McCain: Let’s face it, there was some sort of anti-Mormon element to that South Carolina vote

posted at 2:50 pm on January 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

A little token of affection for South Carolinians from the guy they chose over Mitt Romney four years ago.

“We haven’t had time to do a real analysis of the Romney race in South Carolina, but once we break that down, there was some element of anti-Mormonism in that vote,” McCain asserted. “I’m not saying all of it, but there were elements there. There was nothing that Mitt Romney could have done.”

Could that bias, if it exists, extend beyond the Palmetto State to others in the South if the primary drags on? “I’m not sure [but] I don’t think so,” McCain said, pointing to Georgia as one place he doesn’t believe would hold Romney’s religion against him.

McCain cited the possible anti-Mormonism in response to a query about the growing Tea Party support Gingrich has begun to draw, particularly in Florida.

Interesting that it was a question about tea partiers that spurred Maverick to raise the possibility of religious prejudice; I wonder what his former running mate thinks of that. Note that he’s careful here not to allege that anti-Mormonism was decisive in Gingrich’s win, but if he didn’t think it was a significant factor he wouldn’t have brought it up. Is he right? Well, go back and look at the polls in SC over the final week of the campaign. On January 16, just five days before the primary, Rasmussen had Romney up by 14 points. The Fox News debate with the exchange between Newt and Juan Williams was held that night; two days later, Politico’s new poll found Romney’s lead cut in half. That was the last poll in which Gingrich trailed. Other polls taken on the 18th showed him leading Romney narrowly and then, after the CNN debate on the 19th in which he unloaded on John King, his numbers took off and he ended up winning by 13 points. Was anti-Mormonism a major contributing factor to a 27-point swing in five days even though no one of any significance was talking about Romney’s faith? Seriously?

To the extent that McCain is basing this on anything, I think he’s extrapolating from the exit-poll data. This data set got some attention on election night:

Romney finishes dead last among the “a great deal” crowd. But is that because they’re anti-Mormon specifically or just pro-Christian generally? You’d expect devout believers of any religious group to have a preference for candidates who share their faith, and in this case Romney’s being squeezed between the frontrunner and a famously socially conservative Christian candidate in Santorum. In fact, he actually finished second, ahead of Santorum, among evangelicals:

He does markedly better among non-evangelicals, but that gets us into the question of how much these religious demographics overlap with ideological demographics. Do evangelicals prefer Newt because he’s not a Mormon or do evangelicals prefer Newt because they tend to be more conservative generally and think Newt is more conservative than Romney? More data:

Would have been nice if the pollsters had included religious beliefs as an option there, but note how well Newt performs in three of these categories. He won the race by 13 points but he’s 15 points ahead on experience, 36 points ahead on conservative convictions, and he’s got a clear majority on the crucial issue of electability. (Newt himself attributed his win to changing perceptions of which candidate is most electable.) The only category in which he collapses is moral character. If there was some strong current of anti-Mormon sentiment out there on election day, how likely is it that it would have gravitated to the guy who finished rock bottom in the “character” department? Or is McCain suggesting that the hypothetical anti-Mormon voters who would have/should have otherwise gone to Mitt actually flowed to Santorum? Hard for me to believe that Santorum’s voters would have broken for the guy from Massachusetts who was pro-choice until about five years ago, but oh well.

One more data point:

I think that’s the real snapshot of who won and why. The further right you go on the ideological spectrum, the more appealing Newt is vis-a-vis Romney. Nothing surprising about that, from the contrast between Gingrich’s budget-balancing as Speaker and Romney’s enactment of RomneyCare in Massachusetts to Gingrich’s populist tactics of hammering “media elites” to the yawning gap in their respective abilities to articulate the conservative vision. There’s a reason why Mark Steyn’s parody of Romney’s stump speech resonated with so many readers, after all, and it ain’t because they’re anti-Mormon. But nice job by McCain to inject this poisonous issue into an already bitter primary. It’s simultaneously insulting to the heavy majority of primary voters who have nothing against Romney’s faith and risky for Mitt insofar as it introduces the subject to some in the small minority who might. Dumb.

Update: Here’s Gallup’s national poll on anti-Mormon sentiment from last June. There are, assuredly, some Republicans who won’t vote for Romney because of his faith — although, if Gallup is right, anti-Mormon sentiment is higher among Democrats (and independents) than it is among the GOP. Nationally, 18 percent of Republicans say they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, but that’s in the abstract, not in the context of a specific choice between two or three candidates. Remember that even Robert Jeffress, who called Mormonism a “cult,” said that he’d support Romney over Obama if forced to. There may be some voters who would prefer not to vote for a Mormon but who end up voting for Mitt in the primaries anyway simply because they find Gingrich and Santorum unelectable and/or otherwise unacceptable.

In any case, I’m not sure why McCain seems to think this problem is especially significant in South Carolina, even vis-a-vis other southern states like Georgia. The south wasn’t even the region that polled highest for anti-Mormon sentiment in Gallup’s poll. It was the midwest, at 26 percent.


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 3 4 5

libfreeordie on January 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Again, liberals the world over collectively slap their heads every time you comment. You just asserted none of them were White Supremacists when I think you were trying to convey that they were.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM

That’s what I got from it,..

All of them supported a Constitution that defined blacks as 3/5 a person. That is, by definition, white supremacy. 1 is greater than 3/5ths buddy. You can still think they put together a good government while acknowledging that all of them believed that white/Anglo people were superior to Africans and their descendents.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

So anyone who supported that Constitution, minus the 14th 15th 16th amendments was a de facto white supremicist? Even if they weren’t white? So the Confederacy breaking away, in effect repudiating that Constitution, were the good guys then? If staying in the Union was supporting that very same Constitution.. the union were by your defintion, the racist government..

