The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

His Newtness and His 176,000 Donors

Posted on | March 16, 2012 | 99 Comments

It’s Friday night and the Missouri caucuses are Saturday. Newt Gingrich isn’t even on the ballot in Missouri, which will award 52 delegates. There was a Missouri primary in February but, because of legislative hassles, that vote was officially “non-binding.” However, Rick Santorum won that primary with 55 percent of the vote — nearly a 30-point margin over Mitt Romney — and today’s caucuses will certainly ratify Santorum’s victory.

Maybe Missourians are still sore about 1838, who knows?

My point is that Santorum is about to put another one in the “W” column, the seventh state he will have won this month: Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota on March 6, Kansas on March 10, Alabama and Mississippi on Tuesday, and now Missouri.

It’s important to say this, because none of the reporters, analysts or commentators on Fox News are going to tell you that Santorum’s on a winning streak, because they are indeed biased against him.

Now, let’s talk about Newt Gingrich. Ace headlined this:

Gingrich:  I Have Come Here To Chew Bubblegum and
Not Drop Out of the Race and I’m All Out of Bubblegum

Which is both cruel, and a fairly accurate summary of this:

Asked on CBS’s This Morning “under what circumstances” he would end his campaign before the convention, Gingrich responded: “Probably none.” He told host Charlie Rose, “I’ll be with you in Tampa, Charlie,” adding, “I have 176,000 donors at They want me to stay in the race.”

Hey, Newt, how many online donors did Herman Cain have before he dropped out? Lots. Rick Perry? Lots. Maybe not 176,000, but lots.

Gingrich is counting donors cumulatively, going back to late November and December, before any actual voting took place, when he was No. 1. On Dec. 13, Newt led Romney by more than 12 points, 35% to 22.3% in the Real Clear Politics average of national polls. It also includes the comeback period in January when Newt got a bump from his Jan. 21 win in South Carolina and, once again, bounced up to a lead (RCP average 31.3%-27% as of Jan. 27) in the national polls.

While he was on top, or at least a viable contender, Gingrich collected online donors by the tens of thousands, but that was “front-runner” money. Those donors were bandwagon-jumpers who thought they were giving money to The Man Who Could Beat Mitt.

And those people aren’t giving money any more because in the past six weeks it has become apparent that Newt can’t beat Mitt.

Gingrich lost Florida Jan. 31 and lost Nevada Feb. 7, and was 0-for-3 on Feb. 7, when he was third in Colorado, fourth in Minnesota and, as previously noted, failed to make the ballot in Missouri. Newt was fourth in Maine (7%) on Feb. 11; on Feb. 28 he was third in Arizona (16%) and fourth in Michigan (7%); and on March 3 he was fourth in Washington State (10%). On Super Tuesday, March 6, Gingrich recorded third-place finishes in OhioTennessee and Oklahoma, and was fourth in Alaska (14%), North Dakota (9%), Vermont (8%), Massachusetts (5%) and Idaho (2%). On March 10, he was third in Kansas and fourth in Wyoming (1%).

In case you lost count, since Feb. 7, Gingrich has placed third in five states and placed fourth in 10 states, for a total of 15 third- or fourth-place finishes in the past six weeks. You can add in the balance against all those electoral embarrassments Newt’s lone victory in his home state of Georgia on March 6, but that was completely offset by his defeats Tuesday in Mississippi and Alabama, two states his campaign had previously called “must-wins.”

Newt is clearly no longer The Man Who Could Beat Mitt.

He is now The Guy Who Usually Finishes Fourth, and the vast majority of his previous donors aren’t going to pay a dime for that kind of action. They thought they were giving money to a winner, you see, and they’re not going to follow him down the rabbit hole of Wishful Thinking.

There is also the telltale silence of Team Newt about their February fundraising numbers. On Feb. 29, the Santorum campaign told the Associated Press they had raised $9 million in February from 100,000 donors. A week later, the Romney campaign said they’d raised $11.5 million in February.

Gingrich? Crickets chirping.

