Are anti-Mormons to blame for Romney's failure?

[_Trevor]

Mopologist: I'm still right, asshole.

*Queue circus music*

Amazing. A person who appears to be able to write without being able to read.

[_antishock8]

Mopologist: I'm still right, asshole.

*Queue circus music*

Amazing. A person who appears to be able to write without being able to read.

I read well enough to know your signature line is ironic.

*Oh no I di'n't*

[_Trevor]

Well just call me a liar if you wish, but I know my Mormonism.

Show me where I called you a liar. Please.

I have been in the Church long enough, and on enough continents, to know that the institutionalized prejudice and hatred, towards traditional Christianity has hardly been "expunged."

Oh, I see. Your experience with Mormonism is so much more accurate than mine or anyone else's who has spent a lifetime in the organization. What a privileged perspective you have!

Perceptions by those whining about the loss of their candidate, does not constitute hard facts.

Since I was referring to comments made in the media at large, and not in Mormo-net rags, I tend to weigh this a little more seriously than you do. You seem to think only Mormons thought Romney's Mormonism constituted a challenge.

As I said before, I wish there were such a poll, because it would be revealing. But then I think we know Mormons would feel persecuted if they were polled like that.

I don't know which is worse, all of the Mormon bellyaching about persecution, or your bellyaching about their persecution complex.

It was an issue only because journalists need to make it an issue. They dissect anything they can to make "issues" for us. But what you have to do is to show me a reason to believe this had any impact on the election. Dan Peterson and David Bokovoy said that Romeny lost "in part" because of anti-Mormonism. I dare any of you to provide a single piece of evidence that this is true. Romney beat Huckabee in number of votes in the Bible belt states. So where is the "impact" of anti-Mormon influence there? Romney won in all of the counties where the most prominent anti-Mormon ministries are based. So where is the "impact" of anti-Mormon influence? These are simple questions that require simple answers.

Oh, so it isn't Mormon prejudice at work, but a media conspiracy of some kind. Bizarre.

And, I can't imagine Peterson and Bokovoy saying anything so unmeasured and unreasonable as Romney lost "in part" because of anti-Mormonism. Yes, I am being sarcastic. Am I supposed to doubt this conclusion simply because these two guys arrived at it? I am sure it is damning evidence against its probability for you, but I am not concerned that they are the ones who reached this reasonable conclusion. A Huckabee surrogate also took a swipe at Brownback for being Catholic. The Brownback campaign demanded an apology, and he refused. Do you think he used these tactics because they hold no interest for his audience? Was the Brownback campaign just a bunch of whiners like the Mormons? Oh yeah, those Catholic candidates are always whining about persecution. They just wallow in it.

No, they speculated. They showed nothing and they "saw" what they wanted to see. They saw a convenient scape goat in case their man lost. The simple idea that their candidate wasn't America's choice, was too unappealing. To prop him up as a some kind of victim, was appealing. We see this all the time in politics. If Hillary loses, it will be because she is a woman. If McCain loses, it will be said that American voters don't like old people. If Obama loses, well, we already know the race-baiting that will ensue from that. And the Obama camp can use the white supremacist factions as evidence of anti-negro sentiment, the same as Mormons can try to shine a spotlight on these irrelevant anti-Mormon ministries, who amazingly enough, weren't able to sway voters in their own counties!

And all of them would be wrong because you are sooooo right. Give me a break.

They anticipated Romney would have problems similar to the ones Kennedy faced. Do you know who Christians used to love to go after with bizarre anti literature? The Catholics. Lots of people knew it. They knew that there was prejudice against Catholics, and Kennedy bothered to give a [better] speach [than Romney] about his faith for this reason. So, I imagine it was only because they [the media] love stoking the fires of controversy that this happened. Centuries of anti-Catholic rhetoric must have had absolutely nothing to do with it.

It isn't blatantly obvious to everyone else. Again, nobody believes this except Mromons and a few political pundits who are looking to make their fallen candidate a victim. None of them can base their speculations on facts. And you have presented none either.

I think it would be fair to say that it was more than just a "few political pundits" who considered Mormonism a liability in the Romney campaign. For this reason there was a steady demand that he make some statement about his faith, that he answer questions about it, even theological questions. I don't see why you have a problem recognizing this.

Not nearly as perverse as your rejection of specific anecdotal experiences, in favor of a couple of perceptions expressed on blogs. Do you really think I am making this stuff up?

Yes, Jebus forbid that I favor the general public take on candidate Romney's Mormonism that most of us saw from the beginning ("Is America ready for a Mormon president," "We really think Romney needs to give a Kennedy speech," etc., etc., etc.) over your "specific anecdotes" (like "a bishop in Brazil," "a Mormon I talked to," "MADB," all statistically significant certainly). Surely, the fact that Mormons have a persecution complex proves that there was nothing like prejudice against Mormonism affecting Romney's campaign. Obviously.

Huckabee never stood a chance with Mormons even before that silly incident with the NYT journalist.

Because he was running against Romney, genius. Not because he was a minister.

Huckabee did no such thing. Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. That isn't a misrepresentation at all. It is a fact. If Mormons feel further explanation is in order, then they are free to provide. But they refuse, because they prefer to play the victim card and insist they are being misrepresented. It is the same crap they pull when critics provide arguments they don't like.

Wow. Can you be any more bizarre? Huckabee said that because he knew how his audience would interpret it. And the interpretation they apply to that stray piece of information is a distortion. They erroneously fit it into their theological toolkit, and come up with a real whacked take on Mormonism. Your idea that a Mormon explanation of the finer points of Mormon theology is a fair playing field on this is unrealistic in the extreme. That is not how political campaigns work. You know it, and the man who pulled that crap knew it too.

The facts show that he is no more a bigot than Romney.

I cite the Brownback incident and the NYTM incident. I cite the many times he implied that he was really the only Christian candidate out there. I cite his speech on the South Carolina flag. What do you have, guy?

The fact that he is a minister precludes him from gaining favor among Mormons. Again, I know the Mormon mindset about protestant ministers, even if you don't. I can provide numerous examples and point to numerous online discussions proving my point, but you'll apparently sweep it under the rug and say those aren't facts, while humorously taking for granted any speculation presented as fact in a silly political blog.

Well, since it seems that what you bring to the table is the force of your assertions, and strange implications about "a silly political blog" which you imagine is the only piece of information I am using, or perhaps try to convince others this is the case, although you know it is not, I have no idea where we can go from here.