If you are going to play broad brush inferrences of racism, and white supremicists, at least try think it through to the end. The modern defintions don’t work well when applied to pre-late 20th century thinking. You can’t assume to know what they all were thinking,.. and only a liberal is goofy enough to play that game.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

A much more interesting excerpt from that article would have been the second paragraph:

In an interview with RealClearPolitics after a town-hall meeting with about 100 seniors here, McCain often referred to Romney and his campaign as “we.” At the end of the interview, he asked intensely, “What’s [the RCP polling average] saying about us overnight after the debate?”
pitythefool on January 28, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I’ve been wondering if McCain wants to be Romney’s Secretary of Defense. McCain sounds as if he’s more than just another endorser of Romney.

Wethal on January 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I hope Gingrich and Santorum are blasting this all over Florida. What better point could be made than showing how the leader of the Republican “establishment” and Mitt Romney’s spokesperson, John McCain, is saying that anyone who doesn’t vote for Romney is an anti-Mormon bigot?

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Right. There is only one reason that this has been brought up by McCain. And it will backfire on them. Their internal polls must not be looking very good. What an insult to voters. Bad as those “bible thumper/gun lovers”, etc that we heard from B.O.

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I can see where his daughter gets her need to say annoying things from.. a chip off the old block our Megan is…

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You McCain are so right.We begot idiots here in SC just sit around all day drinking moonshine,carrying guns with our first cousins wives talking about how bad them Mormons are.Sick munt ugo i kuttint evan spall conseative repuplican now i arre one.Have to go now got to geeten a posumm fer suppore.Just maybe i will hit oil while shooting like cousin Jed. PS watch out for them Mormons they worship the devil don,t you know.

logman1 on January 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

That’s why I said Lincoln at least, I am well aware that Lincoln was also a white supremacist. But when you are dealing with people who believe that men who supported chattel slavery based upon race were not white supremacists, you have to go really, really slow.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

So, this liberal geek thinks the Great Emancipator was a white supremacist. What else do you need to know?

To be elected in the mid 1800′s, to not say PUBLICLY that whites were superior to blacks, which even many abolitionists who died for their cause, would say publicly, was suicidal.

You have no understanding of context or history. You must be a liberal.

Jailbreak on January 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I’ve been wondering if McCain wants to be Romney’s Secretary of Defense. McCain sounds as if he’s more than just another endorser of Romney.

Wethal on January 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

He’s just another opportunist.

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

You McCain are so right.We begot idiots here in SC just sit around all day drinking moonshine,carrying guns with our first cousins wives talking about how bad them Mormons are.Sick munt ugo i kuttint evan spall conseative repuplican now i arre one.Have to go now got to geeten a posumm fer suppore.Just maybe i will hit oil while shooting like cousin Jed. PS watch out for them Mormons they worship the devil don,t you know.

logman1 on January 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Finally, A South Carolinian coming clean.

Thank you, sir.

Jailbreak on January 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I never understood the raging need of some politicians to be such bad sports and give the public the finger like this. Even if Romeny wins, McCain doesn’t think he’ll need that state’s votes in the fall?

I won’t pretend to know how his electoral strategy will play out, but damn…

He hates the conservative vote that much?

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM

libfreeordie on January 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I’m certain you’ve never listened to Glenn Beck, but he refers to the 3/5ths as a compromise:

GLENN: Well, because they saw it as the only way possible to eventually end slavery. 3/5ths a person was not the value of their life. It was the value in the census. Think ACORN. If slaves counted as full citizens, the South would have so much more representation that slavery would never ever be able to be stopped.

For example, Governor Morris who assisted James Madison in the drafting of the Constitution described slavery as a nefarious institution, the curse of heaven on states where it prevailed, end quote.

Yet he argued that congressional representation should be based on one for every 40,000 free inhabitants. In fact, he opposed the 3/5ths compromise because he felt that it would still allow the southern states enough representation to keep slavery going indefinitely.

Fallon on January 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I never understood the raging need of some politicians to be such bad sports and give the public the finger like this. Even if Romeny wins, McCain doesn’t think he’ll need that state’s votes in the fall?

I won’t pretend to know how his electoral strategy will play out, but damn…

He hates the conservative vote that much?

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM

He wasn’t talking about conservatives, he was talking about anti-mormon bigots.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I looked at the polling results, the only thing I came away with is, why is Santorum still in the race? If Santorum the social conservative religious right candidate can’t do better than he is in Evangelical country how is he going to do in the secular states?

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

My opinion is that the Voters want a Bulldog with teeth and the experience and knowledge to take B.O. out. And nothing else matters, period. Newt has shown that if it can be done, he’s the only one that can do it.

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

He wasn’t talking about conservatives, he was talking about anti-mormon bigots.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

And he was saying that all Tea Partiers, conservatives, and those who didn’t vote for Romney were anti-Mormon bigots.

So I for one am done with Romney until he mans up and publicly smacks down McCain for his stupid statements. I don’t take this kind of abuse from Obama and his surrogates, and I won’t take it from Romney.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM

John has always been and always will be a miserable, backstabbing POC!

Doomsday on January 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

And he was saying that all Tea Partiers, conservatives, and those who didn’t vote for Romney were anti-Mormon bigots.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Link?

I suspect you’re lying.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

“It is interesting how Romney is mostly lauded for conservative positions he actually never implemented or was able to pass when he was a governing leader and Gingrich is chastised for supposed liberal positions for which there is no voting record. When it comes down to what they accomplished when in power to govern – Gingrich acted more like a Conservative President, and Romney more like a Compromising Legislator.

Similarly, why there is no evidence that Gingrich ever voted against something he campaigned on, Romney broke numerous pledges to both liberals and conservatives in his state.

So I leave it up to you to conclude who is more likely to do what they say.”

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

It’s just liberal babble, it’s attempting to make a moral relativism argument, but it doesn’t understand how that argument works. For instances, how would you like to be a 16th century American, being judged by a 21st century multiculturalist, fresh out of the re education camps or Jeremiah Wright’s pews at Trinity….GD the United States of America….The KKK of America, you get my point it’s that special “liberation theology”.

