Romney missed chance to hit Obama out of the park on foreign policy
Dear Gov. Romney:
I apparently disagree with many (most?) of my philosophical compatriots in my assessment of your performance last night. They think you did much better than I think you did. But that’s no surprise. We disagreed after both of the previous debates, too.
Why is this? It’s because I don’t listen to what you say—or, for that matter, what President Obama says. I listen to what you don’t say.
This man Barack Obama has presided over an unprecedented decline in America’s stature, prospects, and standard of living. Your not pointing that out repeatedly is, to me, inexcusable.
Even considering how you have to live down the stereotype of Republicans wearing devil horns, Obama is a target-rich environment for witty ripostes and devastating one liners that can be thought up and rehearsed in advance. (See, for example, Iowahawk, who’ll be happy to feed you one a minute.) Not doing so allows Obama to pretend that he’s the challenger, not the incumbent.
In my opinion, you missed several opportunities in the previous debates. But none of them was as huge or as critical as the one you missed tonight when you didn’t repeat Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, lies, lies lies, cover-up, cover-up, cover-up, al Qaeda, al Qaeda, al Qaeda. Et cetera.
I just can’t understand it. If the debate had been a golf game, the Benghazi issue would have been a two-inch gimme. If it had been a football game, Benghazi would have been an extra-point attempt. Basketball? A layup.
My goodness, Bob Schieffer even began the debate with a question about Libya. It was right there—the moment to rub the president’s face in his own administration’s lies. At the very least, it would’ve gotten under that thin skin of his like a herd of gerbils in a horror movie. But you didn’t do it. Why?
Again, sir, I hope my friends who are so excited about the election know something I don’t. I pray they do. But if we awaken on November 7 to a reelected President Obama, I’m going to blame that on your failure tonight to make Barack Obama explain why he claimed that Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed by Youtube.
Some of my co-religionists and I have a word for your missed opportunity. It’s a shonda, we say—a pity, a shame, a wrong.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Joel, Mitt was not trying to persuade you of anything. He knows you are for him already. Sure a zinger for you would have been a hoot. But you were not his target.
Mitt was going for women’s vote and wishy-washy undecided moderates. Being agreeable and confident was the mission last night.
“Women” are not some squishy monolithic voting bloc who weep at the photo of the bloody fingerprints on the consulate wall but happily accompany their BFF to Planned Parenthood for their taxpayer-subsidized birth control. And the squishy moderates were watching the Giants hammer the Cards, or playing Angry Birds on their iPhone.
By Election Day, no, by Friday, the debates will have been forgotten and serious voters will head to the polls and the squishes will stay home.
So there is no “gender gap” for Romney v Obama ? And Romney should not tailor his approach to particular voting blocks? Mitt should just be super aggressive all the time and stick it to BO? I think not. How would you suggest Mitt improve the likely number of women voter for Romney?
How would I suggest Mitt improve the likely number of women voters for Romney? Oh, I don’t know, perhaps Mitt should just be a leader? Why don’t you take a gander at this current reality and make an alternate suggestion….
Real women who vote are smart. People who think that women respond to focus-grouped button-pushers like Sandra Fluke are not.
For the most part, I agree with you, BUT many women DO want to safe and want their children to be safe- and that requires that our nation is fiscally secure so that we can be PHYSICALLY secure.
I confess that I stopped my son from signing up to serve in the military. He was only nine when his father died and I once said to a Naval recruiter that “I lost one love of my life, I will NOT lose another.” I regret, now, not supporting my son’s desire to serve his country, but there are a lot of women who would lay down their own lives for their children and do not want a man in the Presidency who would saber-rattle. In truth, I later told my son that joining the military under Obama’s watch would be even more hazardous, since he definitely does not have the military’s back.
Romney has in three debates debunked ALL of Obama’s portrayal of him and his policies.
Keep in mind that Romney has already gotten the votes of those who make their decisions on the basis of factual analysis and principals. However, for those that make their decisions on an emotional basis, it was important not in what you said, but that you said it in a way that makes them comfortable. The emotional voter who supported Obama in 2008 wanted to see that this Romney guy was reasonable and had empathy with them. If Romney would have “hit it out of the park”, he may have well driven these voters to sit out the election rather than vote for Romney. These were the voters that Obama motivated in 2008 that are currently unmotivated, and just need a gentle push to go for Romney.