But we can see the numbers in Utah and its border states, to see the truth of that anyway.

Surely the numbers that say Huckabee was not voted for also necessarily prove the special interpretation you place on them. Any scientist can see that!

Again I say, if Romney had won the entire south eastern section of the country, he still would be losing. In order to say the bigotry in the south was "in part" due to his failure, one must first demosntrate how winning those delegates would have "in part" contributed to a victory.

dartagnan, veteran, esteemed political correspondent, is informing us that campaign momentum means nothing. What an education I am receiving!

Do you seriously doubt this? They play victim at every opportunity. They know no other role in life.

Ahhhh. Now I see the problem. Dartagnan has difficulty seeing bigotry as the issue because, alas, he is a bigot. I didn't want to see it, but how else can I read this statement? According to him, all Mormons know no other role in life than to be whiners. This is truly sad, dartagnan. Really, dartagnan, I want you to explain to me how this is not a bigoted statement. I am seriously interested, because I have had no small respect for you in the past. I think you are stepping over the line.

Anything is possible. It could be that I have accidentally run across the unique bigots in the Church from every continent, and that these were always the exceptions. Is that likely? I don't think so. I think anyone remotely familiar with Mormon culture and the hatred that is created towards those dastard ministers, will realize my theory is the more likely one. I think your judgment has been clouded by your obvious distaste for Huckabee, and perhaps Evangelical ministers as a whole. Was that something you picked up with Mormonism too?

You, sir, are being a royal jackass. In my writing in this and other threads on the topic *as a whole,* I have given credit to Evangelicals for voting for people other than Huckabee, and I have not condemned ministers in general (look, for example, at the thread on ministers where I restrict my comments to a few televangelists). I have a distaste for people who use bigotry to pander to the basest impulses of the electorate (for this reason I also refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton as well). I and many other people, many of them NOT Mormon, have come to the conclusion that Huckabee did this on numerous occasions in connection with Catholicism, Mormonism, and race. You, as you clearly demonstrate here, are the one who is clouded by a bigotry against your former faith. It is so clear in the statement: "THEY play the victim at every opportunity. THEY know no other role."

I am disgusted with you. You should know better than this. How can you expect to maintain credibility with this kind of behavior? For the sake of the valuable work you have done and can do, I suggest you stop while you're behind. Better yet, you might try an apology to the Mormons here, at least in recognition of our shared humanity.

[_Trevor]

I read well enough to know your signature line is ironic.

*Oh no I di'n't*

Er, what?

[_dartagnan]

Show me where I called you a liar. Please.

You haven't. But you did scoff at my anecdotes as if they meant nothing.

Oh, I see. Your experience with Mormonism is so much more accurate than mine or anyone else's who has spent a lifetime in the organization. What a privileged perspective you have!

I didn't say that. I'm simply saying I can only go by my own experience, and my own experience tells me that your claim that the bigotry has been expunged, is just wishful thinking. I provided examples, and you scoffed at them. Are you suggesting my examples aren't valid? I'm not sure.

Since I was referring to comments made in the media at large, and not in Mormo-net rags, I tend to weigh this a little more seriously than you do. You seem to think only Mormons thought Romney's Mormonism constituted a challenge.

Not at all. It is one thing to say it will be a challenge to win over Evangelicals but it is another to say the Evangelicals are partly to blame for his demise. Too many people are asserting the latter with no evidence. I mean this all comes down to mathematics really.

I don't know which is worse, all of the Mormon bellyaching about persecution, or your bellyaching about their persecution complex

So you acknowledge their tendency to bellyache? That's a start.
In case you haven't been paying attention, I voted for Romney. I am just sick of all the Huckabee bashing that goes on by Mormons, who, in the same breathe, cry about Evangelicals voting along religious lines. The hypocrisy is simply too much to let slide.

And, I can't imagine Peterson and Bokovoy saying anything so unmeasured and unreasonable as Romney lost "in part" because of anti-Mormonism. Yes, I am being sarcastic. Am I supposed to doubt this conclusion simply because these two guys arrived at it? I am sure it is damning evidence against its probability for you, but I am not concerned that they are the ones who reached this reasonable conclusion.

There is nothing reasonable about it because the math simply doesn't work in your favor. Assuming every single Evangelical in the south voted for Romney, he would still be losing the race. Romney's last hope was California, so to focus on the irrelevant south, and to further whine about the irrelevant anti-Mormons in the south, is akin to complaining about a 55-0 loss during the superbowl, because you thought the referee was biased. I mean is it really reasonable to conclude that a single referee's bias was "in part" the cause of the victory? Is it really reasonable to conclude this referee was instrumental in your team's failure to stop a runningback who rushed for 400 yards?

And all of them would be wrong because you are sooooo right. Give me a break.

Well, give me some facts. So far I am the only person here who has thoroughly researched this issue. I am teh only person who has tried to tei the anti-Mormonism to Romney's loss. But the evidence simply isn't there. I discovered that none of the counties where anti-Mormons operate, voted out Romney. None.
Yet, you think it is reasonable to conclude they did have a role, simply because the media thinks so.

I think it would be fair to say that it was more than just a "few political pundits" who considered Mormonism a liability in the Romney campaign. For this reason there was a steady demand that he make some statement about his faith, that he answer questions about it, even theological questions. I don't see why you have a problem recognizing this.

I don't, but I know how to make reasonable conclusions based on evidence. Pointing out the opinions and speculations of others doesn't do much for me. I have hard facts and statistics on my side. You have yet to deal with them.

Yes, Jebus forbid that I favor the general public take on candidate Romney's Mormonism that most of us saw from the beginning ("Is America ready for a Mormon president," "We really think Romney needs to give a Kennedy speech," etc., etc., etc.) over your "specific anecdotes" (like "a bishop in Brazil," "a Mormon I talked to," "MADB," all statistically significant certainly).

You seem to be confused as to why I provided those anecdotes. It was to highlight the hypocrisy in the Mormon complaint. Mormons are no less bigoted than the next. this became obvious in Utah. Of course they excuse their bigotry towards Huckabee because they claim he drew first blood, but many Evangelicals feel the same with Mormons.

Surely, the fact that Mormons have a persecution complex proves that there was nothing like prejudice against Mormonism affecting Romney's campaign. Obviously.

Persecution against Mormons is minimal compared to that against other minority groups. The contrast is so much that it is hard to see how they can complain at all. Remember, while 37% of America said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, 30% said they wouldn't vote Evangelical. That isn't much of a difference.