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

The Romney machine is not just throwing the kitchen sink at Newt. They’re throwing the bathroom sink, the sink from the bar in the den, the cat box, little Jonnie’s wading pool, and even the urinal from the gas station on the corner. I do believe they’re starting to look DESPERATE. I suspect the Romney machine is damaging their man’s chances WAY beyond Florida. Go ahead chuckleheads, keep it up, it’s like..WINNING!!

bigmike on January 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

(And Lincoln thought whites were superior to blacks as well, by the way. Read through the Lincoln-Douglas debates. He may possibly have changed his mind as the War went on, but definitely didn’t start that way)

RightWay79 on January 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I believe his friendship with Frederick Douglass may have changed his mind.

Fallon on January 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Anti-Drudge

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Look at his speech.

I did and makes very general remarks about polarization, which is requisite in a speech of this kind. It doesn’t mean he was referring to Palin. In fact, he specifically points out debate about gun safety laws and mental health institutions. If he specifically absolved Palin of any blame in interviews or at some event, then your argument would have merit.

Certainly he can. He can also call them out publicly as being wrong.

Just like Mitt Romney can call out his spokesperson John McCain as being wrong.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Sure, he can. Technically, anyone can do anything. It doesn’t mean that he/she should. If Romney denounces what McCain said (which he very well might), it sets a precedent of a candidate having to answer for anything and everything that a surrogate says. That may be feasible for a candidate who’s only had a handful of endorsements, but would be a headache for a candidate who has hundreds of them like Romney.

In this instance, McCain was offering an opinion, more than he was speaking for Romney.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I looked at the polling results, the only thing I came away with is, why is Santorum still in the race? If Santorum the social conservative religious right candidate can’t do better than he is in Evangelical country how is he going to do in the secular states?

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM

My opinion is that the Voters want a Bulldog with teeth and the experience and knowledge to take B.O. out. And nothing else matters, period. Newt has shown that if it can be done, he’s the only one that can do it.

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Santorum talks a good game, but I don’t think he’s going to last much longer. He’s not really even competing in Florida he can’t afford to. Once Santorum’s out the conservative vote stops being split.

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

My opinion is that the Voters want a Bulldog with teeth and the experience and knowledge to take B.O. out. And nothing else matters, period. Newt has shown that if it can be done, he’s the only one that can do it.

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM

This reminded me of something I wrote in another thread:

There is a group of republicans that would like to have a candidate that will say about Obama what they say when they’re drunk on the internet. At least a socialist. Ideally an anti-patriotic communist. Those folks are the ones who overwhelmingly support Newt.

That faction of the GOP believes has Levin, Limbaugh, Palin and the likes as their source for “conservative thinking” and never read a line of Burke, Oakeshott, Kirk or even Buckley.

Romney’s ethos is eminently “conservative” – being naturally reserved, the work ethic, the reluctance in displaying strong emotions publicly – but those over-emotional know-nothings are the typical product of Oprah’s age. Newt’s long list of litanies against conservatism and the GOP is irrelevant because he’s nasty and loud. He’s a blowhard. So, that faction of the GOP likes him for that. For the same reason, he’s despised for 3/4s of the country. That hasn’t changed in the last 15 years and won’t change in the next 15.

The truth is that less than 25% of the voters want a candidate like that. That’s why Gingrich or Palin or Perry poll as well with the general election voters as Alan Grayson or Debbie Wasserman Schultz would for the other side.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Well, if McCain does for some reason lose his spot as spokesperson, you would make an excellent replacement! And, even though I’m no historian, I am pretty sure the civil war didn’t start in 1932.

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM

It’s okay NO! Looks like Jail had Newt as a history professor!

KOOLAID2 on January 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Why do you insist on the falsehood that Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and all the political leaders in this nation were white supremacists until (at least) Abraham Lincoln.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Mark, this is the portion of his comment I was referring to. He says …

Why do you insist on the falsehood that … which infers that he disagrees that they were. But then gives his “evidence” later that makes him think they were.

He does that all the time. Think about how stupid his screen-name is for someone who professes to be liberal. Hmm, libfreeordie. In other words, If he can’t be “libfree” he’d rather be dead.

He also poses as an anti-Mormon Christian.

Learn more about anti-Mormon liberal poseurs in your library.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

lol, reread your’s! That’s what the running thread gag is about.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Are you saying I just kind of, sort of apologized to that nutball for nothing?

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

“It is interesting how Romney is mostly lauded for conservative positions he actually never implemented or was able to pass when he was a governing leader and Gingrich is chastised for supposed liberal positions for which there is no voting record. When it comes down to what they accomplished when in power to govern – Gingrich acted more like a Conservative President, and Romney more like a Compromising Legislator.

Similarly, why there is no evidence that Gingrich ever voted against something he campaigned on, Romney broke numerous pledges to both liberals and conservatives in his state.

So I leave it up to you to conclude who is more likely to do what they say.”

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Amazing.

Newt Gingrich’s rating on the Conservative Index (CI). His CI ratings for his eight terms in office have fluctuated between fairly good to mediocre to abysmal:

96th Congress: 84
97th Congress: 77
98th Congress: 74
99th Congress: 80
100th Congress: 80
101st Congress: 57
102nd Congress: 60
103rd Congress: 78

The following sample of votes shows only some of the many decidedly unconservative votes Gingrich has cast:

Welfare Madness. During his 16 years in Congress, Gingrich has inveighed vociferously against the evils of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state — while voting for every kind of welfare program imaginable: for the elderly, children, the “homeless,” businessmen, farmers, bankers, leftwing broadcasters, etc. Those votes include: March 21, 1991 — $30 billion to begin the unconstitutional bailout of failed savings and loan institutions; June 26, 1991 — $52.6 billion for agriculture programs, subsidies, and food stamps; October 5, 1992 — $66.5 billion for housing and community development; September 22, 1994 — $250.6 billion in appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.

