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

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

Except that’s not what he called the base. He said that there was some element of anti-Mormonism. Some does not equal the whole base. Once again, I disagree with him especially since Romney was leading by double digits just a week before the primary. Just because you accept someone’s endorsement, it doesn’t mean you take on all their positions as well. If that’s the case, then Romney couldn’t have accepted Huntsman’s endorsement especially since Huntsman made clear that he was endorsing Romney despite their differences. You’re often going to disagree with your surrogates. That’s just reality. It’s hard to say that he agreed with McCain considering he had the opposite view of McCain’s during his interview with Chris Wallace, following his loss.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 5:16 PM

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If you aren’t one of the people I described, you aren’t. Why are you worried? I never accused you of anything, you’re just being paranoid.

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

And I still do. And I find the “class warfare” undertones of your comment deeply disturbing. Have you ever read Marx or Lenine? If not, maybe you should – there’s always the possibility that you’re actually a Marxist at heart and you still don’t know it. Not saying you are, just speculating on the basis of the tone of your post and how defensive and collectivist you are about “class” and “working class”.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

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

+1. That’s the long and short of it. They don’t want anyone else’s input in the process before Election Day.

Christien on January 28, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Eat it, Romney

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:22 PM

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

Yeah, I saw it too… some not claiming he’s a conservative, huh..

sigh, it doesn’t matter anyway, we aren’t qouting the right thinker or name dropping thde right college for some to pay attention.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Mc Cain is one of the politicians that needs to go to the moon. God help the moon.

Charm on January 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Here’s John McCain’s campaign playbook on Mitt Romney!

Romney is NOT a Conservative from what I can see.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-book-on-mitt-romney-here-is-john-mccains-ent

Sparky5253 on January 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

joana on January 28, 2012 at 4:25 PM

lol, whatev’s.

I think I’ll go throw a Baby Ruth in the pool.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

This thread went nuts fast.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM

And don’t forget, another one of Romney’s surrogates proudly stated yesterday that Romney’s goal is Romneycare in every single state.

Now let’s see the “real conservative” Mittbots start spinning how socialized medicine and government takeover of health care equal conservativism.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

lol, whatev’s.

I think I’ll go throw a Baby Ruth in the pool.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Into the punchbowl!

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM

If you aren’t one of the people I described, you aren’t. Why are you worried? I never accused you of anything, you’re just being paranoid….

And I still do. And I find the “class warfare” undertones of your comment deeply disturbing. Have you ever read Marx or Lenine? If not, maybe you should – there’s always the possibility that you’re actually a Marxist at heart and you still don’t know it. Not saying you are, just speculating on the basis of the tone of your post and how defensive and collectivist you are about “class” and “working class”.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

LOL.

Notice how the mind of Mitt Romney and his surrogates work. They are never wrong; if you disagree with them or find something that they say to be false, it’s your fault.

You can never be right. You are always wrong. Everything you do is wrong. Only Mitt and those who worship Mitt are right. Anyone who disagrees is a moronic anti-Mormon bigot.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

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

A leftist sticking up for another leftist, and using standard leftist talking points (i.e., “RAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!!!”) to do so…?

Oh. The shock. My heart.

We’re Screwed… Florida AG Pam Bondi Says Mitt Wants Romneycare In Every State (Video)

Romney’s negative ratings soaring among independents

Another four more years of The Won, guaranteed.

Congratulations on a job well done, Mittbots. Mission Accomplished.

Kent18 on January 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Again, I’m not a Mitt supporter. And I have no idea how you can see all that in my post. I didn’t accuse anyone of being wrong.

I think some people have serious self-esteem problems or have too much of a victim mentality going on.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

For what it is worth:

Today is my daughter’s 22nd Birthday. Or, it should have been. She died in a day care center 21 years ago.

I keep wondering what life would be like if she had survived.

And I keep wondering why people like Obama and Romney support killing children. I just don’t get it. I just don’t get it.

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:34 PM

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. Sheesh, the insanity on here sometimes.

libfreeordie on January 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

By the way, that ignorant old canard needs to die immediately. They didn’t “define” blacks as 3/5 of a person. They wanted to count blacks as 3/5 for the purposes of representation. Using that logic, the southern states wanted to count blacks as one whole person, thus were not white supremacists; while the northern states wanted to count them as zero persons. The 3/5 compromise enabled the Constitution to be ratified, which later in turn became the instrument by which slavery was outlawed.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Except that’s not what he called the base. He said that there was some element of anti-Mormonism. Some does not equal the whole base. Once again, I disagree with him especially since Romney was leading by double digits just a week before the primary.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 5:16 PM

No, you don’t disagree with him. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have sat here for so long flapping your gums trying to spin for him.

McCain showed Romney’s true contempt and hatred for the Tea Party and the base. Period.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

As a Mormon I think it’s incredibly foolish and weak on Romney’s part to push this line of attack through his surrogates. What does he think it’s going to accomplish? Is it going to shame the handful of anti-Mormons out there into voting for him? No. It will probably only succeed in pushing those on the fence into Newt’s camp because no one likes a martyr.

