Pennsylvania slipping away from Santorum?

posted at 8:40 am on March 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

April will be a tough month for Rick Santorum.  The primary schedule has nine contests next month — three on Tuesday, a non-binding caucus in Missouri (again!), and five primaries on the 24th.  The two most likely states for a Santorum win are winner-take-all Wisconsin on the 3rd and the candidate’s home state of Pennsylvania on the 24th.  Santorum trails in the latest Wisconsin polling, and a new poll by Frank & Marshall College suggests that his support back home has declined significantly:

Rick Santorum appeared to be the Republican presidential candidate to beat in Pennsylvania a month ago.

With the state primary four weeks away, Santorum now finds himself nearly tied with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among the state’s Republicans, and support is eroding rapidly, according to a Franklin & Marshall College poll out today. …

The poll of 505 registered Republican voters, conducted March 20-25 in conjunction with the Tribune-Review and other media outlets, shows Santorum clinging to a small lead over Romney, 30 percent to 28 percent, within the poll’s 4.2 percent margin of error.

That’s a big change from February, when Santorum, once a U.S. senator from Penn Hills, held a commanding 15-percentage-point lead over Romney in the poll.

This survey samples registered Republicans rather than likely voters, but since Pennsylvania has a closed direct election of delegates, only Republicans were surveyed.  The sample of 505 Republicans is significant enough to matter, although it will be interesting to see how well this aligns with other polls using larger samples of likely voters — say, Rasmussen or Survey USA.

What happened in the last month?  FMC reports that the importance of beating Obama has jumped ten points to 25% as the highest priority for voters.  Strong moral character still leads, but only barely at 26%, down from 36% in February.  The other two categories are “true conservative” (16%) and “the right experience” (21%).  That presents a muddy picture, and without crosstabs it’s difficult to see how this priorities played into voter choices.

On the surface, it makes it look as though voters won’t have much reason to choose between the two front-runners.  Santorum still gets higher favorables (54/26) than Romney (46/25), but that may change when Romney starts focusing on Pennsylvania after next Tuesday.  The other states holding primaries on the 24th are New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware — all states that Romney should win easily.  Romney can afford to try a knockout blow in the Keystone State in the three weeks open to him.

If Santorum can’t carry Pennsylvania, the race will be over.  Team Santorum had better hope this is an outlier.


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 3 4

Why should anyone support someone who didn’t go through the primary?

rhombus on March 28, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Palin may not be on any printed primary ballots, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s already received some write-in votes.

And pResident Obama has run commercials against her! Name any other “non-candidate” whom Obama has run commercials against. She has absolutely been a part of shaping the narrative over the 2012 Republican Primary.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM

You and your coherts have told us we’re stupid, idiots, bigots, liars, sub-human. Your candidate has conducted the most vicious campaign I’ve ever seen in a Republican primary and I remember the Goldwater-Rockerfeller campaign.

You know those middle of the road Independents Romney’s throwing all us old time Republicans under the bus for? THEY’re not much liking Mitt either. He’s one nasty number…the Rahm Emmanual of Mass. He hates conservatives, Christians, Catholics and his people mock Jesus, the Virgin Mary, pastors and Southerners. He don’t want no stinkin’ redneck vote—even if that redneck has an advanced degree.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 9:35 AM

You and your coherts (sic) are stupid, and, as you demonstrate, bigoted. Some of you (danielvito especially) are liars, but no one has called you sub human. In fact, you demonstrate several base human characteristics

Romney didn’t throw you under the bus. You let your bigotry prevent you from supporting the most qualified candidate; who also happens to be the candidate with the best chance of winning the election, reforming and downsizing the government and turning around economy.

Basilsbest on March 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM

But the voters in those states may want to think twice about whether or not they really want to nominate Romney, who has a proven track record of breaking promises, lying about his motivations and pretending to be whatever he thinks the electorate wants him to be (“moderate”, “progressive”, “severely conservative”).

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 9:53 AM

You do realize that you could replace Romney’s name with any other politician and get an equally accurate statement.

Pcoop on March 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Pennsylvania is irrelevant. Because Santorum is irrelevant.

hanzblinx on March 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Last I checked neither Newt nor Rick think they’re leaving this life to become a god.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Such continued anti-Mormon bigotry reveals that many of these haters are nothing but low-class bigoted trash.

bluegill on March 28, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Bluegill, please tell me how this is anti-Mormon bigotry? Mormons believe that Mormon men will go to the celestial kingdom to continue advancing so they can become a god of their own worlds. This is simply stating Mormon belief. I can copy and paste a LOT of stuff to back it up, so is mentioning this fact, some sort of sin? Why wouldn’t you admit publicly that this is the very crux of Mormon belief? Are you telling us your own beliefs are bigoted? That’s pretty much totally illogical. If I said that Baptists believe one has to be baptized to be saved, it isn’t anti-Baptist or bigotted. It’s merely a statement of that church’s tenents.

Are you actually saying that stating Mormon beliefs or history (even when all you do is copy and paste actual statements from original Mormon documents and scripture) constitutes bigotry? Is Mormonism so secretive that its tenents and ceremonies and beliefs can’t be mentioned?

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Romney didn’t throw you under the bus. You let your bigotry prevent you from supporting the most qualified candidate; who also happens to be the candidate with the best chance of winning the election, reforming and downsizing the government and turning around economy.

Basilsbest on March 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Exactly. Brilliantly put.

Romney appeals to conservatives and continues to receive strong support from nearly all ideological and demographic categories, including conservative and Tea Party voters.

bluegill on March 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Palin may not be on any printed primary ballots, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s already received some write-in votes.