Budget-Busting Profligacy. A Balanced Budget Amendment forms the core of the first plank of Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” He has been calling for such a measure and condemning deficit spending ever since coming to Congress. In an early 1982 speech he called on Congress to reject further increases in the National Debt Limit. “Only by using the debt limit as a leverage point” he bravely declared, “can we force the changes which clearly the liberal leadership of this body wants to avoid.” Trouble is, a few months earlier, on February 5, 1981, he had voted with those same “liberals” to raise the National Debt ceiling by another $49.1 billion to $985 billion. He has gone this same route many times since.

Of course, raising the debt ceiling would not have been necessary had he practiced what he preached. His votes against “more frugal government” include: December 21, 1987 — $603.9 billion for 13 regular appropriation bills larded with many wasteful, extravagant, and unconstitutional items (it passed by a vote of 209 to 208); May 4, 1989 — outlays of $1.165 trillion and a deficit of $99 billion for a dishonest and spendthrift 1990 budget designed to barely skim in under the Gramm-Rudman $100 billion deficit limit; March 10, 1994 — a vote against a responsible amendment offered by Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY) to balance the budget by 1999 through $698 billion in spending cuts (a mere 3.5 percent cut) over five years.

Considering these and other votes against sound fiscal policy, it is not surprising that Gingrich’s spendthrift ways have carried over into his personal finances. The 1992 House banking scandal revealed that he had run 22 overdrafts on his checking account, and this in spite of having voted himself a huge pay raise and having a taxpayer-provided, chauffeur-driven car. Nor is it surprising that his rating from the National Taxpayers Union during the latest session of Congress (the 103rd) was a meager 75 percent. His tax-and-spend record over the years on votes tabulated by Tax Reform IMmediately (TRIM) has so often contradicted his rhetoric that National Director of TRIM James Tort was prompted to remark: “Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution.”

Foreign Aid. If there is anything more unpopular, unconstitutional, counterproductive, fiscally irresponsible, and immoral than welfare for domestic freeloaders, it is welfare for foreign freeloaders. But the “tight-fisted” Mr. Gingrich consistently votes to send U.S. tax dollars to kleptocrats and tyrants abroad: June 27, 1990 — $15.7 billion in foreign aid for fiscal 1991; June 20 1991 — $12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993; June 25, 1992 — $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993; August 6, 1992 — $12.3 billion for the International Monetary Fund and $1.2 billion for the “republics” of the former Soviet Union; June 17, 1993 — $13 billion for fiscal 1994; September 29, 1993 — $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia; August 4, 1994 — $13.8 billion for foreign aid for fiscal 1995.

Eco-Lunacy. Gingrich, a longtime member of the Georgia Conservancy (“an aggressive environmental group comprised largely of upper-middle class urbanites” — Newt’s own words) cofounded by Jimmy Carter, organized one of the early environmental studies programs back in 1970 while a professor at West Georgia State College. According to Current Biography, the success of his early congressional campaigns was due in large part “to the support of environmentalists.” Besides being blatantly unconstitutional, virtually all federal environmental legislation involves gross violations of states’ rights and the property rights of private individuals, both of which Gingrich claims to champion. Newt’s “green” votes include: May 16, 1979 — the -Alaska Lands Bill, locking up 68 million acres as untouchable “wilderness”; December 17, 1987 — $307 million for continuation of the fraudulent and unconstitutional Endangered Species Act, putting the “rights” of owls, bugs, rats, snakes, and newts above those of people; March 28, 1990 — elevating the unconstitutional Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level status; May 23, 1990 — the badly misnamed Clean Air bill, requiring radical cuts in industry and automobile emissions, adding tens of billions of dollars annually in new costs to our already stringent and costly air standards.

Federalizing Education. The Communist Manifesto calls for nationalizing education, while the U.S. Constitution, to the contrary, prohibits federal involvement in educational matters. These votes cause one to wonder which document’s philosophy is guiding Newt Gingrich’s education policy decisions: May 10, 1979 — for creation of the new Cabinet-level Department of Education demanded by President Carter and the radical National Education Association; May 9, 1989 — $1.4 billion in federal aid for “applied technology education,” the new federalese for vocational education; May 16, 1990 — $2.9 billion for Head Start and Follow Through programs for fiscal 1991, rising to $7.7 billion in 1994; July 20, 1990 — $1.1 billion for a variety of education programs, none of which the federal government has authority to fund; May 12, 1994 — “such sums as may be necessary” for the $3.3 billion-per-year Head Start program and $2.6 billion for fiscal 1995 for three low-income and child abuse prevention programs.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Are you saying I just kind of, sort of apologized to that nutball for nothing?

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I don’t think he’s a nutball, but if you were taking him to task for being a century late in his quote, there was nothing to apologize for.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM

logman1 on January 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Heh, great parody and sarcasm!

Some pretenders didn’t even get yer drift…heh, the erudite ones.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Link?

I suspect you’re lying.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Top of the thread. Read McCain’s quote and how he made the accusation when asked about the Tea Party.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM

What are Mitt’s conservative numbers, joana?

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

But it’s mostly convoluted drivel, and not worth trying to sort out the babble. There is even a name for it.

Logorrhoea

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

If you honestly think that Romney would play the Mormon card, when he’s steered clear of it on the trail, and risk alienating his base, then you’re delusional. McCain has gone off script before and I’m pretty sure he did so this time as well. If Romney really did want to play that card, he would use someone who actually has a good relationship with evangelicals, not John McCain.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Like this?“They like preachers,” the adviser said of the tea party demographic. “If you take them to a tent meeting they’ll get whipped into a frenzy. That’s how people like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich get women to fall into bed with them.”

katy the mean old lady on January 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM

What are Mitt’s conservative numbers, joana?

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I couldn’t care less about Mitt. I never claimed Mitt was a conservative.

I was just pointing out that you were spreading blatant lies. And I brought up facts to prove it.

