Pew poll: Republicans aren’t sure this long primary is good for the party

posted at 1:20 pm on March 15, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Last month, a majority of Republicans — 55 percent — said they thought the ongoing primary and caucus process is good for the party, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Just 36 percent said they thought it was harmful. This month, the same poll showed a slim plurality of Republicans saying the process is positive. Just 47 percent said they think the long primary benefits the GOP, while 43 percent said they think it’s harmful. Political Ticker explains that, not surprisingly, voters’ opinions depend in part on which candidate they’re supporting:

More than half, 52%, of people supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, say the on-going process is bad for the party. But more of his opponents’ supporters see the on-going primary process as good for the GOP with nearly six in ten backers of former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and 53% of supporters of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich responding in favor.

Romney is the front-runner in the race for the nomination. He’s far ahead of his competition in the hunt for delegates, but still less than half way towards the 1,144 delegates needed to lock up the nomination. For Santorum and Gingrich, the best strategy is to make sure Romney doesn’t clinch the nomination by the end of the primary process in late June, and force the nomination battle to go all the way to the party convention in Tampa, Florida in late August.

Consider me in the camp that would have switched my response from last month to this month. But I’ll be completely honest: It’s because I’m panicked, too apt to give the Obama campaign more credit than it deserves. I’m afraid to give Obama more time to hone his magic act while Republicans are squabbling amongst themselves. I’m worried the Obama machine will trounce the GOP nominee — whoever that nominee proves to be — in November.

So I buy the conventional wisdom and the CW goes like this: While it’s technically still possible for Rick Santorum or even Newt Gingrich to capture the nomination, it’s highly unlikely. If Santorum and Gingrich do manage to keep Romney from securing a majority of delegates before August, Romney will likely still win on the first ballot at the convention. At that point, anti-Romney Republicans would have a couple months to muster enthusiasm for him. It’s not going to be easy for conservatives who’ve spent the last six months or so pounding Romney into the ground to be able to approach independents with compelling arguments for him. The more time they have to come around (because they know for a fact their choices are Romney or Obama), the better.

If Newt Gingrich drops out relatively soon and Rick Santorum trounces Romney in state after state from this point forward, then, perhaps, Romney wouldn’t win on the first ballot and enough delegates would switch their allegiance to Santorum in subsequent rounds of voting to throw the nomination to the former Pennsylvania senator. At that point, Santorum would have a couple months to campaign against Obama as the official GOP nominee and it’d be tough. Consider: The last winning U.S. presidential nominee produced by a brokered/contested convention was FDR in 1932. It’s just not that easy to pivot from a last-minute conclusion of a protracted primary process to victory in the general election.

A long primary makes it hard on congressional candidates, too: Donors and voters are too focused on the presidential election to be of much help to other candidates. Yet, the House and Senate are arguably more important than the White House.

Nothing says I’d have to think conventionally about all of this, though: We are in an unconventional election cycle, after all. Obama is unlike any Democrat we’ve ever seen and more and more Americans have seen his true colors over the past four years. He has a record now and the election will be to some extent about that record — more about it than the 2008 election was, at least.

On his radio program yesterday, Rush flat-out said, “Don’t buy the conventional wisdom about a brokered convention.” I wish I didn’t.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Every day spent not focused on Obama is a lost day.

Meanwhile, we have to waste more time on this charade with Santorum and Gingrich.

Moesart on March 15, 2012 at 1:24 PM

What’s stopping any of the candidates from focusing on Obama? They are free to do so.

Perhaps Romney could use those $$ he’s spending on negative ads against other Rs and use them against Obama.

Don’t blame the process because the candidates don’t have the wits to exploit it to their benefit.

kim roy on March 15, 2012 at 2:58 PM

It is a pity in earlier times once a candidate knew he had no realistic way of winning, they would bow out and endorse the candidate they supported or atleast knew would be the nominee. Today not so much. Today they only think of themselves. Maybe I can get a talk show. Maybe through some miracle I can keep the front runner from falling shy of the # of delegates for nomination and than through manipulation and theft steal it. It is shameful but it is the current situation.

Natebo on March 15, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I can’t argue with that. If he had spent his money selling us on his positives instead of spending it on negative ads, he would be even a better candidate.

NoNails on March 15, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Very, very true.

