Something funny happened on the way to the South Carolina mudfight

posted at 10:12 am on June 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

South Carolina has developed a bad reputation in politics.  In 2000, Republican operatives tried smearing John McCain in the presidential primary with rumors about his daughter, which some of his supporters still blame for his loss and the end of his first bid for the White House.  In 2010, those same tactics have been on display in the gubernatorial campaign, but they don’t seem to be working any more:

There’s a whisper campaign going on in South Carolina this month, but it’s not what you might think. The whisper is that the political smear tactics that this state made famous don’t seem to be working this time around.

It started a couple of weeks ago, when two separate allegations of adultery were directed at Nikki Haley, a Republican candidate for governor. Voters either didn’t believe the unsubstantiated claims or didn’t care; Haley won 49.5 percent of the vote in the GOP primary. She and the runner-up, Rep. Gresham Barrett, will face each other Tuesday in a runoff.

Last week, more unseemliness: Some of Haley’s critics, including at least one county GOP chairman and two pastors, questioned whether the candidate, a first-generation Indian American who was raised in the Sikh tradition, is really a Christian, as she says she is. It’s a touchy topic for South Carolina, where race, religion and negative campaign tactics have a long, uncomfortable history in politics. It’s also touchy for Republicans, who are trying to get past their image among many Americans that theirs is the less tolerant party.

“This is the sad truth in politics: If you want to really make something stick on somebody, you make it very negative and you whisper it,” said South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, who ran against Haley in the primary for governor but is supporting her in the runoff. “That’s what’s happening to Nikki right now. There’s no basis for it. There’s no reason for it. It’s politics at its worst. I wish we could eliminate it from the scene, and I hope that voters will understand that that’s what’s going on.”

Strategies don’t repeat themselves when they don’t succeed in the first place.  If South Carolina’s election campaigns get hip-deep in the mud, it’s because mudslinging worked in the past.  Attacks on character work because people don’t tend to know the candidates personally, and have to rely on their word that they will do what they promise, but Americans have an ingrained (and healthy) skepticism about politicians.  When questions of character arise, they tend to undermine policy because without trust, policy becomes moot.  And that’s true in a lot more places than South Carolina.

Why is 2010 different than 2000, or years before?  More people are better informed than before, and have access to information that they can check for themselves.  It’s more than just better technology, too.  In this cycle, people want to be better informed, and they’re less likely to worry about religion and gossip than their own pocketbooks.  Voters want an end to the status quo, and that also means an end to the politics of yesterday that got us to the status quo.

I did enjoy this passage from the Post, however:

“I think the 49 1/2 -percent figure that Nikki Haley garnered is a pretty clear indication that the people of South Carolina want to focus on the key issues,” said Romney, appearing with Haley at the College of Charleston Friday, a few feet from a marble plaque celebrating the education of the “sons and daughters” of Africa. He continued: “The distractions are not distractions anymore.”

If true, that could be good news for Romney should he run for president again; his Mormon faith was described as a liability in South Carolina in 2008. The state’s prominence in presidential primary politics — it is among the four “early” states on the calendar in 2012 — means the results here can have lasting effects. Romney placed fourth in South Carolina in 2008, behind McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

Romney got a raw deal from some quarters on the basis of his religion, and I still think he would have been a better candidate in the general election against Barack Obama than McCain.  However, Romney didn’t lose the nomination because of his religion (although it may have contributed in a secondary way); he lost it because conservatives didn’t coalesce around Romney until McCain took control of the primaries, thanks to confusion over Thompson’s status and concerns over Romney’s record in Massachusetts.  The 2012 election will look a lot different than 2008, and will be fought on entirely different grounds as well.  That’s the real lesson of why Haley is sailing to victory despite the best efforts of yesterday’s political strategies to drown her in innuendo and mud.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Some of you need to finally let that “they didn’t want Mitt b/c they’re bigots” crap go. I daresay I’m biblically to the right/more literalist/more fundie than ANYBODY on this entire board, and Mitt’s faith – which I reject as a wholly false gospel – had ZERO to do with me not supporting him. I’m not alone in that sentiment either, believe me.

Those few of you who refuse to accept that are the real bigots, imo.

splink on June 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Mormonism had nothing to do with my not supporting him as well. In a word, “Romneycare” is his Achilles Heel.