It’s quite telling that Newt’s supporter only defense once facts are put on the table is “oh yeah, but Mitt isn’t much better anyway”. There’s a difference: Romney won’t pretend to be some sort of conservative hero.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM

joana, just for you

During the 90′s, Mitt would have been rated at or near the bottom of conservatism in the Republican party. And Newt would have been at or near the extreme right of that scale. Newt was the face of the conservative movement in elected office along with probably Jessie Helms. Newt had a 90+ ACU rating in his 20 year career. He helped come up with the conservative Contract with America. At the other end was Mitt Romney who was against the Contract with America and who stated “I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” even though 60% of America voted for Reagan-Bush.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Sure, he can. Technically, anyone can do anything. It doesn’t mean that he/she should. If Romney denounces what McCain said (which he very well might), it sets a precedent of a candidate having to answer for anything and everything that a surrogate says. That may be feasible for a candidate who’s only had a handful of endorsements, but would be a headache for a candidate who has hundreds of them like Romney.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I love how the argument of the Romney supporters here is so similar to Obama’s — they point out Romney’s executive experience, leadership, and ability to run a tight ship — but then insist he can’t be held responsible for anything that his subordinates and surrogates do.

It’s almost as if Mitt can’t and won’t take responsibility for who he picks to speak for him.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

There’s a difference: Romney won’t pretend to be some sort of conservative hero.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I linked to a source. Blame them.

Now, in this comment, you blatently lied on your own. Hypocrisy is not the purvue of the left.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I understand. Libfreeordie does it purely unintentionally and has admitted as much about his poor thought process irt his screen-name.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Top of the thread. Read McCain’s quote and how he made the accusation when asked about the Tea Party.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

McCain said that there was an anti-mormon vote. Do you disagree?

You accused him of saying that “ all Tea Partiers, conservatives, and those who didn’t vote for Romney were anti-Mormon bigots”.

I think you are lying. You are, aren’t you?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

McCain said that there was an anti-mormon vote. Do you disagree?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Yes, because there wasn’t, such as there will not be in FL either.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I linked to a source. Blame them.

Now, in this comment, you blatently lied on your own. Hypocrisy is not the purvue of the left.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I blame the source for their inaccuracy and you for recklessly spreading their lies.

When exactly did I lie?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Romney won’t pretend to be some sort of conservative hero.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Huh?

de rigueur on January 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Like this?“They like preachers,” the adviser said of the tea party demographic. “If you take them to a tent meeting they’ll get whipped into a frenzy. That’s how people like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich get women to fall into bed with them.”

katy the mean old lady on January 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I hope you do realize that it’s possible that he wasn’t referring to religion, right? Because Cain and Newt are far from “preachers” in the religious sense. If that’s all they cared about, then Santorum would have won SC.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

When exactly did I lie?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

When you said that Romney doesn’t pretend to be conservative. It’s the entire flip-flop label thingie.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I never understood the raging need of some politicians to be such bad sports and give the public the finger like this. Even if Romeny wins, McCain doesn’t think he’ll need that state’s votes in the fall?

I won’t pretend to know how his electoral strategy will play out, but damn…

He hates the conservative vote that much?

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM

He wasn’t talking about conservatives, he was talking about anti-mormon bigots.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

well no, that wasn’t the message he sent, from the same article.

McCain cited the possible anti-Mormonism in response to a query about the growing Tea Party support Gingrich has begun to draw, particularly in Florida.

That would make McCain equating Tea Party support (which is very much conservative) with anti-mormon bigotry. If he uses them as interchangable, it is exactly his message. He has never gotten along well with the conservative movement, his “Maverick” reputation was built on starting very public spats with it.. Proving how moderate he was to a media which only loves self loathing republicans.

McCain may have just bumbled his response, but when you put bigotry and Tea Party together in the same sentences,.. you have to be willfully blind to not see it.. this coming from a vet who always respected McCain’s military record..

but here, he’s free associating, and he’s not doing Mitt any favors.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

You accused him of saying that “ all Tea Partiers, conservatives, and those who didn’t vote for Romney were anti-Mormon bigots”.

I think you are lying. You are, aren’t you?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

So, if I don’t vote for Mitt I’m a bigot and if I don’t vote for Obama I’m a racist.

Well, cue up the buttons cuz I’m a bonafide Bigot Racist.

/It Snot gonna work, I’m telling you, It snot going to work this time.

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Yes, because there wasn’t, such as there will not be in FL either.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Really? I mean, you’re saying that Gallup’s poll above is wrong? That there isn’t a single voter in the Republican primary that would vote for Romney if he wasn’t a mormon?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

McCain said that there was an anti-mormon vote. Do you disagree?

You accused him of saying that “ all Tea Partiers, conservatives, and those who didn’t vote for Romney were anti-Mormon bigots”.

I think you are lying. You are, aren’t you?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Nope. Just pointing out what was said above.

McCain cited the possible anti-Mormonism in response to a query about the growing Tea Party support Gingrich has begun to draw, particularly in Florida.

McCain clearly said that Tea Party supporters, conservatives, and those who voted against Romney in South Carolina were anti-Mormon bigots.

I understand that you don’t want to criticize Romney’s stupidity in selecting McCain, or Romney’s hilarious belief that anyone who doesn’t vote for him is an anti-Mormon bigot, but let’s deal with reality here.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

de rigueur on January 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Romney folks are the nastiest bull dogs in the field and I look forward to the general. It’s unprecedented. The accusation of “lies” is also one of their tactic, when the don’t like something. It’s not like one can have differing views…no, one has to be Muenchhausen himself…well, he sits in the WH.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Quite the opinionated bigot aren’t you?

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

When you said that Romney doesn’t pretend to be conservative. It’s the entire flip-flop label thingie.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

You have some serious reading problems. I said he doesn’t pretend to be a conservative hero. And Romney is running as a moderate, not as a conservative star.

In any case, thank you for admitting that the article was wrong and that Newt voted very often against his promises and against conservatives.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I hope you do realize that it’s possible that he wasn’t referring to religion, right? Because Cain and Newt are far from “preachers” in the religious sense. If that’s all they cared about, then Santorum would have won SC.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM

What the hell are you babbling?

katy the mean old lady on January 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

McCain clearly said that Tea Party supporters, conservatives, and those who voted against Romney in South Carolina were anti-Mormon bigots.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

That’s a lie. You’re making up stuff.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I love how the argument of the Romney supporters here is so similar to Obama’s — they point out Romney’s executive experience, leadership, and ability to run a tight ship — but then insist he can’t be held responsible for anything that his subordinates and surrogates do.