If Mitt wants to win, he needs to tell his attack dogs to drop the whiny anti-Mormon angle.

Kataklysmic on January 28, 2012 at 5:35 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

As ignorant as I am, I’m starting to think you might not be a Republican at all. First, you called us “Folks”. Then you schooled us on the three facets of conservatism- Being reserved, having a good work ethic, and avoiding displaying strong emotions in public. You are pathetic.

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Congratulations on a job well done, Mittbots. Mission Accomplished.

Kent18 on January 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Why are you congratulating a failure?

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Repeated for the irony deficient.

Again, I’m not a Mitt supporter. And I have no idea how you can see all that in my post. I didn’t accuse anyone of being wrong.

I think some people have serious self-esteem problems or have too much of a victim mentality going on.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

There are none so blind as those zombies proudly carrying Mitt’s greenbacks on their eyes.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 5:38 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

GRIN, A FUBAR at least ;)

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Here are a few things Mitt’s team should try that are known to be just as helpful as playing the bigotry card:

1) Telling an angry person to calm down.

2) Explaining to a rabid dog why it’s not in his best interest to bite you.

3) Asking your wife if it’s her time of the month.

Kataklysmic on January 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Why are you congratulating a failure?

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Didn’t read the links, huh?

Kent18 on January 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM

If Mitt wants to win, he needs to tell his attack dogs to drop the whiny anti-Mormon angle.

Kataklysmic on January 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Faith is a private thing. I’m not sure if Romney pulled the faith card, but either way, he’s a loser.

Let’s just call him a victim of Plasticide.

/No To Plastic Man

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:41 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

The last one I ran into was hung up on race, and racism too. He feel in love with the word enclave just typed it into every response he could “Bless His Heart”. It was on a genealogy bb there is really nothing worse then a socio history troll, they will bore you to death LOL!

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM

You know what, McCain? You lost your credibility when you treated your own vice presidential candidate like a broken down old shoe. So we’d like it if you just shut up now.

RebeccaH on January 28, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I’m not sure if Romney pulled the faith card

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

I admire your evenhandedness, but I find it hard to believe McCain is somehow going rogue on this. If he is, Mitt needs to get out in front of it and disavow the sentiment in a way that doesn’t slap McCain.

Kataklysmic on January 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Oh my, you sound very nervous and angry. Personal insults and lack of courtesy are quite unnecessary, don’t you think?

I didn’t call “you” anything. I was mentioned a faction of the party. If you aren’t part of it, then great.

I wasn’t trying to school you on anything either. Why are people so defensive that expressing an opinion they dislike is seen as an attempt to “school” them? Just express disagreement on a civil way, if you in fact have one.

Those personal traits are typical of what Michael Oakeshott described as “the conservative disposition” in his famous essay, as you know. Obviously, they don’t make one a political conservative – nor the lack of them makes one a political liberal. But my entire point is that a faction of the voters is more worried about personal style – they want “a bulldog” that will “fight” – than policy.

I hope this has clarified your doubts.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

No, you don’t disagree with him. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have sat here for so long flapping your gums trying to spin for him.

McCain showed Romney’s true contempt and hatred for the Tea Party and the base. Period.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Ah it’s too bad you think it’s impossible to disagree with something while still saying that Romney has no responsibility for McCain’s opinions. Believe it or not, it is possible. In fact, if you look on the very first page, I was one of the first people to call McCain out on his idiotic remarks. I also said that there’s no one to blame but Romney himself for losing SC. You’re trying to conflate the two. It’s nothing more than a non sequitur. Nice try, though.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM

For what it is worth:

Today is my daughter’s 22nd Birthday. Or, it should have been. She died in a day care center 21 years ago.

I keep wondering what life would be like if she had survived.

And I keep wondering why people like Obama and Romney support killing children. I just don’t get it. I just don’t get it.

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I’m very sorry to hear that. When anyone tells me I’m over-protective about my daughter, I tell them she wasn’t that easy to come by and she can’t be replaced, so mind your own business.

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

As a conservative,evangelical South Carolinian, I am disgusted that McCain had the hubris to stereotype me and the tens of thousands of us who voted to reject the squishy unprincipled Mitt Romney,not because of his Mormon faith,but because we could not trust him to carry out a conservative agenda.Romney-you will go down to defeat just like your disgraceful pal!

redware on January 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Awesome! Louis has some pipes. Thanks for posting.

Christien on January 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Key West,

Plastic Man

Christien on January 28, 2012 at 5:57 PM

This thread went nuts fast.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I’ve saw this happen in 2008 on many different websites when one or more obots entered. I think it’s easy to see which one or more may be here. There is a pattern with this person on almost all HA threads.

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Ummm, here is an idea John. Why don’t you just go away. Crap, your probably the reason Mitt lost SC.

TheGarbone on January 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

libfreeordie has no understanding of the historical matters surrounding the adoption of the Constitution. It is just repeating some OWSer nonsense It heard somewhere.

