Buy at Amazon

Monday, December 03, 2007

"Iowa Likes Mike" Blogsite Whimps Out?

Iowa Likes Mike has erased all the comments on recent posts placed by non-Huckabee supporters.

The blog owner calls out Romney supporters thus:

Unfortunately, recently, many Romney supporters have used my blog as a means to promote their own blogs denigrating Governor Huckabee. I am not interested in providing a bulletin board for Huckabee hate messages. With that said, I have deleted the last batch of comments with the attached links - (Some links were listed twice- somewhat obnoxious...)
Please feel free to continue to post, however, all comments will now be moderated. If you are seeking honest discussion, I welcome it.


Then why did you delete all of the honest discussion comments along with the apparent few unsavory ones?

I've been watching that blog frequently, and didn't see the type of comments he seems to be referring to (maybe I missed the last bunch?)

We have unmoderated comments here at Iowans for Romney (though Keith and I reserve the right to delete comments that contain profanity or are clearly "out-of-bounds"). Check out this comment stream with both anti-Mitt and anti-Mormon themes (and yes, it's from a Huckabee supporter). Here at Iowans for Romney we aren't afraid of any negative messaging from outside sources. It's a chance to argue the policy points and/or point out bigotry for what it is. I realize that Huck and his supporters are trying to ride their current wave of popularity and ignore his troublesome record and/or current stances for a few more weeks. That's all he (Ruduckabee) needs.

Good luck with that.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jeff,

Can you get this notice up on Mitt Report? I think this is very cowardly of the folks of Iowa Like Mike. What poor sports they are!

These tactics of letting Mike ride out a win without scrunity need to be shown.

Fredrick

David said...

They couldn't stand the heat, so they got out of the kitchen. They were confronted with facts and data and unfortunately had none with which to reply...boo hoo...let me play the world's smallest violin...

Anonymous said...

When Mitt talks about his being a Morman will he address the LDS's believe that the only way a woman can go to heaven is if she is married to a man who is going to heaven? That is why so many Morman women are willing to become second or third wives.

Jeff Fuller said...

Anon 7:49,

Case in point (read my post).

Someone MIGHT just believe your false statement if you could at least spell "MormOn" correctly.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

How many times do you need to hear that Mormons DO NOT pratice polygamy anymore, and haven't for over 100 years! Are you that ignorant?

And the Mormon doctrine of marriage, as you put is completely false. A woman (or man)CAN go to heaven if they are not married. The LDS Church have a lot of single members, and none feel like they are going to be damned to hell if they aren't married.

This anti-Mormon propaganda/ignorance is getting serously old!

Bob Waters said...

As opposed to ridiculous allegations of plots to get Rudy Giuliani elected, perhaps?

The Romney campaign- this blog in particular- is in full panic mode, and understandably so. And given the wild, crazy charges being leveled against Huckabee by the desperate Romney folks, I blame those blogs for removing the comments only because it would serve Huckabee better to let the desperation be seen.

According to Rasmussen, the data today says that Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are tied nationally for first place among Republicans, each with 18%.

Romney- supposedly the only guy with a chance to catch Rudy- is fifth. The guy who supposedly is conspiring with Rudy to harmlessly divert the votes of social conservatives, on the other hand, is the one the numbers suggest is Rudy's most serious opponent.

From Howard Kurtz, today in the Washington Post, on the reasons for Mitt's speech on his religion:

"1. It's a ubiquitous issue, there's a lot of misinformation about the religion, and there perhaps are some voters who would be comforted by having Romney explain precisely how his faith would inform his decision-making.

"2. Perhaps Romney is personally aggrieved by the public and private attacks on his religion and he feels compelled to defend it.

"3. The Romney campaign is collecting information about an under-the-radar campaign to directly attack Romney on his religion and wants to pre-empt it."

And some cons:

"1. A large tranche of voters in Iowa will blanche at Romney's attempt to make them feel guilty about their objections to Mormonism.

