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

[Jingthing]

Reagan made Americans feel better about themselves and he was quite skilled at doing that. Romney will never connect with Americans that way, you can bet the house on it. It was a different time. I think Americans feel fine about themselves these days except for the economy which is still reeling from the Bush meltdown, and are still proud they elected Obama (who I believe will be elected again). Yes Obama needs to step on the gas now, and I believe he will, unless it is really true that he doesn't want to be reelected, which I don't believe.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Most people thought that Winston Churchill was a screw-up before WW2 when he rose to the occasion and became a great leader. No one can know what Romney will accomplish in the future - even Jingthing.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[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

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.

So let's get this straight: in an effort to support your posit that Romney's religion won't matter to evangelicals, you cite the reservations people had to Kennedy's Catholicism. But when I point out what the comparison is at least somewhat specious (and as can be clearly seen, not merely because of relative numbers -- disingenuous of you to only include that), you suddenly state that the situation is different and shouldn't be compared.

Reagan was not held in the same esteem at the beginning as he was later (I would argue it reached its peak well after he left office) -- that's obvious. As can be seen in my post, I would have thought, is that I don't think Romney NOW is anywhere near what Reagan was at the same point; nor do I see how someone viewed as he is by conservatives (those will be honest about it -- as many will) could ever reach the near deification of Reagan but as I was the first to point out, we can't know that now.

[SteeleJoe]

Most people thought that Winston Churchill was a screw-up before WW2 when he rose to the occasion and became a great leader. No one can know what Romney will accomplish in the future - even Jingthing.

Well, h**l...we can say that about anyone. When electing a president, one hopes to have some sort of indications of their quality, takes them whatever ones there may be, wherever they can be found, and banks on those.

Saying he might turn out to be as great as Reagan, Churchill or Batman is pretty pointless if you ask me.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm not sure what the point is to arguing about something that we can not prove one way or the other. After November 6 we will have a much better idea if evangelicals voted for Romney and if he is elected, it will be at least a few years before anyone knows what his legacy will be. No one posting here is a fortune teller.

[SteeleJoe]

I missed this one.

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?

Who do you mean by "you" and what do you mean by "it"? (Humor me, because if I'm not mistaken, you are still off).

[koheesti]

Reagan made Americans feel better about themselves and he was quite skilled at doing that. Romney will never connect with Americans that way, you can bet the house on it.

Wow, you must hate Romney with a passion, don't you? I mean, you actually said something nice about Reagan, that's remarkable.

[keemapoot]

Most people thought that Winston Churchill was a screw-up before WW2 when he rose to the occasion and became a great leader. No one can know what Romney will accomplish in the future - even Jingthing.

Well, h**l...we can say that about anyone. When electing a president, one hopes to have some sort of indications of their quality, takes them whatever ones there may be, wherever they can be found, and banks on those.

Saying he might turn out to be as great as Reagan, Churchill or Batman is pretty pointless if you ask me.

Not only is it pointless, it is a red herring, as is the Kennedy comparison, to deflect from the real issue, which is that not only are Evangelicals uncomfortable with Romney (and they make up 26% of all protestants - and therefore 1/4 of the electorate if my math is correct), but everyone else would be too if they knew more about the LDS faith. And, though I agree largely that people are less concerned about what brand of magic underwear Romney may be wearing 50 years on, the fact that he wears them at all means that his religion, due to its perceived oddities, alleged paganism, bizarre private rites, and other factors should be put under much more scrutiny than an established religion such as Catholicism.

Catholics go back to about the year 107. Mormons go back to about 1820, when Joseph Smith was visited by a salamander who told him the marvels of the universe.

[SteeleJoe]

Reagan made Americans feel better about themselves and he was quite skilled at doing that. Romney will never connect with Americans that way, you can bet the house on it.

Wow, you must hate Romney with a passion, don't you? I mean, you actually said something nice about Reagan, that's remarkable.

Not to speak for Jingthing but I don't hate Romney have never been a fan of Reagan (voted against him and every Republican since then so far) and yet would have said precisely what he did about the man. Why? Because it's an objective fact known by all but the most ignorant of modern US history and constituently stated by virtually every observer of the time.

You shouldn't find it so remarkable. Not everyone is as bigoted or as fanatical as you appear to be; some of us have the ability to express ourselves without letting our political position degrade our intellectual integrity,

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[keemapoot]

Here one early fracture in the forced love between evangelicals and Romney, after Romney's attempt to move center:

Conservatives remind Romney of abortion pledge

http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-remind-romney-abortion-pledge-192509554--election.html

[Ulysses G.]