Yakko77 on June 21, 2010 at 12:09 PM

splink on June 21, 2010 at 12:07 PM

I believe he is Episcopalian.

Holger on June 21, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Beagle on June 21, 2010 at 12:07 PM

So far you’re the only one that has said that. I compared the quarreling between two cult-like groups (Christians and Mormons) to another pair of deranged groups. Who is crazier than the other is not the point. The point was, they’re all kooks. And they all look ridiculous fighting with each other.

Narutoboy on June 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM

I am surprised at the conclusion that selecting a woman would in some way help a Mormon but not another woman?

Seems like it would be more helpful to Sarah Palin.

Captain America on June 21, 2010 at 12:18 PM

I believe he is Episcopalian.

Holger on June 21, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Do you know what you get when you mix an Episcopalian and a Mormon?………………….Someone who knocks on the door and then doesn’t say anything…

right2bright on June 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM

The biggest things in Haley’s favor are that there is no real evidence, her accusers are weirdos, and she is much better looking than they are.

Speedwagon82 on June 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM

What is the basis for your faith? Please be specific.

splink on June 21, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Why? Christians aren’t. The two most common answers I hear are: 1. “Because of the Bible.” and 2. “I know my God and I trust him.” (someone from Hot Air actually said this almost verbatim)

Cult mentality.

And when you question Christians, they start rattling off a bunch of Bible verses, as if repeating what their book says somehow authenticates it.

Narutoboy on June 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Sorry, but that’s just a ludicrous statement. The fight will continue over whether Mormonism can be called Christianity, but it’s nowhere near “traditional Christianity.”

tom on June 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM

It might be quite far from tradition Christianity, but it seems closer than some versions of Unitarian faith held by earlier presidents. By my observation accepting the resurrection and the trinity seems essential to having a Christian faith. The Mormons seem a little more in-line than Unitarians in that regard.

dedalus on June 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM

they start rattling off a bunch of Bible verses, as if repeating what their book says somehow authenticates it.

Narutoboy on June 21, 2010 at 12:20 PM

ummmmm….yeah, that is what the Bible is for, to repeat what is in it. It would be a pretty interesting church if you go on Sunday and the Pastor doesn’t “repeat”…

After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him,

right2bright on June 21, 2010 at 12:29 PM

right2bright on June 21, 2010 at 12:29 PM

The Bible is for mindlessly repeating its verses without making any logical arguments in its favor? Well, yeah, I already knew that.

Narutoboy on June 21, 2010 at 12:32 PM

When is the bigot Nutrootboy going to stop trying to hijack threads?

He’s hoping this will devolve into a Christian vs. Atheist pissing contest. Pay him no attention, and he’ll go away, or not. It won’t matter if you don’t give him his wish.

hillbillyjim on June 21, 2010 at 12:33 PM

So far you’re the only one that has said that. I compared the quarreling between two cult-like groups (Christians and Mormons) to another pair of deranged groups. Who is crazier than the other is not the point. The point was, they’re all kooks. And they all look ridiculous fighting with each other.

Narutoboy on June 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM

I missed the subtle nuance of your previous bleating?:

Mormons fighting with traditional Christians is like Branch Davidians fighting with Heaven’s Gate or the People’s Temple. You’re all nuts, you’re all zealots, and while you’re busy fighting amongst yourselves, you miss the entire point: what you base your faith on is nonsense.

I’d love to know how you’ve come to think of yourself as the Voice of Reason. Do you read your comments?

Beagle on June 21, 2010 at 12:33 PM

hillbillyjim: In posting that message, you did exactly what you warned against, moron.

chicken, bawk-bawk

Let me guess: you’re a Magic Rock Ape, yes?

splink on June 21, 2010 at 12:33 PM

I don’t base my belief in a creator on a book.

Narutoboy on June 21, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Please try to pay attention; I didn’t ask you what your beliefs AREN’T. I asked you what they ARE. Please make a brief, positive case for them. One sentence will suffice.

splink on June 21, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Please use your brain. If you read that sentence, carefully, and you understand what my beliefs aren’t, it isn’t all that hard to figure out what I believe.

Narutoboy on June 21, 2010 at 12:39 PM

One thing you have to admit about the Mormons: They have the best music of any church, hands down. The British Anglicans are close, but only in some categories. The Mormons are good at everything, when it comes to music.

