“Bigoted Anti-Mormon Evangelicals”, Part 3

Just as we have seen that…

on the Democrat side those who scream “RACISM!” the loudest are the most likely to be hypocritical racists themselves (“If you don’t vote for Barry/Barack Obama it must be because you are a RACIST!”)

…we also see that…

on the Republican side those who scream “BIGOT!” the loudest are the most likely to be hypocritical bigots themselves (“If you don’t want Mitt Romney for VP it must be because you are a BIGOT!”)

Take a look at how quickly and how often the “bigot” word appears in the comments of this Hot Air post.

The often-repeated claim is that if John McCain were to pick Mitt Romney as his VP, then the “Bigoted Anti-Mormon Evangelicals” would stay home, thus helping Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II, if you believe his photoshopped Certificate of Live Birth) win. But who are the bigots who are threatening to stay home? The hypocrisy of the following comment is downright laughable:

If the bigots get their way and McCain picks Huckabee, I can 100% guarantee that my family and I won’t be voting for McCain. And I can guarantee that you will be losing a lot more votes than these bigots if you do end up picking Huckabee.

malan89 on July 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM

If McCain picks Huckabee, he will draw out such massive support from Huck’s Army that he will win with or without bigots like malan89.

Al-Ozarka has the right take on this issue of bias:

Let’s be clear about something here. Not ONE of the evangelicals quoted said ANYTHING about an anti-mormon bias…to the contrary, in fact…one specifically stated it was NOT because of his faith that evangelicals oppose him.

So quit trying to imply something that isn’t there.

The only Mormon-bias comes from the columnist as he implies that those who oppose the flip-flopping liberal are bigots.

Again, he doesn’t quote a single individual, though he make implications by suggesting it:

“Other well-placed Christian conservatives say that although many evangelical leaders could accept and work for a McCain-Romney ticket, Mr. Huckabee’s supporters tend to be “rabid” in their views against Mr. Romney because of his faith: They do not regard Mormonism as a Christian denomination.”

We don’t care what faith he practices. We care that he is NOT a conservative!

Al-Ozarka on July 29, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Listen, many conservatives have a lot of issues with John McCain. Many conservatives have a lot of issues with Mitt Romney. Those issues were compounded when Mitt Romney broke his word and figuratively through his arms around John McCain. Twice. On February 7th and 14th.

Allow me to explain. On the evening of February 5th, 2008 Mitt Romney said:

Ann came to me, and she said, “You know, the one thing that’s clear tonight is that nothing’s clear.” But I think she’s wrong. One thing that’s clear is this campaign’s going on!

I think there’s some people who thought it was all going to be done tonight, but it’s not all done tonight. We’re gonna keep on battling. We’re gonna go all the way to the convention. We’re gonna win this thing, and we’re gonna get in the White House.

Mitt Romney couldn’t keep his word for 2 days.
On February 7th, 2008 Mitt Romney said:

Now if I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention — (cheers, applause). I want you to know I’ve given this a lot of thought. I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No! Boo!

MR. ROMNEY: Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. (Cheers, applause.)

This isn’t an easy decision. I hate to lose. My family, my friends, you, my supporters across the country, you’ve given a great deal to get me where I have a shot to becoming president. If this were only about me, I’d go on, but it’s never been only about me. I entered this race — I entered this race because I love America. And because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No!

Romney’s supporters clearly didn’t want him to quit the race. I, as an Evangelical Christian, think Romney should have stayed in the race. I think he should have been good for his word and kept on battling all the way to the convention. McCain was running out of public financing money, and Romney had plenty of money to spend. If this was really about loving America, then keep your word, keep on battling, and let the best man win.

Instead… Romney, a man that many conservatives don’t trust, broke his word, quit the race, and tried to hand the nomination on a silver platter to John McCain, another man that many conservatives don’t trust. It’s pretty clear to me that the “behind closed doors” meeting on February 6th involved McCain promising the VP slot to Romney in return for Romney quitting the race and trying to make Huckabee quit.