It was the Northern abolitionists who fought for the 3/5 designation for black slaves, NOT the Southern slave owners.

By the 3/5 rule, the political power of the Southern slave holders would be diminished in the House of Representatives.

The 3/5 rule was not ever a definition of a black person as being only 3/5 person. It was rule for counting population in order, as I said, to diminish the power of the Southerners in the House.

Liberal no-minds are soooo easy to spot. Blah, blah…blah, blah.
“Whaddaya think of that?” Reply: “Nothing at all.”

Horace on January 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Nothing is smarter than to suggest that your target voting audience is racist, ignorant or bigots. Brilliant.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Horace on January 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I think libs know this. But as with many other facts that don’t support their ideology, they are conveniently forgotten or distorted to mean the opposite. Ends justify the means.

Kataklysmic on January 28, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Oh my, you sound very nervous and angry. Personal insults and lack of courtesy are quite unnecessary, don’t you think?

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Considering that that’s all your posts consist of, I would say that that’s all Mittbots like yourself can do — insult and be discourteous toward others.

Meanwhile, your praising of the so-called “conservative virtues” reveals your point; you want all the rest of us to shut up so that you and your Mitt can prattle on endlessly about how uneducated we are, how bigoted we are, and how unfit we are to have our own opinions and to disagree with you.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Ah it’s too bad you think it’s impossible to disagree with something while still saying that Romney has no responsibility for McCain’s opinions.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM

McCain is going out and speaking on Romney’s behalf at Romney’s request and with Romney’s support and endorsement.

And then claiming that Romney lost in South Carolina due to anti-Mormon bigotry.

And then stating that Tea Partiers and conservatives are in any way relevant to McCain and the Romney campaign’s belief that anyone who votes against Romney does so out of anti-Mormon bigotry.

And is now calling me a bigot because I have no intention of voting for Romney.

What this shows me is very simple. Romney designates spokespersons. Romney surrounds himself with people who hate Tea Partiers and conservatives. Romney is taking advice and the support of people who call anyone who disagrees with or doesn’t vote for him a bigot.

And then Romney doesn’t want to take responsibility for any of his choices of spokespersons, advisors, and supporters.

Obama Part Two, the White Version.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Horace on January 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I think libs know this. But as with many other facts that don’t support their ideology, they are conveniently forgotten or distorted to mean the opposite. Ends justify the means.

Kataklysmic on January 28, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Hey people point out that liberalism is a mental disorder at least I pointed out the specific mental disorder. It’s also known among lay people as diarrhea of the mouth GRIN.

Dr Evil on January 28, 2012 at 6:14 PM

As a conservative,evangelical South Carolinian, I am disgusted that McCain had the hubris to stereotype me and the tens of thousands of us who voted to reject the squishy unprincipled Mitt Romney,not because of his Mormon faith,but because we could not trust him to carry out a conservative agenda.Romney-you will go down to defeat just like your disgraceful pal!

redware on January 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM

oh come on, get off your soap box, he didn’t stereotype you or anybody else for that matter (projection, much), he just said that he believes there were some elements of anti-mormonism, or at least that’s how he interpreted the exit polls…what is the problem, now he can’t have an opinion? He might be as well wrong, fine, he just said that he believed’, you know what that means, right, he was expressing a subjective opinion…same like the oracle of alaska did the other day, when she blessed us with yet another platitude, the cannibalism thingy…

jimver on January 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

McCain is going out and speaking on Romney’s behalf at Romney’s request and with Romney’s support and endorsement.

And then claiming that Romney lost in South Carolina due to anti-Mormon bigotry.

And then stating that Tea Partiers and conservatives are in any way relevant to McCain and the Romney campaign’s belief that anyone who votes against Romney does so out of anti-Mormon bigotry.

And is now calling me a bigot because I have no intention of voting for Romney.

What this shows me is very simple. Romney designates spokespersons. Romney surrounds himself with people who hate Tea Partiers and conservatives. Romney is taking advice and the support of people who call anyone who disagrees with or doesn’t vote for him a bigot.

And then Romney doesn’t want to take responsibility for any of his choices of spokespersons, advisors, and supporters.

Obama Part Two, the White Version.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 6:12 PM

oh, dear, the grand Romney/McCain/Establishment conspiracy theory…But I can see through all this, it’s actually the Reptilian Agenda at work :)…

jimver on January 28, 2012 at 6:21 PM

oh come on, get off your soap box, he didn’t stereotype you or anybody else for that matter (projection, much), he just said that he believes there were some elements of anti-mormonism, or at least that’s how he interpreted the exit polls…what is the problem, now he can’t have an opinion?

jimver on January 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

His opinion is that Christians, conservatives, and Tea Party supporters are all anti-Mormon bigots, and that’s why Romney lost in South Carolina.

He is also saying this opinion and branding all Christians, conservatives, and Tea Party supporters as bigots on national TV.

And he is doing all of this under the aegis of and with the full support and endorsement of Mitt Romney.