Excellent points Pablo. (See above too ). Great minds think alike!
Romney did fine. He looked like the incumbent rather than the challenger. He was confident, calm, informed and optimistic. He gave a great closing speech. Obama’s “death stare” and finger pointing was good for Obamabots but wouldn’t be for undecided voters, IMO.
If Obama wins it will be due to voter fraud and turnout. If you live in a swing state or near one sign up with “Americans For Prosperity” to get on a bus this Saturday or next to knock on doors. Now it’s about the ground game.
“This man Barack Obama has presided over an unprecedented decline in America’s stature, prospects, and standard of living. Your not pointing that out repeatedly is, to me, inexcusable.”
He doesn’t have to—I’m living it. And as the Dems discovered this fact in 2010, so shall they discover it in two weeks.
Joel, I heartily agree with you. I am deeply disappointed with the progression of the 2012 campaign. The facts pertaining to Obama and his presidency have been stated again and again. They need not be repeated here. Neither do the litany of excuses for a Republican candidate not doing better. It’s the debate format. It’s the MSM. It’s the moderators. It’s, uh, he’s (Romney) off his game. All that’s getting redundant and ever so tedious.
Romney has had how long to prepare for this election cycle? Yet, if we are to think the polls are fairly reliable, Obama is still in the race! He’s not out of the race at all. How can this be? Has there ever been a president and vice-president who have clearly demonstrated such weaknesses and inability to lead? Has there ever been an administration as “un-American” as this one? What does it say about the Romney campaign that perhaps the most memorable person and image is not Romney, nor Ryan, but Clint and the “empty chair”? What? Are my expectations and anticipations unrealistic? It was then that a I had a most disturbing thought.
“What if,” I thought “we’re about to elect the Republican counterpart to Jimmy Carter?” You remember. He had that whole “lusting in his heart” business. In some ways, it seemed as though his religion, from time to time, was a hinderance to his presidency. For those of us who have been waiting for Romney to push the “knockout” button, could his religion be a factor in why this hasn’t happened? Should this be the case, then in what other areas might there be some similar hinderance to his exercising the duties of the office?
When I consider what Obama and his team have said and done these past few years, when I look at the potential harm to this country should he be re-elected, and when the warnings at home and abroad have grown louder about doing so, then I have to say I am totally perplexed that, for a lack of a better way of stating this, Obama is still “in the race.” Is Obama that good at “pulling the wool” over the eyes of people? Or, is Romney that mediocre? Maybe, it’s some combination of the two.
I’ve had my doubts about Romney. For awhile, they were suspended, put on hold. However, with just two weeks to go, they’ve re-surfaced. As you have stated, it is a shame. It is a scandal. And, it is another indicator of the deplorable state of this nation.
Please, it’s not religion at all. “You shall know them by their fruits.” Mt. 7:16. Jimmy Carter stuck himself in the Rose Garden when the Iranians held our embassy hostage. Barry’s administration watched Benghazi unfold in real time in climate controlled comfort. Mitt is a doer who goes out and quietly fixes things. It’s his character.
I hope his religion is more than pie-in-the-sky stuff and very much has a bearing on his life and how he lives, including “going for the jugular” when there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen the results of this “nice” approach with Obama and Iran.
Unlike some of the comments here, I think being aggressive is in itself not necessarily a “bad thing.” When McAuliffe responded “Nuts!” to the German Commander in WWII it was an aggressive response. When Reagan challenged Gorbachev to “Tear down this wall!”, it was an aggressive act.
What the two of these share is the statement at the opportune time. Romney has had any number of times to say “Nuts!” to Obama, to tell him to “Tear down his facade!” He’s chosen not to do so. I hope he and his team are correct in their assessment. Because I believe that what we see in this presidential campaign is only the tip, the tip, of the iceberg. So, if Romney is elected, then he’d better, for our sake, have “fire-in-his-belly”! Not only is he going to need it, we need for him to have it.
I’m not a member of the LDS Church, but a quick search brought up this. Plus, I don’t think you can amass the kind of wealth he has been able to (on his own) without having a “fire in the belly.” I think the media has been “nice” about Benghazi by avoiding the issue altogether; I also don’t think Romney has been part of that strategy.