If you don’t believe that, give me a plausible explanation of why Romney said on February 5th that, “We’re gonna keep on battling. We’re gonna go all the way to the convention.”, and then two days later said/implied, “Now if I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention …[I’d be letting] my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

“Flip” Romney does sound like an appropriate name, and it certainly appears that his campaign was not about what’s best for America, but rather what’s best for Mitt Romney. In that February 7th speech, Romney proved that what he said two days earlier was a lie. And frankly, I don’t believe him when he goes on to say, “If this were only about me, I’d go on, but it’s never been only about me.”

Yeah, right. Just like it was “about what’s best for America” when Mitt’s father cared more about himself than the Constitution when he ran for President in 1968. Mitt’s father was born in Mexico and was not Constitutionally eligible to become President. But did that stop him from running? No. His campaign was about what was best for him, not what was best for America.

Like father, like son.

It’s not about “Anti-Mormon Bigotry”. It’s about honoring the Constitution and Conservative values.

Mitt Romney dishonored Conservative values when he tried to hand the nomination to John McCain. Twice. On February 7th when he quit and tried to make Mike Huckabee quit (because continuing on would “be a part of aiding a surrender to terror”). And when that didn’t work (Huckabee made it clear that he was going to keep his word and continue on until someone clinched the nomination, then won 60% of the vote in Kansas), Mitt Romney tried to hand the nomination to John McCain again on February 14th (Mitt loves John on Valentine’s Day) when he “released” his delegates to John McCain. Mitt’s animostity towards Huckabee was self-evident when Mitt did that. And that certainly did not endear him to Huckabee’s supporters.

Again, this is not about “Anti-Mormon Bigotry”. It’s about honoring the Constitution and Conservative values.

Now, all those commenters who called Evangelicals “bigots” for not supporting Romney are certainly not bigots themselves, right? And since they’re not bigots, we can expect their full support if Mike Huckabee is on the ballot, right?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to “Bigoted Anti-Mormon Evangelicals”, Part 3

  1. sulla says:

    Can we at least agree that Hot Air’s “SaintOlaf” qualifies?

    I don’t like slapping labels on groups, big or small. It’s the conservative response to consider each individual’s words and actions and judge them accordingly. I don’t judge all Christians or all Evengelicals by what Olaf spews; I don’t judge anyone but Olaf.

    If we can’t use the Bigot word on SaintOlaf, then the term is useless.

    Re the whole conspiracy angle – believe what you like. there was far more evidence, in the press and elsewhere, that if anyone was ganged up on to ensure they lost, it was Romney. I don’t think religion had anything to do with why the other candidates detested him, but the fact of it is exhaustively documented.

    I’ve stopped caring who McCain’s VP pick will be. He’d have to make an insane selection – say, Hillary – for me not to vote for the Republican ticket against Obama. I’m not thrilled with the Hate Talk Express, but it beats the alternative.

  2. Sulla,
    Thanks for your comment.

    It is of paramount importance that Christians speak the truth in love. Always the truth, and always spoken in love. That is Jesus Christ’s example to us and for us, and it is our duty and honor to follow His example.

    I know that I fall short of that example a lot myself. And I agree that SaintOlaf falls short, too. It appears SaintOlaf believes it is loving just to speak Biblical truth, no matter how harshly he delivers the message. I believe it is vitally important to speak Biblical truth, but to do so in a way that clearly communicates your love for the other person. If the other person does not sense love in your words, you have become a clanging cymbal to them.

    I’ve tried to remind SaintOlaf of this.

    Regarding Romney, he didn’t break his word and quit the race because he was “ganged up on”. He voluntarily chose to do so. He could have just as easily have decided to keep his word and keep battling all the way to the convention. I think the party and the country would have been better off if he had chosen to do so. Remember…neither Romney nor Huckabee had to get to 1191…all they had to do was prevent McCain from getting to 1191, and they would have forced a brokered convention. Even if McCain was still the nominee coming out of a brokered convention, McCain would have been forced to make more concessions to conservatives.

    Instead, Romney chose to break his word, chose to quit, and chose to “release” his delegates to McCain without any concessions to conservatives. For that, Mitt Romney is solely responsible.

