Video: Obama In Tonight's Late Show With David Letterman

[Chicog]

ust as I expected. Your position has no basis in fact.

Even the democratic party has dropped this ridiculous claim.

You can stop this now. The horse is well and truly dead.

I'll keep beating this horse until the FACT that he is hiding his pre-2010 tax returns from the voters ceases to become true.

Ayethangyou.

[koheesti]

ust as I expected. Your position has no basis in fact.

Even the democratic party has dropped this ridiculous claim.

You can stop this now. The horse is well and truly dead.

I'll keep beating this horse until the FACT that he is hiding his pre-2010 tax returns from the voters ceases to become true.

Ayethangyou.

It's a irrelevant fact. No more relevant than Obama sealing his university transcripts. We, the voters, all know that Romney made a ton of money pre-2010 and that he donated about 10% because his religion tells him to (good for the recipients) and that his highly paid tax accountant used every legal means to save him money. At the same time, we also know Obama had his transcripts sealed because he got into Columbia and Harvard not because of his grades (they were low, as has become obvious) but most likely because of his skin color. In addition to benefiting from Affirmative Action, Obama also probably took classes on Marxism which he alludes to in his own memoirs (I forget which volume).

So OF COURSE Romney doesn't want to highlight the fact that he is in the 1% no more than Obama wants to highlight the fact that he isn't an all-too-bright closet Marxist. It's sill really, both men going to such great extent to hide what the public already knows. But in the end, the country has more important issues to worry about and for Obama's sake, I hope he can study and memorize what they are by his next debate against Romney or else he will be one highly-paid speaker on the lecture circuit next year...not too bad for a "genius" C-student.

Edited October 9, 2012 by koheesti

[SteeleJoe]

ust as I expected. Your position has no basis in fact.

Even the democratic party has dropped this ridiculous claim.

You can stop this now. The horse is well and truly dead.

I'll keep beating this horse until the FACT that he is hiding his pre-2010 tax returns from the voters ceases to become true.

Ayethangyou.

It's a irrelevant fact. No more relevant than Obama sealing his university transcripts. We, the voters, all know that Romney made a ton of money pre-2010 and that he donated about 10% because his religion tells him to (good for the recipients) and that his highly paid tax accountant used every legal means to save him money. At the same time, we also know Obama had his transcripts sealed because he got into Columbia and Harvard not because of his grades (they were low, as has become obvious) but most likely because of his skin color. In addition to benefiting from Affirmative Action, Obama also probably took classes on Marxism which he alludes to in his own memoirs (I forget which volume).

So OF COURSE Romney doesn't want to highlight the fact that he is in the 1% no more than Obama wants to highlight the fact that he isn't an all-too-bright closet Marxist. It's sill really, both men going to such great extent to hide what the public already knows. But in the end, the country has more important issues to worry about and for Obama's sake, I hope he can study and memorize what they are by his next debate against Romney or else he will be one highly-paid speaker on the lecture circuit next year...not too bad for a "genius" C-student.

You fanatics (on both sides) crack me up.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Chicog]

It's a irrelevant fact. No more relevant than Obama sealing his university transcripts. We, the voters, all know that Romney made a ton of money pre-2010 and that he donated about 10% because his religion tells him to (good for the recipients) and that his highly paid tax accountant used every legal means to save him money.

So you're essentially agreeing that Romney is a very wealthy tax avoider. Yet at the same time, he's like to benefit those using simillar loopholes, as well as indulging in tax cutting that they don't need, at a time when the economy needs more tax revenue as well as less spending if the deficit and debt are to be reduced.

Again, he speaks in style and not substance, he has yet to prove the numbers add up.

However, he did a masterful speech yesterday about what he's going to do in the Middle East, and Syria in particular, taking on Putin, who apparently is America's biggest enemy. Which means the Americans will probably create another Taliban in Syria like the Republicans did in Afghanistan. And look what that's cost the American economy in recent years, let alone in reputation.

