Am I One of those Renew America Mormons?

In regards to my piece on Andrew Longman’s allegation, a person identifying themselves as Andrew Longman posted a diatribe in the comments:

No, I don’t think Limbaugh would be pulled if he was gung-ho Huckabee. But a lesser clear channeler could. And I think Limbaugh’s paycheck would be slowed. He could lose a few stations. And have you noticed that nearly every single Clear Channel conservative host is now a Romney shill, despite the fact that Romney was a Massachusetts liberal until he, poof, turned into a ‘conservative’ overnight? And what Longman observed about National Review was a simple truth that represents a conflict of interest NR hasn’t resolved. Romney gave their charity 10k. NR endorsed him. Where is the nefarious on Longman’s part there? Romney has a pattern of dropping money on people and flipping their opinions.

Longman’s implication is that National Review endorsed Romney because of the $10K donation to their charity, as well as the point that talk radio hosts are endorsing Romney to stay in the good graces of a few radio stations owned by Bain Capital. As many people who have no interest in Bain Capital are also endorsing Romney (Did Bain Capital slip Tom Tancredo $10k?) , it seems the mere anti-McCain vote is coming together around Romney because Huckabee has sounded liberal in the campaign with class warfare rhetoric and such that put a lot of conservatives off. So, for better or for worse, they’re embracing the man they see as capable of beating McCain.

Here is where the question gets weird:

Are you one of the Renew America Mormons? Word has it that Longman got booted from RA in part because the Mormon editor doesn’t like his anti-Mormonism. Are you just piling on?

So to paraphrase, “Blasted Mormons taking away our (non-paying) jobs.” No, I’m not a Mormon, but “word” seems to contradict the statement of Dr. Alan Keyes didn’t like the fact that Mr. Longman earned Renew America a negative mention on Focus on the Family’s radio program by offending James Dobson. Really wasn’t the editor’s decision at all.

He concludes:

Your ad hominem attack (”nasty”, “threatened”, “insulting”, “hasnt learned”) appears to be a substitute for YOUR arguement.

There is really no argument in response to Longman’s half baked innuendo about talk show hosts and everyone who supports Romney being on the take. However, there’s something very interest about this commenter. You see Longman Fan’s IP resolved back to Purdue University and the leftist blog Sadly No! has recently had an incident with Longman:

In our original post we said that Andrew Longman, the author of the Wingnut Daily piece, had also invented a system to use cell phones to detect nuclear bombs. Several days later we got an email from someone named Andrew Longman who said that he is the inventor of the cell phone system, and that he is not the author of the Wingnut Daily article. That emailer then asked us to remove the entire post to avoid the confusion. Instead, we deleted references to the cell phone invention, since if indeed this inventor was a different Andrew Longman, it’s easy to understand his not wanting to be associated with the Wingnut Daily Andrew Longman. For reasons that will become obvious below, we’ve returned our reference to the cell phone system to the original post.

Not long afterwards, an “Andrew L” posts a long, and ridiculous, reply in the comments section to the CFL bulb post. The Andrew L in the comments refers to the Wingnut Daily Andrew Longman in the third person and purports to be someone else defending Andrew Longman’s thesis. Yet “Andrew L” adopts many of the same arguments that the Wingnut Daily Andrew Longman made, including the bit about the feminine emotional thinking of squishy liberals and the manly logical thinking of real scientists. That is suspicious, of course, but not conclusive.

Both the email and the comment originated from the same Purdue University IP address. And Wingnut Daily Andrew Longman has posted a bio which says that he has two degrees from . . . you guessed it . . . Purdue.

Now, it is, after all, remotely possible that there are three different Andrew Longmans at Purdue (the inventor, the commenter, and the author) and that they all just happen to be using the same IP address. But if the inventor Andrew Longman isn’t the Wingnut Daily Andrew Longman, then why did the inventor want us to delete the entire post and not just the reference to his invention? And if commenter Andrew L and Wingnut Daily Andrew Longman are different folks at Purdue, there seems to be no reason why the commenter would feel compelled to post such a long comment defending a post by the, er, “other” Longman.

So, curiously we now have “Longman fan” posting from a Purdue IP. Andrew Longman must be very popular there or we may have some Sock Puppetry going on. We will see.