Skip to comments.The great gaffe
Posted on 10/19/2012 7:14:05 AM PDT by Former Fetus
Fight night at Hofstra. The two boxers, confined within a ring of spectators circling, feinting, taunting, staring each other down come several times, by my reckoning, no more than one provocation away from actual fisticuffs, of the kind that on occasion so delightfully break out in the Taiwanese parliament. Think of it: the Secret Service storming the ring, pinning Mitt Romney to the canvas as Candy Crowley administers the 10 count.
The rub for Obama comes, ironically enough, out of Romneys biggest flub in the debate, the Libya question. That flub kept Romney from winning the evening outright. But Obamas answer has left him a hostage to fortune. Missed by Romney, missed by the audience, missed by most of the commentariat, it was the biggest gaffe of the entire debate cycle: Substituting unctuousness for argument, Obama declared himself offended by the suggestion that anyone in his administration, including the U.N. ambassador, would mislead the country on Libya.
It was a huge gaffe. It is indelibly on the record. It will prove a very expensive expedient.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
To use less oddball words, Krauthammer has diminished himself.
And it wasnt just his minions who misled the nation. A week after the attack, the president himself, asked by David Letterman about the ambassadors murder, said it started with a video. False again.
Romney will be ready Monday.
Doesn't matter. Both men will face one more liberal moderator. The commission has chosen an old guy with a good reputation - but his questions will be written in dem war room by men like Carville. The darkness will deepen...
Any reasons? Or you just don’t like Krauthammer?
Yeah, that Krouthammer guy is the antithesis of cromulence.
Reason: To call this a gaffe is to buy into the Inside The Beltway conventional Liberal wisdom. This was not a gaffe by Mitt Romney in ANY way to normal people in America.
Further, to mention this entire scenario and not to harp on Candy Boo Boo Child’s bias, prevarication, and possible planning, is to do great disservice to Mitt Romney.
Krauthammer diminishes himself by publishing such tripe.
This shouldn't matter. Mitt should say what needs to be said no matter what the questions. A good debater can do that. If the questions are too blatently stupid, Mitt should hit hard on that as well, as he showed he can do quite effectively at the Al Smith event last night.
I have zero issue with his style. It is the substance that concerns me, on this particular article.
Krauthammer is what we call an “intelligent fool”. I read that after the debate he commented that Obama narrowly won “on points”.
The problem is there is no one of public stature, either in the “conservative” media or among our so-called “Republican leadership” who will stand up and call out people who utter such inanities by demanding “what do you mean, won on points? What about who won on the facts, who won on the truth? What the hell do “points” matter when we’re evaluating who is best qualified to lead the country through the difficult times ahead?”
Of course, I’ve known since the mid-1990’s that Krauthammer is merely a statist tool for the elites, but it still burns me to see him trotted out as some sort of expert or authority.
Come on Charles, grow a spine. You know what these guys are....get out of the dirty game, it does not become you.
OK, you made a good point. I think it’s sad that Gov. ROmney did not take advantage of this opportunity, but I agree Crowley made it extremely difficult. OK, maybe it was not a (Romney’s) gaffe as much as a missed opportunity.
To your response, I would assert that it wasn't even a missed opportunity. I would assert that it was, instead, a reasonably-skilled and deft mitigation of a premeditated, collusionary trap by Messrs. Obama and Crowley.
Romney’s response to biased questions should simply be to answer the questions he wanted asked rather than those which are asked. IOW short ambiguous answers to loaded questions such as “I don’t agree with the very premise of your question Mr Schieffer but that aside I think the American people are not INTERESTED in this sort of “gotcha” political questioning and would much rather hear a debate on how each candidate bring this Nation back to prosperity and full employment. Now my plans include....etc.”.
Stupid and damaging headline against Romney. There are no mentions of a GAFFE by Romney, only a “flubbed” opportunity. And that flub was because the fat moderator decided to enter the ring and shield her man when she sensed Romney was about to deliver the death blow. Guys like the Kraut pizz me off because they go out of their way to be OVER-fair and never take advantage of golden opportunities.
Romney needs to put Schieffer on notice: I want to state upfront that I will expect strict adherence to the rules agreed to by the campaigns, including time, interruptions, and followup. The moderator should understand he is not a party to the debate.
The problem with Charles' take was that the spin-meisters already have an answer for Obmama on the seeming contradiction between calling it an act of terror and blaming a video.
I heard Bob Beckel say it yesterday: "The video was why the terrorists were mad."
How in the world they know that is beyond me, but it surely won't be disproved in the next few weeks.
We know, of course, that Al Qaeda hated us long before that video, but we aren't the sheeple-voters to whom Obama appeals.