He's being coached very well on what to say by his paymasters, I'll give him that. And the people need to see what effect his actions will have both on the American economy and on Middle East stability.

Sadly I don't think voters realise that sometimes the old adage of "it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't" actually rings true.

It was a well delivered speech yesterday though. Pew at least have things swinging in his favour now.

Of course, everything he said he's going to do means precisely nothing. The only thing he's interested in is squeezing more money out of joe public to line the coffers of those who back him. Bit like the last of his ilk.

Did you see the IMF report last night? Grim reading, and both candidates may need to take a closer look at their numbers.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Chicog

[SteeleJoe]

However, he did a masterful speech yesterday about what he's going to do in the Middle East, and Syria in particular, taking on Putin, who apparently is America's biggest enemy. Which means the Americans will probably create another Taliban in Syria like the Republicans did in Afghanistan.

1) Do you mean the speech at the VMI? The one with no specifics and loads of distortion of truth?

2) The Republicans did not create the Taliban or anything of the sort. (Are you another of the many who don't know the difference between the anti-soviet Mujahadeen and the Taliban? If so, you are also apparently unaware that the US support of the Muj began under Carter.)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Ulysses G.]

It was a well delivered speech yesterday though. Pew at least have things swinging in his favour now.

Well, at least we can agree on one of a bunch of rather dogmatic opinions.

[koheesti]

2) The Republicans did not create the Taliban or anything of the sort. (Are you another of the many who don't know the difference between the anti-soviet Mujahadeen and the Taliban? If so, you are also apparently unaware that the US support of the Muj began under Carter.)

It's scary how many people still don't know that.

[keemapoot]

Speaking of religious nuts, (I'm referring to Mormons and Evangelicals), not Taliban, here is an interesting point in what should be the closest of elections:

Mormonism, voter enthusiasm concern evangelicals

"Evangelicals make up about a third of voters who are registered or lean Republican.... "The fact is that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and many of our people are very, very uncomfortable about voting for a Mormon, as I am. I supported somebody else in the primary. But, hey, we have no option," said Steve Strang, an influential Pentecostal publisher, in a conference call with pastors last week...."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi...p#ixzz28qhmbk00

I watch Bill Maher for entertainment, and don't agree with much of what he says, but on this I agree. He says he also would not be that uncomfortable with Romney in the White House because he believes Romney is a moderate and pragmatist (as do I - and as he has shown lately in his return to the center in campaigning). He believes the sole reason Romney obsessively wants to be President is to get a Mormon in the White House for his father and church, similar to John Kennedy wanting to please his dad to be the first Irish Catholic President. Mormons want to prove they are part of the mainstream and are Christian, and this would validate that.

So, it will be interesting to see if the evangelical whackos can hold their nose and vote for Romney.

Edited October 10, 2012 by keemapoot

[maidu]

Evangelicals having problema voting for a Mormon? There are always biases in elections. Kennedy was concerned about his Catholicism hampering his election prospects, though he won, but just by a squeaker over Nixon. Obama proved that peoples' concern for good leadership supercedes worries about typecasting based on the color of a person's skin. Most Americans appear to be bigger than their parents' prejudices. Many Americans are still hobbled by hocus pocus belief systems, though an NPR report indicates that a diminishing number are stuck in religious dogma.

.....or have their boots stuck in religious dog-doo.

Edited October 10, 2012 by maidu

[SteeleJoe]

Evangelicals having problema voting for a Mormon? There are always biases in elections. Kennedy was concerned about his Catholicism hampering his election prospects, though he won, but just by a squeaker over Nixon. Obama proved that peoples' concern for good leadership supercedes worries about typecasting based on the color of a person's skin. Most Americans appear to be bigger than their parents' prejudices. Many Americans are still hobbled by hocus pocus belief systems, though an NPR report indicates that a diminishing number are stuck in religious dogma.