RBMN on June 21, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Fred! was such a disappointment

blatantblue on June 21, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Boy, ain’t that the truth. I hung alot of hope on him and the whole thing was such a non-starter.

keebs on June 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM

The Bible is for mindlessly repeating its verses without making any logical arguments in its favor? Well, yeah, I already knew that.

Narutoboy on June 21, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Well, you used the word “mindlessly”, so I imagine that is what you do…the rest of us do not do that.
Which is probably why your posts are what they are…mindless. At least you are honest…

right2bright on June 21, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Naturoboy,

Can you refute a medieval kook who based his faith on nonsense? Logical refutation only. Pointing out the Inquisition isn’t a response.

Even theoretical physicists discuss the possibility of an intelligent creator when Big Bang Theory is explicated. What makes you smarter than Stephen Hawking? And more importantly, why are you so much ruder?

Following the remarkable financial success of Stephen Hawking’s 1988 book A Brief History of Time, a number of distinguished physicists have tried their hands at the same literary genre. In this context I would like to quote from a book that I do not necessarily recommend to the general reader. This particular book is by a brilliant physicist, Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner and also a gifted and dedicated educator. Lederman’s book is called The God Particle and although the title sounds very appealing, the best material is in the first few pages. The remainder of the book is largely a case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting Super Collider, a proposed massive particle accelerator near Waco, Texas that was torpedoed by the U.S. congress some years ago. Therefore, reading the book today is a bit of a Rip Van-Winkle experience. But the first section is wonderful; it is in fact a good summary of what I have attempted to say in this lecture thus far. Leon Lederman states:

In the very beginning, there was a void – a curious form of vacuum – a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning. But this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginning. None, zero! We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second – that is, some very short time after the creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up. We are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.

In candid moments, outstanding cosmologists make statements rather similar to that quoted above. For example, Stephen Hawking states that “The actual point of creation lies outside the scope of the presently known laws of physics.” M.I.T. professor Alan Guth, critical contributor to the “inflationary” understanding of the Big Bang Theory,” is often considered to be the American counterpart of Hawking and has said analogously “The instant of creation remains unexplained.”

Beagle on June 21, 2010 at 1:12 PM

[deep breath]
Stop feeding the troll!

Look what’s happened. The thread has been hijacked. Narutoboy has succeeded in making it All About Him, and you guys fell right into it.

If we don’t feed trolls, they go get their jollies elsewhere.

Mary in LA on June 21, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Romney came in third in the ’08 primary behind McCain and Huckabee, after spending a large chunk of his kid’s inheritance. THIRD. (3rd., for the phonetically challenged)…

Third BEFORE Romneycare/obamacare became an issue.

Few, in comparison to another, showed up for an autograph during his book tour. Let alone waited overnight.

He may be “working behind the scenes” but, as another commenter stated we don’t need someone doing a Invisible Man routine. Nor do we need the endorsement of a candidate AFTER that candidate has won their race.

Romney is the John Kerry of the Republican Party minus the botox and rich Republican monied wife….

Gohawgs on June 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Someone spotted Romney? Did he have anything to say?

I guess he stepped in to raise Haleys’ arm in victory after Sarah fought off her detractors and helped her across the finish line.

Then wammo there’s Mittens droppin his referees stop watch and raising Haleys arm in victory.

Anything to say about Oil, Barrack, Joe Barton, democrat takeovers?
Anything Mitt?

Am I missin somethin here or is Mitt always the clown three steps behing the parade just waitin for it to turn the corner so’s he can jump in front and pretend to be the leader?

i think we’ve got one of those in the White House.

And I voted for Mitt in the Iowa primary.
He could at some point actually take a stand. Just sayin!
he could try to help the cause unless of course its all about Mitt!

dhunter on June 21, 2010 at 1:17 PM

All this other nonsense aside, allow me to reiterate…

…Yummy!

JohnGalt23 on June 21, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Is it Quote of the Day already?

Cindy Munford on June 21, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Honey, they are one and the same…even their official websites use the term Mormon.

right2bright on June 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM

That was the point. Christians being bigots to Christians. Priceless.

Mangy Scot on June 21, 2010 at 1:35 PM

What is the basis for your faith? Please be specific.

splink on June 21, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Note his non-specific answers. He does this every time.

You cannot reject or refute evidence if you refuse to even consider it.