That silence tells us a lot, but not nearly as much as we’ll learn next week when the official FEC numbers for February are available. What we know, however, is that the Gingrich campaign ended January with cash on hand of $1,788,590, but with debts of $1,726,085, so that their net balance (minus debt) was just $62,505.

By comparison, Santorum’s cash on hand at the end of January was $1,474,064 against debts of $956,701, for a net balance of $517,363.

This is simply astonishing: In the month where Gingrich scored his biggest success (the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary win), somehow his “burn rate” was so high that it vastly exceeded his contributions. Gingrich spent $16.4 million in January, while raising only $5.5 million. Meanwhile the underdog Santorum finished the month with a balance (minus debts) more than eight times greater than Gingrich’s!

With that in mind, what do you think Gingrich’s financial report for February is going to tell us? And how do you think his March fundraising is going so far, given his inability to win Alabama or Mississippi, and his third- and fourth-places finishes nearly everywhere else this month?

Newt’s not going to be able to reverse this perception by scoring any wins any time soon. He’s not on the ballot Saturday in Missouri and won’t finish better than third Sunday in Puerto Rico. Polls indicate Gingrich will finish third in Illinois on Tuesday. That brings us to Lousiana next Saturday, March 24: One poll last week showed Gingrich third there, too. Gingrich was in Louisiana today, begging:

NEW ORLEANS — Newt Gingrich is asking supporters for donations as small as $2.50 to keep his GOP presidential campaign going.
The former House speaker told a New Orleans audience Friday that he can’t raise as much money as front-runner Mitt Romney can. But he said he is gaining 500 to 1,000 new donors a day. He said many of them give small but that he welcomes amounts that might lead to larger contributions later

He’s already desperate, and when the February financial reports are made public, showing a campaign that is essentially bankrupt, whatever little puddles of hope Gingrich has been able to sell to those “500 to 1,000 new donors a day” (a dubious claim) will evaporate almost instantly. If Newt then loses March 24 in Louisiana, it’s over.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And thanks to the commenter who called my attention to a Feb. 17 article by Luke Rosiak of The Washington Times:

When Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign disclosed in October that it planned to pay the candidate $70,000, the transfer was unusual for a campaign committee. But weeks ago, the former House speaker revised his bill for the third quarter: He actually expected to personally receive $115,000 to reimburse himself for expenses during that period.
The campaign would not explain how the candidate forgot about and then found $45,000 in receipts. Far beyond that payment, the destinations of dollars donated to Mr. Gingrich’s campaign are being obscured by the unprecedented use of a clearly prohibited tactic, The Washington Times found — one that has accompanied the flow of the better part of $1 million in unexplained cash to Mr. Gingrich, family members and top staffers. . . .

Read the whole thing. How I missed that article last month, I don’t know, nor do I know what the explanation for such unusal accounting might be. But one can imagine that it raised eyebrows among the big-money donors. Newt would probably dismiss such financial questions as coming from “the elite media.”

UPDATE II: My attempted humor about Missouri’s less-than-exemplary history of religious tolerance has generated some less than mirthful comments from those who sympathize with the plight of 19th-century Mormons. But my mild jest about 1838 could never rival the studied cruelty of Allahpundit’s well-aimed shot at Gingrich:

Second look at Newt staying in the race to gratify his delusions of grandeur about being chosen as a consensus nominee at a brokered convention?



  • David Dial

    Newt’s been running commercials in Ohio ever since Super Tuesday–not before Super Tuesday, when he came in third, but ever since Super Tuesday–all about how Newt can beat Obama.

    I don’t see how Newt can beat Obama if he can’t beat Romney or Santorum. Wouldn’t he have to be able to beat both Romney and Santorum on a consistent basis to even get a chance to go up against Obama?

    What is he thinking?

  • TR

    Are you happy now?  Beating up on Newt, for your weekend quotient?  Your advocacy for Rickyboy is tiresome and pathetic and really gives no new information to the field.

  • Testor

    How is Newt staying in any more ridiculous than Santorum?

    Neither one can mathematically capture a majority of delegates or even surpass Romney.  They both hope to steal it in a smoke-filled room.

    What does that say about these fine gentlemen? 

    That they’re willing to throw the candidate that comes in with more delegates and votes off the ticket for their own ambition.

    You do realize the GOP would be split apart if such a scenario happened?  Right?  Or do you just hate Romney so much you don’t care?

  • Denverwindowwashing

    Sarah Palin did the right thing.  

    Others too.

    Why not Newt?

    Son of a bitch, I’m about done with personalities in the GOP and ready for a plan to reduce the debt, retroactively, in a most reactionary manner.

  • TR

    Dont jump off the scaffold Dwashing!  Primaries are a part of the US election process.

  • Adjoran

    Over?  It’s not over!  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

    Gingrich’s balance sheet actually argues against him dropping out.  He’s done nothing for Romney or Santorum to make them help clear his debts, and the unpaid bills will make it harder to run for anything again.  Not to say that anyone stupid enough to lend money to or bill a campaign for goods or services doesn’t deserve to be fleeced like the four-star hotels who lost six-figure billings to the Al Sharpton campaign, but that’s the way it is. 

    If he “suspends” instead, or just keeps going without spending, the account stays open, he can continue to solicit money, maybe he eventually gives a rousing convention speech and campaigns for the ultimate nominee and earns a little fundraising help.

    But it matters little.  Gallup is now showing Gingrich supporters equally divided between Romney and Santorum as their second choice (with Paul getting 12% of them).  If that is even close, it wouldn’t matter what Newt does, it wouldn’t affect the result.

  • richard mcenroe

    Newt was the big deal macher, bragging about his millions of dollars of casino money, didn’t give a rat’s ass about the mom and pop donors then.  Now he’s all about the participation of the little people… because sugar daddy done closed the candy store.  Can’t see any reason we should take up the slack.

  • JR Dogman

    I just sent Newt $25 yesterday afternoon, and I’m glad I did. I want him to stay in, because I want a brokered convention. I’ll vote with a pair of pliers on my nose for Mitt, and I’ll vote without much enthusiasm for Rick, but the only one I find to be formidable as a spokesman for conservatism is Newt Gingrich. Will he get the nomination? It seems unlikely. But as I said, I want that brokered convention. I want an uproar. I want a fight. I want to do anything and everything to see if we can possibly get a candidate who isn’t a RINO squish or a big government social con that thinks the way to win people over to conservatism is to compare gays to freaks who screw farm animals and to promise us a war on (drum roll…) that horror of horrors, that destroyers and despoiler of our society, porn!

    If anything, this post has inspired me to give another $25 to Newt’s sputtering campaign. Will it be money down the drain? Not if it helps get us to that brokered convention.

    Yay Newt!

  • PookyBear

    Missourians still sore about 1838? Seriously? What did THEY have to be sore about?

  • kim

    I don’t care who the businessman is.  I like the man who is showing he knows how to manage himself on a shoestring budget.  

  • JR Dogman

    I don’t hate Romney; I don’t know him. As a dog-lover, I dislike him for what he did to his family dog, which btw Obama will bring to the country’s attention if Mitt’s the nominee — after all, there are upwards of 70 million dog owners in the United States, and whatever percentage of them *do* decide they can’t vote for Mitt because of that story will have an impact. Bank on it.

    Now, as a conservative, I also dislike Romney, because I think he stands for absolutely nothing other than that he should be president. I’d vote for him, sure — to borrow from the Great One, I’d vote for an orange juice can to help boot Obama from the WH. But don’t expect me to (a) cast my vote with enthusiasm or (b) think that he’s going to win. I’ve looked at the man’s record, and I’ve listened to him. There’s just not that much there, and what there is there varies from neutral to dispiriting.

    I think the following piece from The Onion says it all about the Mittster:,27155/

  • robertstacymccain

    TR: Newt managed to finish fourth in a lot of primaries without me making much note of it. And I remember how in South Carolina and Florida, Newt kept calling for Santorum to drop out. So here we are, with Gingrich clearly at the end of his rope, and we are expected to politely ignore the fact that he seems to be staying in merely because of his megalomania? Even though Newt’s continued “campaign” can only serve to distract from the final showdown between Romney and Santorum?

