baratunde.com

Romney is the antichrist.

Mitt was clearly the best candidate. Any other election this assertion may have been debatable, but since the concession of Fred, it is undeniable. Mitt Romney is the only candidate that attempts to unite the three core factions: social, economic, and foreign policy conservatives. This union has been key to edging out narrow victories for Republicans since Reagan. With McCain we compromise our platform on taxation, family values, and free speech. With Huckabee we compromise our values on spending, taxation, and crime. Mitt Romney is the only candidate that prevented the impeding republican schism of the three factions. This fact is plain to insiders such a Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter who have directly or indirectly endorsed Mitt.

If Mitt is the clear candidate, then we must wonder why he has done so poorly. Some say creditability. However, if creditability was an issue then, then why is it not an issue for McCain who has changed his mind on numerous social and economic issues, a man that has reportedly considered switching parties or running as VP with John Kerry? The reason Mitt’s “flip-flopper” status sticks, is the subject of a famous poll from Vanderbilt. This survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Mitt. Another widely published gallop poll showed that 27% of republicans would not vote for a qualified Mormon candidate based on his religion, this was a number much greater then for women or African Americans. This makes Mormons the most discriminated minority in America.

Some Mormons claim that we can not hold Huckabee or McCain accountable for the prejudices of America. In response, I point out that Huck’s official blog, whose comments are edited by campaign staff, allows remarks such as: if we elect Mitt “we might as well elect a witch...” Huck continues to refer to himself as a “Christian leader” (implying that Mitt is not) and refusing to classify Mormons as Christians. Huck, a knowledgeable Bapitist Minister, but plays ignorant about his anti-Mormon remarks concerning Christ’s brother. Not to mention Huck’s supporters participating in push-polling, anti-Mormon Christmas cards, and spam emails. Even now when Huck has no chance of winning, he continues to campaign in order to whittle away Mitt’s social conservatives. Every time Huckabee is asked about the frontrunner McCain he twists the question into an attack on Mitt. Ultimately, the Baptist Minister would rather have a social liberal in the White House rather then a Mormon. In the case of McCain, as already pointed out above, he is not a conservative. Ann Coulter has recently taken it a step further and claims that she will vote of Hilary, because on some issues she is more conservative then McCain.
TrustMitt.org

"I point out that Huck’s official blog, whose comments are edited by campaign staff, allows remarks such as: if we elect Mitt “we might as well elect a witch…”" Dave, you'd be interested to know that Huckabee won the city of Salem, Massachusetts. (True fact).

But more seriously, Baratunde you write, "I almost feel bad for the man." Me too - almost. Here's the thing: it's not just that the other candidates have hated Romney for going negative on them. It's also that Romney's campaign staff doesn't get along well with the other campaign's staff. Having spent some time hanging around the Obama campaign, I have a hypothesis why: Mormons don't drink or smoke. So there's little social lubricant between them and their colleagues in the other campaigns.

Really what we have here is a culture clash, and that's never something that I think is a good reason for a candidate to lose. And while it's certainly not the main reason why Romney lost, nor even a big one, I think that factor was there. And it makes me sad if a campaign suffers because its staff and volunteers go home to their kids rather than have a beer with the opposition.