My Uncle was a former president of Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge, so I certainly know what McAuliffe had to say…that was during war, and so were Reagan’s words in Berlin (an don’t tell any Soviet or east bloc emigrees that the cold war wasn’t war). There is a time to demand action or rebuff strongly, but there is also a time to soft-pedal. “Ich bin ein Berliner.” comes to mind. If Romney had torn Obama a new one last night, that is all anyone would have been talking about. Neither the time nor the place. And after January 20th, my hopey changey is that Romney will simply quietly dismantle everything the last four years has wrought.
I also don’t think that Americans have a stomach for aggression anymore, given Bubba’s impeachment. Anything that is viewed as too aggressive or can be portrayed that way I think feeds into that avoidance.
I am so tired of whinny conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Larry Kudlow nitpick every little thing Romney does. Romney has done pretty well without the advice of people who have never run for anything in their life. Romney did what he had to last night.
The candidate is Mitt Romney, not Rush Limbaugh. He was there to demonstrate that he has a thoughtful, well-informed grasp of the issues. This is distinct from entertaining the people who dislike Obama already. I was pleased to see that he didn’t try to “spike the football” but simply stated his credible views. After all, he is soliciting the help of people who will disagree with him from time to time.
Overaggression is for amateurs, as we saw in the last debate.
I agree with you in spirit, but the older I get and the more women I am around the more I end up admitting that this type of strategy is valid and sadly, needed.
The prime example isn’t even Obama, but Clinton!!!
…I am a white, married, mom of 3 kids – kinda the average woman.
I agree with you, Perdogg. Whiny conservatives are no help now. What Romney MIGHT have said doesn’t matter. The debates are DONE. Either do something to help Romney (contributions, phone banking, door knocking or convincing the undecideds you know) or keep quiet. It’s either the Romney we’ve got on the ballot of four more years of Obama.
“I’m going to blame that on your failure tonight to make Barack Obama explain why he claimed that Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed by Youtube.”
I’m disappointed in you, Joel. You haven’t really been following the story, apparently.
Over the last several days, the ground-work was laid for a complete muddling of the narrative on Benghazi.
Romney was smart (and well-advised) enough to know that Benghazi “home-runs” were out of the question, but a Benghazi Tar-Baby was very much a trap laid by the Obami and the press.
He did fine. He landed killer points, and Obama looked like the spoiled child he is.
That counts two of us who were disappointed. Not bringing up Benghazi factually allows the NYT and the networks to continue ignoring the story or to cover it according to the administration’s preferred narrative.
To wit: Here’s Chris Matthews last night…blaming Youtube:
But “Tingles” just pwnd himself to a whole nation, Joel!
You seem really disturbed that people are lying about Libya! Why? That is TOTALLY predictable and consistent with who these people are!
For them NOT to lie…and with some maddening success…would be the real news event.
This is dog bites man stuff.
Shoulda known you’d make the “tar baby” reference, Rags. My echo is below.
Joel I think you missed the point of Romney’s well constructed plan for this debate. As Krauthammer pointed out, Romney went big and the President looked small. Romney painted a big picture what his policy is going to be. He stated the Romney doctrine. He unapologetically declared that America’s stature as leader of the world will be resurrected, that peace through strength will dominate, and that a sure stern message will be laid against our enemies.
He would not gain votes by getting into the small weeds Obama kept playing in. The story of Obama’s lies on Libya are now well known and being dissected by others and Romney really didn’t need to dampen his strategy of showing his belief in America’s preeminence by going their.
As Chris Wallace pointed out – if one had been on a desert island for the last 4 yrs and dropped into this debate, one would have thought that Obama was the challenger and Romney was the incumbent.
Obama showed how weak and feeble he really is and Romney soared to the top.
Krauthammer? Here he is last Friday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-great-gaffe/2012/10/18/38ce0d18-1954-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html
“Romney will be ready Monday.
“You are offended by this accusation, Mr. President? The country is offended that your press secretary, your U.N. ambassador and you yourself have repeatedly misled the nation about the origin and nature of the Benghazi attack.
“The problem wasn’t the video, the problem was policies for which you say you now accept responsibility. Then accept it, Mr. President. You were asked in the last debate why more security was denied our people in Libya despite the fact that they begged for it. You never answered that question, Mr. President. Or will you blame your secretary of state?