And pResident Obama has run commercials against her! Name any other “non-candidate” whom Obama has run commercials against. She has absolutely been a part of shaping the narrative over the 2012 Republican Primary.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Agreed. Her covert endorsement of Gingrich and her calls for a brokered convention have destroyed her credibility.

Basilsbest on March 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Palin has as much of a chance of getting the nomination as Donald Trump.

To believe otherwise, you’d have to have a permanent address is la-la land.

Pcoop on March 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Portia, you are attempting to demean a religion and members of a particular religion. Romney has never made his religion an issue, nor has he EVER, unlike Santorum, given any indication that he will apply religious tenets to governing or impose his beliefs on others.

What you are doing with your bigoted, anti-Mormon posts is appealing to the lowest common denominator.

You ought to be ashamed of the filth you spew on this message board. You might be more at home commenting on a left-wing website.

bluegill on March 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

At least Santorum only has 1 “home state” to worry about. Romney has 5 (according to the media which includes Hot Gas).

rhombus on March 28, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Nah, he was born in Virginia, which he LOST by the way.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Is Mormonism so secretive that its tenents and ceremonies and beliefs can’t be mentioned? Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Basilsbest on March 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I don’t care if he prays to Zeus and has an alter dedicated to Apollo.

What does it matter what he believes in as long as he upholds the Constitution like the president is supposed to do?

It’s a secular office. We’re electing a president, not a pope.

Pcoop on March 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Is Mormonism so secretive that its tenents and ceremonies and beliefs can’t be mentioned? Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Basilsbest on March 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Yeah, the LDS Church is now a landlord. You hadn’t heard? hehe

bluegill on March 28, 2012 at 10:16 AM

a new poll by Frank & Marshall College

*cough* Franklin & Marshall *cough*

steebo77 on March 28, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Focus. Our main goal is to get Obama out of the oval office, not keep Hilary off the ticket.

talkingpoints on March 28, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I’m not trying to “keep Hilary off the ticket”. I am preparing for the contingency that she Hillary could end up on the ticket. I point you to two HotAir stories that could end up being relevant, especially if Hillary wants them to be…
1) posted at 9:15 am on March 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
2) posted at 4:35 pm on May 23, 2008 by Allahpundit

Let me be absolutely clear. I do NOT wish for #2. That would be a national nightmare. But Hillary raised the issue, and we should not ignore the level of animosity that STILL exists between the Clinton and Obama camps, even though Hillary is serving in the Obama administration. If the Clintons could pull #2 off, and be successful in blaming it on the Tea Party, then Hillary would very likely be the Democratic Party’s nominee. And if #1 gets to a Congressional level exposure of forgery, fraud, obstruction of justice, etc., that too could lead to a Clinton nomination.

To ignore Hillary’s lifelong obsession with power, and to ignore her quest for the Presidency, would be foolish. She will not go away quietly.

And if she is on the Democratic ticket, there is likely no Republican politician in this country who understands the Clinton background and the Clinton machine better than Mike Huckabee, who was on the receiving end of the Clinton machine in Arkansas.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM

At least Santorum only has 1 “home state” to worry about. Romney has 5 (according to the media which includes Hot Gas).

rhombus on March 28, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Nah, he was born in Virginia, which he LOST by the way.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Went to a Catholic High School in Illinois. Lost that too.

Mr. Arkadin on March 28, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Rick’s whiney, infantile behavior is making Romney look like the adult and chief executive that can handle the job.

tomshup on March 28, 2012 at 10:22 AM

You and your coherts (sic) are stupid, and, as you demonstrate, bigoted. Some of you (danielvito especially) are liars, but no one has called you sub human. In fact, you demonstrate several base human characteristics

Romney didn’t throw you under the bus. You let your bigotry prevent you from supporting the most qualified candidate; who also happens to be the candidate with the best chance of winning the election, reforming and downsizing the government and turning around economy.

Basilsbest on March 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Let me get this straight. I’m a liar because I said I’d been called a lot of nasty names in the same paragraph you call me stupid, biogoted and “base human”. And if I don’t like Romney’s record and doubt his ability and knowledge, I’m a bigot? Gee. I remember well the 2008 election where I was told if I didn’t support Obama, I was a racist.

Swell.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Portia , I have to agree with bluegill on this-your posts do reek of anti-mormon bigotry. Why? Because you keep bringing it up.

I guess bigots can’t help themselves.

gerrym51 on March 28, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:23 AM

How did a article about Santorum’s support slipping turn into Romney’s Mormonism and its beliefs?

I think this is when most people tune those like you out because it is not relevant in ANY manner.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 10:33 AM

But the voters in those states may want to think twice about whether or not they really want to nominate Romney, who has a proven track record of breaking promises, lying about his motivations and pretending to be whatever he thinks the electorate wants him to be (“moderate”, “progressive”, “severely conservative”).

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 9:53 AM

You do realize that you could replace Romney’s name with any other politician and get an equally accurate statement.

Pcoop on March 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM

So, you agree that Romney has a proven track record of breaking promises, lying about his motivations and pretending to be whatever he thinks the electorate wants him to be (“moderate”, “progressive”, “severely conservative”).

But, you think that’s OK because you think that “you could replace Romney’s name with any other politician and get an equally accurate statement.”

That’s pretty sad. You aparently think that lying is OK as long as everyone else is doing it.

I think that there should be a higher standard. And while many politicians fall short, we don’t give up the standard.