All John McCain is doing is showing us what Mitt Romney says and believes — that anyone who votes against him is an uneducated and hateful bigot.

I am sick of having my beliefs, my political opinions, and my life belittled and torn apart by liars like John McCain and Mitt Romney.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 6:21 PM

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If you aren’t one of the people I described, you aren’t. Why are you worried? I never accused you of anything, you’re just being paranoid.

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

And I still do. And I find the “class warfare” undertones of your comment deeply disturbing. Have you ever read Marx or Lenine? If not, maybe you should – there’s always the possibility that you’re actually a Marxist at heart and you still don’t know it. Not saying you are, just speculating on the basis of the tone of your post and how defensive and collectivist you are about “class” and “working class”.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:17 PM

My God, you don’t get it,….

You just posted a rant of yours decrying calling Obama a socialist, than call me one?

for what?

Telling you your rant targeting the AM radio audience and the noncollege educated,.. with constant references to authors who read like a deans list, is telling me, I’m exactly your target, you come across as a trust fund kid rolling their eyes at the idea, the very idea, that the guy ringing up your groceries dares to have an opiniion of his very own…

clearly, we need to shut up in your view..

Your response to calling a huge section of conservative voters who like Newt, is to call us essentially retards..

Then complain that the Newt supporters shouldn’t get upset about that discription, if they aren’t really an uninformed dolt. So let’s play, all those Mitt supporters who dislike Newt, are really sexually repressed 50 year old virgins with no concept of real human interactions… but don’t take that personally, if you like, aren’t socially handicapped and retarded….. sheeeeeeesshh..

You think this passes for people skills?

You selected the very group of people many of us fall into, (AM listeners, non college educated)and don’t get why that went badly? You took it class war, when you attacked AM listeners, the demographic isn’t doctors and lawyers is it? You made special effort to insult the intelligence of that group, by telling us we knew nothing because we didn’t read Buckley and Burke..

How often does the average fulltime employee sit down and read conservative thinkers do you wonder?.. when I’m not watching my kids, or keeping the home, I’m playing Skyrim or reading online.. That’s my release.. That I have read Buckley and some Marx comes of my time at a SAC Minuteman III base in the early 80′s.

ya know, the Kill a commie for Mommy thang… so many of us anti-communists were into during the cold war?

I’m class conscious to the brink of knowing when I’ve been insulted in a thoughtless rant which informs me, my opinion is sh*t, because I didn’t read the right books and don’t understand a real conservative.. like that dreamy Mitt.. or someting.

Missy,…

I was a conservative when most ppeople had never heard the word yet. When the “in” “hip” crowd was into appeasing the Soviets so they’d let us live.. I’ve read Buckley, read Reagan, read PJ O’Rourke, read the National Review before they shifted gears to it’s current lame theme. I will not be lectured by you or anyone on what my opinion “should” be..

I’m a proud American, and not asking you for anything, except you stop verbally abusing an entire class because you’re pissed we don’t like Mitt. Tell us why he’s great, if you can, tell us why you think Newt is wrong.. but don’t condescend to tell us how inspidly stupid we are because the conservative base doesn’t like or trust Mitt.

It was a childishly arrogant rant. Throwing insults like shrapnel, so don’t be surprised we took offense.

I have yet to meet a conservative poor or rich who was a boorish know nothing.. that would be certain independents and democrats.. conservatives can’t afford to be uninformed as a group.. not when so many hunt us for sport.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Sorry for your loss. I think any of us that have lost family members would wonder the same thing. Like you, I can’t relate to those that support the taking of life. I watch the birds in the sping, building their nests. They protect the little ones with every instinct they have. You would think man would learn.

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

+ infinity, times two.

The Mittbots seriously do not get it. They, their leader Mitt, and their moronic spokesperson McCain think they can shit on the people who actually go to work and pay the bills all day, call us names, mock our beliefs and our education, and treat us like dirt.

McCain just called me an anti-Mormon bigot because I have decided at this point not to vote for Romney in the primary. And I’m sick of it. He doesn’t care about my opinion, my thought process, my background, or anything else; he just condemns me as a bigot because I’m not doing what he says.

That is the height of arrogance and stupidity. And the fact that Mitt Romney supports and endorses McCain and his foul words demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Romney is just as stupid and arrogant as McCain — or even more so, since Romney CHOSE McCain.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM

the oracle of alaska

good one

ray on January 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

You know what, McCain? You lost your credibility when you treated your own vice presidential candidate like a broken down old shoe. So we’d like it if you just shut up now.

RebeccaH on January 28, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I agree. Not only that but where was he when she was being attacked? No where.

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Lol sure he designates spokespersons…just like every other candidate for office. It still doesn’t mean McCain is one of them, though. Once again, nice try.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Oh my, you sound very nervous and angry. Personal insults and lack of courtesy are quite unnecessary, don’t you think?

I didn’t call “you” anything. I was mentioneda faction of the party. If you aren’t part of it, then great.