Because he was running against Romney, genius. Not because he was a minister.

No genius, he never stood a chance because he was a minister. You may be entirely ignorant of the typical Mormon attitude towards Evangelical ministers, or maybe you happen to attend the only tolerant ward in all the earth. All I can say is that my own experience flies in the face of the picture you're trying to draw of a tolerant Mormonism.

Can you be any more bizarre?

I can certainly try.

Huckabee said that because he knew how his audience would interpret it

From a strictly logical standpoint, you're begging the question. Juliann is over at MAD this very minute saying, "This slimy guy just sinks further and further to the bottom of the pile of humanity." Yea, and Romney's attempt to exploit the NRA at the last minute along with his father's alleged "march" with Martin Luther King, wasn't in any way a political maneuver.

And the interpretation they apply to that stray piece of information is a distortion.

No it isn't. There was no "interpretation" given. Huckabee asked a question and then said he didn't know much about it. I guess when Hinckley says this, he is being honest and sincere, but when a minister says it, it is deception. You see, you're essentially proving my point. Ministers are deceptive by nature, according to Mormon thought. Mormons refuse to give anyone except their own, the benefit of the doubt.

They erroneously fit it into their theological toolkit, and come up with a real whacked take on Mormonism. Your idea that a Mormon explanation of the finer points of Mormon theology is a fair playing field on this is unrealistic in the extreme.

No, I only think if Mormons want to make this front page news, then they need to explain the details instead of providing a full page of complaints about how it is a "distortion." How in the hell can a question be considered a distortion?!?

That is not how political campaigns work. You know it, and the man who pulled that crap knew it too.

Well, tell that to Ted Kennedy, who pulled the same "crap" when Romney ran against him for the Senate.

I cite the Brownback incident and the NYTM incident. I cite the many times he implied that he was really the only Christian candidate out there. I cite his speech on the South Carolina flag. What do you have, guy?

Do you have specific citations? I hate dealing with generalities.

Surely the numbers that say Huckabee was not voted for also necessarily prove the special interpretation you place on them. Any scientist can see that!

Don't retreat into the sarcasm tunnel just yet. Can you name a single Mormon who voted for Huckabee, or can't you?

dartagnan, veteran, esteemed political correspondent, is informing us that campaign momentum means nothing. What an education I am receiving!

Well, if you want to be a smart ass, then fine. The fact is political momentum meant nothing to Huckabee after winning Iowa, even though the media touted it as the greatest victory since Hiroshima, and started to gradually talk about how McCain and Romney should maybe think about packing it up.
Huckabee beat Romney in anti-Mormon America by slim margins. He even lost to Romney in Florida, and on the whole, received less votes. But no, that matters not. The anti-Mormon bigotry played a role in Romney's loss. Why? Well, because you say so apparently. And apparently because Huckabee is an ass. Is this really all you've got?

Ahhhh. Now I see the problem. Dartagnan has difficulty seeing bigotry as the issue because, alas, he is a bigot. I didn't want to see it, but how else can I read this statement? According to him, all Mormons know no other role in life than to be whiners.

Yes, this is essentially the role Mormons accept, because it is evidence that the Church is true. You really didn't know this? Diverting the bigotry onto me isn't helping you make a case here.

This is truly sad, dartagnan. Really, dartagnan, I want you to explain to me how this is not a bigoted statement.

Simple. Because it is true. I see it in every day Mormon life.

I am seriously interested, because I have had no small respect for you in the past. I think you are stepping over the line.

Well I am sorry, not for my statements, but because you choose to be offended by them (anyone else getting the irony here?)

You, sir, are being a royal jackass

Is there any chance we can expect you to back up your original argument with facts and statistics, instead of calling me a jackass, a bigot and saying you're disgusted?
I'm particularly interested in how you arrive to the conclusion that losing the south was due to bigotry when Romney won more votes, and how winning the south would have made any difference anyway. I am also interested in your consistent refusal to address the facts I presented with regards to specific anti-Mormon ministries being unable to influence the vote in their respective counties. This alone flies in the face of the assertions posted on blogs, by bloggers who have not provided any primary research.

You, as you clearly demonstrate here, are the one who is clouded by a bigotry against your former faith.

Too bad for you, I voted for Romney. The difference is, I'm not whining about it.

It is so clear in the statement: "THEY play the victim at every opportunity. THEY know no other role."

This is an axiom well known to most Mormons, and to note it isn't bigotry. At best it is a generalization, but bigotry? Do you not understand what bigotry is? Mormons generally accept the victim role because it validates themselves as God's chosen. The fact that I rooted and voted for Romney hardly supports your claim that I am a bigot to Mormons.

[_Trevor]

Well just call me a liar if you wish, but I know my Mormonism.

You haven't. But you did scoff at my anecdotes as if they meant nothing.

Now who's whining?

I'm simply saying I can only go by my own experience, and my own experience tells me that your claim that the bigotry has been expunged, is just wishful thinking. I provided examples, and you scoffed at them. Are you suggesting my examples aren't valid? I'm not sure.

I don't recall claiming that it had been utterly rooted out. I said the Church had been working to root it out.

Not at all. It is one thing to say it will be a challenge to win over Evangelicals but it is another to say the Evangelicals are partly to blame for his demise. Too many people are asserting the latter with no evidence. I mean this all comes down to mathematics really.

Maybe, since neither of us have done the math, we should just drop it.

So you acknowledge their tendency to bellyache? That's a start.

I acknowledge that some of them bellyache. I did not indulge in prejudicial generalizations as you are doing.

In case you haven't been paying attention, I voted for Romney. I am just sick of all the Huckabee bashing that goes on by Mormons, who, in the same breathe, cry about Evangelicals voting along religious lines. The hypocrisy is simply too much to let slide.

In case you haven't been paying attention, jackass, I have repeatedly said that I didn't support Romney.

There is nothing reasonable about it because the math simply doesn't work in your favor. Assuming every single Evangelical in the south voted for Romney, he would still be losing the race. Romney's last hope was California, so to focus on the irrelevant south, and to further whine about the irrelevant anti-Mormons in the south, is akin to complaining about a 55-0 loss during the superbowl, because you thought the referee was biased. I mean is it really reasonable to conclude that a single referee's bias was "in part" the cause of the victory? Is it really reasonable to conclude this referee was instrumental in your team's failure to stop a runningback who rushed for 400 yards?