"2. Christian conservatives do not like to be lectured to; depending on what Romney says, they might feel as if he lecturing to them.

"3. Romney' speech guarantees a week of in-depth, public debate about the specific practices of Mormonism.

"4. Romney is now taking ownership of every single practice, of every single historical quirk of his religion.

"5. The press will spend the days leading up to the speech speculating that Romney is giving it because he is panicked about losing Iowa."

Number five-- bingo!

Anonymous said...

I have to admit that this blog has been very fair in allowing opposing veiw point from the opposing sides. I would like to commend both Jeff and Keith on taking the high road on this issue. Freedom of speech should never be compromised. Jeff and Keith I dont agree with the candidate that you have chosen but I most certainly applaud your passion for politics. Maybe all sides can agree on the best candidate in Mpls./St. Paul next summer.

Nealie Ride said...

Anonymouses,

Just give Huckabee a few more weeks of scrutiny and he'll no longer be a concern nationally or in Iowa specifically.

He'll sink like a stone (remember Fred's quick ascent and just-as-quick descent)? You guy may have very well been on that now nearly abandoned Draft-Fred bandwagon.

With more "Holiday Inn Express" comments, Huck will be in big trouble.

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/i_guess_he_doesnt_stay_at_the.php

So many people, including evangelical Christians, don't see Mitt's faith as an obstacle in this election. Why are you uniquely privleged to hold your biases? He is the best candidate.

Anonymous said...

I am not going to "toast" Romney anymore. The choice is now clear and Huck has now won. I now have a calmness that all will be well. We have defeated Mitt and I no longer hold a grudge against him. Mitt fought the good fight, he just ended up on the losing side. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.

viragok said...

Very funny! You're enjoying a short calm period before the soon-to-arrive storm for your buddy Mike.

By the way, why would you have ever held a grudge against Mitt?

He's simply worked hard. The same can't be said about your guy, Mike. In contast, Mike's rise has been greatly facilitated by evangelicals losing faith in Fred (only a laughing stock today) and hoping and even claiming his endorsement by God himself. Now, that's something!

I believe God looks over and cares for His children, but He knows better than to endorse someone for political office! You guys are going to lose all credibility with the rest of America with your support of Mikey Huckabee.

He's a good man, even a good Christian man, but not the best candidate. You'll see that in upcoming polls. The media is building him up (like Fred) and will soon tear him apart. It won't be that hard, really.

viragok said...

Hey, anonymous,

Remember how Pat Robertson won Iowa years ago? What good did that do him? He had a very narrow base (lacked all three stool legs). And after all that, he's now endorsed Rudy?! What sort of legacy will that leave him?

Even if Huck wins Iowa, he'll follow the path of Pat. Fizzle, fizzle. All his Christians-unite rhetoric is only good for a few states--not NH, and not big states.

Enough hypotheticals. Mitt will regain ground over the next 2 weeks and Huckabee will be this month's Fred Thompson. Sorry, friend.

Anonymous said...

Good story at Evangelicals for Mitt:

Question for our brilliant readers:

What's the difference between Governor Huckabee's now-explicit message ("Vote for me because I'm an evangelical and you are too") and Senator Clinton's theme of "Vote for me because I'm a woman and you are too?"

Further question: We conservative evangelicals claim to loathe identity politics when we hear the latter -- or declarations that blacks should only vote for blacks, etc. -- but will we be consistent when "one of our own" uses the same line of argument?

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/followup.php

Anonymous said...

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419

Why aren't we discussing this????

Slick-Willy said...

I went to Iowa Likes Mike to test their reaction to very straight-forward issue discussion. Thus far, they've avoided posting my comments for long periods of time and they never post those dealing with the issues.

It's comical. I've even been criticized by the moderator for not discussing the issues when he knows his decision to hold back my big issue posts is the reason I'm not discussing them. My posts have not been inflammatory, name calling or blog promoting. The man is just a coward, plain and simple.