I wasn’t trying to school you on anything either. Why are people so defensive that expressing an opinion they dislike is seen as an attempt to “school” them? Just express disagreement on a civil way, if you in fact have one.

Those personal traits are typical of what Michael Oakeshott described as “the conservative disposition” in his famous essay, as you know. Obviously, they don’t make one a political conservative – nor the lack of them makes one a political liberal. But my entire point is that a faction of the voters is more worried about personal style – they want “a bulldog” that will “fight” – than policy.
I hope this has clarified your doubts.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I don’t know why you would interpret my response to you as either nervous or angry. Apparently you lack some sort of filter in your brain to be able to tell when you are being rude. Your snotty tone and quotes don’t make you seem more intelligent than others. I think deep down you use them to cover your insecurity and your lack of personal knowledge, because you have yet to contribute one interesting or informative item to this topic. You are probably one of the people who had to hide at home the day Wikipedia was down, so no one would realize how vapid you really are.

There are some Mitt Romney supporters who are so ignorant that they should not be allowed to speak if he has any chance of winning. There are some Mitt Romney supporters who make people who had nothing against Mormon’s think maybe they better do a little research. There are some Mitt Romney supporters who think the best way to win is to annoy as many people as possible. There are some Mitt Romney supporters who think insinuating that other people are bigots, hicks, and morons will force those people to support Mitt Romney out of, what should we call it, non-Mormon guilt? I’m not talking about you, of course, unless you are one of this faction of Mitt Romney supporters.

I wonder why some people think that losing an election is preferable to winning, as long as they feel their “policy” is better than someone elses’? I wonder why some people think that spewing a bunch of crap would clear up any doubts I might have? I wonder why I bothered to respond to a pathetic moron?

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I have yet to meet a conservative poor or rich who was a boorish know nothing.. that would be certain independents and democrats.. conservatives can’t afford to be uninformed as a group.. not when so many hunt us for sport.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

An absolute pleasure to read your entire comment!!

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

This thread went nuts fast.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Residual effects of the latest Palin thread? I can only hope you didn’t spend too much time on that thread. If you did, make sure your tetanus shots are current and you’re well stocked on penicillin. Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind.

Bmore on January 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Lol sure he designates spokespersons…just like every other candidate for office. It still doesn’t mean McCain is one of them, though. Once again, nice try.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Well, we know McCain isn’t a spokesperson for Newt, LOL And McCain’s not in the race; Santorum isn’t Mormon; Neither is Paul.
So McCain is out speaking about an anti-Mormon factor. Hmmmm, I wonder who he’s talking about. That’s difficult to answer….Maybe you can help me out? ROFL

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

You said that very well. If I wasn’t a mouth breathing crybaby retard I would go so far as to call it eloquent!

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

By framing the question as “anti-Mormon or pro-Christian” this site is stating an anti-Mormon bias, whether intentional or not.

The word Christian encompasses many different religions: Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist (whether evangelicals like to acknowledge that or not). Basically, if you recognize Jesus Christ as the son of God who died for man’s sins, you are a Christian regardless of your specific religious denomination.

Mormons belong to The Church of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and self-identify as Christians. While the Mormon beliefs are outside most other (mainstream) Christian denominations, they do, in fact, recognize Jesus Christ as the son of God who died for man’s sins. So, the fact that this site identifies Mormons as not being Christian (is it “anti-Mormon or pro-Christian?”) shows an anti-Mormon bias.

Dark Star on January 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

You said that very well. If I wasn’t a mouth breathing crybaby retard I would go so far as to call it eloquent!

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

LOL

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Well, we know McCain isn’t a spokesperson for Newt, LOL And McCain’s not in the race; Santorum isn’t Mormon; Neither is Paul.
So McCain is out speaking about an anti-Mormon factor. Hmmmm, I wonder who he’s talking about. That’s difficult to answer….Maybe you can help me out? ROFL

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

You don’t seem to understand that just because someone endorses another, it doesn’t mean that person automatically becomes a spokesperson for that person. Endorsers are entitled to their opinions independent of the campaign. Gotta love America. Miscreants like Andre Bauer and Duke Cunningham have both endorsed Newt. Surely, you’re not going to say that they’re spokespersons for Newt. See how that works? I hope I was able to help. =)

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Dark Star on January 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

I think you’d have to take that up with Romney & McCain. Most posters were responding to the info that was posted by AP.

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Miscreants like Andre Bauer and Duke Cunningham have both endorsed Newt. Surely, you’re not going to say that they’re spokespersons for Newt. See how that works? I hope I was able to help. =)

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Of course not.

Mainly because Newt doesn’t have them running around talking to the press on his behalf. Unlike Romney, who clearly has McCain running around talking to the press on his behalf.

I know that, as someone who didn’t vote for Romney, I’m all dumb and racist and bigoted and such like joana and John McCain say, but even I know what makes a spokesperson.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

The Mittbots seriously do not get it. They, their leader Mitt, and their moronic spokesperson McCain think they can shit on the people who actually go to work and pay the bills all day, call us names, mock our beliefs and our education, and treat us like dirt.