Honest politicians are rare, but the are not extinct.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I don’t care if he prays to Zeus and has an alter dedicated to Apollo.

What does it matter what he believes in as long as he upholds the Constitution like the president is supposed to do?

It’s a secular office. We’re electing a president, not a pope.

Pcoop on March 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Are you actually making the case that someone’s personal beliefs–his/her guiding compass–is immaterial to who that person is and how that person will govern and affect that person’s judgement? That was the argument used to dismiss Obama’s belief in Black Liberation Theology, and as it turns out, Obama’s personal beliefs–the church he attended–was central to his anti-American agenda.

As regards this specific post, context makes some difference here. Bluegill using the usual Romney tactic of demeaning both Gingrich and Santorum as nothing but egomaniacs. An incredible, nasty personal attack against two good men who have both done more for the Republican Party than the self-described progressive Romney has ever done. That’s rather ironic coming from a man who thinks he will be god. You see how that works? I would never have mentioned Mitt’s belief in his future divinity if Bluegill hadn’t demeaned two good men.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

You are nothing more than an anti-Mormon bigot. You have demonstrated it numerous times.

By the way, “facts” shorn of context mislead.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

How did a article about Santorum’s support slipping turn into Romney’s Mormonism and its beliefs?

I think this is when most people tune those like you out because it is not relevant in ANY manner.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Bluegill launching a vicious personal attack against both Santorum and Gingrich. She stated that both were nothing more than “egos”; I responded that Mitt’s ego can’t stand close scrutiny since he’s going through life thinking he’s going to become a god.

And please note that bluegill defends Romney by stating that Santorum plans on imposing HIS religious beliefs on the country, when in fact, that is a complete falsehood.

And I again ask: why am I a bigot for simply stating what Mormon’s believe?

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I predicted this months ago…Woody’last stand

not if but after the jerk Woody loses Pennsylvania, what will the jerk do and how will he spin it?

his 2nd exit from politics for good…..good riddance, you big nosed, muffintop, erratic jerk

nparga23 on March 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM

then call romney a meglomaniac,or a flip flopper,or no core etc.
but you keep bringing up Mormonism.

YOU ARE an obvious bigot

gerrym51 on March 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Her covert endorsement of Gingrich and her calls for a brokered convention have destroyed her credibility.

Basilsbest on March 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM

How is going on TV multiple times and directly asking people to vote for Newt considered covert?

He publicly promised her a “prominent” role in his administration and she supplied the political kickback of supporting him. Pretty much like Blago selling the senate seat, but instead of cash she offered media cheerleading.

hanzblinx on March 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM

This isn’t hard to figure out. Two-thirds of Republicans polled say they do not want a brokered convention. Some of Santorum’s (and Gingrich and Paul’s) support is peeling off to prevent that, now that the GOP presidential primary is essentially over for everyone but the media and political junkies.

TheDriver on March 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM

*IF* Romney wins 1,144 pledged delegates before the convention, then the day after he does, the media will flip a switch.

All of the opportunities that all four Republican candidates have had to express conservative viewpoints will vaporize, and the media will focus their attention on saying positive things about Obama. You don’t want to go repeat 2008. The longer the Republican nomination takes, the less time the media has to shape their narrative about he 2012 election.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

You are nothing more than an anti-Mormon bigot. You have demonstrated it numerous times.

By the way, “facts” shorn of context mislead.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

So, instead of calling people bigots for stating simple facts about the principles and beliefs that guide Romney’s life, why don’t you put this all in “context”. What exactly is the context for “what man is god once was and what god is man may become”?

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Her covert endorsement of Gingrich and her calls for a brokered convention have destroyed her credibility.

Basilsbest on March 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM

How is going on TV multiple times and directly asking people to vote for Newt considered covert?

hanzblinx on March 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Her “endorsement” was covert, because she didn’t explicitly give it, but rather implicitly by “going on TV” and saying that if she had a vote she would vote for Newt.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM

on Drudge…Mitt on Leno last night…when asked possibilities of Woody being VP….

“Press secretary”……lol…..too generous Mitt

Woody should be in a non-animated Toy Story film

nparga23 on March 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Interesting hoe air hasn’t put up the washington post/abc poll that shows romneycare approval lowest ever at 34% and that he’s losing to obamasatan by 19%.

Is hoe air’s job solely to try to make romneycare look good. Do you realize if the ABC/washington post poll is true, Romneycare will lose in a historic landslide.

Stop trying to prop this lightweight up.

Danielvito on March 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM

can’t stand close scrutiny since he’s going through life thinking he’s going to become a god.

And I again ask: why am I a bigot for simply stating what Mormon’s believe?

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I did not call you a bigot, however, how Romney believes religiously has NOTHING to do with this article or the campaign so why bring it up? Many people believe in ALL kinds of different things and just because WE may not understand their thinking or have ALL the facts on WHY they believe certain things we should not mock them. Portia, people can READ AND SEE why you are posting these things because you are trying to arouse a “I did not know he believes such and such…” and create doubt in people’s minds.

If you do not like bluegill’s responses then just read on past them…

Besides, it does appear Santorum’s support is slipping and he realizes it as well as he gets more and more desperate.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Portia, you are attempting to demean a religion and members of a particular religion. Romney has never made his religion an issue, nor has he EVER, unlike Santorum, given any indication that he will apply religious tenets to governing or impose his beliefs on others.

