Let me state for the record one last time, just for consistency's sake, that my problem with what Imus said has nothing to do with the racial overtones. This is at least the 4th time I've stated that my problem with Imus arose because he was critisizing amatuer athletes for their appearance after they'd come up just short. I find that incredibly cruel and demeaning. The color of their skin and texture of their hair is irrelevant, IMO.
That said, I still don't see why this qualifies as hate speech. I agree with Sharpton that Romney's camp is making a mountain out of a molehill. He's not calling for Christians not to vote for a Mormon - he's just saying that Christians won't vote for a Mormon. Given that there's never been a Mormon that's run for President before (at least as a major candidate), he could be right on the money. It's an entirely different thing if he said that all Christians, Catholic and Protestants alike, need to stand together to defeat the evil Mormon empire, but he presented it as something that's going to happen with or without his help. How is that hateful when all he's done is predict what others are going to do in the election?
Is it hateful if I say that David Duke won't get elected to the Presidency because he's a proud KKK member? No, it's pretty much an accurate prediction. How about if I say that Al Sharpton couldn't get elected dogcatcher in Will County, IL because of the huge white Republican precence there? Nope, still pretty much accurate. Nothing in the line in question disparaged the LDS Church or Mormonism. How can you have hate speach without any hate?
Interestingly enough, only 48% or so of TFP (nonscientifically) would vote for a Mormon. Check it out:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ht=poll+mormon
I expect that has more to do with the conservative agenda that a Mormon almost always brings to the table rather than over half of TFP being anti-Mormon. So Pan are the TFP members who voted "no" biased or hateful?