It’s (he’s) a waste of time.

mankai on June 21, 2010 at 1:55 PM

your RINO rear is showing, Romney is unElectable for RomneyCare=NObamaCare

Romney got a raw deal from some quarters on the basis of his religion, and I still think he would have been a better candidate in the general election against Barack Obama than McCain. However, Romney didn’t lose the nomination because of his religion (although it may have contributed in a secondary way); he lost it because conservatives didn’t coalesce around Romney until McCain took control of the primaries, thanks to confusion over Thompson’s status and concerns over Romney’s record in Massachusetts. The 2012 election will look a lot different than 2008, and will be fought on entirely different grounds as well.

mathewsjw on June 21, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Haley probably doesn’t need Romney to win this primary, or (for that matter) the Governorship. She’s doing just fine on her own, and maybe Romney is trying to latch on to HER coattails for a win in the 2012 SC primary.

We should all just chill out on Romney’s Mormonism. Whether or not one believes that Joseph Smith dug up tablets from God in Pennsylvania (I certainly don’t) has nothing to do with Romney’s (or any other Mormon’s) qualifications to be President. Judge him on the issues and his past performances. Senators Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid are both Mormons, yet most HotAir commenters probably like Hatch and dislike Reid BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS.

Since this is a political blog, let’s talk about Romney’s politics, OK?

Steve Z on June 21, 2010 at 2:53 PM

splink on June 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM

As long as you don’t define him as a Southerner.

Cindy Munford on June 21, 2010 at 3:02 PM

I lived in Utah for many years and I am not Mormon. Generally they are good people and pleasant neighbors. I would also say that it is a Christen religion although a bit different than some others. The only knock on Mormons I can think of is that Harry Reid is one (but then every religion can have a few bad apples).

duff65 on June 21, 2010 at 3:55 PM

her runoff election is tomorrow. I hope she buries her opponent. I hope they call it within 20 minutes of the polls closing too….

slamdunk.

ted c on June 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Another feeble attempt by Allah to annoint Mittens as the GOP candidate.

…but where is Mittens on the Gulf Oil SPill? Where is Mittens on illegal immigration? So many hot button topics to discuss and Mittens is nowhere to be found.

Mittens has the ‘Judgment to follow’. He is not a leader.

He can’t even break free from his ridiculous Mormon mythology of Joseph Smith, his scrying device and the white Jesus.

I’ve also heard he has implants.

Mr Purple on June 21, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Something Funny Happened on the Way to the Nikki Haley Discussion Thread.

tmitsss on June 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM

The country is on fire, and people are still engaged in religion flame wars? Do you not get it people? United we stand, they want us divided and bickering with each other.

Conservative Voice on June 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

The country is on fire, and people are still engaged in religion flame wars? Do you not get it people? United we stand, they want us divided and bickering with each other.

Conservative Voice on June 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Maybe some of us multi-taskers…

right2bright on June 21, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Conservative Voice on June 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Some people on ‘our’ side and on ‘their’ side would be okay with the country burning down if they don’t get 100 percent of what they want.

Holger on June 21, 2010 at 7:04 PM

right2bright on June 21, 2010 at 6:50 PM

right2bright, you especially don’t get it…its not about multi-tasking, its about building bridges and uniting with what we have in common, instead of creating an environment of hostility that causes many people to avoid you.

Conservative Voice on June 21, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Mormons fighting with traditional Christians is like Branch Davidians fighting with Heaven’s Gate or the People’s Temple. You’re all nuts, you’re all zealots, and while you’re busy fighting amongst yourselves, you miss the entire point: what you base your faith on is nonsense.

Narutoboy on June 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM

This thread isn’t about the “worth” of either Mormonism or Christianity and it’s certainly not about your personal opinion of either as a faith!
You think the South is full of Deliverance-type rednecks, so your view of people of faith is hardly worth considering either.

Jenfidel on June 21, 2010 at 7:26 PM

That’s true… but only because he’s not much of a Mormon to begin with.

mankai on June 21, 2010 at 10:17 AM

That’s odd. Romney is a typical Mormon.

He served a two year mission in France and has been a Bishop and Stake President. He married is wife in the temple and has a large family.

Sounds very Mormon to me.

I heard from a guy at a Whitman event that Mitt recruited her and Scott Brown. If he recruited Haley too, he sure is doing the GOP a favor with these good candidates–and building his base for 2012?

