DiscussMormonism.com

I can't decide whether I should be amused or embarrassed. Maybe a little of both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f17fWth3 ... redirect=1

Bob Loblaw wrote:I can't decide whether I should be amused or embarrassed. Maybe a little of both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f17fWth3 ... redirect=1

link no worky?

Bob Loblaw wrote:I can't decide whether I should be amused or embarrassed. Maybe a little of both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f17fWth3 ... redirect=1

i would stick with embarassed
once again we see style being preferred over substance....which at this point is all that Democrats actually have

subgenius wrote:once again we see style being preferred over substance....which at this point is all that Democrats actually have

If the Democrat Candidate wins what would that say about the substance of Republican substance?

Drifting wrote:If the Democrat Candidate wins what would that say about the substance of Republican substance?

That's a depressing thought.

From as nonpartisan a perspective as I can muster, I am disappointed with the Obama campaign's post-debate approach: Big Bird, Romnesia, binders full of women, and comparing voting to losing your virginity--all these are so petty and small and seem to be casting about desperately for something to take hold.

The Obama strategy has been pretty clear from the beginning: Make Romney an unacceptable alternative to the president. From New York magazine back in May:

The Obama effort at disqualifying Romney will go beyond painting him as excessively conservative, however. It will aim to cast him as an avatar of revanchism. “He’s the fifties, he is retro, he is backward, and we are forward—that’s the basic construct,” says a top Obama strategist. “If you’re a woman, you’re Hispanic, you’re young, or you’ve gotten left out, you look at Romney and say, ‘This damned guy is gonna take us back to the way it always was, and guess what? I’ve never been part of that.’ ”

That strategy, described by one campaign aide as "Kill Romney," effectively turned the election into a referendum on Romney, not on Obama's record. A brilliant move, but the debates have in large measure allowed Romney to overcome the negatives he'd piled up from the attack ads. So, what's left for Obama? We've seen small-ball attacks, like Big Bird, an effort to revive the flip-flopping MItt (Romnesia), and assorted flailing attempts to make Romney scary.

Romney, on the other hand, has until now played it fairly safe. The "Jeeps in China" ad suggests that the barrage of attack ads over his auto-bailout opposition has had some effect in places like Ohio.

So, who knows what will happen?

Personally I don't have a horse in the race, but i do like 'a bet' from the stands.

I think the Church cannot afford for Romney to win.
The raised profile would be more than offset in a negative way by his religion being linked to every wrong decision and issue that comes across his desk.
There will be blow back hitting the reputation of the Church (whatever that currently is) almost weekly. Especially where Romney's expected doctrinal stance becomes conflicted with what is best for the country.

The Church, I think, would be very VERY happy with a close second.

Bob Loblaw wrote:I can't decide whether I should be amused or embarrassed. Maybe a little of both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f17fWth3 ... redirect=1

That was embarrassing to watch.