Sorry, Bluegill, Obama will make Romney’s religion an issue. If you and other Mitt supporters don’t learn to deal with it now, you may be in deep sh!t later.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM

There’s really no need to argue at this point about who’s the better candidate. Santorum is clearly in trouble. He is losing support to Romney each week, and he doesn’t have a way to change that, and neither do the bloggers and commenters here. His only chance is for Romney to make a horrible mistake, and so far Romney’s shown far too much discipline in campaigning to warrant such a hope. If Santorum loses Pennsylvania, it’s over. If Santorum only wins narrowly, it’s over. There just aren’t enough opportunities left after Pennsylvania for Rick to convince people that he should be the nominee. It won’t happen at the convention, either, in the very unlikely scenario Romney doesn’t win a majority of delegates. Santorum has been competitive only because he was the last viable conservative alternative to Romney, not because there was something personally compelling about him or his agenda. If we’re going to resort to the very nearly suicidal option of replacing the frontrunner in the nomination race with someone else anyway, there are plenty of much more attractive candidates in the GOP than Santorum.

EricW on March 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Not surprised at all, sad to say.

Philly on March 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Rick Santorum’s Rhetoric does not conform with the reality of his record of ever expanding Big Government Spending and Debt, Medicare Prescription D, votes to raise debt ceiling and against Right to Work, Earmarks, re authorization of New Deal Era Export Import Bank and so on.

Rick Santorum is not The Forgotten Taxpayers BFF.

It is fascinating to see how he clouds the minds of principled grassroots conservatives who should know better. There seems to be a collective amnesia about his record. How does this work?

oh well…if you can fool enough of the people enough of the time, you will do well in the polls.

What a disgrace to Pennsylvania’s conservative base and what an insult to Pat Toomey is Rick Santorum wins Pennsylvania.

bobguzzardi on March 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

So, instead of calling people bigots for stating simple facts about the principles and beliefs that guide Romney’s life, why don’t you put this all in “context”. What exactly is the context for “what man is god once was and what god is man may become”?

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Like I said, you are a bigot. And now you are demonstrating that you are a moron.

You strip your “facts” from the context from which the are believed, thus misrepresenting and misleading what Mormons really believe.

Now if you want to get into a discussion about the doctrine of “theosis” as found in the BIBLE, then this isn’t the proper place.

Go somewhere else.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Man, just reading through these postings I thought I’d stumbled on to a Saul Alinsky blog. The Romney support is getting more vicious, personal, and sleazy. Typical for democrats and not surprising for Romney and his minions, but sad for the republican party.

mozalf on March 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The longer the Republican nomination takes, the less time the media has to shape their narrative about he 2012 election.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I hope you really do not believe this…

Obama is going to LOSE this election as people will NOT want another four years of this narcissistic individual and the economy in the toilet.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM

It’s all over (clap clap clappity clap)

Red Cloud on March 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I hope you really do not believe this…

Obama is going to LOSE this election as people will NOT want another four years of this narcissistic individual and the economy in the toilet.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM

What makes you so sure about that? What do we know about Obama now that we didn’t know in 2008?

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Man, just reading through these postings I thought I’d stumbled on to a Saul Alinsky blog. The Not-Romney support is getting more vicious, personal, and sleazy. Typical for democrats and not surprising for Santorum and his minions, but sad for the republican party.

mozalf on March 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Fixed it for you.

You are welcome.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM

What makes you so sure about that? What do we know about Obama now that we didn’t know in 2008?

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Other than his TOTAL and COMPLETE incompetence?

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Other than his TOTAL and COMPLETE incompetence?

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Really? First time in America’s history incumbency would be a barrier to re-election, Bill. The worst thing we can do, no matter who we nominate, is to assume that the Republican party has it in the bag come the first Tuesday of November. Aside from redefining conservatism, I think Romney’s campaign also hinges on the idea that whoever gets the Republican nomination WILL the next president. That kind of thinking is always dangerous, no less so this time.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Portia, you are attempting to demean a religion and members of a particular religion.

Bluegill, you keep avoiding the question. How is stating what your belief’s are demeaning your religion? If I copy and paste the Nicene Creed, am I demeaning Episcopals and Roman Catholics?

And you also keep avoiding the fact that your vicious attack against the motives of Santorum and Gingrich invited the irony about Mitt’s “ego” problems.

Let me get this straight. I’m a bigot, but Mormons can mock Jesus, Mary, pastors and tell us that Mitt’s a “messenger from god” (and yes, indeed, THAT was said)? Tolerance is for thee but not for me?

BTW, misspellings and sometimes typos are grievous, indeed. Pointing them out makes one both high-minded and brilliant.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Man, just reading through these postings I thought I’d stumbled on to a Saul Alinsky blog. The Romney support is getting more vicious, personal, and sleazy. Typical for democrats and not surprising for Romney and his minions, but sad for the republican party.

mozalf on March 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I don’t know what posts you are reading as my scan of them when I checked in was on Romney’s Mormonism.

Santorum is the one that is losing his cool and showing the REAL Santorum that we all know and his Congressional members recall of him.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

TheDriver on March 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Well done!!!!

tomshup on March 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM

How is stating what your belief’s are demeaning your religion? If I copy and paste the Nicene Creed, am I demeaning Episcopals and Roman Catholics?

And you also keep avoiding the fact that your vicious attack against the motives of Santorum and Gingrich invited the irony about Mitt’s “ego” problems.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

WHAT. DOES. IT. MATTER?

If Romney believes that he one day may OWN 400 In-and-Out Burgers or worlds on end what does this matter to the votes coming up in WI and PA?