The real issue is that Romney is ahead in the polls. It seems that trying to demonize him and his religion is not working.

[SteeleJoe]

Most people thought that Winston Churchill was a screw-up before WW2 when he rose to the occasion and became a great leader. No one can know what Romney will accomplish in the future - even Jingthing.

Well, h**l...we can say that about anyone. When electing a president, one hopes to have some sort of indications of their quality, takes them whatever ones there may be, wherever they can be found, and banks on those.

Saying he might turn out to be as great as Reagan, Churchill or Batman is pretty pointless if you ask me.

Not only is it pointless, it is a red herring, as is the Kennedy comparison, to deflect from the real issue, which is that not only are Evangelicals uncomfortable with Romney (and they make up 26% of all protestants - and therefore 1/4 of the electorate if my math is correct), but everyone else would be too if they knew more about the LDS faith. And, though I agree largely that people are less concerned about what brand of magic underwear Romney may be wearing 50 years on, the fact that he wears them at all means that his religion, due to its perceived oddities, alleged paganism, bizarre private rites, and other factors should be put under much more scrutiny than an established religion such as Catholicism.

Catholics go back to about the year 107. Mormons go back to about 1820, when Joseph Smith was visited by a salamander who told him the marvels of the universe.

Only got a minute and I'm not sure that this is the time or place to go into the many exceedingly shady facts about Mormonism but I'll just add that Joseph Smith was a convicted con man at the time...and that's just the very beginning of the sordid tale.

I personally don't think that Christianity's age makes it more believable -- one can argue (and I do) that people in the bronze age Middle East were even more ignorant, credulous and susceptible to hocus pocus...but I do agree that Mormonism's relatively recent origins ARE significant (especially since we are able to establish so many historical facts about its founding and founder(s) that aren't similarly available about the Abrahamic religions).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[SteeleJoe]

The real issue is that Romney is ahead in the polls. It seems that trying to demonize him and his religion is not working.

Who has been doing that? Where has this failed effort you speak of taken place and in what form(s)?

Honestly you think POLLS are the real issue? Frankly, that's pathetic -- and I'd wager you never said that when Obama was ahead.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[geriatrickid]

I recognize that there is strong support for Romney amongst the evangelical segment, and their votes do add up. However, by coincidence the Standard had an interesting Associated Press article.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/10/10/evangelical-leaders-worried-some-wont-turn-out-romney

You can read it to get the gist of the struggle some will face. There are some harsh and not PC, but accurate statements made.

I don't think the evangelicals will turnout to vote in the same numbers as when McCain was the candidate. It will be an impressive turnout, but down and every vote is important in a tight race.

[geriatrickid]

The real issue is that Romney is ahead in the polls. It seems that trying to demonize him and his religion is not working.

Can we revisit your position after the next meeting when Obama tears a strip off Romney and the polls swing over to Obama?

It's sort of like when Will tags Carleton in the Fresh Prince of Belair.

[Ulysses G.]

The real issue is that Romney is ahead in the polls. It seems that trying to demonize him and his religion is not working.

Can we revisit your position after the next meeting when Obama tears a strip off Romney and the polls swing over to Obama?

Sure, if it happens, but the next debate is a town-hall meeting where it is very difficult to attack one's opponent and Obama still has to defend a weak record, so it is a very unlikely scenario.

[Ulysses G.]

The real issue is that Romney is ahead in the polls. It seems that trying to demonize him and his religion is not working.

Who has been doing that?

Go back and review this thread for starters.

Only got a minute and I'm not sure that this is the time or place to go into the many exceedingly shady facts about Mormonism but I'll just add that Joseph Smith was a convicted con man at the time...and that's just the very beginning of the sordid tale.

[maidu]

Most people thought that Winston Churchill was a screw-up before WW2 when he rose to the occasion and became a great leader. No one can know what Romney will accomplish in the future - even Jingthing.

If you want to compare canditates with British statesmen from 65 years ago, I see Romney resembling Chamberlain more than Churchill. Chamberlain became known for shifting his stance on issues. Churchhill is known, among other things, for taking a strong stance on issues even in the face of ridicule and demotion of rank. I don't see Romney taking unpopular stances, as he's too willing to wiggle his positions to suit the majority, and he would be too worried about his handsome standing in the public's view.

