Jan Crawford Criticized Cairo Embassy Statement, Portrayed Romney’s Reaction Positively, and Is Generally Getting an Unfair Rap
Let’s put a little context on this “coordinated questions” issue. Two nights ago, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement claiming that a U.S. citizen had “abused” free speech with a YouTube video. And one of the first people to publicly criticize this statement was CBS News reporter Jan Crawford.
That’s right. Before Mitt Romney criticized the Cairo embassy for a wrongheaded view on free speech, Jan Crawford sent these tweets:
Then the press conference occurred, and Crawford issued this very fair report, which did not jump on Romney for his statement. Instead, Crawford portrayed Romney’s willingness to stick by his guns as bold and aggressive:
Conservatives have criticized Mitt Romney for a lot of things in this race, among them that he is running a timid campaign, that he pulls his punches and that he doesn’t have the fire in his gut to win.
Today’s press conference – in which he criticized the administration’s response to the attacks in Egypt and Libya — is the clearest indication yet those critics are missing something.
Instead of walking back the strong statement he issued last night, Romney held his ground–and offered even stronger criticism. Facing the media in an impromptu press conference, he deflected questions on whether his criticism was too soon -“I don’t think that we ever hesitate when we see something which is a violation of our principles” – or that it was inappropriate, as Democrats, the Obama campaign and even some Republicans are arguing.
Here’s how Crawford described the entire situation:
For those who you who haven’t followed Romney’s response to the attacks in Egypt and Libya, here’s the background.
Last night, Romney issued a tough statement expressing his outrage, and then added this:
“It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn the attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
Romney was referring to a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that touched off a political firestorm. Before the protesters hit the Embassy, it said on its website: “The Embassy … condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”
The embassy then stood by its statement, issuing a series of Tweets, as its compound was under siege. Last night, the administration seemed to distance itself from the Embassy statement, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton releasing her own statement, saying that “there is never any justification for violent acts of this kind,” and a senior administration official telling Politico it wasn’t vetted by Washington. The Tweets also were removed.
Then the tragic news broke overnight that four were killed in the Libyan attacks, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Some suggested Romney would regret his statement from the night before, although campaign sources told me before his morning press conference he had none. And when Romney took the podium, he made it clear himself.
In his opening remarks, Romney expressed sympathy for the victims and outrage at the attacks, and then referred to the embassy statement – “which, as I noted last night, was clearly at odds with the 1st Amendment.”
“I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values,” Romney said, adding, “The statement that came from the administration – and the embassy is the administration – the statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to an apology, and I think it was a severe miscalculation.”
Romney also hit the president hard for sending a “mixed message” and said he has demonstrated “a lack of clarity as to foreign policy.”
The adviser said that tone won’t change -and today’s comments were putting down a marker.
“We’re going to draw contrasts when there’s an opportunity to draw contrasts, and we’re not going to shy away from that opportunity.”
Unlike the hacks at the L.A. Times, for example, Crawford told her readers that the Obama administration had walked back the embassy’s statement. And, far from taking the position that Romney’s timing was off, Crawford merely noted that some had criticized the timing — but that was a minor point in a balanced and fair piece that portrayed Romney as standing strong on an issue of free speech.
I challenge anyone to read Crawford’s post and honestly contend that it is a hatchet job of the sort foisted upon L.A. Times readers.
So: a) Crawford attacks the embassy’s statement; b) Romney issues a similar statement; and c) Crawford does a fair report that portrays Romney in a positive light.
Fast forward to the release of the video that some conservatives seem to claim is smoking gun evidence of collusion by a liberal media. I’ve now watched this thing perhaps ten times. The sound goes out at critical points and the video jumps at another point. But what I hear is Crawford telling a colleague not to ask Romney about his tone, but just to ask a plain vanilla question about whether he regretted his statement — a neutral formulation that would give Romney plenty of opportunity to articulate his views.
The next thing that happens is the colleague suggesting some kind of hectoring followup. The audio drops out and you can’t hear everything he says, but at the beginning he is proposing jumping down Romney’s throat in some way. And whatever he says, Crawford replies: “You can’t say that.”
I agree with Erick Erickson’s early analysis (before he knew it was Crawford in the video):
I don’t know who the CBS reporter was in the Right Scoop audio, but she seemed to be the only one trying to get the press to restrain itself
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) September 12, 2012
Now, I can understand people arguing that any discussion among colleagues about what they are going to ask a candidate is somehow illegitimate. I disagree, but that argument is not outside the realm of reasonableness.
But portraying Crawford as some nasty member of a liberal cabal, while it might feel satisfying, is, in the end, an unnecessary attack on one of the good ones.