Again, YOU are trying to create some ridiculous spooky creation of how Romney will rule once he is in the White House…

America does NOT care what a person’s religious beliefs are but their adherence to the Constitution of the United States is what they care about.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Man, just reading through these postings I thought I’d stumbled on to a Saul Alinsky blog. The Romney support is getting more vicious, personal, and sleazy. Typical for democrats and not surprising for Romney and his minions, but sad for the republican party.

mozalf on March 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Yeah we are really working towards a united party calling our own names//

I am still voting for ABO, but more and more I wonder who that will be… maybe Mickey Mouse//

melle1228 on March 28, 2012 at 11:10 AM

You strip your “facts” from the context from which the are believed, thus misrepresenting and misleading what Mormons really believe.

Well, what do they really believe?

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Man, just reading through these postings I thought I’d stumbled on to a Saul Alinsky blog. The Romney support is getting more vicious, personal, and sleazy. Typical for democrats and not surprising for Romney and his minions, but sad for the republican party.

mozalf on March 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Where can I send tissues? Let’s not feign naivete. Protracted primary campaigns tend to get negative. Remember 2000? Bush and McCain I don’t think ever liked one another again.

EricW on March 28, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I hope you really do not believe this…

Obama is going to LOSE this election as people will NOT want another four years of this narcissistic individual and the economy in the toilet.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 10:57 AM

What makes you so sure about that? What do we know about Obama now that we didn’t know in 2008?

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Seriously?

What DO we know about Obama? The guy is a blank slate prior to 2008? Romney and the Republican Party will focus on his last 4 years as a POTUS and HOPEFULLY the Super-Pacs will attack Obama on his pre-2008 history that has shaped how he has “RULED” the American people.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Let me get this straight. I’m a bigot, . . .

YES!!

. . . but Mormons can mock Jesus, . . .

How so, MORON!!!

. . . and tell us that Mitt’s a “messenger from god” (and yes, indeed, THAT was said)?

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Really? I haven’t seen or said that. I think you are making that up.

And now, just for you,

https://www.google.com/search?q=theosis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Google is your friend.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Seriously?

What DO we know about Obama? The guy is a blank slate prior to 2008? Romney and the Republican Party will focus on his last 4 years as a POTUS and HOPEFULLY the Super-Pacs will attack Obama on his pre-2008 history that has shaped how he has “RULED” the American people.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Like I said, this would be the first time that incumbency was ever a barrier to re-election.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the most likely outcome happens and Romney secures the nomination. He won’t have the luxury of waiting for Obama to self-destruct like he had in the primaries when it came to Romney’s Republican opponents. He’ll have to sell himself to the American people writ-large, not just the primary voting party faithful. Whether that proves to be a cake walk or not remains to be seen, but somehow I don’t think it will be as easy as the rombots think.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

And I again ask: why am I a bigot for simply stating what Mormon’s believe?

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

You’re not. To mention someone’s religion is not bigotry. To dislike someone’s religion is not bigotry. Do I dislike Islam, yes I do. Does that make me a bigot? Maybe it does but I’ll bet it makes many people here bigots too. Do I disagree with the tenets of many religions? Yes I do. Is it wrong for me to say so or mention it? No. Would these same posters refrain from bringing up Obama’s stint in Rev. Wright’s church? Do posters on here never bring up Santorum’s religious beliefs? Of course not, I have read many many posts on here complaining about such beliefs.

Bigotry is not the problem here. The problem is that far too many supporters of candidates think their candidates are off limits from any discussion that may make them look different or even wrong. That’s too bad, because they could easily deflect the comments by simply saying that what you say may be true but it doesn’t concern them. Instead they attempt to defend their candidate by calling names.
I don’t like any of these candidates but because of the vitriol from many of their supporters I may make my decsion based on that. I have to wonder how candidates attract such support, do they condone it? Would Santorum say that it is wrong to ask about his religion? Would Romney call you a bigot for asking these questions. Somehow I doubt it…at least I hope not.

Deanna on March 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Like I said, this would be the first time that incumbency was ever a barrier to re-election.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the most likely outcome happens and Romney secures the nomination. He won’t have the luxury of waiting for Obama to self-destruct like he had in the primaries when it came to Romney’s Republican opponents. He’ll have to sell himself to the American people writ-large, not just the primary voting party faithful. Whether that proves to be a cake walk or not remains to be seen, but somehow I don’t think it will be as easy as the rombots think.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Oh I think Mr. “Play Nice” Romney is going to get hit ONCE by the Chicago machine and never know what hit him… He is out-trashed, and out-cashed-something he has yet to encounter yet…

melle1228 on March 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM

What happened in the last month? FMC reports that the importance of beating Obama has jumped ten points to 25% as the highest priority for voters.

Hence the need for water-carriers in the MSM to publish skewed polls which show Romney’s favorability declining. They want to plant a seed in the mind of voters that Romney can’t beat Obama.

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Basilsbest on March 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM

If all else fails and you can’t make a coherent argument; make fun of someone’s spelling.//

melle1228 on March 28, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Hence the need for water-carriers in the MSM to publish skewed polls which show Romney’s favorability declining. They want to plant a seed in the mind of voters that Romney can’t beat Obama.

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Just for the record, I think Romney can beat Obama. That doesn’t mean he will, but he can. He’s just going to have to etch-a-sketch his campaign strategy (NOT his conservatism), and quite frankly I hope that’s enough. The only thing I feel safe to assert at this point is that if Romney does win in the general, it’s not going to be some sort of massive 45-55 blowout. It will come down to the wire and the electoral college will come through as a real nailbiter.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I think a Huckabee/Palin ticket would kick Obama/Biden butt

Hey, not bad. I can support Huckabee/Palin. Let’s do it!