As for accomplishments in the future: We can surmise from his speeches what he may or may not accomplish. ...also from his public record and what we can gauge of the man's character and moral compass.

[SteeleJoe]

The real issue is that Romney is ahead in the polls. It seems that trying to demonize him and his religion is not working.

Who has been doing that?

Go back and review this thread for starters.

Only got a minute and I'm not sure that this is the time or place to go into the many exceedingly shady facts about Mormonism but I'll just add that Joseph Smith was a convicted con man at the time...and that's just the very beginning of the sordid tale.

Oh, you mean to say that people ON THIS THREAD (me included) are attempting to demonize Romney and his religion? And it has somehow not affected the national polls?

Once again this thread has literally made me "laugh out loud".

PS: feel free to actually rebut anything I've said about Mormonism ( up to know you have consistently avoided that ) or point out where I have demonized Mr. Romney.

For the record: he appears to be a fairly decent guy and quite possibly the best things he's done in his life and his most admirable qualities have been engendered, mandated or inspired by his faith. Again: I've done some study of Mormonism. I've also lived in Utah and have family there. I have some basis for my commentary -- how about you? I'd be interested to hear what you have other than ardent and blinding political partisanship.

Gotta run but look forward to your reply

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[keemapoot]

Romney was severely reigned in yesterday by the Christian nutters on the abortion issue, so he changed his stance again on that one. Clinton, speaking yesterday, said that for the last two years Romney has been pandering severely to the far right to get the nomination, and that as of the debate and afterwards, he has returned to his moderate roots. Romney is a moving target. haha

[keemapoot]

The Reverend Wright issue being resurrected again is certainly something Obama campaign would want to avoid, but remember, Obama was probably pandering to Wright's congregation to further his career, as any slimy politician does. I remember hearing Fox news drones speaking out of one side of their mouths about Obama's radical association with Christian Wright, while ranting out of the other side about how Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim. Which is it?

No, the fundamental issue here with Romney's Mormonism is that this is a deeply held belief ingrained into him by his family and a long line of Mormon descendants that traces back to the founder Joseph Smith.

authors Richard and Joan Ostling have written variously that the Romneys are "an LDS political dynasty"^[11] and that "The Romneys are LDS royalty."^[12]The family is linked by marriage to the Smith family,^[6]

So, we can conclude that Romney has deep convictions about his Mormon faith, whereas Obama is torn among radical Wright, Muslim extremism, and his current mainstream Christianity. I hardly think it's "demonizing" Romney or "picking on" Romney to expose Mormonism to American voters.

Edited October 11, 2012 by keemapoot

[Scott]

Posts containing an oversized chart have been deleted. These need to be re-sized to fit in the forum, otherwise they mess up the formatting.

Sorry about that.

[keemapoot]

Further to this false argument about Romney's religion being de minimis in relevance to the Presidential campaign, I think many people are unaware that Romney was a Stake President of the church in Massachusetts. This term will be unknown to many, but basically the church uses a hybrid layman/professional clergy structure. At the basic local church (ward), the lay leader is a called a Bishop, which misleads non Mormons, because "Stakes" are the larger city groups of churches (wards), and a lay Stake President is analogous to, say a city Bishop in the Catholic Church.

Romney’s responsibilities only grew from there; he would go on to serve as bishop and then as stake president, overseeing about a dozen congregations with close to 4,000 members altogether.

http://www.vanityfai...t-romney-201202

http://www.patheos.c...shipClergy.html

Therefore, to argue that exploring/debunking/exposing his religion is off-limits regarding a Presidential candidate who is/was a major leader in the clergy of his church is more than silly considering it goes to the heart of character and belief.

[koheesti]

The real issue is that Romney is ahead in the polls. It seems that trying to demonize him and his religion is not working.

Can we revisit your position after the next meeting when Obama tears a strip off Romney and the polls swing over to Obama?

Sure, if it happens, but the next debate is a town-hall meeting where it is very difficult to attack one's opponent and Obama still has to defend a weak record, so it is a very unlikely scenario.

Obama attended the wedding of the moderator so I'm sure he feels really good about his chances this time around.

[koheesti]

Catholics go back to about the year 107. Mormons go back to about 1820, when Joseph Smith was visited by a salamander who told him the marvels of the universe.