I doubt either one of us is capable of the math and of mustering the information it would actually require to prove the precise effect of anti-Mormonism on Romney's campaign. The fact that you refer to math as though you have it all worked out is almost cute. I seriously doubt the grade school math you offer here is up to the task.

Well, give me some facts. So far I am the only person here who has thoroughly researched this issue. I am the only person who has tried to tei the anti-Mormonism to Romney's loss. But the evidence simply isn't there. I discovered that none of the counties where anti-Mormons operate, voted out Romney. None.
Yet, you think it is reasonable to conclude they did have a role, simply because the media thinks so.

If you think that what you have presented here comprises anything like "thorough research," you need more education.

I don't, but I know how to make reasonable conclusions based on evidence. Pointing out the opinions and speculations of others doesn't do much for me. I have hard facts and statistics on my side. You have yet to deal with them.

Statistics are much more complex than that. You offer a few naked numbers and make a lot of interesting speculations about their precise meanings. I am not impressed. It really does take more than that.

You seem to be confused as to why I provided those anecdotes. It was to highlight the hypocrisy in the Mormon complaint. Mormons are no less bigoted than the next. this became obvious in Utah. Of course they excuse their bigotry towards Huckabee because they claim he drew first blood, but many Evangelicals feel the same with Mormons.

Well, perhaps in the future we will see what happens when we can be sure that the shoe is on the other foot. Too much has happened in this case to make definitive pronouncements.

Persecution against Mormons is minimal compared to that against other minority groups. The contrast is so much that it is hard to see how they can complain at all. Remember, while 37% of America said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, 30% said they wouldn't vote Evangelical. That isn't much of a difference.

Is that the question? Or is the question whether anti-Mormonism affected Romney's campaign?

No genius, he never stood a chance because he was a minister. You may be entirely ignorant of the typical Mormon attitude towards Evangelical ministers, or maybe you happen to attend the only tolerant ward in all the earth. All I can say is that my own experience flies in the face of the picture you're trying to draw of a tolerant Mormonism.

I think you are entirely fixated on an obscure, yet to be demonstrated argument to prove your point. I have not seen or heard the hew and cry in Mormondom about Huckabee the minister of Satan. I have been over to MADB, and I see very little of it there (so far). I am not sure I would call Mormonism super tolerant. I just don't see the specific targeting of other sects in the way an appreciable number Christians target Mormonism. But, you may be too blinded by the bigotry you've developed against Mormonism to see that.

From a strictly logical standpoint, you're begging the question.

Strictly speaking, yes. But it is reasonable to suppose that as a pastor he knows his own theology well enough to know how far out of bounds that belief is in his theological system. He also knows the passions of his co-religionists well enough to know how unacceptable that would be to them. I may have begged the question. I am still right, logic aside.

Juliann is over at MAD this very minute saying, "This slimy guy just sinks further and further to the bottom of the pile of humanity." Yea, and Romney's attempt to exploit the NRA at the last minute along with his father's alleged "march" with Martin Luther King, wasn't in any way a political maneuver.

I am not sure how appealing to one of the most strident polemicists in net-Mormondom as your example helps your case. And, as for the King thing, it was stupid and unnecessary. We know Romney Sr. was against racial bigotry. I think it is pretty clear his son is too. But the point is that you are making the infelicitous decision of comparing one man's attempt to play up his positive qualities by stretching the truth with another's cynical attempt to stoke the prejudices of his base against the religious beliefs of a competitor. That is a funny vision of a level playing field you have. I don't share it, and I hope most reasonable people do not either.

No it isn't. There was no "interpretation" given. Huckabee asked a question and then said he didn't know much about it. I guess when Hinckley says this, he is being honest and sincere, but when a minister says it, it is deception. You see, you're essentially proving my point. Ministers are deceptive by nature, according to Mormon thought. Mormons refuse to give anyone except their own, the benefit of the doubt.

So, what just what do you imagine are reasonable grounds for comparison? You compare what the leading authority of Mormonism says about his own faith with what a Baptist minister running for political office says about Mormonism during a campaign. The one man is *the* recognized authority on the matter; the other guy knows what he has gleaned from the anti-Mormon propaganda he has been fed. I have serious doubts that Hinckley was being completely sincere when he made his strange statements about the famous couplet. But how did this even enter the conversation? Why make this particular comparison? What is your point? We should give Huckabee a pass for taking one from the anti playbook to prejudice his listeners against Romney, but damn Hinckley for trying to make his faith look better by fudging?

How on Jebus' green earth am I proving your point? In your delusional imagination? You are bringing Hinckley into this, and then acting as though I agree with what he did? When in the hell did I ever say I did agree with him? Are you completely amnesiac regarding who I am and what I have written in the past? Did that suddenly all go out the window because I dared to disagree with the GREAT KEVIN GRAHAM who knows so much more than the rest of us about Mormonism, who has really done his homework, and more research on this issue than any living soul?

Finally, the "interpretation" is what the anti-Mormon primed audience would have been doing, not what Huckabee did. Sorry if that was not clear to you.

No, I only think if Mormons want to make this front page news, then they need to explain the details instead of providing a full page of complaints about how it is a "distortion." How in the hell can a question be considered a distortion?!?

Since you misread me in the first place, you continue to get it wrong. Seen through the lens of EV theology, the statement of Jesus and Satan being brothers will most likely be a distortion of its significance in Mormon theology. The question is offered because Huckabee is either aware of that, or wants to put out a piece of information that will sound utterly gonzo to people who essentially know only their own theology. Get it?

Well, tell that to Ted Kennedy, who pulled the same "crap" when Romney ran against him for the Senate.

And I was defending Ted Kennedy when? Stick to the point, jackass. I told you my position against the use of bigotry in a campaign. Go back and read it again if you need a refresher course.

Do you have specific citations? I hate dealing with generalities.

Then get off your lazy ass and do some research. After all, you know more about all of this than the rest of us combined. You know it all already. Or don't you?

Don't retreat into the sarcasm tunnel just yet. Can you name a single Mormon who voted for Huckabee, or can't you?

I have not spoken with any Mormon about how he or she voted. I generally don't enter into those conversations with people I know. Sorry. Then again, aren't you just switching the topic?

Well, if you want to be a smart ass, then fine. The fact is political momentum meant nothing to Huckabee after winning Iowa, even though the media touted it as the greatest victory since Hiroshima, and started to gradually talk about how McCain and Romney should maybe think about packing it up.

If you think momentum still doesn't mean anything to the Huckabee campaign, I'd have to disagree with you. Had he not won Iowa, where would he be now? We'll never know, but I would guess that he would have quit by now.