.....or have their boots stuck in religious dog-doo.

I think it's more than a matter of biases. I myself have some biases about people who profess to certain beliefs (especially something that I see as crackpot as I do Mormonism) but not because they conflict with any religious faith I have. But Mormons regard Mormonism as the only true Christianity and the Bible as an incomplete and partly flawed text.

In other words, despite protestations to the contrary Mormonism is in direct contradiction with mainstream Christianity. That's deeper and more significant than just bias, that's a conflict with fundamental and profound system of values and ideals.

The fact that Romney is even a viable candidate is just yet another manifestation of the seemingly unbridgeable chasm between two political poles in the US.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Edited October 10, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Ulysses G.]

Pretty much every religion thanks that it is the only "true" religion and there are deep divides among different sects. There is lots of suspicion of Catholics because the Pope is held up as infallible. Some Protestants take up snakes to worship God and some profess to speak in tongues. I fail to see how Mormonism is any wackier than any other religion.

[SteeleJoe]

Pretty much every religion thanks that it is the only "true" religion and there are deep divides among different sects. There is lots of suspicion of Catholics because the Pope is held up as infallible. Some Protestants take up snakes to worship God and some profess to speak in tongues. I fail to see how Mormonism is any wackier than any other religion.

"Pretty much every religion thanks that it is the only "true" religion and there are deep divides among different sects."

Indeed. And this would be the first viable candidate of a religion that is not Christianity per se and that is contradiction with the evangelicals since they became a political force; which is obviously my point. It's not merely another sect.

"I fail to see how Mormonism is any wackier than any other religion"

Really? Do you know much about it? I've read a fair bit (my interest precedes any awareness of Mitt Romney by about 25 years) and while I'd be the last one to take issue with describing any religion as "wacky" -- cuz my essential position is that they are all relatively absurd -- I find a belief in Mormonism particularly hard to fathom.

But that's not the main point, is it? It is relevant only in that to a conservative Christian who would typically look at least a bit askance at any religion other than their own, Mormonism is bound to appear especially unconventional if one takes even a slightly closer look.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Edited October 10, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[SteeleJoe]

I'm back to comment further (stuff I previously left out for the sake of brevity but now am bored enough to add):

Comparisons to JFK are understandable but let's look at it.

* Catholicism is to most people, I believe, much more conventional than Mormonism and certainly is "more Christian".

* There are far more Catholics in the world and in the US than Mormons.

* JFK is the sole example (up to now) of a successful candidate with a concern about his religion's impact on his candidacy; and as pointed out, he was barely elected (and some would say only because of work done by his dad and less than savory associates like Giancana).

* JFK addressed the crucial question - the one that concerned many voters -- as to whose authority was paramount: the Pope or the constitution...

"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me."

As far as I know, Mr. Romney prefers to avoid discussion of his religion to the extent possible and has not made a similar declaration. Should he be obliged to? Perhaps not -- but if one knows (as I think I do) the extent to which the Mormon church plays a role in the life of its adherents and considers that Mitt Romney appears to be a dedicated and devout Mormon, I think it's a legitimate concern.

* Would a candidate that openly professed to be snake-handling, and speaking in tongues be elected? I wonder. In any case I'm sure it'd be talked about.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[koheesti]

Most importantly, the last thing Romney (and his avid supporters on this forum) or the Mormon church want is to start discussing the church and to turn that into an election topic. Turn over a rock and you know what you'll find. Interestingly, the younger generation increasingly calls itself no religious affiliation. Strangely, I don't know why the Obama campaign hasn't figured out that this could be a deal killer for Romney and gone for the throat in some way or another?

http://www.usatoday....on-pew/1618445/

I think the Obama campaign knows that going after someone's religion would not go over well with Independents. The best they could hope for would be to discourage some of Romney's voters from voting.