“Esprit d’escalier (“wit of the staircase”) is the French term for the devastating riposte that one should have given at dinner but comes up with only on the way out at the bottom of the staircase. It’s Romney’s fortune that he’s invited to one more dinner. If he gets it right this time, Obama’s narrow victory in debate No. 2, salvaged by the mock umbrage that anyone could accuse him of misleading, will cost him dearly.
“It was a huge gaffe. It is indelibly on the record. It will prove a very expensive expedient.”
Alas, it didn’t. And I hope the cost isn’t to the outcome of the election.
“…your failure tonight to make Barack Obama explain why he claimed that Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed by Youtube.”
Joel, this was wishful thinking bordering on fantasy!
You don’t “make” an opponent who is a pathological liar answer questions the way you want them answered in that kind of forum.
Obama WILL be made responsible for Libya, but not on a debate stage.
Actually the gaffe HAS been a “very expensive expedient”. It has been what the entire Obama campaign has been trying to fix ever since. They even tried to change the english language to do so. I still have optimism in the American people to see though obvious BS.
I understand your frustration – if Obama had an ‘R’ next to his name he would have been the subject of enhanced interrogation by the media at every chance.
Joel, I always enjoy your posts, even when I disagree with them; but Krauthammer’s remarks cited by iambasic, made after the debate, carry more weight than the ones cited by you, which were made before the debate. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/charles-krauthammer-calls-the-final-debate-its-unequivocal-romney-won/. At one point Krauthammer says he wanted Romney to go after Obama with a baseball bat on the Benghazi issue, but added that the fact that Romney didn’t showed why Romney has actually won political office and he (Krauthammer) hasn’t even run for any.
DemNo’Mo…AGREED. I just viewed(at NationalReview.com) Charles the Great’s 3-minutes of response for Megyn Kelly/post-debate on Fox last night.
Baaaa-Daaaa-BING. Like Dat.
Romney did what Romney does best. He played it safe and acted reasonable. He isn’t the guns blazing type. That would be Newt, who, unfortunately, is not the candidate.
I agree completely that some fireworks would have been helpful to destroy the myth that Obama has credibility on any issue, especially foreign policy. But Romney doesn’t like fireworks.
Romney probably did well enough to eke out a close win. If he gets that, it will have to be enough. If not, why he lost won’t matter nearly as much as figuring out a plan to survive the next 4 (or 20) years.
Romney has to penetrate to the low info network watcher. The follow up chatter there will tear him down and proclaim Obama did well. To those people, I think Romney came across as fully knowledgeable on facts and strategy. He showed Obama’s Israel problem, without calling him names.
Romney pointed out many of Obama’s problems in his record, Obama came back with snide cheap shots and his perturbed glare. That and the closing statement left Mitt as strong, and Obama stuck with his record and cheap shot “you’re a liar” image.
The 47% or so that poll for Obama are also “malleable”. Romney can win some of those too, by disabusing them of the Democrat/media caricature. Romney was presidential and solid, and displayed his record of working with Democrats. Obama’s record shows the opposite. Romney scored on Latin America potential, saying “Latin America is a huge opportunity for us“, using the term “Latin America” four times in short order. Might that get him another 10% from that demographic?
The 88% that don’t approve of how congress works might see a man that could undo some gridlock. I think Mitt is making inroads in what Obama thinks he owns.
here is a transcript
Of 4 debates ,2 left me feeling somewhat unfulfilled. Last nite & the VP debate. To my taste both were too cautious. I’m the sort to go for the throat. That said ,I often put people off. In my life ,I dont care. I do recognise my way would not be particularlly effective given reality. In any case the die is now cast and we will see what will be after the final push. I didnt support Mitt but given reality he was the right choice and gives us a decent chance to win. In over 50 years of observation I have never seen a playing field so tilted by the so called referees & rules imposed.
I don’t know about a ladder, but there are times in BHO’s debate performances where I just want to yell “Go get your shinebox!” at him.
(to adapt the words of Charles Krauthammer, that’s probably why Mitt is the candidate and I’m … not the candidate!)
Schieffer’s question on Libya was a tar baby. Romney’s not privy to our intelligence reports and could easily have gotten stuck in it.
Much as I would have loved to see him hang the deaths of four Americans squarely around Obama’s neck, this was a prudent choice.