I have made similar mistakes before. Andrew Malcolm is a conservative who used to blog quite successfully at the L.A. Times. I was not a regular reader of his, but I saw his pieces from time to time and they seemed balanced. I always assumed (because of where he worked) that he was a lefty — and when his blog published a lot of nasty comments about Tony Snow after Snow’s death, I lit into Malcolm. Malcolm wrote me very friendly emails saying he had admired my blog, and it took me a while to realize that he was sincere — and that he was actually one of the good guys, and that I had been unfair in getting so mad at him.
Note well: I was right to be mad about the comments about Tony Snow. But I was wrong to use that episode to paint Malcolm as a lefty. I regret that now.
I think we are experiencing that now. Although I never talked politics with Crawford, I suspected she was center-right politically, and a friend of mine wrote me today to say that he had talked politics with her and he believes she is center-right. (He also agrees with me about her fine character.)
But look: Crawford is a reporter. She can’t really come out and say: I lean conservative. I agreed with Romney. I tried to rein in one of the lefties sitting next to me. Even if that’s all true, such statements would be expressing political opinions, which reporters can’t do. (By the way, this is all speculation on my part. Jan has said none of these things to me.)
I was heartened today to see some people read my post and hesitate on laying into Crawford — even though this morning’s post was not as strong a defense as I could have written had I discovered the writings revealed in this post. I would like to think that my readers pay enough attention to the facts that this post will give further pause as to whether Crawford was engaged in some bizarre anti-Romney media conspiracy.
Again: the so-called “coordination of questions” issue is fair game for reasonable minds to differ. I don’t see it as a huge deal, but I can respect someone who argues to the contrary. I’d like to see Jan address that issue, frankly.
But I think it’s unfair to write off this reporter as part of a liberal conspiracy to undermine Romney, when she seemingly agreed with his position, and portrayed it fairly and in a positive light. I hope this post makes people rethink such a position. Because Jan Crawford is not the enemy. She just isn’t.
Ding.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:17 pmsome bizarre anti-Romney media conspiracy
not that bizarre, being that it actually happened
maybe this one particular propaganda hooch wasn’t part of it
but it happened
we all saw it
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:23 pmI had the same view as Eric but I didnt think that reporters ganging on Republicans was new or was news anymore
sad as that is…
Seems that Kilmeade and many other Fox talking heads are saying Romney has essentially lost the race
Which is what I’ve been saying for weeks
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:27 pmGreat run down. i remember her tweet that night supporting 1st amendment as universal right. Good job showing this.
Mike (9e85bb) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:27 pmUm, while I don’t subscribe to the terminology used by happyfeet to refer to Ms. Crawford, I fully subscribe to the idea that the media engaged in a herdlike focus on a bizarre side issue. I just find it bizarre for people to conclude, especially in the face of the evidence I am giving you, that Crawford is part of it. That she ideologically subscribes to the idea that Romney needed to be taken down for a view she had already expressed and portrayed fairly. That simply makes no sense.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:28 pmSorry, Patterico, but when Ms. Crawford writes “some” have criticized Romney without naming who those “some” are, she falls into the usual left-wing pattern of repeating the boilerplate media criticism without bothering to challenge it. Perhaps you are right and perhaps she is more fair than we are giving her credit for, but I think the whole “some say that. . .” is lazy journalism.
JVW (edec8d) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:28 pmTotally disagree in this instance. The L.A. Times quotes tons of moronic Republican strategists who jumped on Romney. In this case, in my view, using the word “some” is a way to spend less time on that issue and emphasize the strength of Romney’s reaction. The manner in which she refers to “some” is NOT a usage that indicates “hey, this is what we all think.”
Patterico (83033d) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:31 pmFrankly, when I ready what she’s is reported to have written (above) it’s more complete + comprehensive than anything I’ve heard from any else in the media (except FNC)
Steven W. (8c830e) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:40 pmWhen I see CBS, I immediately think fair and balanced with no chance of being full of shit.
mg (44de53) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:40 pmyea, right.
I’m sure this won’t help your cause, but I want to say that this is why you’re a conservative voice I trust. I’ve been at a number of press conferences, and I’ve heard journalists coordinate questions because they don’t all want to ask the same thing and come away with identical copy. That’s all this sounded like. I appreciate the greater defense, but I don’t think you even need to go that far: this is how journalists behave in a media environment in which access is as limited as it is.
SEK (74bb56) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:51 pmIts a loss to our society when people like Jan are instantly tarnished with the deeds of their compatriots and not judged on their own merits
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:52 pmThese GOP strategists remain unnamed in Ms. Crawford’s story, and there is no link to the LAT story which mentions them. The other CBS News reports linked in Ms. Crawford’s post quote exactly two Republicana, Peggy Noonan (who by the way is an opinion writer and not an active GOP adviser) and Steve Schmidt (who as a McCain adviser in 2008 spent all his time trashing Sarah Palin and is thus rightly unemployed by the Romney camp), wiling to offer criticism. The rest of the criticism from that piece comes from lefties, which Ms. Crawford ought to at least acknowledge. Maybe something along the lines of “Democrats and liberal activists immediately suggested that Romney would regret his statement, and a few GOP strategists offered criticisms of his statement. . . .”