Church of England - back to 1530's

Lutherans & Presbyterians - back 1500's

Baptists - back to 1600's

Methodists - back to 1700's

Pentacostal snake handling - back to early 1900's

Scientology - back to 1950's

I was raised Roman Catholic, but have been a non-practising one since I left home in the 80's. I consider that if your religion popped up after Columbus discovered America, 1500 years after the death of Christ, criticizing Mormons for being a cult is a case of people in glass houses throwing stones.

[SteeleJoe]

Catholics go back to about the year 107. Mormons go back to about 1820, when Joseph Smith was visited by a salamander who told him the marvels of the universe.

Church of England - back to 1530's

Lutherans & Presbyterians - back 1500's

Baptists - back to 1600's

Methodists - back to 1700's

Pentacostal snake handling - back to early 1900's

Scientology - back to 1950's

I was raised Roman Catholic, but have been a non-practising one since I left home in the 80's. I consider that if your religion popped up after Columbus discovered America, 1500 years after the death of Christ, criticizing Mormons for being a cult is a case of people in glass houses throwing stones.

What about if you don't have a religion? What kind of house do I live in and can throw what I want to?

I'm fine with saying they are ALL ridiculous cults if people feel I'm being inconsistent. But only Scientology is comparable to Mormonism in that it too is new enough that we know a great deal about its founder and how it came to be and in that the others are merely sects of Christianity, not new religions.

I'm not actually making a criticism of Mormonism per se and any criticism I would make would not be based on its age. If I recall correctly, what I spoke of is credulity -- I find it especially hard to grasp how Smith OR Hubbard got away with it so successfully. I would have thought it a great deal easier to do in a time when there was so little knowledge of the world and the supernatural was as commonly accepted as science would eventually (almost) come to be thousands of years later.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[SteeleJoe]

Oops, I just remembered -- my "non judgmental about" religion mask slipped: I did refer to Mormonism as "crackpot" in a previous post.

But I meant it in a good way...honest.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Jingthing]

On this hands off religion aspect, I think there is a good bit of hypocrisy going on. In America today, an open atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Scientologist, Unification church follower, and arguably a Jew could not be nominated to run for president. It was a big deal for Mormons to have a Mormon in the position Romney is in now. Some commentators have theorized that Romney is driven to make Mormonism officially mainstream by being the first Mormon president and that is his MAIN personal motivation to be president, also adding the factor that his Daddy tried and failed. Just their theory. He won't of course say because if he said that openly it would be over for him. Mormonism is indeed an unusual religion in the American context because it is an American centered religion (even if they didn't have the amusing outer space stuff and the rather recent history of horrific racism).

Edited October 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

On this hands off religion aspect, I think there is a good bit of hypocrisy going on. In America today, an open atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Scientologist, Unification church follower, and arguably a Jew could not be nominated to run for president. It was a big deal for Mormons to have a Mormon in the position Romney is in now. Some commentators have theorized that Romney is driven to make Mormonism officially mainstream by being the first Mormon president and that is his MAIN personal motivation to be president, also adding the factor that his Daddy tried and failed. Just their theory. He won't of course say because if he said that openly it would be over for him. Mormonism is indeed an unusual religion in the American context because it is indeed an American centered religion.

American centered? Jesus Christ came to America after his resurrection (just the beginning of the historically preposterous claims in the Book of Mormon) and will return to America whereupon it will become the New Zion. (The Book of Mormon makes a big deal out of American exceptionalism in other ways as well -- given the growth in number of foreign adherents, and the Church's tradition of ...errr...preference for those of the right skin color -- it will be interesting to see how that will work in the future). But personally I find it unusual in more than just an American context for a number of reasons.

And of course you are right, only a candidate who called himself Christian would ever be nominated (I doubt that will remain the case forever but obviously for the foreseeable future it will).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Edited October 11, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Asiantravel]

At this stage I am totally astonished that Obama is even able to proceed to the election as if it is business as usual and that there are still so many people even willing to consider voting for the President given the seriousness of the fast and furious scandal and the absolutely stunning information which is coming out now (although only drip fed) regarding the debacle in Libya.

As a non-American but nevertheless an interested observer in what happens in USA I can't help wondering why Richard Nixon was facing impeachment over a single scandal which on the face of it look much less serious than the two major scandals facing the Obama administration which looks much more like deliberate lying to the people?

How is it that Obama isn't at the very least being put through similar proceedings in the Congress that culminated in Richard Nixon facing impeachment for what seemed to me to be a less serious transgression?