Just Sayin on March 15, 2012 at 3:03 PM

You can’t compare pre-1972 convention fights to the modern system. EVERY convention was “brokered” back then, just usually it happened in advance. But party bosses and state parties were in control, and there were few primaries with few delegates at stake.

Nowadays the conventions are controlled by delegates directly elected or apportioned by the voters, not the party bosses. In this modern era, the frontrunner has won the nomination at the convention every single time, including those few times where he did not have a majority of delegates formally pledged ahead of time.

If some deal is forged to deny the candidate with the most votes the nomination, it will only divide the party more. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer with a big mouth who lacks the expertise to lecture anyone on political mechanics.

The odds are very long against that happening, but they are even longer against Santorum winning a majority himself. He would need to win nearly two-thirds of the remaining delegates to do that. Even if Gingrich’s delegates ALL vote for him, he would still need to win over 55% of the remaining delegates.

Santorum is just the Huckabee of this cycle. And like Huck, he won’t be in it seriously again. This will definitely break the “next guy in line” syndrome people hate so much.

Adjoran on March 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Come on folks……just nominate Willard Willkie and lose in November!!!

wraithby on March 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Obama is unlike any Democrat we’ve ever seen and more and more Americans have seen his true colors over the past four years. He has a record now and the election will be to some extent about that record — more about it than the 2008 election was, at least.

You need to get out and speak to the Obamanites. You are giving them far too much credit for their intellectual chops.

bloviator on March 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM

The challengers have not proved yet, that they can take Romney down, with Romney holding the largest number of people that have voted for him, (3.5 million, est.) and the most delegates.

I am all for everyone having a say, but I am not for weakening the republican brand by sounding like Occupiers, Whiners, or making us look childish. Also, the MSM seems to find opportunity to make fun of all of our candidates more.

I am confident that those who are talking like liberals to win now, will put their money where their mouth is and say how wrong they were and endorse the candidate. They should be saving up their bucks to do it. Have at it, but then fix what you break.

Fleuries on March 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM

FHQ has not pulled any punches in saying that Santorum has no mathematical shot at 1144 if the current dynamic in this race is extended through the rest of the race. None.

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 4:08 PM

You fight a war with the army you have but it’s a very sad, sorry outfit we’re about to field!

Boats48 on March 15, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Come on folks……just nominate Willard Willkie and lose in November!!!

wraithby on March 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Okay, so you’re telling me Santorum has an even better chance? Make the case: show me any scenario where he can draw moderate Republicans and independent voters crucial to defeating President Obama. Break it down. Get detailed. Prove that your guy is the best candidate without comparing him to Romney. Instead, match your candidate up against Obama. Talk about his ability to sway and persuade independents and moderate Republicans–who comprise a far greater number than the most conservative voters comprising the conservative base. Talk about his ability to win over essential swing states. Discuss his executive experience and economic policy-making bona fides.

The truth is you and the other Not Romneys supporting Santorum (or Gingrich or Paul) can’t make that case. Santorum has no executive experience, he’s associated exclusively with social issues that will have little bearing on a general election campaign hinging on economic messaging, and he comes across as one of those shrill, smug, holier-than-thou types with a seemingly singular focus on what goes on in American bedrooms. If Santorum and Gingrich succeed in stopping Romney from acruing enough votes and we get the brokered convention so many of you seem to want, then we’ll get a weakened GOP nominee, in any case. Oh, and yeah: you’ll also succeed in negating the votes of GOP primary voters who were under the impression, however misguided, that their votes mattered.

troyriser_gopftw on March 15, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Baloney. I voted for Mitt last time because I despise McCain. His mormonism isn’t why I think Romney bites. His sense of entitlement (we will vote for him in November don’t cha know?), and his liberal record stink.

Lightswitch on March 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Yup, Romney-supporters play the bigot card just like Obama-supporters play the race card.

It distracts from the reality of the situation, and it’s all they got.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Okay, so you’re telling me Santorum has an even better chance? Make the case: show me any scenario where he can draw moderate Republicans and independent voters crucial to defeating President Obama. Break it down. Get detailed. Prove that your guy is the best candidate without comparing him to Romney. Instead, match your candidate up against Obama.

troyriser_gopftw on March 15, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Sure, that is easy. Santorum provides a clear alternative to Obamacare, which is wildly unpopular among even moderate Republicans and independents (which was the main reason the Democrats got hammered in the last election). There isn’t any question Santorum is opposed to Obamacare and will fight to overturn it.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM

When did Hillary drop out in 2008? June? Yeah, that killed the Dems’ prospects that year.