OK, who’s with me?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Hey, not bad. I can support Huckabee/Palin. Let’s do it!

OK, who’s with me?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Palin yeah! Huckabee, not so much.. Too reminiscent of “compassionate conservatism” for my tastes!

melle1228 on March 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM

why am I a bigot for simply stating what Mormons believe?

You’re not. It’s just that there’s a loony pro-Willard commenter named bluegill who screams “bigot” as his primary means of communication. It’s designed to startle you, and stop the discussion. Don’t let it bother you.

But Mormons believe some very unique things. And what about the bizarre practice of Mormons baptizing dead Jews? I mean, what is that all about? Not one of these Mormons has coherently explained these so-called baptisms to me. I’m not sure they understand it, either.

By the way, Willard has personally baptized dead people, and I read about it in The New York Times.

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

America does NOT care what a person’s religious beliefs are but their adherence to the Constitution of the United States is what they care about.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Yeah, they sure didn’t care about JFK. The Pope was gonna run the country. /

Seriously, you guys better expect to deal with this subject, because it will be a factor in the general. Obama doesn’t care about religious sensitivities.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:27 AM

What do you think he needs to change with his strategy? Interested in your thoughts…

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Yeah, they sure didn’t care about JFK. The Pope was gonna run the country. /

Seriously, you guys better expect to deal with this subject, because it will be a factor in the general. Obama doesn’t care about religious sensitivities.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Yeppers, and if they think us ABR people are big, bad bigots about Mormonism-they have YET to see Democrats in action!

melle1228 on March 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM

One can rationally dislike a religion. It’s not bigotry if you have a good basis. Islam promotes all sorts of evil including abuse of women, murder of gays, and vicious intolerance of dissent. This is a good basis to dislike a religion. Silly sci-fi beliefs about the afterlife is not a good basis, because it doesn’t affect you.

Anyway, it is Santorum, not Romney, who wants to use religion for governing. As a conservative who is also an environmentalist, I find Santorum’s stance on birth control more troubling anything about Romney’s religion.

thuja on March 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:27 AM

What do you think he needs to change with his strategy? Interested in your thoughts…

Buy Danish on March 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Romney’s strategy in the primaries appeared to me to be predicated on two things: Change the definition of “conservative,” and maintain an overall low profile while those around him self-destruct. He has done an admirable job of both, and it has served him well as each delegate count outstrips his nearest opponent (Santorum) farther and farther.

The problem, as tends to so often be the case, is that this strategy is problematic in the general. Romney will need to get people on board to vote for him that not only didn’t vote in the primaries at all, but may have voted against him for the nomination. Maintaining that low profile won’t work because Obama isn’t just another opponent. For all the shrieking about “incompetence” that I hear from my fellow conservative true-believers, Obama has incumbency. He has the media as his collective lap dog. He has fundraising capabilities that can shame a truly self-made man like Mitt. I’m simply observing that these are all issues that Mitt hasn’t had to deal with yet and how he deals with them after the convention, assuming he does secure the nomination, will be very telling.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

And what about the bizarre practice of Mormons baptizing dead Jews? I mean, what is that all about? Not one of these Mormons has coherently explained these so-called baptisms to me. I’m not sure they understand it, either.

By the way, Willard has personally baptized dead people, and I read about it in The New York Times.

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Another example of “facts” stripped of context to misrepresent and mislead.

Mormons don’t baptize dead people. They do proxy baptism FOR the dead.

Just as Christ stood as proxy FOR you and took the punishment FOR you for your sins. Mormons stand as proxy FOR their dead ancestors and are baptized FOR them.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

And I again ask: why am I a bigot for simply stating what Mormon’s believe?

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Actually, you don’t have a clue about Romeny’s religious beliefs, you only project what you think he believes, and condemn him for what you believe to be true.

Oracleforhire on March 28, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Has the obvious occurred to you yet? Rick won’t win another primary. Not one. He will soon be free to roam the suberbs, ridding the country of her evils.

Rusty Allen on March 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

If Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul combine to win 54% or more of the remaining delegates, then Romney will not clinch the nomination before the convention.

Many, many people would be thankful for their efforts if it leads to us nominating someone better than Romney.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 9:03 AM

And we are going to have a triumvirate?

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM

If Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul combine to win 54% or more of the remaining delegates, then Romney will not clinch the nomination before the convention.

Many, many people would be thankful for their efforts if it leads to us nominating someone better than Romney.

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Unless enough delegates can be persuaded to vote FOR Mitt. You do realize that’s an equally likely outcome, right?

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:46 AM

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Your fantasies are incredible. Mitt is he nominee. Winner take all means he gets the delegates. Try to find a state anyone else can win before Pennsylvania. It’s over.

Rusty Allen on March 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Hey, not bad. I can support Huckabee/Palin. Let’s do it!

OK, who’s with me?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:28 AM

If we’re giving up on reality, and if you want a brokered convention you have, then why be so timid?

Cooledge/Aragon 2012!

EricW on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

They do proxy baptism FOR the dead.

How does that work? You have a bowl of water, and invite the family of the deceased in for the ceremony? What if you don’t have permission to use the names?

Mormons stand as proxy FOR their dead ancestors and are baptized FOR them.

