that this doesn’t mean that citizens can’t examine a candidates religion — how can on earth can you stop that? What it does mean is that politics in America was to the founders a nondenominational or non-creedal process (note I didn’t say irreligious).
Finally, if the opposition researchers can’t find something better than someone’s goofy-to-the-majority doctrinal beliefs to pin on a candidate (especially when they have political history to work with) then maybe it’s especially the time to look at the candidate and not the religion.
jusstjones on November 16, 2007 at 3:16 AM
You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.
* Carl Sagan
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:16 AM
Without mirth, earth would be a hellish place.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:22 AM
It is better to have laughed and split a gut than to have never laughed at all.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:24 AM
Humour is like having sex. You’ve got to touch the right place at the right time.
* Jonathan Kershenbaum
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:25 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt-Romney_family
Mitts family tree
EricPWJohnson on November 16, 2007 at 3:25 AM
The family is always the family but during vacations it is an extended family and that is exhausting.
* Stein, Gertrude
Oh wait, sorry. My bad.
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:28 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mitt_Romney_residency_issue
Ohhhh Mitt wasn’t a resident of Mass????
EricPWJohnson on November 16, 2007 at 3:29 AM
With humor, as with sex, the worst time is still good and there can never be too much of it.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:31 AM
“Jokes are not really funny at all, but reflect the most serious of concerns; the pursuit of sobriety through the suppression of the absurd.”
* Marvin Minsky
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:33 AM
Any humor that does not serve at least two purposes can be viewed as effort wasted.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:40 AM
“To explain the nature of laughter…is to account for the condition of human life.”
* Hazlitt
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:42 AM
I laugh … therefor I am.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:45 AM
“Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind.”
* E. B. White
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:46 AM
or are we switching to philosophy now?
“Too much philosophy makes men mad.”
* Alan Judd,
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:47 AM
Humor properly dissected often multiplies.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 AM
“Humor is by far the most significant activity of the human brain.”
* De Bono
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 AM
Too little philosophy makes men sterile.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:52 AM
Watch out for that tree!!!
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:53 AM
“Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.”
* Ambrose Bierce
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:53 AM
lol >:)
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 3:56 AM
5 bucks says this came from McCain, who was promised to be Huck’s running mate if he can take out Romney as he commits seppuku.
BKennedy on November 16, 2007 at 3:59 AM
Philosophy, a ever ending journey with many enlightening way stops.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 4:00 AM
All gaming, since it implies a desire to profit at the expense of another, involves a breach of the tenth commandment.
* Whately
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 4:01 AM
oops sorry MB4 got distracted.
*ahem*
“Philosophy is the art and law of life, and it teaches us what to do in all cases, and, like good marksmen, to hit the white at any distance.”
* Seneca
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 4:02 AM
I think that McCain would rather commit seppuku than be Huckabee’s running mate.
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 4:04 AM
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Schopenhauer
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 4:06 AM
Every true genius is bound to be naive.
* Friedrich Schiller
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 4:09 AM
Every true Genius has a demanding wife or will get one anyway if his genius makes him wealthy.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 4:12 AM
Genius is nothing but a great aptitude for patience.
* George-Louis de Buffon
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 4:13 AM
Genius is often nothing more than a recognition of what should have been obvious to someone else some time ago.
- Somebody or other
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 4:19 AM
Genius ain’t anything more than elegant common sense.
* Josh Billings
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 4:20 AM
Any work of genius passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Schopenhauer
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 4:27 AM
Morality is a venereal disease. Its primary stage is called virtue; its secondary stage, boredom; its tertiary stage, syphilis.
* Karl Kraus
Not philosophy but your Schopenhauer quote reminded me of it.
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 4:30 AM
Night!
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 4:30 AM
Good night it was fun. see ya’ll tomorrow
Bigkatt on November 16, 2007 at 4:33 AM
Rudy would do it to derail the possible momentum of a big Romney win in Iowa. Bye bye, Rudy.
Unless, unless…..
It was McCains MOTHER!
peacenprosperity on November 16, 2007 at 7:15 AM
OOOOOH! What a shocker! He lived in Utah as part of his temporary assignment to save the Olympics (an assignment he accomplished magnificently). 24 years of prior residency in Massachusetts doesn’t count for beans apparently, nor does the fact that he kept his house in Belmont.
Maybe he should have taken a jet back and forth to work every day!
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 7:54 AM
BuyDanish –
Where did I begin with an insult again? I went back and looked, and at one point, I actually commended your approach over and against that of running to name calling.
If stating that one person has missed the point of an assertion is now an insult and off limits, well, then any form of debate will likely be unproductive from here on out.
What would you like me to do by the way – unthinkingly and uncritically assent to whatever it is you, or csdeven, or Allah,or Bryan, or whoever, is saying? I’m just curious.
Back down my rabbit hole…
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 8:01 AM
If he did that, he would have my vote for sure. Jetpack? Awesome!