McCain just called me an anti-Mormon bigot because I have decided at this point not to vote for Romney in the primary. And I’m sick of it. He doesn’t care about my opinion, my thought process, my background, or anything else; he just condemns me as a bigot because I’m not doing what he says.

That is the height of arrogance and stupidity. And the fact that Mitt Romney supports and endorses McCain and his foul words demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Romney is just as stupid and arrogant as McCain — or even more so, since Romney CHOSE McCain.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM

You need to understand something. They don’t want your support. What they want you to do – and every other Tea Partier – is to feel bad, feel isolated, and go home and stop supporting Newt or any other Romney opponent vocally. They know that you hate Obama, so you will come out and vote Romney no matter how viciously they attack you. This is basic negative campaigning 101, amped to the nth degree.

These tactics worked on Perry, Palin, Cain, and Gingrich in Iowa. As you long as you vote for Romney, they don’t care. A vote is a vote, whether it’s given with a smile on your face or your nose held shut with a clothespin. If Romney becomes the nominee, your only option, if you really want to protest these tactics, is to withhold your vote. Otherwise they will do it again, because it worked the first time.

Doomberg on January 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

There are some Mitt Romney supporters who are so ignorant that they should not be allowed to speak if he has any chance of winning. There are some Mitt Romney supporters who make people who had nothing against Mormon’s think maybe they better do a little research. There are some Mitt Romney supporters who think the best way to win is to annoy as many people as possible. There are some Mitt Romney supporters who think insinuating that other people are bigots, hicks, and morons will force those people to support Mitt Romney out of, what should we call it, non-Mormon guilt? I’m not talking about you, of course, unless you are one

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

[::THUNDEROUS::]

[::STANDING::]

[::OVATION::]

Kent18 on January 28, 2012 at 7:16 PM

If Romney becomes the nominee, your only option, if you really want to protest these tactics, is to withhold your vote. Otherwise they will do it again, because it worked the first time.

Doomberg on January 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Can’t do it, Doomberg.

I will not let Obama stay in office another term. I can’t. I won’t.

But the fact that they are having to resort to this shows you how desperate the Mitt Romney campaign has become. And perhaps in a good sense of poetic justice, Mitt’s stupidity in calling anyone who doesn’t vote for him an anti-Mormon bigot is backfiring badly.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Of course not.

Mainly because Newt doesn’t have them running around talking to the press on his behalf. Unlike Romney, who clearly has McCain running around talking to the press on his behalf.

I know that, as someone who didn’t vote for Romney, I’m all dumb and racist and bigoted and such like joana and John McCain say, but even I know what makes a spokesperson.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Having campaign events with someone doesn’t automatically make that person a spokesperson. He was asked a question and he gave his opinion. If he’s ever named a spokesperson by the campaign, then you may have a point. However, he’s never been considered a spokesperson for the campaign. Speaking about the candidate/campaign doesn’t mean he’s speaking for them.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

I hope this has clarified your doubts.

joana on January 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

well if this is your governing view,

Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) on the Conservative Disposition

[W]hat makes a conservative disposition in politics intelligible is nothing to do with a natural law or a providential order, nothing to do with morals or religion; it is the observation of our current manner of living combined with the belief (which from our point of view need be regarded as no more than an hypothesis) that governing is a specific and limited activity, namely the provision and custody of general rules of conduct, which are understood, not as plans for imposing substantive activities, but as instruments enabling people to pursue the activities of their own choice with the minimum frustration, and therefore something which it is appropriate to be conservative about.

So,… Mitt fits into this? that it’s vitally more important to be living conservatively, than anything else?

yeah,… uh huh,.. he’s profoundly at odds with everything Buckley wrote then. It was entirely a moral cause in Buckley’s view. The arguement for Mitt, is that because he’s never divorced and drives a modest car,.. he’s “more” conservative than the guy who retook the House in it’s name?

Really?

I do believe I can see why English views on conservatism are dead here, except of course you’re desparately seeking anything to say about Romney that would make him palatable to the masses. So living modestly, is important, but governing that way, not so much.. well at least now we know where the snobbish rejection of populism comes from.

sigh,.. yes, conservativism is a moral stance, a view of governance that sets a course of action.. because if it isn’t, why bother. His view isn’t political so much as a lifestyle choice. Which explains why so many rinos would adopt it. It requires nothing of them, requires no moral choices be made, nothing difficult,.. perfect for anyone wanting a path to power, but no restrictions on it after getting it.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Can’t do it, Doomberg.

I will not let Obama stay in office another term. I can’t. I won’t.

But the fact that they are having to resort to this shows you how desperate the Mitt Romney campaign has become. And perhaps in a good sense of poetic justice, Mitt’s stupidity in calling anyone who doesn’t vote for him an anti-Mormon bigot is backfiring badly.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

I understand your position and may end up voting for him myself. I am just warning you that since these tactics worked so well in this election, we should expect them to be used against us again. The only real way to protest them is to withhold the votes, at some point. If not now, then next election.

