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 Libya—which 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 controversy—former governor John Sununu attacked her in the spin room at Hofstra University even before the debate was over—the 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 ...
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.