He even lost to Romney in Florida, and on the whole, received less votes. But no, that matters not. The anti-Mormon bigotry played a role in Romney's loss. Why? Well, because you say so apparently. And apparently because Huckabee is an ass. Is this really all you've got?

And it didn't because you say so, apparently. And I said Huckabee is a bigot. I called *you* a jackass and a bigot. I don't see that you have proven your point, or even come close. And by the way, why should his losing Florida to Romney mean much of anything? Do you know very much about Florida? It isn't exactly a thorough EV stronghold, guy. I know you have spent some time there. You don't know any better? I live there.

Yes, this is essentially the role Mormons accept, because it is evidence that the Church is true. You really didn't know this? Diverting the bigotry onto me isn't helping you make a case here.

Sorry, but this dodge doesn't absolve you of your bigotry. Your negative, generalizing statements about Mormons are bigoted. You should reflect on this and then change your course. It doesn't matter who you're bigoted against. Bigotry is not healthy.

Well I am sorry, not for my statements, but because you choose to be offended by them (anyone else getting the irony here?)

And I am sorry that you are incapable of sufficient reflection on this issue to recognize when you are acting like a bigot. I don't look favorably upon bigotry, and this has been my motivation from the get go. I think it is unbecoming of educated people in a free, democratic state. I am no more personally offended by Huckabee's anti-Mormon tactics than I am by the Clintons' racist politics. I am neither Mormon nor black. I used to be Mormon and I never was black. That doesn't stop me from recognizing bigotry. I can be offended by bigotry in general without it striking me personally.

Too bad for you, I voted for Romney. The difference is, I'm not whining about it.

I am not whining that Romney lost, jackass. I never wanted him to win. I was disturbed to find Huckabee using racist, anti-Catholic, and anti-Mormon rhetoric, either personally or through surrogates, to appeal to his base. I believe it was reasonably effective. I can't prove it cost Romney the election, but then 1) I never set out to do so, and 2) I don't see how you have proven that it was not an important factor. I think it is fair to assume that a candidate from a long misunderstood and maligned religious group would face an uphill battle winning the nomination for his/her party. Eisenhower tried to hide his JW identity the best he could. I am also fairly sure that anti-Mormon rhetoric hit its mark fairly well.

This is an axiom well known to most Mormons, and to note it isn't bigotry. At best it is a generalization, but bigotry? Do you not understand what bigotry is? Mormons generally accept the victim role because it validates themselves as God's chosen. The fact that I rooted and voted for Romney hardly supports your claim that I am a bigot to Mormons.

Let's see, "they play the victim at every opportunity." "they know no other role." Axiomatic? Well known to most Mormons? So you are saying that Mormons generally go around assuming about themselves, "we play the victim at every opportunity. We know no other role." No bigotry?

Ahem. Yeah.

Listen, I am done here. Yes, I did not prove that anti-Mormonism cost Romney the election, but then I never set out to do so. I simply said that it was an important factor. As Socrates said, and I paraphrase, "I have two kinds of accusers. Old accusers and new ones. The old ones are motivated by vague prejudices; the new ones by specific but unfounded accusations." This generally sums up what I see concerning anti-Mormonism in the Romney campaign. It is difficult to capture in numbers, but that doesn't make it less true, IMHO. Romney started with something of a liability in his religion because of old prejudices against his faith. This was a well known fact. Any denial of this on your part is an astounding denial of history. To these old prejudices we might add the new accusers in the form of anti-Mormons, who did step up their campaign against Mormonism in conjunction with the presidential primaries. To imagine that the two combined had no appreciable effect on the Romney campaign is not, in my mind, reasonable.

I am disappointed in you, dartagnan. Your excuses for your bigoted statements against Mormons are lame. Those statements about Mormons are bigoted, and you ought to recognize bigotry and reject it before it really costs you.

Here is a wonderful little quote from the bio of the guy who runs the Pastors4Huckabee site, which is loaded with great anti-Mormon material. As you can see no one could possibly construe that this butt plug would have any connection to the Huckabee campaign:

When Sherwood was a teenager, he first met then Pastor Mike Huckabee at his high school in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and was also greatly impressed with Bro. Mike at Arkansas’ Boys State in that summer of 1983. Later while in Little Rock, Sherwood volunteered in Mike Huckabee’s first campaign for U. S. Senate in 1992 by going door to door handing out yard signs, bumper stickers, and door knockers in the neighborhoods of Little Rock. Subsequently supporting Huckabee, he had the joy of joining with a huge host of fellow supporters for an unforgettable night at the reception after Mike dramatically and courageously took office as the new Governor of the state. Sherwood has lived out of Arkansas during most of the time of Huckabee’s years in office. However now from his home in California, he is excited to campaign again for Mike Huckabee in his bid for a national office, President of the United States.

The Pastors4Huckabee.com and the Pastors4Huckabeeblog.com websites are the personal political interest of Pastor Sherwood and are not affiliated with the First Baptist Church of Fillmore or any of its ministries in any way.

Note that this site implies that Romney is an anti-Christ.

[_Mister Scratch]

Trevor---

I'm sort of surprised to see you so bent out of shape on this thread. Normally you are a model of calmness. Anyways, a few of your remarks caught my eye:

Let's see, "they play the victim at every opportunity." "they know no other role." Axiomatic? Well known to most Mormons? So you are saying that Mormons generally go around assuming about themselves, "we play the victim at every opportunity. We know no other role." No bigotry?

I wouldn't call it "bigotry." Are you not aware of Mormonism's claims regarding persecution? While I *do* think it's fair to say that some "bigotry" against Mormons exists, I also think that the LDS persecution complex complicates the mix. Is it "bigoted" to state that LDS often see themselves in a "victim" role, on a national-historical scale? No; I don't think so.

Ahem. Yeah.

Listen, I am done here. Yes, I did not prove that anti-Mormonism cost Romney the election, but then I never set out to do so. I simply said that it was an important factor.

Did you attempt to "prove" that it was an important factor?

As Socrates said, and I paraphrase, "I have two kinds of accusers. Old accusers and new ones. The old ones are motivated by vague prejudices; the new ones by specific but unfounded accusations." This generally sums up what I see concerning anti-Mormonism in the Romney campaign. It is difficult to capture in numbers, but that doesn't make it less true, IMHO.

So.... You don't have any actual evidence, then?

Romney started with something of a liability in his religion because of old prejudices against his faith.