Assuming, of course, we haven’t plunged into national bankruptcy before that.

Doomberg on January 28, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Key West Reader on January 28, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I understand, june 7th, 2004. Garret would have been seven now, 8 in the spring.

God be with you my friend.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Doomberg on January 28, 2012 at 7:23 PM

If you had enough votes to make anyone notice by withholding them, you wouldn’t need to withhold them to make anyone notice.

Voting 3rd Party/indie/not voting to “send a message” is about the stupidest thing one can do. It “sends a message” all right: “Ignore me, I am unreliable and erratic.”

[Here is where you break in to tell me all the massive changes people brought by voting for Perot, Howard Phillips, and Bob Barr in past years].

Adjoran on January 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I understand your position and may end up voting for him myself. I am just warning you that since these tactics worked so well in this election, we should expect them to be used against us again. The only real way to protest them is to withhold the votes, at some point. If not now, then next election.

Doomberg on January 28, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Agreed. And hopefully, next election, that will be an option.

But not this one.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Of course anyone is entitled to their opinion. However, in this case McCain’s statements by their very nature are tied to Romney, since he’s the only Mormon. Both statements by McCain are related to that, the S.C. Primary and the Tea Party. Whether he is a designated spokesman or not, these are his statements.

The fact that he made them so close to the FL Primary isn’t by chance. There was an objective, otherwise he would not have said anything at all.

I don’t think Romney’s silence on this is going to help him. If he doesn’t disagree with them, then he agrees with them.

We’ll see what the FL voters think about these statements.

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 7:41 PM

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Once again, good reply! (And thanks for covering for me, I had no idea who she was even talking about! I went looking for an appropriate Archie Bunker quote to counter, but alas…)

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Doomberg on January 28, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Newt has upset their well laid plans, LOL

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Agreed on the last point. But like I said earlier, speaking about the candidate/campaign doesn’t mean he’s speaking for the candidate/campaign.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Agreed on the last point. But like I said earlier, speaking about the candidate/campaign doesn’t mean he’s speaking for the candidate/campaign.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I just love these “non-spokespersons”. Rubio is another “non-spokesperson” The only thing I see is that they are all “non-speaking” against Newt, LOL

Where are the “non-spokespersons” FOR Newt? No problem, you have your opinion and I have mine:-)

FL will speak and I just hope they pay attention to all of these “non-speakers”:-)

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 7:52 PM

I just love these “non-spokespersons”. Rubio is another “non-spokesperson” The only thing I see is that they are all “non-speaking” against Newt, LOL

Where are the “non-spokespersons” FOR Newt? No problem, you have your opinion and I have mine:-)

FL will speak and I just hope they pay attention to all of these “non-speakers”:-)

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Considering Rubio hasn’t endorsed anyone, it would be a stretch to consider him a spokesperson for anyone. But yes, like you, I digress.

May the best man win Florida on Tuesday. =)

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Words can’t describe the boiling hatred I have for McCain. And I don’t want to hear about his “military service” BS. Good service 40 years ago doesn’t excuse betrayal today.

jubalearly on January 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

My dad (WWII, Korea, Vietnam Vet) felt the same way as you. He thought that McCain and his dad were useless. In fact, every mention of that name launched him into a long diatriabe. I felt like I was betraying his memory by even voting for McCain in 2008.

daddysgirl on January 28, 2012 at 7:59 PM

You said that very well. If I wasn’t a mouth breathing crybaby retard I would go so far as to call it eloquent!

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

LOL

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

he..

thanks guys..

I most assuredly knew I wasn’t alone.

mark81150 on January 28, 2012 at 8:00 PM

One of my aunts is a very conservative evangelical Christian and she won’t vote for Mitt in the general election because he is a Mormon. Literally, she hates Obama and believes the birther crap, but she will sit out the general election over Mitt’s religion. I have some issues with Mittens as a candidate, but let’s get over the religion thing. Every religion has their weird elements.

Illinidiva on January 28, 2012 at 8:08 PM

[::THUNDEROUS::]

[::STANDING::]

[::OVATION::]

Kent18 on January 28, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Thanks!

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM

One of my aunts is a very conservative evangelical Christian and she won’t vote for Mitt in the general election because he is a Mormon. Literally, she hates Obama and believes the birther crap, but she will sit out the general election over Mitt’s religion. I have some issues with Mittens as a candidate, but let’s get over the religion thing. Every religion has their weird elements.