It’s almost as if Mitt can’t and won’t take responsibility for who he picks to speak for him.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Obama’s executive experience, leadership, and ability to run a tight ship? I don’t know of too many people that claim that Obama has those qualities. Romney does have those qualities however, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to be able to completely control everyone that supports him. You can send out marching orders, but it doesn’t mean your surrogates won’t offer up their own opinions, on occasion. If you find any quote from McCain that he was speaking on Romney’s behalf when he made that statement, then please do share.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Learn more about anti-Mormon liberal poseurs in your library.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM

LOL,….

I will thanks..

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Quite the opinionated bigot aren’t you?

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Calm down. No reason to use personal insults in a political debate. I’m sure you’re civil and educated enough to regret that comment.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Really? I mean, you’re saying that Gallup’s poll above is wrong? That there isn’t a single voter in the Republican primary that would vote for Romney if he wasn’t a mormon?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

1. Don’t make things up.
2. I never talked about “a single one of anything”
3. Don’t lie.

Newt won because of many reasons, the few who don’t like Mormonism, not a significant one.

Fools and bigots will always exist, on all sides. Mitt’s religion is one of his assets and should never be an issue. Nor should anyone else’s, unless they are for sharia.

Focus and don’t invent things.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Really? I mean, you’re saying that Gallup’s poll above is wrong? That there isn’t a single voter in the Republican primary that would vote for Romney if he wasn’t a mormon?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Isn’t it funny how Mitt Romney’s supporters are now claiming that a Gallup poll told them that people voted against Mitt Romney because they hate Mormons?

Mitt Romney is desperate, and he’s hauled out the last trick — send out bots like joana and McCain to scream that anyone who doesn’t vote for Romney is an anti-Mormon bigot.

It just shows people what a loser and a liar Mitt Romney is. He doesn’t respect voters. He just calls them bigots.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM

What the hell are you babbling?

katy the mean old lady on January 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Sorry. I’ll try use words, which may be easier to understand next time.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM

So, if I don’t vote for Mitt I’m a bigot.

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

You should read this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Get back at me if you still have doubts after reading it.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I never admitted to anything since I have to do my own research.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

See how you lie – I didn’t admit to such.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM

I’m not even a Romney supporter, but good try.

Again, you were making up when you accused McCain of saying that “all conservatives” who voted against Romney are anti-mormon.

It’s a shame you aren’t humble enough to recognize that, but it is what it is.

There’s nothing more to discuss: anyone can see McCain never said that.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Well, I will say this about South Carolinains, and I are one. We were pretty damn stupid to vote for McCain in 2008. But,we voted for Palin, not McCain, and certainly not because he was endorsed by Nancy Gramnesty. McCain just epitomizes the contempt the establishment has for conservatives. I will never forgive Palin for endorsing and campaigning for that old RINO in his last senate race. She would have been much better off, politically, had she never been on that socialist’s ticket.

they lie on January 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Like this?“They like preachers,” the adviser said of the tea party demographic. “If you take them to a tent meeting they’ll get whipped into a frenzy. That’s how people like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich get women to fall into bed with them.”

katy the mean old lady on January 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM

The Obamney ticket will be whipped into a frenzy this Tuesday.

Oops, I said whipped. That means I’m a racist. And, I’m a bigot to boot because I didn’t say Mormon. Shame on me. Shame.

Mormons.

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM

I love this topic becaue it will be on every day, if Mitt makes it, not that it s/b, but Obama will use it, claiming anti-bigotry all to the next term.

Fools, from the left to the right.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Newt won because of many reasons, the few who don’t like Mormonism (…)
Fools and bigots will always exist, on all sides.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:44 PM

See?

You agree with me and McCain: some voters are anti-mormon bigots who won’t vote for Romney because of his religion.

And it’s obvious some democrats will try to make his religion an issue in the primary.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Mitt does Donny

/Sorry, just being punchy on a lazy Saturday afternoon.

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Romney does have those qualities however, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to be able to completely control everyone that supports him. You can send out marching orders, but it doesn’t mean your surrogates won’t offer up their own opinions, on occasion.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Funny, in the corporate world, there are serious repercussions for people who do such “offering up their own opinions” – which you would think a supposedly-brilliant executive like Mitt Romney would know.

But for some reason, Mitt forgets all of that out on the campaign trail and lets his surrogates and spokespersons shoot off their mouths without a single contradictory word — and then argues it’s “too hard”.

That means Mitt Romney is either spectacularly incompetent and lazy — or his surrogates are saying things he supports.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Could you clue GOPRanknFile about tent meetings? He seems to be thinking about his sleep away camp.

katy the mean old lady on January 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

FL poll today:

An exclusive statewide Florida Decides poll finds Mitt Romney with a solid lead. The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixing Polling and Research for Bay News 9, News 13 and the Tampa Bay Times, shows if the election were today, 42 percent of GOP voters would vote for Romney. Newt Gingrich trailed by 11 points with 31 percent of the vote. Behind him was Santorum with 14 percent and Ron Paul with just 6 percent of the vote.

A look at a Romney/Obama match up shows Romney taking Florida 48 percent to Obama’s 44 percent. He seems to be the only candidate with that strength. A Gingrich/Obama race has Obama leading by 9 points, and against Rick Santorum Obama leads by 11 percent.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM

We agree on this much, but McCain is wrong. He is not an asset to Mitt. He is a disgrace to the land and should have retired when he had some dignity left.

Mormonism should not be an issue in the race. Will it be? Yes, but mainly from the left, if Mitt wins.

There are 1001 reasons against Mitt, but his religion should not be one of them.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Mitt… Too white and Nerdy

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Again, you were making up when you accused McCain of saying that “all conservatives” who voted against Romney are anti-mormon.