This is still misleading, superstitious mumbo-jumbo. There are virtually no Mormons whose ancestors were Jews. So what the hell are Mormons thinking when they go baptizing holocaust victims?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Like I said, this would be the first time that incumbency was ever a barrier to re-election.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I agree with you that this election will not be a cake walk for whoever our eventual nominee is. It’s going to be a fight to the finish and we have to be ready for it.

I do think re-election was a barrier for several past candidates. Johnson not seeking re-election was one and the peanut farmer’s absolute trouncing was another. Yes, Reagan knew how to use it to his advantage and was indeed an inspiring candidate, but there was a LOT of ABC sentiment out there. I actually think a squishy candidate would have also won that election, but would not have given us the 25 years of prosperity Reagan gave us.

Lost in Jersey on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

If you want to trash people’s faith, find a new site. This is a santorum in Pennsylvania thread.

Rusty Allen on March 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

He seems to struggle in that state. Didn’t he lose his last senate race?

EconomicNeocon on March 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I do think re-election was a barrier for several past candidates. Johnson not seeking re-election was one and the peanut farmer’s absolute trouncing was another. Yes, Reagan knew how to use it to his advantage and was indeed an inspiring candidate, but there was a LOT of ABC sentiment out there. I actually think a squishy candidate would have also won that election, but would not have given us the 25 years of prosperity Reagan gave us.

Lost in Jersey on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I’ll give you Carter. But in every other instance in which incumbency would have been a barrier to re-election, the incumbent didn’t run at all. Whatever you think about Obama’s disaster of a first term, the guys got steel bawls the size of grapefruits. I dunno how he carries them around all day.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Brokered convention or bust!

ITguy on March 28, 2012 at 9:07 AM

So we go to the convention. The guy who finished 3rd or 2nd in delegates should then expect to be handed the nomination, over the guy who actually has more delegates? Or we somehow install someone else who couldn’t even be bothered to campaign? Yea, that will end well.

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM

OK, who’s with me?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:28 AM

After this mob-mentality, anti-capitalist post yesterday

A plutocrat like Willard does not deserve the benefit of the doubt–he deserves tar, feathers, and pitchforks.

Emperor Norton on March 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM

and your continued religous bigotry today, which you learned from

…I read about it in The New York Times.

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM

if anyone here is “with” you, please take them with you as leave and go to the Daily Kos where you belong, you scumbag.

No, seriously, you’re a scumbag.

M240H on March 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

the guys got steel bawls the size of grapefruits. I dunno how he carries them around all day.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I don’t think it’s cojones as much as it is Obama’s mind numbing narcassitic arrogance.

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM

the guys got steel bawls the size of grapefruits. I dunno how he carries them around all day.

gryphon202 on March 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

He doesn’t … ValJar has them in her purse.

Rick won’t win another primary. Not one.

Rusty Allen on March 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Megamillions is up to like $500M. Since you can see the future, would ya mind terribly sharing the numbers for this Friday?

Lost in Jersey on March 28, 2012 at 11:58 AM

gerry-mittbot-rombot=mittwit

gerrym51 on March 28, 2012 at 8:52 AM

You forgot Mittler Youth. ; )

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 9:29 AM

And Mittfilth.

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Santorum will probably drop out if he loses Wisconsin.

It will shatter his credibility moving forward if he loses his home state where he has served as a lifetime politician. He will never again go this far in politics, but his ego is such he probably thinks he’ll be the front runner next time around, but he’ll never again be taken seriously if he loses PA to Romney.

The fact that he lost his last Senate election by nearly 20 points SHOULD have given people a clue this guy is a 3rd tier chump, but it looks like he’s going to have to once again be humiliated in PA.

BradTank on March 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM

They do proxy baptism FOR the dead.

How does that work? You have a bowl of water, and invite the family of the deceased in for the ceremony? What if you don’t have permission to use the names?

It is against current church policy to do this work for anyone that is not an ancestor.

Mormons stand as proxy FOR their dead ancestors and are baptized FOR them.

This is still misleading, superstitious mumbo-jumbo. There are virtually no Mormons whose ancestors were Jews. So what the hell are Mormons thinking when they go baptizing holocaust victims?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM

There have been certain critics in the past you have taken delight at submitting names of holocaust victims and then screeching and whining to the world when those names are completed.

So a new policy has been implemented that only allow members of the church to submit names of their ancestors. Any violators of this policy lose their privileges.

BTW there are Jews who have joined the Church.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM

If you want to trash people’s faith, find a new site.
Rusty Allen on March 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Lighten up, Francis. I asked for an explanation, and I got a poor one. You know who brought this topic up, and it wasn’t me.

But if Mormons do some kind of baptism ceremony, using live Mormons, on behalf of the dead, then the dead don’t get to approve of the procedure, do they? How convenient! Did it ever occur to a Mormon that the baptisee may not want the baptism to happen? Of course not. They’re Mormons–they think everyone agrees about everything all the time!

I say that the Mormons want people to mind their own business about the Mormon religion, fine. I would ask the Mormons to mind their own business, too, and stop baptizing dead people. Of course there’s going to be a proxy when baptizing the dead. The dead can’t really make it to the ceremony, can they?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Santorum will probably drop out if he loses Wisconsin.

It will shatter his credibility moving forward if he loses his home state where he has served as a lifetime politician. He will never again go this far in politics, but his ego is such he probably thinks he’ll be the front runner next time around, but he’ll never again be taken seriously if he loses PA to Romney.