[keemapoot]

Update on Letterman. On Monday's show, Dave was praising Romney (falsely) for a great debate and making the race close, and then said he was going to apologize for calling Mitt yellow, and also for calling him a felon because of his taxes. Then he said, you know, we've had felons on the show before - Martha Stewart, Rod Begoyavich who stopped by just before he went to prison... So, Dave still begging Romney to appear as he gets in his digs, but doubt if he will.

[Chicog]

However, he did a masterful speech yesterday about what he's going to do in the Middle East, and Syria in particular, taking on Putin, who apparently is America's biggest enemy. Which means the Americans will probably create another Taliban in Syria like the Republicans did in Afghanistan.

1) Do you mean the speech at the VMI? The one with no specifics and loads of distortion of truth?

2) The Republicans did not create the Taliban or anything of the sort. (Are you another of the many who don't know the difference between the anti-soviet Mujahadeen and the Taliban? If so, you are also apparently unaware that the US support of the Muj began under Carter.)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Noted and researched. You live and learn.

But why oh why oh why would you want to do it all over again knowing the result? Didn't Einstein say something about that?

[geriatrickid]

It's a irrelevant fact. No more relevant than Obama sealing his university transcripts. We, the voters, all know that Romney made a ton of money pre-2010 and that he donated about 10% because his religion tells him to (good for the recipients) and that his highly paid tax accountant used every legal means to save him money. At the same time, we also know Obama had his transcripts sealed because he got into Columbia and Harvard not because of his grades (they were low, as has become obvious) but most likely because of his skin color. In addition to benefiting from Affirmative Action, Obama also probably took classes on Marxism which he alludes to in his own memoirs (I forget which volume).

So OF COURSE Romney doesn't want to highlight the fact that he is in the 1% no more than Obama wants to highlight the fact that he isn't an all-too-bright closet Marxist. It's sill really, both men going to such great extent to hide what the public already knows. But in the end, the country has more important issues to worry about and for Obama's sake, I hope he can study and memorize what they are by his next debate against Romney or else he will be one highly-paid speaker on the lecture circuit next year...not too bad for a "genius" C-student.

The crux of your argument is that the President's academic records are as important as the documents related to a presidential candidates tax avoidance.

Your obsession over Mr. Obama's academic record arises from allegations that the transfer students from Columbia in his year had lower SAT scores than usual. Big <deleted> deal. My SAT scores sucked too and I went on to pick up some parchment paper from respecatble universities. You conveniently overlook the fact that Mr. Obama received his J.D. from Harvard, magna cum laude. Harvard does not hand out the acadameic recognition of mcl on a whim. Had the man been as dumb as you are suggesting he would not have graduated at the top of his class, nor would he have achieved the distinction as the President of the Harvard Law Review. You just don't get that position if you are a dunce.

Your continued emphasis on the bogeyman of "Marxism" is laughable. You are like a throwback to the McCarthy era where you see a red under every bed. I certainly hope he would have taken a course in Marxism, as his undergrad in polysci would have been incomplete otherwise. I had to take a course in sociology and seminars on deviant psychology. We learned all about druggies and perverts. It was part of my academic requirements. In my pharmacology courses, we spent a month on various "recreational" chemicals such as LSD. Did this mean that the 100+ students in pharmacology 431 were druggies or we were being prepped for a career as pushers? One cannot possibly have a knowledge of the subject matter unless one is exposed to the information. Mr. Obama is no more a marxist for taking a course that discussed the ideology than I am a pervert because we looked at the behaviours and physiological characteristics of deviants.

[geriatrickid]

I think the Obama campaign knows that going after someone's religion would not go over well with Independents. The best they could hope for would be to discourage some of Romney's voters from voting.

I find it laughable that the people make snide remarks about President Obama being a sinister muslim and emphasizing his middle name of Hussein, emphasize the need for a "Christian" to be President. And yet these very same people have embraced Romney. There is no need for the Democrats to focus on religion. The evangelicals in the Romney camp did it all by themselves over the past century when they insisted that the Book of Mormon was blasphemy and that Mormons were not Christians. I will be very surprised if devout evangelicals show up to vote.