It’s a shame you aren’t humble enough to recognize that, but it is what it is.

There’s nothing more to discuss: anyone can see McCain never said that.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Oh, actually, I said much more than that; I stated that McCain said all Tea Partiers, conservatives, and those who didn’t vote for Romney were anti-Mormon bigots.

And you quoted me. Remember?

You accused him of saying that “ all Tea Partiers, conservatives, and those who didn’t vote for Romney were anti-Mormon bigots”.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Funny how you had to truncate that quote and not provide the full statement — probably because you could see clearly that McCain DID say that, and you were unwilling to condemn him and Romney for his doing so. Hence, you had to rewrite history to protect your Mitt.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

And Romney is running as a moderate, not as a conservative star.

In any case, thank you for admitting that the article was wrong and that Newt voted very often against his promises and against conservatives.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Joana you are a blind koolaide Romney shill who will lie like a dog to push your sorry socialist candidate and this proves it. You are either a liar or ignorant. And I don’t like calling posters out, but you are full of it.

This from the Washington Post:

“Perhaps people forget that I ran for president four years ago, you may recall that along with Mike Huckabee I was the conservative alternative to John McCain,” Romney said on Fox News Channel. He was responding to rival Newt Gingrich, who had accused Romney of lying about his moderate record. Romney said Gingrich, who has fallen in polls in the face of negative attack ads by Romney’s allies, was “apparently angry.”

“I’ve got a record, and it’s a conservative record,” Romney said.

they lie on January 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Funny, in the corporate world, there are serious repercussions for people who do such “offering up their own opinions” – which you would think a supposedly-brilliant executive like Mitt Romney would know.

But for some reason, Mitt forgets all of that out on the campaign trail and lets his surrogates and spokespersons shoot off their mouths without a single contradictory word — and then argues it’s “too hard”.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Newsflash: this is politics, not the corporate world. And people who were employed by Romney were, you know, employed by him. McCain may be deployed but Romney doesn’t employ him so it would be silly for Romney to have to answer for every single one of McCain’s opinions. Like I’ve said before, I think McCain is wrong, but he is entitled to his opinion.

That means Mitt Romney is either spectacularly incompetent and lazy — or his surrogates are saying things he supports.

Or he believes in free speech. Or he doesn’t feel like he needs to denounce for someone who isn’t a spokesperson.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM
What are Mitt’s conservative numbers, joana?

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Sarah is gonna start asking where Newton Leroy’s EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE is. Surely we don’t want another President without Executive experience. I don’t the swing voters give a crap how much conservatism one has- and they decide the election- not the HA crowd.

FlaMurph on January 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM

haner on January 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Humor. It’s a good thing.

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Oh, there are definitely some people who won’t vote for Mormons. Gallup polled this a while back. But McCain wants people to think it was determinative. No reason to believe that.

Allahpundit on January 28, 2012

No reason to think that everyone who is a bigot is going to raise their hands up to the friendly Gallup interviewer and say, “Yeah I’m a bigot,” either.

In other words, whatever Gallup said the number of people who are uncomfortable with voting for a Mormon is, it’s higher.

For sure.

Random on January 28, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Really? I mean, you’re saying that Gallup’s poll above is wrong? That there isn’t a single voter in the Republican primary that would vote for Romney if he wasn’t a mormon?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Is there some point you are trying to make or are you genuinely shocked to find out that there might be a Republican voter who wouldn’t vote for Romney because he’s a mormon?

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Hey Key West Reader, I never would have thought that Romney was once a young ELVIS impersonator!!

bigmike on January 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

We agree on this much, but McCain is wrong. He is not an asset to Mitt. He is a disgrace to the land and should have retired when he had some dignity left.

Mormonism should not be an issue in the race. Will it be? Yes, but mainly from the left, if Mitt wins.

There are 1001 reasons against Mitt, but his religion should not be one of them.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I’m not sure how we agree that some voters are anti-Mormon bigots and yet McCain is wrong.

I agree Mormonism – or whatever is the candidate’s religion – shouldn’t be an issue. But Democrats won’t resist to make it one and when that happens Romney’s team needs to be prepared to take advantage of it.

Oh, actually, I said much more than that; I stated that McCain said all Tea Partiers, conservatives, and those who didn’t vote for Romney were anti-Mormon bigots.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

And I think that by now it’s pretty consensual you are lying.

they lie on January 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Drop the childish and tasteless personal remarks from your comment, re-write it and I’ll reply. And again, I’m not even a Mitt supporter. Newt’s fanatics need to be a little less emotional and show some composure and restraint.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I understand. Libfreeordie does it purely unintentionally and has admitted as much about his poor thought process irt his screen-name.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I have run across this before, if it is what I think it is, on bulletin boards, it’s treatable. It’s not like forced utterance or tourettes. At first the person is usually mistaken for using grandiose speech, but closer inspection shows they can only communicate in the most convoluted complicated manner.

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Is there some point you are trying to make or are you genuinely shocked to find out that there might be a Republican voter who wouldn’t vote for Romney because he’s a mormon?

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

No, I was genuinely shocked at the suggestions, made in this thread, that a) nobody voted for Newt because of Romney’s religion b) that McCain stated that “all Tea Partiers, conservatives, and those who didn’t vote for Romney were anti-Mormon bigots“.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I don’t the swing voters give a crap how much conservatism one has- and they decide the election- not the HA crowd.

FlaMurph on January 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I got news for you, NO republican will be elected POTUS without the base of conservative votes. Don’t believe me? Let the Repub. POTUS candidate tell the base, conservative voters, “Hey, you jackazzes, I don’t need nor want your votes, so stay home or vote for someone else. I can win with the swing voters so screw you.” Wanna bet, he’d win the election with that statement which is what you are saying?

they lie on January 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Neither Johnny Mac or Tom Brokaw are gonna get you 1700 comments. You Betcha!