And what might those be? Wouldn't it be equally fair to say that Romney's responses to questions concerning these so-called "old prejudices" did nothing to help his campaign?

This was a well known fact. Any denial of this on your part is an astounding denial of history. To these old prejudices we might add the new accusers in the form of anti-Mormons, who did step up their campaign against Mormonism in conjunction with the presidential primaries. To imagine that the two combined had no appreciable effect on the Romney campaign is not, in my mind, reasonable.

Nor is it "reasonable" to "imagine" that they DID have an effect. Really, the "reasonable" thing to do would be to demand proof.

Here is a wonderful little quote from the bio of the guy who runs the Pastors4Huckabee site, which is loaded with great anti-Mormon material. As you can see no one could possibly construe that this butt plug would have any connection to the Huckabee campaign:

Quote:
When Sherwood was a teenager, he first met then Pastor Mike Huckabee at his high school in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and was also greatly impressed with Bro. Mike at Arkansas’ Boys State in that summer of 1983. Later while in Little Rock, Sherwood volunteered in Mike Huckabee’s first campaign for U. S. Senate in 1992 by going door to door handing out yard signs, bumper stickers, and door knockers in the neighborhoods of Little Rock. Subsequently supporting Huckabee, he had the joy of joining with a huge host of fellow supporters for an unforgettable night at the reception after Mike dramatically and courageously took office as the new Governor of the state. Sherwood has lived out of Arkansas during most of the time of Huckabee’s years in office. However now from his home in California, he is excited to campaign again for Mike Huckabee in his bid for a national office, President of the United States.

The Pastors4Huckabee.com and the Pastors4Huckabeeblog.com websites are the personal political interest of Pastor Sherwood and are not affiliated with the First Baptist Church of Fillmore or any of its ministries in any way.

Note that this site implies that Romney is an anti-Christ.

Note that DCP said elsewhere that anyone who does not affirm Joseph Smith is "anti-Christ." These things work both ways.

Did "anti-Mormonism" affect Romney's campaign? Perhaps. Did the LDS Church's own actions affect Romney's campaign? Perhaps.

[_Trevor]

Trevor---

I'm sort of surprised to see you so bent out of shape on this thread. Normally you are a model of calmness.

Yeah, I kinda regret that. Sorry, guys. Sorry, dartagnan. I was pretty bent out of shape. I got heated. I am glad that you guys are a tough lot. When I perceive something to be bigoted, it kind of sends me apoplectic.

Are you not aware of Mormonism's claims regarding persecution? While I *do* think it's fair to say that some "bigotry" against Mormons exists, I also think that the LDS persecution complex complicates the mix. Is it "bigoted" to state that LDS often see themselves in a "victim" role, on a national-historical scale? No; I don't think so.

Let me ask you some questions: what do you think? I mean really. Do you imagine I am so unfamiliar with Mormonism that I don't know? Do you think that you need to enlighten me on this? Do you suppose that if you simply repeat the fact of its (the persecution idea) existence, that means you have won the argument? Is it that the existence of a theme of persecution in Mormon thought justifies the kind of sweeping generalizations that dartagnan made? Do you imagine that the qualified version of the picture you have offered above is exactly the same thing that dartagnan said?

Let's look more closely. You say that LDS "*often* see themselved in a "victim" role, in a national-historical scale." Dartagnan said of Mormons: "they (referring to all Mormons, not some, many, or most) play the victim at *every* (not sometimes or often) opportunity." Then he continues, "they (all Mormons, again) know *no* (no qualifications there either) other role."

If you are out to defend Dartagnan's statement, defend what he said instead of your soft-peddling version. Then ask yourself this: since when is it that people do not consider such negative, sweeping generalizations of a group one stands outside of bigoted?

For example, if one of you white folks were to say that "all African Americans play the victim at every opportunity; they know no other role," chances are that some bright person would call you out for making a bigoted remark and you would deserve it.

Did you attempt to "prove" that it was an important factor?

Admittedly, I have not. Nor do I think that dartagnan has proven his case. I would venture to say that the complexities of this primary season are probably beyond the range of either of our abilities to prove definitively one way or the other. That is why we generally engage in reasonable speculation, and then withhold from claiming that we have proven something from 'thorough research' that involves math learned in grade school. In my opinion, that does not come close to covering it.

I stand by the basic argument that Mormons have been viewed as on the fringe of American society for much of the LDS Church's existence, and that specific anti-Mormon attacks during Romney's campaign aggravated that perception both among evangelicals and others. The net result for Romney was, in my opinion, a much more significant hurdle for him to overcome than George W. Bush's evangelical faith ever was for him. Did Romney's Mormonism and anti-Mormon sentiment play an important role in the primaries? I would say most definitely. If you can come up with the math to prove me right or wrong on that one, then go for it.

I will also say that in my memory I cannot remember a time when more public figures said disparaging things about Mormonism in major media outlets. I would call this soft anti-Mormonism, as in, "gee we can't believe someone would be dumb enough to believe X" (with the implication being "how could you vote for someone who would believe X?"). In principle, I have no problem with that as long as one calls all irrational faith systems out for being equally ludicrous, whether that be the adoration of the ossified body parts of early Christian superheroes, or the belief that a dead Jewish rabble rouser is God and is coming to slay his wicked opponents any day now. Instead, we were treated to the rantings of an inebriated British journalist with a chip on his shoulder, an intellectual lightweight comedian who takes himself far too seriously, the wife of one major politician, the mother of another, an actual candidate for the presidency, and many, many more, taking pot shots at one faith especially and in particular: Mormonism.

I would be the first to tell you that this is indicative of a problem in Mormon culture as much as it is a problem of bigotry, but that does not change the fact that the problem of bigotry exists and takes its toll. It also does not justify bigotry. I think the tendency of members of the ex-Mormon community to savage Mormonism for all of its many failings blinds it to a certain extent to the fact that real bigotry against a faulty religion is still bigotry. People who have a persecution complex can be persecuted. In the fishbowl of Mormon boards, this is sometimes easy to forget. I am struck by the number of non-Mormons who have observed the use of bigotry against Romney. Generally these people do not have the same agenda as apologists and polemicists, and I am inclined to trust them more than you guys for this reason.

And what might those be? Wouldn't it be equally fair to say that Romney's responses to questions concerning these so-called "old prejudices" did nothing to help his campaign?

The first question doesn't seem to be a real one, so I move to the second. No. It would be fair to say that he could have done a lot better. To say they did nothing to help his campaign is something neither of us can know.