[Ulysses G.]

I will be very surprised if devout evangelicals show up to vote.

I will be surprised if they don't. There is no way that they want another 4 years of the present administration and the evangelicals don’t vote for people because they share their theology, they vote for people who share their values and policy positions. The evangelical movement began by defeating Jimmy Carter, who was put on the cover of Newsweek and called it “The Year of the Evangelical” He got up in front of the American people and said he was born again. The evangelicals voted overwhelmingly against him and put the first divorced man to ever sit in the White House, in the Oval Office, who when he was asked if he was born again, said “we do not use that term in my church. Rewind the clock 50 years and the things that some are saying about Mormons, people were saying about John F. Kennedy and now he is one of the most beloved presidents of all time.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[keemapoot]

Read it and weep:

http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Mormon/mormons-in-america-mormon-moment.aspx

[SteeleJoe]

It's a irrelevant fact. No more relevant than Obama sealing his university transcripts. We, the voters, all know that Romney made a ton of money pre-2010 and that he donated about 10% because his religion tells him to (good for the recipients) and that his highly paid tax accountant used every legal means to save him money. At the same time, we also know Obama had his transcripts sealed because he got into Columbia and Harvard not because of his grades (they were low, as has become obvious) but most likely because of his skin color. In addition to benefiting from Affirmative Action, Obama also probably took classes on Marxism which he alludes to in his own memoirs (I forget which volume).

So OF COURSE Romney doesn't want to highlight the fact that he is in the 1% no more than Obama wants to highlight the fact that he isn't an all-too-bright closet Marxist. It's sill really, both men going to such great extent to hide what the public already knows. But in the end, the country has more important issues to worry about and for Obama's sake, I hope he can study and memorize what they are by his next debate against Romney or else he will be one highly-paid speaker on the lecture circuit next year...not too bad for a "genius" C-student.

The crux of your argument is that the President's academic records are as important as the documents related to a presidential candidates tax avoidance.

Your obsession over Mr. Obama's academic record arises from allegations that the transfer students from Columbia in his year had lower SAT scores than usual. Big <deleted> deal. My SAT scores sucked too and I went on to pick up some parchment paper from respecatble universities. You conveniently overlook the fact that Mr. Obama received his J.D. from Harvard, magna cum laude. Harvard does not hand out the acadameic recognition of mcl on a whim. Had the man been as dumb as you are suggesting he would not have graduated at the top of his class, nor would he have achieved the distinction as the President of the Harvard Law Review. You just don't get that position if you are a dunce.

Your continued emphasis on the bogeyman of "Marxism" is laughable. You are like a throwback to the McCarthy era where you see a red under every bed. I certainly hope he would have taken a course in Marxism, as his undergrad in polysci would have been incomplete otherwise. I had to take a course in sociology and seminars on deviant psychology. We learned all about druggies and perverts. It was part of my academic requirements. In my pharmacology courses, we spent a month on various "recreational" chemicals such as LSD. Did this mean that the 100+ students in pharmacology 431 were druggies or we were being prepped for a career as pushers? One cannot possibly have a knowledge of the subject matter unless one is exposed to the information. Mr. Obama is no more a marxist for taking a course that discussed the ideology than I am a pervert because we looked at the behaviours and physiological characteristics of deviants.

Quality!

I didn't have the patience, the energy or the time to do more than laugh (literally out loud) at his post but now I'm glad I didn't because I couldn't have made as fine a reply as you have here.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[SteeleJoe]

I think the Obama campaign knows that going after someone's religion would not go over well with Independents. The best they could hope for would be to discourage some of Romney's voters from voting.