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 8:03 AM
I’m no McCain fan, but I seriously doubt he’d get that dirty.
Positive references to McCain are very likely to be bait to send us in the wrong direction.
I’d be very disappointed if it was Rudy. He’s stayed clean so far.
My bet is just that some nutjob anti-Mormon group is doing it. Its quite possible they aren’t affiliated with any campaign and are just desperate for Mitt not to win.
Kind of like the Club for Growth with Huckabee, though much dirtier. (Who, by the way, I agree with entirely when it comes to Huckabee).
JamesP on November 16, 2007 at 8:09 AM
Oh…sorry. jet back and forth to work. My bad.
Still. Any candidate, regardless of race, religion, gender, or whatever, who takes a jetpack to work – I will pull the lever.
Jetpacks for all Americans, my friends. That’s a campaign promise I could get behind.
nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 8:11 AM
The timing of this is to be noted. First, there is the lovely op ed published about Mitt’s youthful ventures spent in France as a Mormon poster boy. Then there is some skullduggery.
Asking legitimate questions that are uncomfortable is not bigotry. When earnestly questioning Mormonism, they immediately respond with that word, BIGOT.
The Mormon defense mechanism is offense, and their reactive word of choice is BIGOT.
Watch your own reaction to the word, bigot.
Romney is out to win sympathy, a necessity in his case. His campaign slung the “bigot” word, unable to explain the real tenets of Mormonism outside of Mormonism. Those features that separate Mormonism from traditional Christianity are not to be ignored, but recognized. When the Emperor’s new clothes are a sham, don’t call those who recognize nakedness “bigots”. For all the “being completely honest in all your dealings with everyone whom you contact” claims that faithful Mormons swear, there is dishonesty. The twisted, convoluted logic in the Mormon world requires a sympathetic distraction to avert the public eye from matters at hand.
If the public actually rebounds with the “bigot” charge by defense mechanism, “not I”, rather than thinking, “where is the bigotry in rational study and comparison, uncomfortable as it may be”, then Romney gets his sympathy.
It would be no surprise to find that CLINTON has a hand in this, stirring the contents of our great American melting pot to her own advantage. This would be the exact thing to expect from Hillary’s henchmen.
The ones to gain more than lose from this hullabaloo are Hillary, obviously, and Mitt, inconspicuously.
Seek, and ye shall find.
… and cut out that “bigot” name-calling …
maverick muse on November 16, 2007 at 8:13 AM
I would hope that Fred is more of a Southern Gentleman to stoop this low. If his campaign did it, and it is proven that it did, he has to disavow these tactics ASAP or he will loose this gent’s support.
Texas Nick 77 on November 16, 2007 at 8:27 AM
This may be a continuation of what AP posted the other day. What would liberals do to undermine Mitt?
Always the possibility that the guilty party is a liberal. Every conservative would know, if found out, it would be a knife in the heart of the campaign.
But a liberal from a far left arena could say, “this is what could happen”.
It is a disgusting tactic, but one that will happen. Funny thing, Mitt can be attacked on so many other levels. Which makes me think it is a liberal. On the issues that Mitt is so weak so on (abortion, immigration, gun control, tax increases, etc.), are a liberal strength they support him on those, so they would attack him on something they hate…religion.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 8:35 AM
Meet Bill C, Conspiracy Theorist:
BOO!
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 8:36 AM
but then there is always the ron paul group, who the hell knows what they are thinking…
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 8:36 AM
I said what I had to say in that Thread. I defended using prayer to solicit God for rain. Honestly, I haven’t been over there since then. I made a comparison to the Native Americans cultural use of rain dances and I don’t see anyone using bigoted statements against them. Why is it OK to go after Christians for doing the same thing? One person said they had no idea about NA customs. So I left. Just like I left this thread last night, I got tired of reading bigots and then reading morons defend bigots.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 8:44 AM
My curiosity is piqued! Please enlighten us with the details! He can’t be a member of Skull & Bones since he didn’t go to Yale. What are the skeletons in his closet? Please don’t keep this a secret – I’m on pins and needles waiting for the answer!
If not for your previous comments I’d take this as sarcasm, but you appear to be serious.
Who knew Hot Air had so many loons flying around?
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 8:44 AM
99% of what (some) Mormons on this site consider “bigotry”, is them playing the victim card. All of us work and live next to Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, Unitarians, Wiccans, we even post to a site moderated by….shuddder….an atheist.
Posters (and more than one Mormon defender) on here call Christians a cult, they call Christian ministers opportunists, money grabbers, and other words, and the Christians don’t whine to them about being a victim (they usually point to their faith with versus to defend, unless they are responding to personal attacks and name calling).
There are only two groups who could win with these calls, all other lose. Mitt (and I doubt he did it), and the liberals. That’s it, anyone else found out to use this very stupid tactic would be skewered.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 8:51 AM
After the last blog where you started each post with a slander, don’t embarrass yourself by trying to take the “high road”. Unbelievable…
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 9:04 AM
I made one comment about Professor Blather’s post here:
You then proceeded to tell me that I missed the point of Professor Blather’s post, that it was what I didn’t say that mattered, and so forth.