Really, the "reasonable" thing to do would be to demand proof.

Let's all sit here and demand. I am up for that. (whistling)

Note that DCP said elsewhere that anyone who does not affirm Joseph Smith is "anti-Christ." These things work both ways.

Could you send me that link to DCP's Apologists4Romney website where he represents himself as a longtime supporter of Romney for political office (back to those Massachusetts days) who is exposing Huckabee as an anti-Christ in order to dissuade good Mormons from voting for him?

I'll be looking for that link from you.

[_dartagnan]

Maybe, since neither of us have done the math, we should just drop it.

Speak for yourself, I've done the math. That is why I'm arguing my points. I'm not going to engage in a pissing contest over who is more intolerant, Romney or Huckabee. This is all beside the point really. I never said Huckabee was perfect, nor did I say he wasn't a bigot. I'm saying there is little difference between him and Romney and any other politician.

I doubt either one of us is capable of the math and of mustering the information it would actually require to prove the precise effect of anti-Mormonism on Romney's campaign.

Well, wait a second. You're getting all bent out of shape because I said Bokovoy's claim wasn't supported by facts. Now you're telling me that there is no way to prove it anyway? So for all you know I could be right.

The fact that you refer to math as though you have it all worked out is almost cute. I seriously doubt the grade school math you offer here is up to the task.

Let's be clear here. What's at issue is the statement that Romney's departure was "in part due to" bigotry in the South. It doesn't require mathematicians from MIT to figure out this is not substantiated. The three of you seem to have lost all sense of cause and effect. In order to for it to be true that bigotry in the south was, even "in part," the cause of Romney's loss, you have to at least deal with the fact that Romney won more votes in the South. You have to at least explain why Romney won in areas where the bigotry was its worst. You have to at least deal with the fact that Romney wouldn't have had enough delegates to make a difference anyway.

So far none of you have touched this with a ten foot pole. Instead, you just crawl behind a few opinion pieces on the web like Rush Limbaugh, who has also tried to make excuses for his candidate's failure. You guys maintain this position, so back it up. It isn't too difficult to calculate the significance of winning the south.

If you think that what you have presented here comprises anything like "thorough research," you need more education.

Again, I am the only one who has done any math. I know how to count delegates and so does my 9 year old nephew. I am the only one who has presented any facts beyond speculation. You throw me blogs with more of the same unsupported speculation. Speculations don't become substantiated via variety and repitition. I have taken a claim presented at MADB and factored in the necessary elements of the equation, and guess what? It doesn't add up. You've done nothing except moan and groan about bigotry and attack me from every angle, calling me names etc. And you think my credibility is suffering here? As far as I'm concerned, watching you post this tripe is one of the greatest tragedies ever on this forum.

Statistics are much more complex than that. You offer a few naked numbers and make a lot of interesting speculations about their precise meanings. I am not impressed. It really does take more than that.

Then present more. Oh wait, you said its too difficult for you. Yet, that's somehow my fault?

You still cannot support the original claim. Bigotry in the south was not "partially" the reason why Romney lost. Any high school kid can count delegates and understand this doesn't wash, yet you make it seem like a background in rocket science is needed to understand the "complexity" of it all. You rely heavily on the assumption that winning the south would have given Romney the "momentum" to beat McCain. Of course, the fact that this is begging the question and that it flies in the face of everything we have thus far seen in this election, seems to escape you. LDS apologists make issues more complex when they can't deal with its simplicity. It seems you're doing the same thing here.

Let me simplifiy it further by asking very simple questions:

1) If bigotry in the south was partially the cause for Romney's loss, then how did Romney win more votes?
2) If anti-Mormons in the south were partially the cause for Romney's loss, then how did Romney win in the most anti-Mormon counties?
3) If 50% of America were already decided against voting for a Mormon, then wouldn't it be true that Huckabee drew votes away from McCain, thus making it easier for Romney to win in places like Michigan?
4) If #3 is true, then how can it really be argued that Romney ever had a chance in hell to begin with? The irony would be that he needed the Evangelical bigot to appear more formidable than he really was.

I mean what is it going to be? If Evangelicals are bigots who would never vote for a Mormon, then this means all of the Huckabee votes never would have gone to Romney anyway, meaning, they would have gone to McCain; making it a landslide victory for McCain in every state except Utah.

Well, perhaps in the future we will see what happens when we can be sure that the shoe is on the other foot. Too much has happened in this case to make definitive pronouncements.

Yes, definitive pronouncements like saying the anti-Mormonism in the south was "in part" to blame for Romney's loss? Pay closer attention and you'd realize it was I who had problems with "definitive pronouncements." I have been arguing ever since that there is no concrete reason to believe this to be true, and you have been against me ever since.

I am still right, logic aside.

Well, I can't argue with someone who throws logic aside. you're playing by our own rules now.

How on Jebus' green earth am I proving your point? In your delusional imagination?

No, the fact that you utterly hate Huckabee. Just look at all the crap you've posted about him. This is far more disturbing than anything I've written about Romney or Mormons. While you are wailing and moaning about my alleged bigotry towards Mormonism, you are proving my point that Mormonism conditions people to see Evangelical ministers as the scum of society. They charge to preach. The attack Mormonism. They hang out with people who ask questions that people can only interpret wrongly. They are poster boys for bigotry.

I have not attacked Romney but you have attacked Huckabee. That's actually an understatement. You go head over heels to point out obscure issues in his past as if you're just looking for something to complain about- stuff nobody else except perscuted Mormons would care about. Half of the stuff you raise, I just say "so what"? You don't seem to appreciate the fact that Mormons and Evangelicals disagree with one another. Romney is the same way, he is just in no position to throw his weight around as a Mormon because a quarter of the nation isn't Mormon. If Mormons represented 25% of the nation and Evangelicals were the tiny sect of a few million, then Romney would be the one pandering to his Mormon constituency and alienating Huckabee's faith. That's politics, and it doesn't have to be a minister who uses religion. Ted Kennedy did the same thing to Romney when he ran against him back in the 90's. JFK had to answer for his Catholicism. George Bush was attacked for being too religious too. That's politics.

Finally, the "interpretation" is what the anti-Mormon primed audience would have been doing, not what Huckabee did. Sorry if that was not clear to you.

And how can you fault people for interpreting a comment that is true? The only way you can stop someone from interpreting a fact, is to make sure they're unaware of the fact. Gee, what does that sound like? Its information control. Don't tell them that because people are too stupid to learn what it means on their own.