Of course, they had the first woman and the first black man. We’ve got The Next Guy In Line™, John Lithgow’s character from Footloose, the short, fat smart aleck that can’t stay faithful, and Congressman tinfoil hat. Maybe this has gone on long enough.

Odysseus on March 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM

So, in other words, the 65% of Republicans who reject Mittens should just sit down and shut up. I’ve I got that about right?

NoNails on March 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM

That’s Romney’s campaign strategy. Allah discussed it in Romney: Very conservative voters might not be with me now but they will be in November.

Gladtobehere on March 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM

So, in other words, the 65% of Republicans who reject Mittens should just sit down and shut up. I’ve I got that about right?

NoNails on March 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM

That’s Romney’s campaign strategy. Allah discussed it in Romney: Very conservative voters might not be with me now but they will be in November.

Gladtobehere on March 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM

But even if conservatives don’t turn out for Romney, don’t worry, according to the Romney camp, Obama’s “great.”

Facepalm.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM

So, in other words, the 65% of Republicans who reject Mittens should just sit down and shut up. I’ve I got that about right?

NoNails on March 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM

That’s Romney’s campaign strategy. Allah discussed it in Romney: Very conservative voters might not be with me now but they will be in November.

Gladtobehere on March 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM

But even if conservatives don’t turn out for Romney, don’t worry, according to the Romney camp, Obama’s “great.”

Facepalm.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM

You will eat your peas. Now choose between these lovely Obama Peas or these fantastic Romney Peas. Make it snappy, choose now!

Gladtobehere on March 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM

You will eat your peas. Now choose between these lovely Obama Peas or these fantastic Romney Peas. Make it snappy, choose now!

Gladtobehere on March 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Again, you’re arguing a fallacy by bringing up that magical ’65% of Republicans reject Mitt Romney’ argument, since there are four candidates in the primary race and the same calculation you’re employing against Romney shows 78% who reject Santorum, 85% who reject Gingrich, and 88% who reject Paul. And you keep doing it. Try something better, something that isn’t a distortion.

troyriser_gopftw on March 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Yup, Romney-supporters play the bigot card just like Obama-supporters play the race card.

It distracts from the reality of the situation, and it’s all they got.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Most people wont even realize they’re doing it (dislike him because of his Mormonism), but what aspect of our lives transcends all others IcedTea? What aspect of our life most informs our choices and decisions in our daily lives?

Our religion.

And what do religious people do when comparing their religions to other people’s religions? They apply logic and reason in abundance to the beliefs that other religions might hold, yet fail to apply the same rigorous standards to their own. They belittle and call them cults, wrong headed, all manner of things.

The facts are that people usually decide whether they like someone or not based on the beliefs that person holds.

Since Romney is a member of a religion which spawned off of Christianity and actively participates in trying to pull adherents of the “parent” religion into their own belief systems, this creates animosity does it not?

They will of course deny it, but a lot of the evangelicals of this country HATE Mormons because they’re so good at recruiting new believers, and they’re especially good at recruiting believers of “pure” Christianity. Why? Because the differences are so little. Mormons believe essentially what the Christians do.

Deep down, sub-consciously, most religious conservatives choose to not like Romney because he’s a Mormon.

You can try to deny it all you like but human psychology says different.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Again, you’re arguing a fallacy by bringing up that magical ’65% of Republicans reject Mitt Romney’ argument, since there are four candidates in the primary race and the same calculation you’re employing against Romney shows 78% who reject Santorum, 85% who reject Gingrich, and 88% who reject Paul. And you keep doing it. Try something better, something that isn’t a distortion.

troyriser_gopftw on March 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

You’re either dishonest, or you don’t have a grasp on basic logic.

Back when it was a crowded field, the front runner would shift from candidate to candidate, from Bachmann, to Perry, to Cain, to Newt, but it never shifted to Romney. Even though Romney had the money, the support of the establishment, and it was “his turn.”

What was clearly happening, to anyone with the brains or the honest to admit it, was that Republican voters were desperately seeking an alternative to Romney. That is why now, even when Romney is virtually guaranteed to win, has a bazillion times more money and organization, he STILL is having trouble sealing the deal.

