Howard Kurtz: The GOP's Candy Strategy (The team that is winning never complains about the umpires)

Daily Beast ^ | 10/17/2012 | Howard Kurtz

[rockrr]

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.

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.

[ozzymandus]

Sounds like Schieffer is preparing the audience for his cheating for Obama.

[Williams]

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.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

If an energized Obama often dictated the terms of the argument and frequently [had Romney] on the defensive matters more than substance — Obama just go over and coldcock Romney while he was distracted talking to the audience.. with a sucker punch like Obama’s sons are doing all across America. He’d make the ilk like Kurtz ecstatic.

(Has Obama ever commented publicly on the "knockout game"?)

[bray]

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

[EQAndyBuzz]

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.

[SaraJohnson]

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.

[Brad from Tennessee]

[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.]

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.

[over3Owithabrain]

“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.

[zencycler]

Their wrong - we're not keeping the spotlight on this weaker moments, we're keeping the spotlight on this:

Let's Accept Obama Called It An "Act of Terror" - So He Knew It But Denounced Video Anyway!

We shouldn't be challenging what Obama claims he said on Sept 12th - We should be accepting that he called it an "act of terror" on Sept 12th, and then challenging him to defend the two weeks that followed - challenge the fact that he and his administration, knowing that this was in fact a terrorist attack, chose to spend two weeks denouncing the video instead of denouncing the terrorism:

See the link for an effective example of this:

Obama's Benghazi Lies

[Tublecane]

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

[MissMagnolia]

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.

HUH? Not the debate I watched .... Candy had to wade in more than once to save BO ....

[drpix]

Idiot!

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.

[Twinkie]

obama’s losing. what’s he gonna pull between now and nov. 6th?

[Blue Highway]

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.

[wideawake]

(1) Schieffer is far to the left of Lehrer, Raddatz and Crowley. He is also unpleasant, combative, sneaky and has no scruples.

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.

[rawhide]

So you should never challenge cheaters?

[loveliberty2]

What twisted reasoning!

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.

"Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." - John Quincy Adams

"The people have almost always expected to be served gratis, and to be paid for the honour of serving them; and their applauses and adorations are bestowed too often on artifices and tricks, on hypocrisy and superstition, on flattery, bribes, and largesses. It is no wonder then that democracies and democratical mixtures are annihilated all over Europe, except on a barren rock, a paltry fen, an inaccessible mountain, or an impenetrable forest. . . . The people in America have now the best opportunity, and the greatest trust, in their hands, that Providence ever committed to so small a number, since the transgression of the first pair: if they betray their trust, their guilt will merit even greater punishment than other nations have suffered, and the indignation of heaven. - John Adams, January, 1787

[USS Alaska]

obama’s losing. what’s he gonna pull between now and nov. 6th?

Send the jets into Libya, kill a couple of ragheads and cancel the Monday debate because he's too busy directing the attack.