I think he’ll stay in after Wisconsin hoping for a win in PA. UNLESS his poll numbers are down in PA (and it’s looking more and more like it) He’ll have to decide if he wants to A) Maybe win his home state, even though there’s no real chance of him getting the nomination. Or B) If he loses his home state he will be done forever in national politics and he knows it. My guess tells me if the polls for him look bad in PA, he drops. Unless of course he seriously thinks his brokered convention strategy is a winner. But if there’s a chance he could lose PA he takes a huge risk by staying in.

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Minnfidel on March 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM

This is the entirety of Santorum’s strategy in this campaign: to not offer any really compelling reason to support him or his agenda, but to simply be the guy who gets the nomination if Romney fails. Nearly every time he talks about his own ideas he gets in trouble. Had he simply spent every speech talking about how he loves his family and America, there is a decent chance he’d be our nominee. Instead, he ignored his own strategy, and made the huge mistake of telling people what he actually thinks. Then, only the evangelicals could support him, because he can only support them when he speaks. To think that he’ll win in the GOP convention for this incompetency is ridiculous.

EricW on March 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM

America does NOT care what a person’s religious beliefs are but their adherence to the Constitution of the United States is what they care about.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Yeah, they sure didn’t care about JFK. The Pope was gonna run the country. /

Seriously, you guys better expect to deal with this subject, because it will be a factor in the general. Obama doesn’t care about religious sensitivities.

Lightswitch on March 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Lightswitch,
And how did that turn out for JFK? That’s right he was elected President. :o)

When it comes down to it, the conservatives in the South will elect Romney over Obama because they care about JOBS first before what Church Romney attends on Sunday’s.

I mean, look, who we elected last time EVEN KNOWING Obama sat in a pew for 20 years with a preacher that hates America.

Most Americans are sensible and it is only the small 2-3% that bring up religion for the wrong reasons.

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Now if you want to get into a discussion about the doctrine of “theosis” as found in the BIBLE, then this isn’t the proper place.

Go somewhere else.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Actually, for once Wikipedia gives a fair rundown to both the Roman and Eastern Christian theologies and Hebrew-speaking-reading Jews give a rundown of Smith’s “translation” of Genesis 1:1 here: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=332:joseph-smiths-translation-of-genesis-11&catid=142:mormons&Itemid=505

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM

You forgot Mittler Youth. ; )

Bmore on March 28, 2012 at 9:29 AM

At this point I’d appreciate any way to identify myself with youth.

EricW on March 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Mitt is at 68% to win Penn on intrade. I’m sure after going 3 for 3 on Tuesday his chances only improve.

Rusty Allen on March 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM

You really are dense. But I will try to help you out some more.

But if Mormons do some kind of baptism ceremony, using live Mormons, on behalf of the dead,

Correct.

then the dead don’t get to approve of the procedure, do they?

Not so. They are free to accept or reject this work done for them.

How convenient! Did it ever occur to a Mormon that the baptisee may not want the baptism to happen? Of course not. They’re Mormons–they think everyone agrees about everything all the time!

Blather based on a false premise.

I say that the Mormons want people to mind their own business about the Mormon religion, fine. I would ask the Mormons to mind their own business, too, and stop baptizing dead people.

There you go again misrepresenting our beliefs.

Of course there’s going to be a proxy when baptizing the dead. The dead can’t really make it to the ceremony, can they?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Well, DUH!!!

So, rather than accurately describing our beliefs, why don’t you continue to misrepresent it. /s

By the way, you might find this enlightening.
http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2012/02/29/outraged_by_mormon_proxy_baptism_not_this_jew/page/2

or not.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

This is simply stating Mormon belief. I can copy and paste a LOT of stuff to back it up, so is mentioning this fact, some sort of sin? Why wouldn’t you admit publicly that this is the very crux of Mormon belief? Are you telling us your own beliefs are bigoted? That’s pretty much totally illogical.

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Well, we non-Mormon Christians killed everybody we didn’t like, so our faith is not a good pedigree, either.

Gelsomina on March 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

If you want to trash people’s faith, find a new site.
Rusty Allen on March 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Lighten up, Francis. I asked for an explanation, and I got a poor one. You know who brought this topic up, and it wasn’t me.

But if Mormons do some kind of baptism ceremony, using live Mormons, on behalf of the dead, then the dead don’t get to approve of the procedure, do they? How convenient! Did it ever occur to a Mormon that the baptisee may not want the baptism to happen? Of course not. They’re Mormons–they think everyone agrees about everything all the time!

I say that the Mormons want people to mind their own business about the Mormon religion, fine. I would ask the Mormons to mind their own business, too, and stop baptizing dead people. Of course there’s going to be a proxy when baptizing the dead. The dead can’t really make it to the ceremony, can they?

Emperor Norton on March 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM

It must really annoy you that Romney is winning to go off topic on this site and talk about baptisms. Besides your answer you got was NOT a poor one. I thought he answered your question clearly that these are done by proxy just as the Savior died for our SINS by proxy. WE still have choice to accept the ACT that was done on our behalf just as those baptized have the choice to accept what was done on their behalf.
Besides, if you do not believe in this WHAT DO YOU REALLY CARE? There are many other religions that do certain things in their churches, synagogues, etc and it does not affect me and they believe in it for some reason so it is not my place to question the way they practice their faith.

Let’s get back to the HotGas!

g2825m on March 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Actually, for once Wikipedia gives a fair rundown to both the Roman and Eastern Christian theologies and Hebrew-speaking-reading Jews give a rundown of Smith’s “translation” of Genesis 1:1 here: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=332:joseph-smiths-translation-of-genesis-11&catid=142:mormons&Itemid=505

Portia46 on March 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Nice red herring.

Gunlock Bill on March 28, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4