Why is that? Because there is a large portion of the Republican voter base that WILL NOT settle for Romney. That is why Romney can outspend a guy like Santorum, who is a weak candidate to begin with, outspend him by a ton, have many times the organization and politically powerful endorsements, and yet still loses so many states to him.

But you already know all this, don’t you?

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Again, you’re arguing a fallacy by bringing up that magical ’65% of Republicans reject Mitt Romney’ argument, since there are four candidates in the primary race and the same calculation you’re employing against Romney shows 78% who reject Santorum, 85% who reject Gingrich, and 88% who reject Paul.
troyriser_gopftw on March 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

I remember when we called it “Affirmative Action” when those coming in 2nd, 3rd, 4th place for a job expected to be named as 1st place. Good times, good times.

whatcat on March 15, 2012 at 6:50 PM

You can try to deny it all you like but human psychology says different.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Yeah, you really proved your point. NOT.

The problem with all these Romney-supporters accusing conservatives of refusing to consolidate behind Romney because of his Mormonism is that Romney WAS the candidate for many of these conservatives the last time around.

I know, because Romney was my choice back in 2008, because back then he ran as the conservative candidate (whereas now he campaigns as the moderate RINO choice). But according to people the Romney supporters here, I only refuse to vote for Romney now because he is a Mormon. Uh huh. Apparently me and many other conservatives were unaware of Romney’s Mormonism the last time around, right? Puh-lease.

But yeah, you stick with that Chris Matthews style “logic.”

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Because there is a large portion of the Republican voter base that WILL NOT settle for Romney.

The largest “portion of the Republican voter base” is speaking at the polls – by voting. The “base” is determined by who votes in the largest numbers.

That is why Romney can outspend a guy like Santorum
IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Santorum’s problems getting votes has little to do with mone – his own or anyone else’s, e.g., his vow to crack down on internet porn.

whatcat on March 15, 2012 at 7:00 PM

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Zing! and a miss…

You chose Romney last time because he was the best candidate for you to go with probably because of your distaste for McCain who you likely considered a RINO as well and you weren’t as knowledgeable about Romney.

You liked his true outsider status maybe, maybe you liked his Presidential looks? Who knows?

Look, I’m not saying that YOU in particular are a bigot, but for many many people outside of the HA forums, and even some inside of it, his religion is the real reason that people dislike him so much.

Admit it, you don’t like being called a bigot, and you likely aren’t, but if you WERE a bigot…? You would look for, and could easily find, many other explanations for why you won’t vote for him. You would scream THEM from the rooftops instead of expressing your bigotry (due to the stigma of being labeled as such) to do all you could to get him ousted as the front runner.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Admit it, you don’t like being called a bigot, and you likely aren’t, but if you WERE a bigot…? You would look for, and could easily find, many other explanations for why you won’t vote for him. You would scream THEM from the rooftops instead of expressing your bigotry (due to the stigma of being labeled as such) to do all you could to get him ousted as the front runner.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Yeah, and I only oppose Obama because he’s black. Uh huh.

I’m sure the fact that this is the Obamacare election, and Romney is essentially the architect of Obamacare has nothing whatsoever to do with it. No sir ee, it is all about voting for the guy who goes to the same church you do.

The truth is, it isn’t the evangelicals or the Catholics that are the bigots here. Romney came VERY close to winning MS, and nearly got second in AL. If any religious group is bigoted in this election, it is the Mormons. As a voting block, American Mormons are the most conservative block there is, and yet they have been supporting the most liberal candidate in the primary in overwhelming numbers. Why oh why is that?

It is because Romney is “one of them.” Just like blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama over Hillary, despite Hillary previously was popular among black Democrats. But the whites who wouldn’t vote for Obama were racists. And the evangelicals who won’t vote for Romney are bigots. Uh huh.

Which is why you Romney supporters play the bigot card, for the same reason Obama supporters play the race card. It is an attempt to silence legitimate criticism in order to shield a deeply flawed politician.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I’m sure the fact that this is the Obamacare election, and Romney is essentially the architect of Obamacare has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Well you see, your anger is misplaced. It was the Heritage Foundation which Romney got most of his help from in trying to steer the Massachusetts legislature from making it out and out Obamacare. The people of Massachusetts, the legislature of the state of Massachusetts, were GOING to pass a healthcare bill. No matter what.