I find it laughable that the people make snide remarks about President Obama being a sinister muslim and emphasizing his middle name of Hussein, emphasize the need for a "Christian" to be President. And yet these very same people have embraced Romney. There is no need for the Democrats to focus on religion. The evangelicals in the Romney camp did it all by themselves over the past century when they insisted that the Book of Mormon was blasphemy and that Mormons were not Christians. I will be very surprised if devout evangelicals show up to vote.

Agree with all but the last line -- an excellent post as well.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[SteeleJoe]

I will be very surprised if devout evangelicals show up to vote.

I will be surprised if they don't. There is no way that they want another 4 years of the present administration and the evangelicals don’t vote for people because they share their theology, they vote for people who share their values and policy positions. The evangelical movement began by defeating Jimmy Carter, who was put on the cover of Newsweek and called it “The Year of the Evangelical” He got up in front of the American people and said he was born again. The evangelicals voted overwhelmingly against him and put the first divorced man to ever sit in the White House, in the Oval Office, who when he was asked if he was born again, said “we do not use that term in my church. Rewind the clock 50 years and the things that some are saying about Mormons, people were saying about John F. Kennedy and now he is one of the most beloved presidents of all time.

A fine post; well argued and I think largely accurate with the possible exception of the end.

What things were they saying about JFK that some are saying now? (I have an idea but I'd like to hear what you meant).

Remember the points I made (that you didn't deem to acknowledge); Mormonism is more at odds with mainstream Christianity than Catholicism is/was, there are/were far more Catholics than there are Mormons, and JFK was barely elected.

And, to paraphrase a famous debate zinger, "Mr Romney, sir, is no Jack Kennedy".

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Ulysses G.]

I will be very surprised if devout evangelicals show up to vote.

I will be surprised if they don't. There is no way that they want another 4 years of the present administration and the evangelicals don't vote for people because they share their theology, they vote for people who share their values and policy positions. The evangelical movement began by defeating Jimmy Carter, who was put on the cover of Newsweek and called it "The Year of the Evangelical" He got up in front of the American people and said he was born again. The evangelicals voted overwhelmingly against him and put the first divorced man to ever sit in the White House, in the Oval Office, who when he was asked if he was born again, said "we do not use that term in my church. Rewind the clock 50 years and the things that some are saying about Mormons, people were saying about John F. Kennedy and now he is one of the most beloved presidents of all time.

What things were they saying about JFK that some are saying now? (I have an idea but I'd like to hear what you meant).

It is not 50 years ago and attitudes about religion are very different now, but that protestants would not vote for him for a start.

Romney is not John Kennedy, but after his debate win, many conservatives are comparing him to Ronald Reagan. As he is running as a Republican, that may very well pay off on November 6.

[SteeleJoe]

I will be very surprised if devout evangelicals show up to vote.

I will be surprised if they don't. There is no way that they want another 4 years of the present administration and the evangelicals don't vote for people because they share their theology, they vote for people who share their values and policy positions. The evangelical movement began by defeating Jimmy Carter, who was put on the cover of Newsweek and called it "The Year of the Evangelical" He got up in front of the American people and said he was born again. The evangelicals voted overwhelmingly against him and put the first divorced man to ever sit in the White House, in the Oval Office, who when he was asked if he was born again, said "we do not use that term in my church. Rewind the clock 50 years and the things that some are saying about Mormons, people were saying about John F. Kennedy and now he is one of the most beloved presidents of all time.

What things were they saying about JFK that some are saying now? (I have an idea but I'd like to hear what you meant).

It is not 50 years ago and attitudes about religion are very different now, but that protestants would not vote for him for a start.

Romney is not John Kennedy, but after his debate win, many conservatives are comparing him to Ronald Reagan. As he is running as a Republican, that may very well pay off on November 6.

Yes, I'm aware that it's not 50 years ago -- I asked about now.

So that's ONE thing. I can only reiterate -- a there's a bigger difference between an evangelical and a Mormon than between a Protestant and a Catholic, Catholics make a far larger portion of the electorate and are much more familiar to the average American, and plenty of Protestants DIDN'T vote for Kennedy; I'm not saying that the evangelicals won't vote for Romney (you'll note I concurred with you when you disagreed with Geriatric on that point) but I think the Kennedy comparison is not as useful as you seem to believe.

