Skip to comments.Howard Kurtz: The GOP's Candy Strategy (The team that is winning never complains about the umpires)
Posted on 10/17/2012 12:04:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
People at home may remember Barack Obama and Mitt Romney circling each other like wary gladiators. Folks online are wallowing in Romney saying that as governor he wanted "binders of women." But on television Wednesday, most of the talk about the second presidential debate centered on the flareup over Libyawhich is exactly the way the Republicans want it.
By attacking moderator Candy Crowley for inserting herself into the middle of that argument, the Romney camp is diverting attention from the fact that an energized Obama often dictated the terms of the argument and frequently put their man on the defensive.
Romney held his own most of the time, and polls by CBS and CNN showed the president eking out only a narrow victory. But as Bob Schieffer, who will moderate next week's faceoff, told me the other day, the team that is winning never complains about the umpires.
The Romney side may genuinely believe that Crowley overstepped her bounds. Yet by flogging the controversyformer governor John Sununu attacked her in the spin room at Hofstra University even before the debate was overthe GOP is keeping the spotlight on one of Romney's weaker moments.
When Romney slightly overstated the case by saying the president waited 14 days to call the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi an act of terror, Crowley did a brief bit of fact-checking. "He did in fact, sir," she said, meaning that Obama had cited terror in his initial comments on the attack.
Republicans contend that Obama referred only generically to "acts of terror." But is that kind of semantic argument going to persuade large numbers of swing voters to turn on Obama?
It's certainly true that the administration's shifting explanations on how the attack was organized and executed are a vulnerability.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
I see many pundits pointing out the obvious biased interference by crowley, but haven't seen it come from the Romney camp. BTW: Nice telegraph of your planned behavior bob.
Sounds like Schieffer is preparing the audience for his cheating for Obama.
Howard Kurtz must be getting dizzy.
How can you not comment when the moderator interrupts the debate to wronglt say your candidate is wrong?
And Howard, the whole damn nation knows Obama went on about that video, Candy Crowley’s comment cannot bail him out.
(Has Obama ever commented publicly on the "knockout game"?)
That’s the problem Bob, you aren’t the umpire you are the glorified time keeper. Likewise, umpires are supposed to be objective not playing for a team.
What massive corruption.
Pray for America
The debate moderator for this last debate should be Monica Crowley.
Then we can see if it is the winning team that doesn’t complain canard holds true.
This is a self serving observation for the liberal moderators acting unprofessionally. “Don’t complain or mention it Republicans, or you are losers!”
Howie is a putz.
If Schieffer “told me the other day” then Schieffer said it before last night's debate. So was talking in hypotheticals or was he referring to Democrat whining over the first debate? At any rate, Schieffer can't be happy about being mentioned in Kurtz’ column a week before the debate. It may cause him to think twice about skewing for Obama.
“Republicans contend that Obama referred only generically to “acts of terror.” But is that kind of semantic argument going to persuade large numbers of swing voters to turn on Obama?”
No, Kurtz, because they already have.
Winning sides can’t complain about refs? BS. They do it all the time. Ask Packer fans if the Seahawks won fair and square.
The point here seems to be it’s Romney’s fault that it was close.
Our side is handicapped as a given, and it is up to us to compensate for it. Wishing the playing field were level is crybaby stuff./s
HUH? Not the debate I watched .... Candy had to wade in more than once to save BO ....
Sports competitions are decided by the score when the game clock runs out. Not so for political debates. They are decided by the judgment of two audiences: those who saw it live and those who did not but will inform themselves of it later.
Significantly, the judgment of BOTH debate audiences can be made long after the debate is over and they decide what actually happened.
In this case, alerting them - even after the debate - to the collusion of "moderator"/officals with one team/candidate, is what the other team has a duty to do in order to win.
If Democrat dupe Kurtz, wants an analogy (simple enough for an idiot) it's like a football coach throwing the challenge flag on a umpire call... except that in the case of a debate, that flag can not be thrown till after the debate and that review of the call is made, not by other game officials, but by the voting public.
If the Romney team wants to win, it will ignore Democrat (mis)advise, and keep throwing the flag on every instance of media collusion - including any of Schieffer's in his upcoming "moderator" role in the next debate.
obama’s losing. what’s he gonna pull between now and nov. 6th?
What’s with the liberals named Howard. I get them confused since they seem like self hating liberals... Howard Fineman and Howard Kurtz. Now that I tihnk about it are they both Jewish by chance? NY liberal jews? I might want to add Paul Krugman to this list as he also seem to be cut from the same cloth as these other 2 guys.
He will be the worst moderator of the election.
(2) Kurtz is dead wrong. The more people focus on Libya the more they focus on the President's incompetence in foreign affairs - which is the subject of the next debate.
So you should never challenge cheaters?
Will someone please tell Schieffer and Kurtz that this is not a child's middle school football game being refereed by volunteer umpires?
The rules for debate about what may be the very survival of the American liberty, and impartial administration of those rules by the timekeeper/moderator is essential to an honest and vital debate.
Likening these debates to boxing matches or games and the expectations of fairness and complaints about violations of rules as belonging to "winners" or "losers" is ludicrous and reflects either prejudice or ignorance.
The times demand serious reflection, and a hand on the scales of what should be an honest, open debate should be intolerable on either side.
Send the jets into Libya, kill a couple of ragheads and cancel the Monday debate because he's too busy directing the attack.
What we have here is a liberal Obama supporter making excuses for another Obama supporter. Only liberal Democrats care about the Daily Beast.
That is the question, isn't it? It's a very serious question because Obozo's people are getting very desperate. Couple that with the fact that liberalism and power are their religion, meaning that they believe it is their divine right to rule. Because of that right, *anything* they do to keep that power is morally justified. Morally? Funny word to use in context with liberals.
These people may very well do something with horrendous repercussions for our country.