Why risk it when the media is still covering the ever-changing story? Let Obama stick himself to the tar baby.
No, I have to agree with many commentators that Romney was not appealing to his base, nor did he want to give the president the opportunity to claim Romney was using the death of the Americans to score points – the press is keeping this alive. Romney saw that he had to reassure the undecided middle that he was safe (yuck, for sure) and competant, and the adult in the room. He won on all three accounts. Yes, I too wanted him to give it to Obama, but in retrospect, Romney did the mature and right thing for the audience he was going after – the non-thinkng undecided.
Rags, Pablo, George…Yep, AGREED.
On a CBS 8-person Ohio Undecideds Focus Group last night NO ONE made their opinions-impressions fiery or flashy. 6 of the 8 raised their hands for Romney after the performance.
Noted by me: This Nov.6th even “Bland-Boring-Mild” folks are voting in large numbers. Both at Frank Luntz’s group and the CBS sampling, they went for The Adult, Mr.Romney.
‘FIRE-in-the-Belly’ political junkies like me and many others here at Dr.J’s site already KNOW whom we’re dimpling chads for: Mitt & Paul. Mitt’s ‘Impulse Controlled’ performance was specifically for OTHERS.
I agree Romney did what he had to do, for a host of reasons.
I also understand why Joel and others need to vent, considering the hype.
As far as Benghazi goes–how do you reach an ill-informed, undecided voter in two minutes with the possibility of Romney getting the Crowly treatment from Schieffert, when all Obama has to do is lie about what happened, then accuse Romney of playing politics?
Okay, you identify an ill-informed, undecided voter as an issue. Is this something new? Is Romeny new to the world of politics? We know the answer to both of these is “no”. Further, why would such experienced persons, Romney and his team, allow it to come down to a two minute slice of time?
Romney carried himself with the air of a man who has seen the private polling shift in his favor in key states. His calm presidential demeanor provided a stark contrast to Barack Obama’s Arrogant Teenager.
While conservatives would love to see Obama beat up over his many outrages, that’s not going to attract the mushy middle-of-the-roaders and swing voters who concentrate on politics for three weeks once every four years. Reminding them they were stupid enough to elect Obama in the first place isn’t going to turn them out for Romney.
But showing them a graceful strength just might. And if they happen to vote for the down-ticket while they are there, so much the better for us all.
To paraphrase Dr. Krauthammer and Rush Limbaugh… despite my selfish desire to see someone take a spiked baseball bat to every single Obama soft spot, Romney did the smart thing in holding to his mature, presidential demeanor in stark contrast to Obama’s petulance and diminished vision. Romney already has my vote and Obama has his voters. A thin swathe remains in the middle, many of them former Obama voters, and that’s who Romney went after last night. He put space between a Romney foreign policy and that of both Obama and Bush. He pivoted to the main issue at every opportunity – the economy – and extended his lead on that.
Imagine the campaign as a two lane highway, Romney on one shoulder, Obama on the opposite shoulder, each surrounded by his accumulated decided voters, whilst down the middle of the road stroll the remaining 5% who are undecided, many of whom were Obama voters in 2008. There’s a very fine line between attacking Obama’s record and policies and attacking those who initially supported him and them. Romney knows he can’t do much to push this group away from Obama if Obama’s poor record hasn’t already done so. Instead, he opted to minimize sparring with Obama, to contrast himself with the desperate, glowering Obama, to speak positively of the future, especially on jobs and the economy, to offer another 90 minutes’ display of his presidential presence and demeanor, and to take only the occasional sharp, brief jab at Obama.
A lifelong Detroit Lions fan, I am accustomed to the practice of screaming at my TV screen, “for the love of God, HIT SOMEBODY,” and that impulse was strong last night, but it was selfish of me, an emotional need of my own, shared by many, that this clown Obama be publicly punished and shamed.
In the largest picture, what Romney did last night explains why so many people are confused over exactly what it was they saw. Romney displayed something we’ve not seen in so long, we don’t easily recognize it anymore – Romney displayed leadership.
Romney’s mission is to get elected. Who among us disagrees with that? Now that it is almost over, the trajectory of Romney’s campaign from last year till now is revealed and measurable:
-He separated from a large GOP field.
-He solidified an initially fractured GOP base (TP vs moderates).
-He matched Obama’s fundraising.