This is a ridiculous complaint. It is my prerogative to address a point I think is important about the concept of using religion as a litmus test. I make an exception for Islam because it is an ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of this Republic.
You could disagree with me that Islam in an ideology, or that it is incompatible with our Democratic ideals (although you’d have a difficult time supporting that argument) or you could come up with something/anything to take issue with the substance of my comment, but you didn’t do that.
Instead you turned this into a reading and writing class conducted by Professor Nailinmyeye – a professor who has a very narrow view of how topics can be discussed and analyzed. And gosh, if you didn’t give me a poor grade – virtually speaking of course!
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 9:12 AM
You are more right that you probably know.
I can go to Kos or Huffpo and read all kinds of anti-religious / anti-Christian rhetoric, and I can come here to Hot Air and get basically the same thing.
Lawrence on November 16, 2007 at 9:12 AM
My money’s on a Romney support group untraceable to the campaign.
1.Set up the ‘Bigots are being mean to the lovely Mitt (and of course the extended perfectly normal and mainstream Mormon religion)’ straw man.
2.MAKE everyone agree that to question Mitt’s religion is UNACCEPTABLE!
After all we MUST NOT, above all else, be branded as BIGOTS or , heaven help us, NOT PC!!!
No other candidate has anything to gain from this- only Mitt. Use your heads folks.
Ex-tex on November 16, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Am I alone in thinking that this is a tempest in a teapot. Who cares if some hired gun is doing push-polling in IA and NH? It happens every election and so far it seems like small potatoes compared to what the Bush folks did to McCain back in 2000.
sweeper on November 16, 2007 at 9:17 AM
I suggest you stay out of this discussion before you embarrass yourself irredeemably. I have never “slandered” anyone, including you, but you have made numerous false charges about me (and Mitt Romney, but I digress).
I still await your examples of my being a “liar”, with a “filthy mouth”. You need to provide exact quote to back up your allegations.
Have fun. I’m going out and will check in later to see how your search went.
Buy Danish on November 16, 2007 at 9:17 AM
Judging by the comments I’ve read so far in this thread, I tend to agree.
Texas Nick 77 on November 16, 2007 at 9:19 AM
So many errors and I don’t have the motivation to address them all.
When has ANY campaign used the gibot offense on a regular basis? And neither has Mitt’s. This push poll IS giboted and needs to be called such.
They have no need to explain the LDS faith. There is no religious test to be president. Only someone who is intolerant of someone else would expect a candidate to explain his faith.
If you people want to know about Mormons, do it like I do. Go search it out yourself. And not from anti-Mormon sources. Research the bible and then talk to an LDS missionary or some other authorized church source. If you wanted to know about the food of Italy, would you ask someone who hated Italian food? No. So why go to a hateful group of people for information about the LDS faith? Expecting any candidate to get into a discussion about his faith violates the standards of decorum and class and I doubt Mitt will ever do it other than in the way he already is. He is a man of faith and that is more important to true Christians than the specifics of how he justifies his faith to his self.
Now, if you want to get educated about the anti-Mormon gibots, then do as I have done. Don’t ask a Mormon. Go research out their websites after studying the LDS faith. Then you have a way to get context for their complaints.
The gibots want Mitt to go on record so they can draw him into an argument where they can get into their second, third, and forth tiers of rebuttal’s to his defense of his faith. They are not interested in being assured of his intentions as the president. They have his record as a governor to make that assessment. No, they are only interested in presenting him and his faith in the worst possible light. And not because they have a problem with his policies as a politician, but because they are utterly intolerant of his differing beliefs.
Well, I guess I found my motivation.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 9:26 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
Ex-tex on November 16, 2007 at 9:28 AM
But he’s not so why the conjecture? Comparing LDS to a bastardized version of the Disciplines of Christ run by a megallmaniac is an empty arguement, so what’s your real point?
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Touche.
In my travels, I have met a few LDS missionaries. To a man (sorry, I only met men preaching their faith), I found them very polite, well-scrubbed (even in some less than pristine environments), and always polite. Do I follow their teachings? no. Do I respect their right to believe in their views? Yes, absolutely. Will I vote for Mitt in the primaries? No. Will I vote for him if he wins the Republican nomination? Yes. No problem.
I do hope a conservative wins the nomination. Mandatory health care insurance does not appeal to me. Another right lost. How many more must we citizens give up “for the common good?”
Texas Nick 77 on November 16, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Maybe not just a bigot but certainly a hopeless bore for setting up a “what if” based on a “never happened” which boils down to a “why bother and “who cares”.
AprilOrit on November 16, 2007 at 9:36 AM
csdeven acquires yet another ‘countdown to’ catchphrase in 3…2…1…
James on November 16, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »