The Romney Counter-Attack -- The McCain Counter-Counter Attack

First and last thing to remember: Romney has enough money to stay in and stay relevant as long as he wants.

The message: as campaign aides said last night and this morning: it’s old versus new – the past versus the future. Republican values versus McCain’s values. McCain's had time to change Washington; he has failed.

McCain’s biggest vulnerability is his age; watch the Romney campaign try to subtly exploit that. And if there’s a master at exploiting weaknesses, it’s Romney’s chief strategist, Alex Castellanos.

"I think that's what you've been hearing from the governor, and I think that's what you are going to hear from the governor. I like our chances against John McCain. I think it's pretty clear that we've got tremendous new challenges, a new generation of challenges here that require a new vision and a new leadership, and the fact is that Sen. McCain has, God bless him, he's tried his best, but we haven't seen a lot of change in Washington for the last 20 years. I think, can-do -- Mitt Romney gets things done."

A McCain aide was bemused when I told him what Castellanos had said.

"The negative stuff didn't work in Iowa, and it won't work here."

And the age thing?

"On the age thing, the people of New Hampshire have seen for themselves that he's healthy and vigorous. He has outworked the other candidates."

Comments

I think that if Thompson doesn't drop out and comes into New Hampshire and with Obama's win in Iowa; McCain also has a real problem that isn't really being covered. What happens if the Independents don't come home? What happens if Thompson out preforms him in New Hampshire? What if Mitt Romney does well enough to keep a muddle going into South Carolina and Huckabee gets another bounce?

There are still to many people in this race to declare New Hampshire a McCain/Romney showdown. Especially since this is a chance for Huckabee to kick out the Fair Tax stuff and go forward on a record of governance that is really well recived especially among Independents.

I think McCain has just as many problems as Romeny and is in much the same position Edwards was in Iowa; an also ran with a base that can't gurantee a win. Especially if Giulliani or Thompson decide to fight on here.

Posted by Rhoda | January 4, 2008 10:17 AM

I agree on the age thing. Don't be surprised to see McCain fall off the stage Bob Dole style!!

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | January 4, 2008 11:01 AM

The people have spoken and what they are saying is they are sick of Romney and his little bag of dirty tricks and that they are sick of all his negative ads and they are sick of all the dirty push-polling and that they are sick of all of the lies. in essence they are sick of him. A fifty inning ballgame what planet is he from. That even had the newsteam looking at one another. He is a joke and mainly the butt of his own jokes. like Senator McCain said it shows that no matter how much money you have you can't buy an election and dirty politicing don't work. so Romney with his just for men formula hair and his fake smile and his phoney laugh can take his bag of dirty tricks can just go back home and face the congregation that he has so sorely embarrassed. That should be his worry as to whether he even has a town to go back to. If it was me he would be the man without a country because he is a pure embarrassment to all that it stands for with his get a state department worker to handle foreign policy and I don't remember what I said I'll have to look at my notes. If it wasn't lies to begin with he would be able to remember huh? He is a joke and needs to just quit with all the crap.

Posted by Vicki Hampton | January 4, 2008 11:08 AM

I find it hard to believe in this day and age how Mike Huckabee was able to pull off the political crime of the century. If Mike Huckabee had made a racial statement about a black candidate or a sexist comment about a female candidate, American would have not allowed him to capitalize on such statements. Why did his religious bigotry toward another candidates faith not bring such rath from a nation that has worked for hundreds of years to put such thinking behind us. What a double standard and everyone seems blind to it even though it was exactly what brought Mike Huckabee to the forefront in Iowa.

Posted by Kelly Warnick | January 4, 2008 11:18 AM

To Vicki:

Nice rant.

Couple of things to point out to you. First, Romney was the victim of push-polling, not the perpetrator. Get your facts straight.

Second, since when is it a negative thing to have been successful in life in the public and private sector, not to mention a successful husband and father. Your thinly veiled contempt for his religion is apparent, and it is precisely that type of religious bigotry that propelled the Huckster to victory last night. It is disgusting to me to think that the 39,000 idiots in Iowa who voted for Huckabee, the overwhelming majority of whom are evangelical Christians, will have such a dramatic effect on the national election. Heaven help us indeed if other states fall for Huck's "aw shucks" populist schtick. He was a mediocre governor in a backwater state, whose penchant for corruption has now been exceeded only by his embarrassing gaffes. But hey, he's good with the one-liners, he can play a guitar, and he has experience as a Baptist minister, so he would make a great President, according to Iowa. Nice work.

The unfortunate outcome of last night's result is that the Democrats are now virtually guaranteed to win the White House, especially if Huck continues to erode the chances of the only Republican candidate who could actually win a general election.

Posted by Bill Stone | January 4, 2008 11:58 AM

Huckabee won because Iowan voted for religion over issues. Look at the polling percentages. Most of them said they were voting for what amounted to religious values not experience. Those voting experience voted for Romney. Evangelicals have been taught for years that Mormons are untrustworthy and a cult, and when they were handed a baptist minister... there you go. And Vicki, the fact that your blind to the dirty tricks being used by Huckabee and McCain in their own ads and in what they say on the trail just shows how much you really don't like Romney, not how slimy Romney is. Huckabee doesn't have the money to pay for his ads, so he pulls dirty fast ones to get all the free press he can get his hands on. His "I won't put nasty ads on the air, but I'll show you what I won't pay for" stunt was disgusting. Talk about being a hypocrite and a fast move to free press. Personally, I don't think it matters who the Republican nominee is. A Democrat is going to win the White House for the same reason Bush was able to win. Because most of the country is disgusted by the currant incumbent and his party. Which is sad, because I really feel that Romney's gift with business would benefit us as a country. And I dont' think he's nearly as phony as people complain about. He has valid reasons for his abortion flip. And the man gave back his salary when he worked to bring the Olympics back to respectable status. He took next to no money for himself. Who does that?!!

Posted by Wendi | January 4, 2008 12:14 PM

Romney is desperate to win NH, so expect him to go even more negative and dishonest in the state. I personally think that the good people of NH have seen the light, and will follow Iowa's example of rejecting Romney and his negative message and pandering. I look for McCain to win the primary, and make it a two man race heading into SC.

Posted by Publius | January 4, 2008 12:54 PM

Bill,

Very well said. Vicki's unsubstantiated "negative" comments are so transparent. Bigotry is alive and well in this formum and in Iowa.

Posted by Michael Convey | January 4, 2008 1:02 PM

"Dirty politics...come on Huckabee and McCain are the masters of dirty. I can't believe that you can't see this.

Posted by Wendy73 | January 4, 2008 1:07 PM

Offering Romney has enough money is saying the same thing as American votes can be bought...I don't think so.

Neither one of these clowns is fit to be considered;

Candidate Research - Know Who You're Voting For

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/candidate_research_know_who_youre_voting_for/

Posted by Winghunter | January 4, 2008 1:19 PM

"I can't believe that you can't see this."

They can see it, its that they support someone else. Huckabee has been dirty and negative since the beginning. From Jesus and the Devil to crossing the picket lines to be seen Leno, he has been dirty. McCain has been untruthful about his record, supporting amnesty (ram it down their throats?) and tax breaks. Mitt has shaded the truth too.

So...it all depends on who your man/woman is. Objectively, Huckabee is the most egregious negative campaigner as he wraps his negativity in piety and feigned ignorance...so obviously Hucks not my man :)

Politics is a dirty game, enjoy it!

Posted by Mike | January 4, 2008 1:21 PM

This column is HILARIOUS.

Huckabee's win in Iowa sent one message and one message only:

"Given the opportunity, hard-core evangelicals will vote for one of their own. Period.

There was no, "Negative (contrast) advertising doesn't work", or "Having money in a campaign is actually a bad thing" message.

Huckabee is charming and sweet and he won by a mile with chicks and evangelicals.

Amongst those who actually value crazy things like "experience" and "electibility" he got CRUSHED by Romney.

Face it, if Romney is a Southern Baptist and not a Mormon, he wins Iowa going away.

McCain will be blasted by the entire Conservative Establishment (including Romney, Fred, Rudy and Rush) for the next 5 days. The Independents he MUST have to win will be voting for Obama.

McCain is in BIG BIG trouble.

Romney wins NH easily and it changes everything.

Posted by Bill Mitchell | January 4, 2008 1:45 PM

Kelly Warnick:

Religion is a choice. Race and gender are not.

Religion is fair game. Romney chose to be mormon.

In my humble opinion, if he didn't spend half his time bashing gay people, I think the media would give him a fair-shake and people would sympathize with him vis a vis mormon-bashing. Instead, he's alienated the media and they are very cynical with their coverage of him. The press is extremely sensitive to perceived homophobia and rightly so. Huckabee gets a pass because he is charming, funny and broke.

Huckabee is where he is thanks to the Mainstream Media. Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, et al have been mean to him. Add Ambinder to the list. As a result of this I'm boycotting this blog as a show of solidarity to Huckabee-just as soon as I finish making my point.

Posted by RothNRA | January 4, 2008 1:47 PM

The idea that having money to campaign with equals "buying the vote" is absurd, and frankly has been part of the anti-Romney rant for far too long.

Campaigns need money to get the message out. ALL campaigns do. Even Huckabee needed some money, notwithstanding his natural base in Iowa. Yes, it turns out Mike Huckabee spent money in Iowa as part of his campaign. GASP! CHOKE! Did he "buy" the vote there (but much more cheaply than Romney)? Nope. Nobody got paid to vote (that I've heard). The money was spent on the message, and the Iowans liked the message and that was that.

Part of the "momentum" the candidates try to build is not just popularity momentum but fundraising momentum. What Marc points out here is that while Romney will of course need some popularity momentum (because everyone knows that mere money is not enough), he DOESN'T need the fundraising momentum, which is an advantage. It means he can withstand some early defeats and still stay in the game to possibly pull out later victories in states that are...shall we say...demographically different than Iowa. He won't be "buying the vote" with the money but doing exactly what McCain, Thompson, Clinton, Huckabee, and everyone else do with their campaign funds--get the message out. If the message resonates then that translates into votes.

Remember that Romney didn't take Iowa, but he still got a big chunk of it (especially in the more populated areas). His appeal even one over a significant (but not enough as it happens) portion of the evangelical crowd--not a small feat considering the anti-Mormon stuff floating around in that sub-culture.

Let's keep watching. I don't like Huckabee (if you hadn't guessed), but he deserves congratulations on the Iowa win and a thanks for keeping this thing interesting.

Posted by Bryan | January 4, 2008 1:48 PM

Bill Mitchell,

LOL, didn't you learn anything from the Iowa Blowout? The reason Romney is suffering from this Iowa loss is because he lost the expectations game. He was expected to win. And win big. If Romney surrogates have the same attitude as you do;

"......McCain is in BIG BIG trouble....."

"...Romney wins NH easily and it changes everything......"

Then the New Hampshire Blowout will be bigger than Iowa.

Oh, and keep insulting senior citizens with the "McCain is too old" talking point. Let's see how that works out. Old people are the most reliable voters.

Posted by RothNRA | January 4, 2008 1:58 PM

Isn't this sort of trying the same thing again? Not sure if romney can keep up with the same message.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 4, 2008 2:06 PM

Bryan,

You're right about the Romney vote-buying meme. It's unfair.

Matter of fact, it's downright disingenuous.

But..

It works.

and so we'll keep it up.

Because it works and that's what's important.

Posted by RothNRA | January 4, 2008 2:25 PM

Romney's counter-counter-counter attack will work

Posted by Mac | January 4, 2008 2:31 PM

McCain says Jan 3rd - 100 years in Iraq?
What the hell - McCain is crazy as a loon!

Posted by Devils.advocate | January 4, 2008 2:33 PM

I loved Bill's comment, "Face it, if Romney is a Southern Baptist and not a Mormon, he wins Iowa going away."

And Wendy's about Iowa voting on religion vs. issues.

In my opinion - since when did religion become a qualifier for running for president? Since when did a religion (or lack of one) become a yardstick for measuring suitability for office?

Someone is speaking out about it. http://www.articlevithemovie.com/trailer.php#

I hope it gets traction. I think it's a conversation a lot of people need to have.

Faith, morals, values - all important, but a specific religion?

Posted by Sara | January 4, 2008 3:40 PM

Hello, Marc, and all commenters-

I have a McCain-focused site. I thought that Marc's piece outlining the battle between Senator McCain and Mitt over the next five days was an excellent summary, so I posted it, with commentary of my own, on my blog.

Here's the permalink:

http://blog.electionnighthq.com/2008/01/04/the-atlantics-ambinder-the-romney-counter-attack-the-mccain-counter-counter-attack/

Back to Marc's piece - I think the real question is whether any candidate's message is going to have a chance to be heard over the deluge of free-media coverage. Setting up a narrative was easier when there wasn't as much interest, but both McCain and Mitt are universally well-known political personalities at this point. Mitt's already saturated the airwaves for months w/ his message. Likewise for McCain - whose roots in the state go all the way back to his landslide victory in 2000. It's crunch time, now. Too late for messages (for either side)... (

One might say, "what about Huck?" Unlike Mitt or McCain, Huck is largely unknown in the state, and thus does have more of a chance to shape a persona to voters in New Hampshire, who haven't seen him much. That having been said, Huck will be riding the crest of positive free-media attention, and thus there won't be much need for him to shape a narrative. The free-media narrative is already better than anything the campaign could craft, and best of all, it's - free...

Thoughts?

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher | January 4, 2008 3:46 PM

RothNRA,

Good point.

"Huck spent some money and BOUGHT his vote in Iowa! Don't let him do it in NH!"

I feel like I need to take a shower after writing that, but there it is.

P.S. I know you'll be back Roth. I know you're reading this at the very least. I can sense the political junkie Dark Side in you...the anger flowing through you...the fear and the hate...

Posted by Bryan | January 4, 2008 4:19 PM

Bill Stone - You suggest that Romney is the only Republican who can win the general election. Your view seems like a triumph of hope over evidence, for several reasons.

First, the polling data. While its still early, the national polls are overwhelmingly consistent in showing that (a) its going to be a tough election for the Republicans, and (b) the Republican who performs best against each of the 3 leading Dems is John McCain. The only other Republican who even comes close, based on the polling data, is Giuliani. Giuliani's problem, however, is that his national polling strength reflects an ability to make the race closer in blue states, but this doesn't translate into an Electoral College victory, meaning that McCain's advantage over Giuliani in terms of electability is even greater than it appears on the surface. Romney, by the way, doesn't come close to either of these guys, and in fact does worse than Fred Thompson as well.

Second, the flip-flops. Say what you will about the other Republicans, but the amount of video footage of Romney from his prior campaigns, in which he argues with conviction for positions that seem quite different than those he now takes, is astonishing. This stuff is going to be a treasure trove of devastating negative ads in the general election. There is nothing close to a similar treasure trove when it comes to McCain, and McCain's life story, including his wartime experiences, limits the extent to which the Dems can go crassly negative without having it backfire with mainstream/independent voters.

Third, the Mormon issue. Some suggest that evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon. I am an evangelical (attended Liberty University, aka "Jerry Falwell U"), and I honestly don't think this is the case. However, the Mormonism is still going to be a huge problem for Romney, because once the primaries are over, the mainstream media (who are laying in the weeds right now) would have a field day trying to sabotage Romney by highlighting the oddity of Mormon doctrines and the troubling aspects (racial issues, polygamy, etc.) of Mormonism's historical development in the U.S. This may not hurt Romney with evangelicals, who won't have anywhere else to go, but it could be devastating with independent voters or voters who are otherwise on the fence. What's more, even if evangelicals want to defend Romney, they will be ill-positioned to do so, because they've spent years arguing that a candidate's faith matters, which makes it hard for them to say Romney's specific beliefs should be ignored. It will also be hard for evangelicals to defend Romney on the merits given that they have fundamental disagreements with many tenets of basic Mormon theology.

Fourth, foreign policy/national security. If there is one issue that has helped Republicans in the last two elections, it is this one. All of the Dem options are relatively inexperienced on national security issues, and Republicans need to capitalize on their strength by nominating a candidate who can effectively highlight that contrast. McCain's record and experience fills the bill; Romney, not so much.

Fifth, "swing voter" issues. McCain has done a number of things that don't thrill the conservative base, but he has a solid record on the core issues - pro-life, good judges, solid on the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror, good record on controlling spending, no history of raising taxes (unlike Romney in Massachusetts, who increased spending by billions and raised taxes while calling them "fees"). Then there are the swing voter issues where McCain deviates from the base - global warming, campaign finance reform, immigration reform. On the first two, his deviations from the base actually help him in the general election by expanding his appeal to moderates and independents. Conservatives may not agree with him on global warming and CFR, but any reasonable conservative would have to agree that McCain's approach on these issues would still be preferable to that of Obama, Clinton, or Edwards. Immigration probably doesn't help him in the primary or general, but he seems to recognize that, and is now emphasizing that the border needs to be secured before we can proceed to broader reform.

Bottom line, you might have your reasons for supporting Romney, but don't fool yourself into thinking that electability is one of them, and don't be surprised if the only "change" we get with a Romney nomination is a Democrat in the White House come 2009.

Posted by Legitprop | January 4, 2008 5:50 PM

False.

All I hear, as believer in Romney, is: "Blah blah blah, I support McCain." I'm guessing that all you really heard from Bill Stone is "Blah blah blah I support Romney" and your McCain Defense System (MDS) kicked in and your spewed out the above. Save your breath. Let's just let this play out. I read your spiel and I think you're not quite on. So there's a temptation to do the point-by-point analysis. But as I've been preaching so will I practice: just let it happen.

Posted by Bryan | January 4, 2008 6:58 PM

So Mr. Goody Two Shoes McCain doesn't run negative ads? Please! His ads against Romney are more negative than likewise, and to say they were taken out of context is the ultimate understatement.

McCain has long been cited for his quick and flaring temper, and apparently many have forgotten his honor and faithfullness don't apply to his personal life.

This honorable man cheated on his disabled wife and married his current wife - the heiress, who's family funded his initial run for office - one month later. Sure, fine man, indeed.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/022700wh-gop-mccain.html

You can spin this any way you want, but McCain is a loose cannon and is not the way to unite the Republican party OR the country.

Posted by Cindy | January 4, 2008 7:04 PM

So Mr. Goody Two Shoes McCain doesn't run negative ads? Please! His ads against Romney are more negative than likewise, and to say they were taken out of context is the ultimate understatement.

McCain has long been cited for his quick and flaring temper, and apparently many have forgotten his honor and faithfullness don't apply to his personal life.

This honorable man cheated on his disabled wife and married his current wife - the heiress, who's family funded his initial run for office - one month later. Sure, fine man, indeed.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/022700wh-gop-mccain.html

You can spin this any way you want, but McCain is a loose cannon and is not the way to unite the Republican party OR the country.

Posted by Cindy | January 4, 2008 7:07 PM

Romney supporters would be well advised to start thinking about their second choices. In a general election match-up against any of the three leading Democrats he's bound to lose. The reasons? Number one: He freely expresses contempt for fellow Americans. He says Democrats are unaware of the threat of terrorism? Huh? How can he say that? He mocks his opponents, also well meaning fellow Americans. He's awkward. He has the emotional intelligence of a replicant. His platform was built out of some Republican kit. It's as if he'll do anything, say anything, spend anything, just to become POTUS for its own sake. Is all of this not obvious?

Posted by Harold | January 5, 2008 5:06 AM

It doesn't matter, guys. Whover the Republicans pick who get crushed in the fall.

Posted by Peter H | January 5, 2008 9:27 AM

RothNRA says: "Religion is a choice. Race and gender are not."

You are wrong for three reasons:

1) First and least importantly, you can actually change your most gender qualities using surgery and hormone therapy.

2) Second, religious heritage cannot exactly be changed. People are often persecuted because of their religious heritage and not because they choose a specific religion. For example, in Nazi Germany it didn't matter if you practiced the Jewish faith or not, you were still sent to the concentration camps.

3) Third, and more importantly should it really matter if a candidate is a Mormon, Catholic, Jew or Protestant? Even though I'm religious, it is concerning to me that so many in the religious right focus on beliefs instead of the real issues this country faces. Does it really matter if a Catholic believes in transubstantiation? Does it really matter that some evangelicals believe that they can speak in tongues? Does it really matter that Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?

We should judge a candidate on their track record and platform -- religious belief should be left out of the discussion. I am fine to talk about "values" and their impact on social issues, but beliefs don't always correlate to values. Do we really want different religious groups trying to demonstrate that their belief is superior through politics, government, or (even worse) military force? If we do, we are headed down a path that is not that different from some of the radical religious governments in the Middle East.

Posted by Baseline | January 5, 2008 1:22 PM

RothNRA says: "Religion is a choice. Race and gender are not."

You are wrong for three reasons:

1) First and least importantly, you can actually change most gender qualities using surgery and hormone therapy.

2) Second, religious heritage cannot exactly be changed. People are often persecuted because of their religious heritage and not because they choose a specific religion. For example, in Nazi Germany it didn't matter if you practiced the Jewish faith or not, you were still sent to the concentration camps.

3) Third, and more importantly should it really matter if a candidate is a Mormon, Catholic, Jew or Protestant? Even though I'm religious, it is concerning to me that so many in the religious right focus on beliefs instead of the real issues this country faces. Does it really matter if a Catholic believes in transubstantiation? Does it really matter that some evangelicals believe that they can speak in tongues? Does it really matter that Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?

We should judge a candidate on their track record and platform -- religious belief should be left out of the discussion. I am fine to talk about "values" and their impact on social issues, but beliefs don't always correlate to values. Do we really want different religious groups trying to demonstrate that their belief is superior through politics, government, or (even worse) military force? If we do, we are headed down a path that is not that different from some of the radical religious governments in the Middle East.

Posted by Baseline | January 5, 2008 1:23 PM

MItt Romney is not a panderer. He has so much experience and talent that he can talk about all issues with knowlege and hands on experience. He can reach into every issue and make sense of the challenge and the remedy. He is the whole package. He doesn't have to talk JUST about foreign affairs, or immigration, or economics. He can talk about all of them and has experience in all areas. Some candidates run on "a" strength (McCain foreign affairs, Huckabee religion) but Mitt Romney runs on many strengths. He has been in the race and at the top the entire year. There is a reason for that. He attracts the interests and knows the needs of the masses not just a specialize group. He will be the strongest, most effective leaders of all. His capacity for bringing change is real not just talk.

He has a record as a great leader in business.
He has a record as a great leader for the Olympics.
He has a record of bringing about positive change as a Govenor
He is a great example in the home as husband and father.
He is a caring leader in his faith.

Romney is the candidate fought against the most by other GOP candidates because of the record he holds as a leader. He has been a lead GOP candidate the entire year. McCain was in then out then in again, Huckabee was out and then in, Guiliani was in and now out. Fred was out, in and out. Romney is the real deal. Talk about being consistant....this year shows who has remained consistent in the minds of the voters. The other candidates are good in one way or another, but they lack the "depth" needed to run a nation. Even the media has tried their best to remove the truth from Romney's outstanding record and accomplishments. One man against them all.....such a battle to win.

Posted by Wendy | January 5, 2008 2:56 PM

Wendy - you are such a great fan of Mitt Romney and you say "he reaches into every issue" . Can you therefore explain what sort of issue Romney was involved in when he participated in secret Mormon Temple rituals which depicted the Christian Pastor as being in the hire and pay of Satan ?
As many of the pro Romney bloggers go into personal abuse when people raise issues about him - can I just give you a gentle reminder to focus on my question .

Posted by Andrew Price | January 5, 2008 7:08 PM

Andrew, You couldn't be more off base - or maybe you could. I just can't stand people like you.

Posted by JP | January 5, 2008 7:25 PM

JP - you could help us all by explaining what sort of issue was Romney trying to say when he agreed with his Mormon leadership's position that black people were cursed because of the colour of their skin but fair skinned people are "white and delightsome" see Book of Mormon pre 1980 editions 2Nephi30v6 ? Supposing the Republcans would be so foolish as to nominate Romney and Obama was the Democrat nominee - do you think they would let that issue go ?

Posted by Andrew Price | January 5, 2008 7:50 PM

Romney is willing to give himself for our nation to strengthen our economy, win respect for our country around the world, control illegal immigration, and bring much needed change to Washington. Romney doesn't need the presidency, but WE NEED ROMNEY! OUR NATION NEEDS ROMNEY!

Posted by Norma Parker | January 5, 2008 10:51 PM

Andrew Price is woefully misinformed about Mormons and other races! Romney, like his father before him, has always been a strong supporter of civil rights and the brotherhood of all races and nationalities. Andrew, why don't you get your information from the church which you denounce, or from one of its members, rather than spreading such religious bigotry?

Posted by Norma Parker | January 5, 2008 10:56 PM

It has something to do with codes and ciphers.

Posted by Jason Bourne | January 7, 2008 12:19 AM