-He not only survived a massive character assassination campaign, he turned it back on the assassin.
-He picked a great VP candidate in Paul Ryan.
-He defined himself, rather than allow the opposition both within and without his party to do so.
-He faced and repeatedly defeated in debate The Greatest Orator Whut Ever Lived.
-He managed the difficult feat of winning and holding his base, a majority of independents, and many former Obama voters.
Two weeks is a long time and I am deeply concerned about what desperate tricks the Obama campaign might yet pull. But, barring unforeseeable game-changers, Romney is now seeing the fruition of a years-long plan to get elected.
I think a solid Romney victory is very likely, and I now think a landslide possible. Remember 2010? The GOP landslide as a nation collectively screamed OH, HELL NO at the White House? That White House changed nothing afterwards, in fact, doubled down on its infuriating style and manner of governance. This time, Obama himself is on the ballot, and I think a 2010-level repudiation election is very possible now that Romney has indelibly revealed himself as a perfectly viable alternative. Romney has succeeded in making people hopeful about our country again.
Romney missed opportunities last night? Back up your camera. If you stand too close to a billboard you can’t read it.
Believe me. I know exactly how you feel about this. I’ve spent the last four years in a state of outrage. Benghazi? How about this boy-king prosecuting three SEALS? How about his court jesters outting our SEALS and the Pakistani dr for political advantage? How about Sandra Fluck? If I listed everything I thought this guy needed to be called on, this would be the longest post in history.
Romney did just exactly what he needed to do and he played Obama like a virtuoso. Romney’s flashes of anger were controlled. Masterful. Obama was again exposed as the petulant man-child he is. Those eyes? Shudder. Reminds me of the anti-Christ in that movie with Gregory Peck and the Rotweillers.
It’s the war that matters. We, here in the trenches, get to keep fighting the battles. A leader wants the ultimate win. Pickett’s Charge was the stuff of heart-stopping legend, but it didn’t win the battle or the war.
Joel, I can understand your point of view.
I do think that a 2010-plus landslide victory is coming. I think it may be of unprecedented, historical proportions. As Henry Hawkins notes above, in 2010, American said hell to the no to the White House, and the White house just doubled-down on leftist policies.
I can understand the strategy of holding steady in this debate. Romney is winning, and winning big. Don’t offend unnecessarily; don’t interfere with an opponent who’s committing election suicide.
I think your concern is that Romney will govern in this careful, may be even timid way. I share that concern.
Establishment Republicans seem to live in a fantasy land in which you can be “bipartisan” with committed leftist Democrats.
We need to clear out the terrible left-leaning regulations and laws that are ruining our economy and taking away our freedoms.
Newt understands what we need to do, and in fact teaches us all how we could do it. Does Romney understand? Or are his people going to be establishment Republicans, who will squander this amazing opportunity to restore the Constitution.
This is my great question. Underneath the campaign rhetoric, does Mitt Romney understand where our freedoms and our prosperity come from? Does he understand that you have to return to the Constitution and small federal government? I hope with all my heart that Mitt Romney truly understands these things.
I also pray that the Ryan contribution to the Romney administration will be strong enough, and the Tea Party types will be hired in sufficient numbers, to begin the enormous and wonderful task of restoring the USA to its Constitutional foundation.
There is almost no limit to the good the American people can do when, free of the strictures of excessive government, we’re allowed to imagine and create.
[…] which I thought Republican challenger Mitt Romney won by being……presidential. While some conservative pundits complained that Romney’s approach seemed too mild and agreeable, I am going to have to agree with […]
I disagree, Joel. I do not believe that the American voter wishes to have it rubbed in his or her face that they made a dreadful mistake in 2008. Mitt already has the McCain voters locked up and he needs to convince the disappointed Obama voter that he presents a reasonable alternative as president.
I believe he has been able to do that in each of the three debates. The American voter is well aware of the Obama record and does not need to be beaten about the head and shoulders over the failings of the Obama administration.
Er, you all think maybe Romney had wind of the e-mails and just let Obama hang himself? AND the media? The e-mails which gives us a Commander in Chief who didn’t lift a finger or an F-18 to save our people and who rumor has it actually went to bed in the middle of the massacre is being outted. Even his water-carriers in the media can’t ignore this story. Think Romney was just giving the traitor some rope?