  3. sulla says:

    Keep in mind the dynamic of the primaries. McCain and Huckabee were running fairly low-budget campaigns, while managing to make Romney’s heavy spending a campaign issue. By Super Tuesday he’d invested close to $40 million in his own money, betting heavily on Super Tuesday. It didn’t go well for him, and – being the businessman he is – saw that staying in the race, for him, would be throwing good money after bad.

    McCain’s people had been calling for Romney to quit even before South Carolina, but after South Carolina his people said to anyone who would listen that Romney was hurting America by staying in the race. (They had no such words for Huckabee. They didn’t care if Huck stayed in all the way through to the convention, because they didn’t consider him a threat.)

    Had Mitt stayed in the running, I wouldn’t have complained – he was my favorite of the big three. (apologies to Ron Paul.) But it was inevitable – as with Fred, Mitt dropped out within days of my sending him money. My financial support was the kiss of death. (I plan to donate to Obama in late October just to ensure his defeat.)

  4. LOL at your last sentence.

    But please, don’t do it…you know what they say about “third time’s a charm”! ;-)

    As for Romney, if he had quit the race the night of February 5th, and been honest about his reason for quitting, I would have respected that a lot more than what he did. He vowed to fight on all the way to the convention. The next day he met with “prominent Republicans” behind closed doors. Then the following day he quit the race giving the absolutely least credible explanation I have ever heard. It was almost as bad as saying, “If everyone doesn’t quit and hand the nomination to John McCain right now, then the terrorists have already won!”

    The book “A Choice Not An Echo: The inside story of how American Presidents are chosen” was written in 1964 and provides astonishing insight into the events that transpire “behind the scenes” to chose the party’s nominee and then manipulate the MSM. Clearly, that book was not written about the current election, happening 44 years later, but it is amazing to see the same things happening. Mitt Romney’s father, George Wilcken Romney, met behind closed doors in 1964 to help choose the Republican nominee. Forty-four years later Mitt Romney met behind closed doors with “Prominent Republicans” on February 6th.

    But the candidate and his advisers huddled behind closed doors Wednesday to count delegates and determine whether it was mathematically — and realistically — possible to topple McCain. Some advisers also reached out to gauge the feelings of prominent Republicans.

    The next day Romney quit the race and did everything in his power to make McCain’s last remaining competitors quit. You can believe the “businessman” explanation for Romney’s quitting on February 7th, but how do you explain Romney’s “releasing” of his delegates to McCain on February 14th? That had nothing to do with being a businessman…that was 100% politics and jockeying for the VP slot.

    Fred was my first choice until he quit, and it wasn’t until after the fact that I came to believe, along with several others, that Fred was McCain’s stalking horse. Fred entered the race late, didn’t exhibit a real desire to win (i.e., no “fire in the belly”), drew just enough votes to ensure Huckabee didn’t win SC like “W” did in 2000, and then quit the race three days later. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I no longer trust Fred Thompson when he “vouches” for McCain on conservative issues like judges. Don’t send Fred to talk about how McCain would nominate strict constructionists…let McCain say it with his own mouth.

    And lastly, I believe Guiliani was McCain’s stalking horse against Romney in Florida. Who ever heard of a Presidential candidate putting their entire focus on a single state, and then quitting after that one primary?

  5. …with a focus on behind-the-scenes conversations with reporters to shape coverage of Perry…

    Oh, so ethical… NOT!!!

    I think a lot of voters have had enough of “behind-the-scenes conversations”.

    And I think a lot of voters have had enough of media manipulation and spin in election coverage.

    We don’t want the media’s preferred candidate, regardless of their party label.

  6. Jg says:

    Evangelicals are not only whiners but are also the most bigoted group to exist.

  7. Jg,

    I’m an evangelical Christian.

    You’re entitled to your opinion.

    However…

    If you were correct in your unfounded assertion that I am part of “the most bigoted group to exist”, then I would not have approved your comment.

    If you were correct in your unfounded assertion, I would have either left your comment sitting in the moderation queue, or else I would have deleted it.

    To the contrary of your unfounded assertion, it appears that I am more tolerant of you than you are of me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s