    Look, I don’t say that Newt couldn’t stay in and still continue snagging a few delegates. And the likelihood is that Romney will win the nomination in the end, anyway. But if there is to be any real chance to stop Romney, the sooner we get it down to a one-on-one, the better. If Mitt wins the final showdown with Santorum, OK, but this agonizing “Newt Death Watch” is just a ridiculous distraction and a waste of time.

  • Barry Jones

    >As a dog-lover, I dislike him for what he did to his family dog, which btw Obama will bring to the country’s attention if Mitt’s the nominee —

    So- we elected the last President to show that we would vote for a black guy. Now he’s going to get re-elected by pissed-off dog owners?

    if that happens, we deserve our fate- because we’re too stupid to survive

    as always, I weep for my Nation

  • Asian_chic
  • Adjoran

     When they have to reach back that far for that little, you know they are getting desperate. 

  • Adjoran

     Yikes!  If he hadn’t been in a full swan dive by the time that was published a month ago, it likely would have been front page news everywhere.

    Newt has always walked the ethical line, though – he seems compelled to get as close as he possibly can, plunging headlong into gray areas others fret over.  If not for this well-deserved reputation, most of his ethical charges probably would have been quickly dismissed but the Ethics Committee knew that with Newt, you were going to have to call the lawyers and the linguists and split the finest hairs before you knew for sure one way or the other.

    The EC finally punted, let him slide with a reprimand and partial reimbursement for a flaccid admission he had failed to properly review the false statements he had submitted to the EC over his signature.  18 months later, the IRS finished an extensive review of the organizations Gingrich had set up and determined there were no violations of tax law (after he had been booted from the Speaker’s chair by conservatives, and resigned).

  • Scout

    Good job JR.

    I find it ridiculous that we have a real leader, with big ideas and real passion  that this country needs at this very moment, yet others seem obsessed with betting on a fraud (Mitt) or a wannabe (Rick).

    Romney and Santorum are playing checkers against one another while Newt is schooling Obama in a chess match (gas prices/energy policy).

    Yet people don’t get it.

    Newt has identified Obama for what he is (Salinsky radical) and said this is the most important election of our lifetime.

    Mitt can only offer that Obama’s “a nice guy who is just in over his head.”

    Santorum meanwhile is twisting himself in knots over the latest straw man argument presented by the left.

    And of course, people still don’t get it.

    Hang in there JR, perhaps we’ll get that brokered convention and enough people will realize we need someone who understands not only what needs to be done, on all levels, but also how to go about doing it.

  • Jim Clay

    Yeah.  Frankly that line kind of pissed me off.  Seriously jackass thing to say.

  • smbren

    I donated 100.00 to Rick Perry, I donated 50.00 to Herman Cain. I then went on to donate 150.00 to Newt. I have not donated one dime to the RNC, or anything connected to the republican party, nor will I. At this time I have not donated to any other candidate in the race. I took my 300.00 and spread it around as I wished. I will vote for whoever the nominee turns out to be, albeit reluctantly. My green back donations are done however.

  • Nathan Hall

    Not a Gingrich fan, but come on. People don’t give money or votes to someone they think is going to win anyway. That would be a waste of money and time. We give money and votes to the candidate we *want* to win.

    The idea that support should be withheld from people deemed to have little chance gives far too much power to the media, and their narrative-framing ways.

  • robertstacymccain

    That’s what I’m talking about: I know people who were on board early for Herman Cain, who then went with Gingrich after Cain quit, but who subsequently realized Newt couldn’t do it and then gave money to Santorum.

    Will people like that — and people like you — now respond to an e-mail appeal from Newt for more money? Not bloody likely. The word to describe how a lot of Newt’s former donors feel is “disillusioned.”

  • Sencho

     He did that here in Mass too, tons of commercials after Super Tuesday.  Virtually none before (when it would have mattered.

    Used to like the guy but if his people can’t even manage a simple ad buy properly then no way do I want him representing the GOP.