Ronald Reagan?! My regard for President Reagan is limited at best -- though I'm not so ignorant as to be unaware of his few strengths and the esteem in which he is so often held -- but not only do I think that really silly (especially based on one debate) I can't figure out we got on to him from Kennedy...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Edited October 10, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Ulysses G.]

Again, 50 years have passed and people are less concerned about religion. It will make much less difference than in 1960. That is why I am not addressing the difference between Catholics and Mormons. I do not think that it is applicable.

Reagan was losing the election against Carter until he did so well in the presidential debate. Like Romney, his greatly persona had been distorted by his opponent with negative ads. When voters saw the real guy, they voted for him.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[SteeleJoe]

I'm not dismissing the claim that "many conservatives are comparing (Romney) to Reagan" but I find it remarkable given how it's a well known fact that Romney has NEVER had the conservative credentials to suffice if it weren't that he became the conservative candidate by default -- the idea that he would now be compared to the conservative demigod...well, remarkable. And silly. (But obviously something his supporters would like to catch on).

When I went to find some examples (admittedly taking only about 2 minutes in the attempt) what I found is that Michael Reagan discounted the comparison but that there was at least one conservative who made it: Paul Ryan.

Imagine that.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[SteeleJoe]

Again, 50 years have passed and people are less concerned about religion. It will make much less difference than in 1960. That is why I am not addressing the difference between Catholics and Mormons. I do not think that it is applicable.

Reagan was losing the election against Carter until he did so well in the presidential debate. Like Romney, his greatly persona had been distorted by his opponent with negative ads. When voters saw the real guy, they voted for him.

OK, that first paragraph makes perfect sense now that you've finally addressed the issue and I think it's plausible. But then why did YOU repeatedly make the Kennedy comparison and by implication suggest it analogous?

As for the second: not sure what you meant to say about Romney or Reagan (a typo I presume -- I'd wait to see but it's time for dinner) but I'll be very surprised if Romney will ever prove to be as likable or seen as skilled a communicator as Reagan was (even before his debate with Carter). But that is of course unknowable now and will ultimately be subjective

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Edited October 10, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Jingthing]

Different things here. Ideology and charisma.

Reagan's ideology was actually not nearly far right wing enough to get nominated to today's extreme republican party which almost all have signed pledges, no new taxes no matter what, even trading one dollar of revenue for ten in cuts.

I think it is already known that Romney doesn't have the chops to ever be a Reagan, charisma-wise.

[Ulysses G.]

Again, 50 years have passed and people are less concerned about religion. It will make much less difference than in 1960. That is why I am not addressing the difference between Catholics and Mormons. I do not think that it is applicable.

Reagan was losing the election against Carter until he did so well in the presidential debate. Like Romney, his greatly persona had been distorted by his opponent with negative ads. When voters saw the real guy, they voted for him.

OK, that first paragraph makes perfect sense now that you've finally addressed the issue and I think it's plausible. But then why did YOU repeatedly make the Kennedy comparison and by implication suggest it analogous?

As for the second: not sure what you meant to say about Romney or Reagan (a typo I presume -- I'd wait to see but it's time for dinner) but I'll be very surprised if Romney will ever prove to be as likable or seen as skilled a communicator as Reagan was (even before his debate with Carter). But that is of course unknowable now and will ultimately be subjective

I made the Kennedy comparison, because people did not think that he could get elected because of his religion, but he did. However, religion is not nearly as important nowadays, so I do not think that the small number of Mormon voters makes a lot of difference one way or another.

As to comparing Romney to Reagan, Reagan was not The "demi-God" Reagan until he accomplished a lot by being president. There is no way to tell how Romney will do unless he is actually elected.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.