Romney did what he could with what he had, an overwhelmingly liberal legislature and populace. He worked to make it as teethless as possible and compromised a bit to get there but what you fail to understand apparently is that Romney vetoed 8 sections of the bill.

You know what happened to his 8 vetos? They were overturned.

What does that tell us? It was going to be passed no matter what.

At LEAST he was able to affect how it turned out rather than being sidelined and seen as a failure.

As a voting block, American Mormons are the most conservative block there is, and yet they have been supporting the most liberal candidate in the primary in overwhelming numbers. Why oh why is that?

So you admit this type of bigotry exists? I’m glad for your honesty in that regard, but who’s the bigger voting bloc? Mormons? Or Christians? Who has more of an effect? I can understand the Mormons being “bigots”, of sorts, in this instance although I think calling them bigots for voting to back the first Mormon nominee ever is a little harsh but whatever…

But the whites who wouldn’t vote for Obama were racists. And the evangelicals who won’t vote for Romney are bigots

Certainly not all, but a swath of them were and are outright racists/bigots, yeah, either consciously, or sub consciously.

Which is why you Romney supporters play the bigot card, for the same reason Obama supporters play the race card. It is an attempt to silence legitimate criticism in order to shield a deeply flawed politician.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Is my so called playing the bigot card REALLY silencing you at all? I hven’t put a muffler on you or banned you from speaking have I?

The reality is that these psychological realities are just that, reality.

As I said, YOU may not be that way, but a lot of people are, even some of your close family (possibly).

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM

SauerKraut537, what would you call it when you vote against your core principles just because someone is “one of your own”? That is what you have with Mormons and Romney – the most socially conservative people around voting for the most liberal candidate in the race by overwhelming margins. It is what it is, whatever you want to call it.

If the evangelical vote being split between a Mormon and two Catholics is considered “bigoted,” then what if the evangelical vote was 80-90% for Ron Paul, the only “protestant” candidate, even though Paul’s political philosophy does not line up at all with ideologically with evangelicals?

It is the same thing with Obama. If only half of white people were willing to vote for Obama, and that proves white racism, then what does that say about blacks voting 90% for Obama (not just in the general, but also in the Democratic primary against the popular Hillary)?

If you, or anyone else here wants to call southern evangelicals bigots, then you must consider Mormons to be even more bigoted. That’s the point. People like you playing the bigot card are speaking out of both ends of your mouths, you’re trying to have it both ways.

And I don’t believe for one second that you are so foolish as to believe tactics like playing the race card and bigot card are designed for any other purpose than trying to intimidate people into not speaking out. That is PRECISELY why the Left does that with Obama, and the reason why you Romney-supporters push the bigot meme.

But you are doubly wrong, because even if people did use Romney’s religious beliefs as reason not to vote for him, that doesn’t make them bigots. You had better believe I used Obama’s beliefs against him in the 2008 election. There is NO WAY I would vote for someone who believes in black liberation theology.

Now we on the right, we make fun of Obama because he thinks he’s god. Well, is it not fair game then to hold it against Romney, because he believes he will one day become a god?

You are wrong all across the board, which is evident in that you use the very same tactics of the Left.

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 9:49 PM

IcedTea on March 15, 2012 at 9:49 PM

ahhhhh, i wondered when you would call my “tactics” the “tactics of the left”.

It’s like a mantra, I know, I used to use it myself when I debated Democratic party goons in the past.

And then you make fun of Romney because his religion tells him that if he’s a good person that he gets to become a god, when some others believe that they’ll be reincarnated to a higher animal form if they live a good life, or some others think that the creator of the entire cosmos only seeded this one planet with life out of the trillions of planets that are out there in the universe and sent his only begotten son to live 30 something years as a human so that that supposedly all knowing, omniscient being can truly understand what it means to be a human and then be sacrificed in the bronze aged middle east in order to allow his creations back into his presence after dishonoring him.

What you believe doesn’t matter, it’s what you do that counts.

I contend that the only thing that exists in this universe which either requires or desires your faith are con men, frauds and charlatans trying to deceive you into believing otherwise unconvincing lies.

Deceivers need believers, and that’s why religions needs faith.

Have a great evening. I’m off for now…

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 10:34 PM

What you believe doesn’t matter, it’s what you do that counts.

SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2012 at 10:34 PM

What a bunch of nonsense! What you believe determines what you do!

You ARE like the Left, because you are completely inconsistent.