  • roastytoasty

    Stranger things have happened than Newt Gingrich beating what seem impossible odds to be President of The United States. Like the old-time Hollywood producer said when asked about why some movies are hits and some aren’t: “Nobody knows nothing.” Pundits, pollsters, and political consultants make their livings talking and writing like they know something the rest of us don’t when it’s really the other way around. No kidding.

  • JM Hanes

    We can plug Rick Perry into that sequence too.  What’s striking to me is how ideologically incoherent the careening from one not-Mitt to the next has been, not to mention ironic, when most of those same folks’ main complaint about Romney is inconsistency.

  • Pingback: Give Us A Chance – We’ll Screw That Up, Too! | Daily Pundit()

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    Desperation will do that to people.

    Let’s face it, this is not the strongest field of contenders.  Part of this is also the voters’ unrealistically high expectations for the canidates (very dangerous if you ask me, and a sign of our socio-cultural rot), even Valerie’s BFF.  
    People want a great leader without flaw…rather than a humble servant.
    The karma on that alone is going to be wicked.

    So in the meantime:

    ’cause I might as well have some fun out of this mess — aiyiyiyieeee!!!!

  • Quayle

    The Missourians are still pissed off about 1838?  What are they pissed off about?

    That my 3rd great grandfather didn’t stand more still while they tarred and feathered him?

    That my other 3rd great grandfather didn’t appreciate being put in jail in Liberty, MO for 6 months for doing nothing?

    Funny people, those pissed off Missourians, if any actually exist.

  • Asian_chic

    You are arguing that this was a month ago while in the same breadth, making an argument for Newt’s ethics charge 15 years ago. The recent article doesn’t look good for Newt at best and very unethical at worst. 

  • Nite Owl Mom

    Santorum can’t beat Mitt either. He would have to win more than 60% of the remaining delegates and he won’t do that with or without Gingrich in the race. Yesterday, Gallup showed half of Gingrich supporters would flock to Romney. Why is Santorum continuing his ego bid when basic math shows he has NO CHANGE of being the nominee. He has won 25% of the delegates to date, and would have to more than double that to get to 1144. The proproporational system that is making it more difficult for Romney to put this away also makes it impossible for Santorum to catch him. Every state that you mentioned as a “victory” for Santorum was also a big delegate haul for Romney. He won as many delegates as Santorum in Mississippi, for instance, and the big winner-take-all states are in Romney’s wheelhouse. Santorum is disorganized, underfunded, and most of the time, off message. He’s the last person we’d want as a nominee. Mercifully, this race will be over soon.

  • rosalie

    And he had the fortitude to do it on a shoestring budget without any help from the Establishment.  The others, who were encouraged and would have gotten support from the Establishment, bowed out.

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    From an historical point of view it does point to some thought provoking kernels of information which might explain the ongoing issues the rest of the populace has with a certain religion (and there is an IL incident that is directly tied to the MO one — interesting how the southern half of IL has more in common with neighboring MO than the northern half, but I digress).
    As with everything there are always two sides to the story — if you look at both, then understanding of the thing suddenly comes in a rush.

  • Nickcarterpi

    I agree, when are these bloggers going to learn that Santorum has no chance at all.  He is a terrible candidate. I heard he said he want to declare a , “War on Porn”.  Yeah, let’s see how that plays out.  I love how the sanctimonious Christians refuse to forgive Newt like GOD already has.  Rick Santorum is THE REASON people mock Christianity in this country.  Newt’s story of forgiveness in the eyes of GOD are why people become Christians.

  • Nickcarterpi

    Santorum is a sanctimonious moralizer.  No one wants the guy who said, “Everything is NOT going to be okay” as president.  America hates Santorum – holier-than-thou “Christians” like him.

  • robertstacymccain

    Hey, when your Prophet told his polygamous followers that the New Zion would be in Missouri — that this was, for them, The Promised Land — don’t you suppose tar and feathers and six months in jail were rather mild reactions?

    Far be it from me, however, to bother anyone by mentioning historical facts that contradict their victimhood narrative.

  • Montaqua2012

    “The final showdown” in which Rick Santorum would be finally be revealed as an appallingly sanctimonious, whiny moralizer and get crushed by Romeny with no back-up.  Santorum sucks – get over it.