Mormons believe Lucifer and Jesus are brothers. This is a fact. To suggest people have no right to know if a person claiming to be a Christian, is really a Christian according to their understanding, is something worse than bigotry.

Seen through the lens of EV theology, the statement of Jesus and Satan being brothers will most likely be a distortion of its significance in Mormon theology.

But it isn't. The fact that Jesus and Satan are brothers simply means that the understanding of Jesus in Mormonism is different from the Jesus of traditional Christianity. But Romney doesn't want anyone to know that. In traditional Christainity Jesus is an eternal being, never created. But in Mormonism, Jesus is a created being. You can sneeze at this is you want, but for many this is a significant difference and it brings into question Romney's posing as though he is a Christian just like anyone else.

So yes, it can be argued just the same that Romney is being equally deceptive when he claims to be a Christian. Why? Because like you said, it will be "interpreted" in the most superficial manner, and the common folk who would otherwise reject Romney as a non-Christian, are left to accept him as such via ignorance.

Is Romney a Christian? Let me be clear about this. I believe he is. I believe all Mormons are Christians because I don't believe one must accept certain ontological/metaphysical features of Jesus, in order to be Christian. My personal definition of Christian doesn't involve any of that. However, I am not the one Romney needs to convince. Most Christians would not see Romney as a Christian, and it is they who need to be convinced. But Romney is not interested in doing any of that. Instead, he wants it both ways. He'll pander to the Christians as if he is one of them, but he doesn't want anyone asking any questions about specifics. He wants to be able to claim to be a Christian and expect his audience to look no deeper into his claim. However, if Huckabee does anything within a 100 yards of anti-Mormon activity, a full investigation is underway as every attempt is made to connect Huckabee to bigotry. When no direct connection can be definitively proved, then all the negative speculation is welcomed. Because Romney is the Mormon superman who has been successful at everytying in life, and Mormons are always denied things due to bigotry.

This reminds me of a talk given at the MTC when I was there. I forget who the General Authority was - and maybe someone reading this knows more details about this than I can recall - but he was talking about how one LDS commander in the military was up for promotion and everyone pretty much knew he was going to be the next 3 or 4 star General and put in charge of all of US forces in a substantial section of Europe (I forget the exact parameters). Anyway, the guy (I forget who he was) went on to tell the story about how he didn't get the promotion, and military commanders everywhere who had been rooting for him, were shocked. And then, somehow, someone was able to get him a copy of some kind of paper that had his resume or whatever; something that was presented to the committee that decided if he qualified for the job. On the form the word Mormon was circled in red. So there you have it. Mormons don't succeed because of bigotry in others. Its part of the Mormon way of life. We just have to accept it. Gods loves us and we're number one with him, and that's what's important.

Of course, that story has to be true because a General Authorit told it at the MTC. And of course, that general was denied promotion because the military obviously can't stand to have Mormons running things.

I have not spoken with any Mormon about how he or she voted.

So you're speaking from a positionof ignorance. And I'm supposed to be impressed by this? I've spoken with literally dozens. Not a single one ever considered Huckabee, and this was true long before any of the stories ran about his question to the NYT journalist.

If you think momentum still doesn't mean anything to the Huckabee campaign, I'd have to disagree with you. Had he not won Iowa, where would he be now? We'll never know, but I would guess that he would have quit by now.

You're changing the subject. The issue is whether the south would have given Romney any momentum. Did winning Michigan give Romney momemntum? Super Tuesday was a huge blow to Romney, not because of the south, but because of California. Romney's best performance in the south was in Florida, but he was beaten by McCain, not Huckabee. The states Huckabee won on Super Tuesday were:

Georgia: Delegates won: 45
Here in Georgia Huckabee had an advantage of having Neal Bortz endorse him. In Atlanta Boortz has great influence as a talk show host, and he has been pushing for the fair tax plan for years. That is why he endorsed Huckabee. But in spite of this, Huckabee only beat Romney by a 4% margin, even losing in the Cobb/Cherokee counties where most of the First Baptist of Woodstock (where Huckabee spoke Feb 3rd) members live. http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/05/pf/taxe ... .moneymag/

Could this have had something to do with Huckabee's win? No of course not. That story isn't as juicy as a nice conspiracy among bigots.
Or maybe people in Georgia like the fact that an Evangelical minister is running, and they don't really care if his opponent is a Mormon? Does that sound reasonable? Never. You see, it has to be about anti-Mormon bigots.

You argue Mormons would naturally vote for one of their own, therefore they aren't really voting against Huckabee. However, when Evangelicals vote for one of their own, it has to be because they were bigots voting against a Mormon. This is an amazing double-standard you have created for yourself.

Alabama: Delegates won: 20

Tennessee: Delegates won: 23

We're talking about a whopping 88 Delegates that in all likelihood, would have gone to McCain if Huckabee wasn't in the race anyway. But for the sake of argument, let's grant Romney all 88. So where does that leave him? Instead of trailing by 400 or so delegates, he would only be trailing by 320. In which corner of your universe would this make Romney the "momentum" favorite? Keep in mind that on the same exact day, McCain ate Romney's lunch in California. Some might consider that the momentum edge. In fact, that is how most political strategists saw it. But who needs informed perspectives like these when bigot-baiting is so much fun?

I did not prove that anti-Mormonism cost Romney the election, but then I never set out to do so. I simply said that it was an important factor.

But there is no evidence that it was. Again, how teh hell do you define "important"? Your entire case is built upon one speculative theory after the other. Let's just take a look at what you and teh MADB boys are whining about:

Maybe if Evangelicals weren't bigots, then maybe enough of Huckabee's votes would have gone to Romney, and then maybe Romney would have won all of the delegates, and then maybe those delegates would have created a momentumsurge never before seen in primary history, and then maybe Romney would have been able to eventually overcome the devastating loss in California and beat McCain.

You're using this speculative nonsense to justify the overwhelming hatred towards Huckabee, and so are the eternally persecuted whackos at MADB.

Your excuses for your bigoted statements against Mormons are lame.

No, I just happen to know what bigotry means. You seem to have been taken in by the trendy concept propagated mainly in academia, that any criticism of anyone or anything that happens to be a minority, should automatically be designated the bigotry label. I simply point out hypocrisy and you get all riled up, unwittingly proving my point that any form of criticism is taken as a license to cry victimhood.

[_Sethbag]

I think you're referring to Hugh B. Brown, who was denied promotion to (I think) Brigadier because he was a Mormon. This was in the Canadian military.