PattyJ on June 21, 2010 at 10:32 AM

I had that same idea and wrote about it on my blog. He’s backing people in 2010 with the hope that they’ll return the favor in 2012.

Romney came in third in the ‘08 primary behind McCain and Huckabee, after spending a large chunk of his kid’s inheritance. THIRD. (3rd., for the phonetically challenged)…

Gohawgs on June 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Do you realize that Romney came in 3rd only After there was one to two weeks left in the 2008 Primaries!? Huckabee was running 3rd the entire time until Romney bowed out near the end of the campaign.

We should all just chill out on Romney’s Mormonism. Whether or not one believes that Joseph Smith dug up tablets from God in Pennsylvania (I certainly don’t) has nothing to do with Romney’s (or any other Mormon’s) qualifications to be President. Judge him on the issues and his past performances. Senators Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid are both Mormons, yet most HotAir commenters probably like Hatch and dislike Reid BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS.

Since this is a political blog, let’s talk about Romney’s politics, OK?

Steve Z on June 21, 2010 at 2:53 PM

I agree with you.

People should vote for candidates based on their political views, values, success, and positions. Not on religion.

Here’s an exersize that I think everyone should do. Take a liberal politican and a conservative politican that is from your faith. Now imagine they are both running for President. Who would you pick?

Given the religion is the common denominator, it should be eliminated from your decision making process and help you focus more on the politician than their faith.

For example, who would you vote for if both candidates were Jewish? (Eric Cantor v. Joe Lieberman?) What if they were Mormon? (Harry Reid v. Mitt Romney?)Catholic? (John Kerry v. Newt Gingrich)

I think you’ll find that the candidate’s religion is not as important as the candidates’ political and moral values.

As a side note, Joseph Smith didn’t find the golden plates in Pennsylvania but in Palymra, New York. ;)

It’s the perception that counts in the voters eyes…Romney is perceived as a supporter of ObamaCare via RomneyCare.
You can spend all day dissecting what he believes and doesn’t believe…but the bumper sticker says RomneyCare, and that carries more weight then a 10 minute dissertation on the differences…along with his other wishy washy stands, the perception will hold.

right2bright on June 21, 2010 at 10:58 AM

You know what’s funny is that the idea of an individual mandate was originally a conservative idea since it was proposed as an alternative to HilliaryCare.

In fact many of the conservative think tanks liked the idea but are now opposed to it. Yet, when Obama presented incorporated individual mandates into plan, it brought on universal opposition from conservatives. This has lead some people to believe that conservatives are flip flopping on the issue of individual mandates since they supported it in their opposition to HilliaryCare and are now opposed to RomneyCare, despite the fact that it was based on ideas presented by the Heritage Institute, in order to appear consistent in their opposition to ObamaCare.

For example, the Club for Growth has flipped flopped in their support for RomneyCare. They used to support it:

“Governor Romney Deserves Credit For Proposing A Plan That Encourages Individually-Owned Health Insurance…” “Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code.” (The Club For Growth, “Mitt Romney’s Record On Economic Issues,” Press Release, 8/21/2007)

Now Club for Growth is against it.

Thus, individual mandates gets conservative support depending on who you ask. The same was true when conservatives were debating the merits of individual mandates during the national debates over HilliaryCare and it is still true today.

Some conservatives liked individual mandates and others didn’t.

Conservative Samizdat on June 21, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Much like the Smear Artists of Nikki Haley in making wild unprovable accusations against her character and her personal faith Narutoboy blathers incessantly All of what You Believe is wrong. Ask him like you ask the smear artists where is this proof what you say is true is in fact true and you get nothing.

Apparently what he believes is not written in a book but appeared from the Magic Cookie Elf along with some milk and cookies late at night. The Cookian Faith

alloyiv on June 21, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Some conservatives liked individual mandates and others didn’t.

Conservative Samizdat on June 21, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Mandates in the Health Care Reform is roughly the equivalent of ordering someone to buy a house, taxing them for it and then forcing the mortgage lender to raise the interest rates year after year.