  • Ford Prefect

    Santorum is our last best hope – get over it.

  • Ford Prefect

    No, the reason people mock Christianity is that they are bigots, plain and simple.  

    Santorum is MUCH less of a moralizer than even mainstream democrats like Hubert Humphrey were a generation ago. And please show me where Rick declared your so called “war” on porn.  I believe he said he would vigorously enforce the laws regarding obscenity. This is a winning issue given that the victims of obscene porn are young women and children.  But sure, keep demagoguing Santorum’s position – not sure who that helps but Obama.

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    And for your next arguement you’re going to say “and Rick Santorum is a sanctimonious Christian moralizer who only holier than though American Christians who practice extreme sanctimony support” right?

  • Jordan

     You are right, Robert, that bad things were done on both sides. The LDS should not have bragged to the locals about how God had given them that land, and he would drive off all the heathens. That was just dumb. And there were mormons who fought back or probably committed their own revengeful atrocities. They even advocated an end of slavery, and they were becoming a large enough percentage of the population that they could have changed the outcome of a vote on the matter. (Polygamy would have been a non-issue, as it wasn’t  openly practiced until later.) So I am not saying that the LDS were blameless in this fight.

    But, by and large, they weren’t the ones raping the other side’s women, or tar and feathering their men. They weren’t the ones who issued an executive Extermination Order (not repealed until 1976), making it “legal” to kill anyone of a certain faith found in Missouri. Granted, not as many people as could have been were actually killed because of that order- instead they were forced to leave their legally purchased land and property and march to the state boundary, where they had  little hope for better treatment.

    So, who were the victims in this? Notably, I have never heard a mormon advocate for special scholarships or preferential treatment of any kind for the past mistreatment of their ancestors, so I wouldn’t really call it a “victimhood narrative.” But to say that the Missourians are still sore, as if they were the real victims? Yeah, that’s a bit offensive, even looking at all the historical facts, and not just one side.

    That all being said, I usually really like your blog. Keep up the good reporting!

  • Ford Prefect

    @7949dffce498cfc16f0ec8d9725f5ab3:disqus  said (erroneously): “Neither one can mathematically capture a majority of delegates or even surpass Romney. “

    Maybe you have a different dictionary that I do but by my reckoning, “mathematically” impossible equates to, the math showing that no candidate can get to 1144 since there are not enough delegates to get any of the rest over the top.

    NEWSFLASH: there are still 1358 Unallocated delegates.

    For the mathematically disinclined, that means that there are still MORE delegates unallocated than are required to win the nomination. In other words, even Ron Paul could “mathematically” still win the nomination.

    Here is the current count as of Thursday:

    Mitt: Still needs 660
    Rick: Still needs 905
    Newt: Still needs 1008
    Ron: Still needs 1075

    Now, is it likely that someone who still needs more than 1000 delegates could get them given that there are only 1358 left?  Probably not.  IOW, it is “mathematically” possible, but not probable.

    As for Newt’s thinking, given that there are still over 1000 delegates out there he has convinced himself that it’s worth going for it, bubblegum shortage or not.

    Rick definitely has a shot. A long shot, sure. But still much more than just “mathematically” possible.  He may be angling for a VP position (as may be the rest of them) and by the time this is over, Santorum could have come close enough to take away Romney’s moderate mandate (he just barely gets the nomination and therefore, has no way to argue that the bulk of the GOP electorate prefers vanilla RINOism to Social or economic conservatism).

    Personally, I would actually prefer Newt as the Veep over my guy Rick just because I think Romney needs serious balancing.  Of course, they hate each other and if Mitt has any brains at all he’ll pick a staunch conservative up-and-comer like Rubio but Mitt has never been known for his brilliance so we’ll just have to see.

  • Ford Prefect

    Scout said: “Romney and Santorum are playing checkers against one another while Newt is schooling Obama in a chess match (gas prices/energy policy).”
    To wit:

    “We went into a recession in 2008 because of gasoline prices,” Newt told a packed hotel ballroom of supporters. “The bubble burst in housing because people couldn’t pay their mortgages because of $4 a gallon gasoline,” he added.