Bmore on January 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Obama’s executive experience, leadership, and ability to run a tight ship? I don’t know of too many people that claim that Obama has those qualities. Romney does have those qualities however, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to be able to completely control everyone that supports him. You can send out marching orders, but it doesn’t mean your surrogates won’t offer up their own opinions, on occasion. If you find any quote from McCain that he was speaking on Romney’s behalf when he made that statement, then please do share.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

It would have been easy to miss because I’d be willing to bet it only came up once. It was Obama himself who made the claim when someone asked him why he felt he could lead a whole country without any previous executive experience. He claimed that running his campaign showed all those qualities.

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Just a thought:

So, If Romney loses the nomination (not because he’s Plastic but because he’s Mormon) give way to a huge Obama surge? See! America isn’t just racist, it’s bigoted as well?

If the Establishment doesn’t get what it wants, it could go nucking futz.

/Thinking

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Or he believes in free speech. Or he doesn’t feel like he needs to denounce for someone who isn’t a spokesperson.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Gee, I’m not sure why Romney wouldn’t condemn someone who was calling the Republican Party base bigots. Especially when they were going on about “we” in reference to Romney and themselves.

Unless, of course, Romney agrees with McCain, which appears to be the case.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM

libfreeordie on January 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I vote ‘die’.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM

At first the person is usually mistaken for using grandiose speech, but closer inspection shows they can only communicate in the most convoluted complicated manner.

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I try to never use name-calling on Hot Air. But in the Army we called it being a dumbass.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Heard him on the air yesterday, giggling about murdering Iranian nuclear scientists. Swilling the family product probably played a role. Keep talking, Senator Budweiser.

Christien on January 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM

There is a group of republicans that would like to have a candidate that will say about Obama what they say when they’re drunk on the internet. At least a socialist. Ideally an anti-patriotic communist. Those folks are the ones who overwhelmingly support Newt.

That faction of the GOP believes has Levin, Limbaugh, Palin and the likes as their source for “conservative thinking” and never read a line of Burke, Oakeshott, Kirk or even Buckley.

Romney’s ethos is eminently “conservative” – being naturally reserved, the work ethic, the reluctance in displaying strong emotions publicly – but those over-emotional know-nothings are the typical product of Oprah’s age.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Right,… so the populist kind of conservative in your mind is nothing more than the common rabble… white trash.. the kind who get their conservatism from Rush? or Levin?..

hate to break it to you, but you’re horrifically uninformed about those listeners.. They were conservative before ever hearing AM radio, those voices just re-enforce what we already believed.. and yes, I’ve read Buckley,.. never attended a university, because I’s just a common rabble.. Buckley I liked, because he was never so snobbishly stuck up and upper class disdainful of regular middle class conservatives.

But since you’ve displayed in spades the typical kind of country club elitist the party was rife with until Reagan.. I don’t need to look further for the exact kind of voter who sets us up with a moderate who looses, and looses badly.

The giants of conservatism, Reagan, Buckley, never showed the kind of self righteous contempt for populist conservatism that folks like you do. You’ve built up this mental strawman of liquered up white trash morons who support whatever candidate is doing well against yours. It must be lonely up on Olympus, with all us commoners stinkin up the place.. how much better if we just shut up and let our betters just tell us what to do..

Yes, your posted view is deeply offensive..

Because no matter what you’ve read, or how you’ve experienced life, wether you’ve worn the uniform, or just raised a family with a good work ethic, and decent morals… we’re just those mouth breathers that refuse you your spoiled choice..

That we have considered reasons, or experiences that inform that choice..

don’t matter a damn to you,.. like a well educated liberal, you look down your nose at us, and have made up your mind.

and a few days ago, you wondered why this became about class..

You are why,.. when you disdainfully heap contempt on the working class, we kind of .. you know.. get pissed. Because nobody gave us anything, we earned it all, having the high end types tell us our opinons aren’t of any consequence.. good luck getting Romney elected without us, we kinda outnumber you.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM

It would have been easy to miss because I’d be willing to bet it only came up once. It was Obama himself who made the claim when someone asked him why he felt he could lead a whole country without any previous executive experience. He claimed that running his campaign showed all those qualities.

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Heh, which I think highlights the main difference between Republicans and Democrats on what exactly “executive leadership” is.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Drop the childish and tasteless personal remarks from your comment, re-write it and I’ll reply.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I really don’t care if you reply or not. You are full of it. You said Mitt was running as a Moderate. I showed you in his own words where he is running as a conservative. He has gone out of his way to paint himself as a conservative. Conservatives know it is BS. You apparently don’t. I repeat, you either knowingly lied or you are ignorant about Mitt.

they lie on January 28, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I live in Charleston, SC and I don’t know a soul who doesn’t think the Mormon church is a cult. So yeah…

stingray9813 on January 28, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Newt in Florida on Tuesday.

There. I called it.

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Yes, your posted view is deeply offensive..

Because no matter what you’ve read, or how you’ve experienced life, wether you’ve worn the uniform, or just raised a family with a good work ethic, and decent morals… we’re just those mouth breathers that refuse you your spoiled choice..

That we have considered reasons, or experiences that inform that choice..

don’t matter a damn to you,.. like a well educated liberal, you look down your nose at us, and have made up your mind.

and a few days ago, you wondered why this became about class..

You are why,.. when you disdainfully heap contempt on the working class, we kind of .. you know.. get pissed. Because nobody gave us anything, we earned it all, having the high end types tell us our opinons aren’t of any consequence.. good luck getting Romney elected without us, we kinda outnumber you.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM

+ infinity

Romney and his supporters like McCain are just like Obama; they think they’re better than everyone else, they think they should be in charge, and they want the rest of us to shut up and do as we’re told because we’re obviously less smart than they are.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Romney’s ethos is eminently “conservative” – being naturally reserved, the work ethic, the reluctance in displaying strong emotions publicly – but those over-emotional know-nothings are the typical product of Oprah’s age.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Wait. You previously said Romney was running as a moderate, and now you say he is a conservatve. Facepalm.

they lie on January 28, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5