Holger on June 21, 2010 at 10:07 PM

The whole “Republican operatives smeared McCain in 2000″ is a LIE which was perpetrated by McCain and his fawning fans in the media. NOT TRUE!
`
Here’s what happened: some dipship upstate “independent Baptist” minister saw a McCain family picture (an adopted child isn’t white), made up his own backstory, and spent ONE MORNING making calls spreading this baloney, helped by his wife and daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law estimated they made no more than 200 calls all together, including no answers and hang-ups. Somehow this morphed (probably with embellishment from McCain’s people and the media) into a “push poll” sponsored by the Bush campaign, which was just a lie. The minister nor his family had ever been active in Republican politics before.
`
Then, someone emailed a state party worker about this story, and he forwarded the email on without comment to a couple dozen people. Again this was presented as some campaign by “Republican Party operatives” to blame Bush, who had the backing of most of the state party.
`
Those two are the ONLY examples anyone could ever find of this supposedly egregious smear campaign. It’s just baloney to claim otherwise. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
`
Another thing: the national media has used the Bauer/establishment smear campaign against Haley to besmirch the memory of Lee Atwater. Atwater did not engage in this stuff. He would hammer you to death with your record on policy, but every word was true, which is why he was so effective, and he didn’t deal in this kind of dirt at all.
`
The truth is McCain lost SC for two reasons: 1) Bush’s parents always were extremely popular here, and a lot of that transferred, and 2) when McCain tried to raise the smear issue in the final debate just before the primary, Bush rebuked him, condemned it, but challenged him about his own negative campaigning. McCain flatly denied it, Bush challenged him again, and McCain denied it vehemently, upon which Bush pulled a flier from his coat pocket which had been distributed at 15 Wal-Marts in the parking lots the day before. It was clearly negative and marked “Paid for by McCain 2000″ or whatever his committee was called. Caught lying on television, McCain was scorched at the polls.
`
And yet they all repeat the legend without ever bothering to check on it. Don’t worry, our in-state newspapers and TV news operations are just as guilty.

Adjoran on June 22, 2010 at 12:12 AM

I agree with this analysis. Smear tactics work only when the issues don’t seem potent to voters.

When issues are potent, smear tactics make the smearer look petty and, therefore, unreliable.

AnninCA on June 22, 2010 at 12:13 AM

I agree with you.

People should vote for candidates based on their political views, values, success, and positions. Not on religion.

Conservative Samizdat on June 21, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Certainly, but by the same token if Romney runs and loses, let’s not have another 4 years of “It’s because those knuckle-draggers hate Mormons” stuff. Romney lost in 2008 because he was a lackluster candidate, and I think the same thing will hold true if he runs again in 2012. Even more so, because of MassCare/RomneyCare whatever you wish to call it.

ddrintn on June 22, 2010 at 12:15 AM

The only 2008 candidate I want to hear of again, breathed life into the dead horse that was the Mclame campaign.

You know what’s funny is that the idea of an individual mandate was originally a conservative idea since it was proposed as an alternative to HilliaryCare.

Conservative Samizdat on June 21, 2010 at 8:40 PM

I will believe that the idea came from a Republican, but it casts great doubt on if he was conservative.

But if I thought that it was even money that it would kill Obamacare, I would try three way cream-cheese llama bondage.

Slowburn on June 22, 2010 at 4:19 AM

Romney got a raw deal from some quarters on the basis of his religion, and I still think he would have been a better candidate in the general election against Barack Obama than McCain.
I completely agree. I am still amazed that McAmnesty got the nomination. Romney or Giuliani would’ve fought a hell of a lot harder against Obama then McCain ever did.

Hilts on June 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Certainly, but by the same token if Romney runs and loses, let’s not have another 4 years of “It’s because those knuckle-draggers hate Mormons” stuff. Romney lost in 2008 because he was a lackluster candidate, and I think the same thing will hold true if he runs again in 2012. Even more so, because of MassCare/RomneyCare whatever you wish to call it.

ddrintn on June 22, 2010 at 12:15 AM

It depends. If Huckabee or any other candidate either openly or covertly makes Romney’s religion an issue of the campaign…then its fair to raise the Mormon bigotry issue.

And if Romney does become the GOP candidates, I expect all hands to be on deck helping Romney kick Obama out of office.

No one should refuse to help a republican candidate win the office merely because of their religion.

Secondly, if your preferred candidate didn’t win in the GOP primary in 2012, just bite it and help whoever the GOP nominee is. I wasn’t happy with McCain but I did all I could to help him win the election.

Conservative Samizdat on June 22, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2