    Newt accused Obama of advocating for higher gas prices to protect the environment.“He actually believes this is a good thing for America, I don’t,” he said. “We are not here to serve the earth, but to be stewards of the earth.”

  • Ford Prefect

    Oh, and I lied, this wasn’t Newt who said this and the give-away should have been that the candidate who DID say it, was speaking to a “packed hotel ballroom of supporters”. 😉

  • ThePaganTemple

     Why is Santorum continuing his ego bid when basic math shows he has NO CHANGE of being the nominee.

    Just between you, me, and the fence post I think he’s running for the glory of Great God Almighty in Jesus name. Word on the heavenly street is God feels a bit more stupid every time Rick opens his mouth.

  • ThePaganTemple

     If that’s true, we’re fucked. Get over it.

  • Quayle

     “don’t you suppose tar and feathers and six months in jail were rather mild reactions?”

    Really?  To mere words?  Mild?

    I guess you only get your conscience bothered when balls fly and blood runs.

    Like at Haun’s Mill.

    I’ll bet the Missourians were really pissed off when ten-year-old Sardius Smith hid from them at so they just had to blow his brains out for the trouble.

    And those annoying Mormon women probably struggled too much while being raped.

    Those annoying Mormons!  I can see why Missourians would still be pissed.

  • ThePaganTemple

     Sounds to me like they had it pretty rough there for a while. I bet some of them shit in their Magic Mormon Underwear when they saw those chicken feathers and pots of hot tar. Maybe they should have tried to diffuse matters using the old Maxwell Smart approach, just embrace the locals and say softly, “look fellas about this God giving us all you heathen’s land business”-

  • ThePaganTemple

     Sort of puts you in mind of when we get all pissed off today when Muslims tell us they’re eventually going to take over everything huh? How dare we resist the will of Almighty God. Why, don’t we know we’re just supposed to just agree to hand everything over to people that go around talking that STUPID FUCKING SHIT!?

  • JM Hanes

    Why do people assume that a brokered convention will somehow doom Romney’s candidacy?  

    A Santorum/Gingrich coalition might increase the chances of multiple rounds, but given how few delegates Newt will nominally control, the chances of a combined plurality alone look unlikely, unless Santorum has already managed to thump Romney before he gets there.   On what planet would Santorum defer to Newt?  Newt could throw his support to Santorum, but at that point, even his bound delegates would not be obliged to follow suit.  Do they actually remain bound after a first vote with no majority anyway?The Real Clear Politics average makes it pretty clear that Romney and Ron Paul have loyal core constituencies, which the roller coaster challengers do not, and those dedicated followings will not be sitting idly by.  So, I end up with three questions.  For the people hoping a new candidate will sweep in and sweep up a last minute nomination, who do you believe could actually pull that off?  For the people who see a brokered convention as a way to derail the much despised “establishment” candidate, who do you think will be doing the brokering?  How can standing the primaries on end, a mere two months before election day, possibly improve any eventual nominee’s chances?  The days when conventions signaled the start of the presidential campaign season are long gone.  By August, all our candidates will have nearly exhausted their resources just vying for Republican votes.  Grudging promises to vote for the eventual winner, without lifting another finger, won’t fix such a  potentially terminal disadvantage.  Could anyone who claims to want Obama gone possibly do any less to make that happen?  If our nominee has weaknesses, it falls to us to make up the difference or lose — and watch Obama do everything he was afraid to do before November.

  • JM Hanes

    Whoa, where did my paragraphing go?  That looks almost as bad as ALL CAPS!

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    While there is no excuse for religious persecution or foul deeds, it must be noted that the story was a bit more complicated — the Mormons were not completely innocent in what transpired up to and including violence/threats of violence (the whole promised land/chosen people/inheritance thing just rubbed salt in the wound and inflamed people more).

    Kinda goes back to that old saw about a few bad apples ruining it for the whole bunch, but there you have it.  Usually there is no such thing as a truly innocent side, only truly innocent individuals (who are usually the ones who wind up getting the shaft).