Illinidiva on January 28, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I will not vote for a member of Islam ever, period. I do not feel that way about the Mormon religion, but if their two stadard bearers are any indication, if they keep putting people like them out there, I probably will never vote Mormon either. I would never for for a proclaimed atheist either.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 8:17 PM

I like Mormons and would have ZERO problem voting for one.
MY problems with Mitt stem from his pat/current stands on the issues-not his faith.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 8:17 PM

I’d also have a problem voting for a muslim.
When Mormons start flying planes into buildings and trying to convert me and mine by force…THEN I might start having issues with voting for one.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

May the best man win Florida on Tuesday. =)

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 7:57 PM

I agree:-)

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

May the best man win Florida on Tuesday. =)

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2012 at 7:57 PM

I agree:-)

bluefox on January 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

No Ronulan!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 28, 2012 at 8:29 PM

When Mormons start flying planes into buildings and trying to convert me and mine by force…THEN I might start having issues with voting for one.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 28, 2012 at 8:27 PM

I hope you did not misunderstand me. I said I would not have a problem voting for a Mormon in general. The two that were offered this election cycle did not impress me with their honesty and conservativeness. Show me a rock solid conservative Mormon and I will likely support them. Also, since I am certain that Mormonism itself does not promote suicide killing, even if a Mormon did fly a plane into a building, I do not see how it would effect my vote for an individual.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 8:35 PM

McCain talking out his @$$ as usual.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 28, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I voted for Romney in our 2008 primary, but I will not this time.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM

I think I’ll go throw a Baby Ruth in the pool.

hawkdriver on January 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Ain’t no big thang…

Gohawgs on January 28, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Reading the comments of the Pro-Gingrich sites, I’d say that there is a good portion of the Pro-Gingrich supporters that really are merely Anti-Mormon.

bains on January 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Good service 40 years ago doesn’t excuse betrayal today.

jubalearly on January 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Don’t feel bad. He’s been betraying Arizonans since 1982.

Eren on January 28, 2012 at 9:11 PM

But is that because they’re anti-Mormon specifically or just pro-Christian generally?

As a few others have indicated… you’re making the case for anyone wanting to argue that there’s anti-Mormon sentiment out there (and even in here, if you know what I mean) with that kind of question. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian church (that’s the stance of the Catholic Church, even, last I checked) – and anyone who says otherwise is anti-Mormon.

CanofSand on January 28, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Reading the comments of the Pro-Gingrich sites, I’d say that there is a good portion of the Pro-Gingrich supporters that really are merely Anti-Mormon.

bains on January 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM

That horse has pretty much been beaten to death. Try something else.

Night Owl on January 28, 2012 at 10:18 PM

McCain……..purposely, LOST TO OBAMA.

he told voters we had nothing to fear from an Obama Presidency, giving the wavering Independents the go-ahead to vote for BHO.

You know why? Because he is a PROGRESSIVE and they ALL believe in Bigger Government for the Collective (Ruling class) and smaller liberty for the individual.

Arizona couldn’t find someone to run against him that wasn’t a nutjob?

UGGGHHH.

PappyD61 on January 28, 2012 at 10:52 PM

John McCain’s version of “fighting” Obama in 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLpATdyKdR8

PappyD61 on January 28, 2012 at 10:55 PM

This from the man who 4 years ago was afraid to even point out that his opponent had jug ears?

stukinIL4now on January 28, 2012 at 11:13 PM

What I have learned from this Primary:

It is not possible for a Mormon to be conservative in your eyes ever. We are not hateful enough.

Establishment = Dirty Mormon lovers

Fox News lies.

Rush Limbaugh will betray his country to keep a Mormon out of the Whitehouse.

And most other talk radio people will too.

Yes, I have learned much.

Thank Heavens, no I thank my Father in Heaven, that these forces of evil are losing! Mitt Romney will prevail over the forces of darkness. And numbers of these bigots will not grow, this is there zenith of your power.

And that you will either accept the fact that you have a Mormon President… or you will be miserable… that is your choice… and not my concern.

Oh and another thing I learned?

I am the base of the Republican party and you are not, the majority is not with you, it is with me! There is more people who are good, than bad, and they were not fooled by your lies after all.

So you haters, you just go on hating, we good and honest people have a country to save.

petunia on January 29, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Shut up, McVain!!!

AH_C on January 29, 2012 at 1:26 AM

That McCain likes Romney ought to be another huge red flag to anyone actually supporting Romney…

McCain endorses Romney…

Dole endorses Romney…

Wow, we should be *so* impressed, hmmm?

Midas on January 29, 2012 at 1:28 AM

So you haters, you just go on hating, we good and honest people have a country to save.

petunia on January 29, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Good and honest? If you’re including Mitt in that description, please point out which Mitt you’re referring to – self-avowed conservative Mitt or self-avowed progressive Mitt? Pro-choice Mitt or pro-life Mitt? Pro-healthcare mandate Mitt or anti-healthcare mandate Mitt?

You’ll excuse the rest of us lying sh1thead haters for wondering aloud whether this Mitt or that Mitt is the one we’re supposed to trust, what with so many different and opposing Mitt-positions to consider in figuring out exactly what and who he is. I mean, it can’t be because he’s consistently inconsistent and takes all sides of any given issue over a span of a few years – it has to be because we’re bigots, right?

Oh – the Obama people called, and they’re offended at your offensive use of their bigot card – they’d like to have it back before the election, m’kay?

Midas on January 29, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5