We rightly condemn Obama for following a guy who dedicated his book to Lucifer, but we are wrong to reject a guy (Romney) for agreeing with Lucifer’s lie, that we can become gods (the teaching of the serpent in the garden of Eden AND the teaching of Mormonism)?

Call me crazy, or a bigot, or a hater, or a racist, or whatever, but it is crazy to not take into account the fact that someone salutes (in the case of Obama and Alinsky) or at least agrees (Romney) with Satan, whether you believe Satan to be real or not.

It is perfectly legitimate to question the judgment of Romney, since he was an adult practitioner, and even missionary, for a group where the official position was that blacks are morally inferior people. The Mormon church was an officially racist organization until the 1970s! He doesn’t get a pass just because that racism was framed as religious doctrine.

IcedTea on March 16, 2012 at 1:23 AM

It is perfectly legitimate to question the judgment of Romney, since he was an adult practitioner, and even missionary, for a group where the official position was that blacks are morally inferior people. The Mormon church was an officially racist organization until the 1970s! He doesn’t get a pass just because that racism was framed as religious doctrine.

IcedTea on March 16, 2012 at 1:23 AM

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:5

Your own religious texts, and my former, say many glowing things about slavery and how we’re supposed to treat slaves, and how they can be sold and to whom.

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

And that’s just a small subset of examples of slavery. There are plenty of other abominable things said in your own bible.

Have you ever read it before? Or just listen to sermons over and over on the same old subjects that the PRIESTS choose to talk about from week to week?

How come we never hear a sermon on Leviticus Chapter 18 where god actually has to forbid man from having sex with his mother in law?

Have you ever thought about having sex with your mother in law?

Your religion is as much a joke as any other.

Pull the plank from your eye. ;-)

As Bishop Lancelot Andrewes once said, “The nearer the church, the further from god”

SauerKraut537 on March 16, 2012 at 2:30 AM

SauerKraut537, I am very familiar with those biblical passages. Take the first passage you listed, for example, Exodus 21:7-11. You completely misunderstand the passage. It is a very important passage for establishing equality across class and gender lines.

How the ancient rabbis understood and applied that passage (even before the time of Jesus) was that even a slave woman, taken as a wife by a free man, had certain inalienable rights. And if her husband would refuse her her rights, then she had the right to a divorce. This is in contrast to other cultures where, if a man grew dissatisfied with his slave woman wife, he could just sell her to someone else as a slave.

The rabbis took this passage and correctly reasoned that, if the slave woman wife had these rights, then so did the free woman wife, and if the wife had these rights, then so did the husband. Far from establishing slavery, it actually established a baseline of required equality under the law, across class and gender lines.

Tell me, SauerKraut537, do you understand the significance of a related passage in Deut. 24:1-4? Do you understand what it means that a husband, in order to divorce his wife, was required by law to give her a certificate of divorce? Do you understand why it was forbidden for him to remarry his ex-wife once she had been married to another? It had to do with a quantum step forward for women’s rights and equality, especially in contrast with contemporary cultures, and even popular attitudes among Jewish men towards women at the time.

But of course you don’t understand these things – you criticize what you do not understand. Worse than not understanding these passages, you don’t even care. Like the Left, you are not concerned with what’s true or right, all you are looking for is a club to attack someone else with, to try to silence through intimidation all dissent.

Now if we’re done with your Obama/Pelosi approved Bible lesson, let’s get back on topic. We were discussing Romney, and whether it was bigotry to hold his Mormon beliefs against him in the ballot box.

As the Bible makes clear with the serpent in the garden, beware of people promising and seeking the path of godhood. World history is filled with the horrors done by political leaders who viewed themselves as god, or as on the path to godhood.

When voting for president, I’d rather not vote for someone who has a Messiah-complex (Obama) or thinks he’s on the path to godhood (Romney via Mormonism). That doesn’t make me a bigot, that makes me sober and sane.

IcedTea on March 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM

IcedTea on March 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I misunderstood nothing IcedTea. Words have meaning for a purpose. So that everyone understands what’s being said.

I know well the apologists explanations for the verses in the bible and you’re explanation is about spot on to what I remember but it’s nothing more than an apologist rationalization used by con men, charlatans and frauds to deceive you into believing their otherwise unconvincing lies.

As I said, deceivers need believers.

SauerKraut537 on March 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2