I’m not doubting that Ms. Crawford isn’t justified in her analysis, but a fuller telling of the story would avoid the lazy “some say” and would tell us exactly who says it, so that if it is a third-rate frozen-out GOP operative we could at least know that.
JVW (edec8d) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:53 pmAnd if we are going to give Ms. Crawford the benefit of the doubt, the question to ask is “Hey, Jan, if you were trying to coordinate questions to avoid duplication, how is it that Romney ended up essentially facing six version of the same inquiry?”
JVW (edec8d) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:56 pmThat Crawford tweeted what you embedded here before Romney’s presser seems kind of irrelevant as to whether she thinks the timing of Romney’s statement was off or inappropriate. Crawford isn’t running for anything. I’d genuinely be interested to know whether she thinks the timing of Romney’s critical comments was appropriate, since almost all of the questions that were asked at the presser were argumentative and assumed Romney had done something wrong.
Along with my own reading of her book on the Supreme Court, your post here persuades me that Crawford isn’t “the enemy” or in cahoots with the majority of liberal hacks in the MSM who laughably call themselves journalists. But the prevailing circumstances suggests to me that she could be in the Peggy Noonan camp of not thinking Romney did himself any favors.
Roger H. (e57228) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:00 pmI just want to know why that crazy, cancer-causing, felon, tax cheat, job off-shoring, Mormon, bigot, h8tr, Mitt Romney allowed our embassies and consulates to be overrun and our personnel to be killed in the Middle East. Was the buffoon asleep at the switch or something? It was the anniversary of 9/11 for gosh sakes and warnings of trouble had already been issued.
Why didn’t Romney do something???????????
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:11 pmWell argued, bravo! I’ve updated my own post with my detailed reactions.
Beldar (eed156) — 9/15/2012 @ 12:22 am“Why didn’t Romney do something?”
Haven’t you heard? This is all his fault! Those folks are mad because he won’t release his tax returns, or something.
crosspatch (6adcc9) — 9/15/2012 @ 12:51 am@Roger H: Noonan’s column is among her worst ever. She appears to have based much of her disapproval on the false notion that Romney already knew of the American deaths in Libya when he wrote his statement about the Cairo embassy’s communications. She’s not only bought into the Left’s deliberate confusion of the time-line, she’s helping re-propagate it. The WSJ needs to insist that she get, and actually rely upon, a research assistant who can work the interwebz to help her get her facts straight.
Beldar (eed156) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:05 amOh, and she also appears to have bought into the White House’s narrative, which would have us believe that armed and violent protesters shouting “Death to the USA!” as they attacked U.S. embassies were actually not protesting anything but a particular obscure film-maker and a Florida minister.
She is cocooned.
Beldar (eed156) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:10 amnk, the broken record,
nk (875f57) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:12 amsaysasks, “Who’s right, all the time?”I beat up on ladies, but not this one.
nk (875f57) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:15 amWho cares? You devote this much space to defending someone who chose her major in college by determining that journalism didnt require math or science? When you run with jackals…..
Susan Harms (5e7b14) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:54 amAnd how do you earn your daily bread, Susan Harms?
nk (875f57) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:01 amI believed ya the first time, Rico. Might have figured that was a clueby4 behind your back.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/15/2012 @ 3:25 amLet’s just see if Crawford continues to organize the shock troops prior to confronting those representing BHO’s interests. If her point was to make sure a certain tough line of inquiry was followed, she better do the same to the other side.
I’ve read where she is a committed liberal politically – by her own words. She has done a very good job covering SCOTUS, though. We would be far better off if the rest of the herd were as fair/balanced as she has been in her SCOTUS reportage. I just do not give her as much credence in this instance as you, Pat.
Ed from SFV (d5c4f1) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:11 amThe question is not whether she seemingly agreed with his position ergo look away.
The question is whether she agrees with the narrative Romney was inappropriately playing politics and (as the facts demonstrate) she pushed it and went along with it ….. Mutually exclusive points.
I know plenty of LEFTIST BLIND FOLLOWERS OF DEAR LEADER who thought the statement on free speech abuse to be stupid and found the substance of his point correct. Same time they went crazy on their hypocritical rant about playing politics during crisis like Obama did from 2006 to 2008..
Again, good people do bad things for bad reasons. Chalk it up to that.
Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:38 am#25 the Cairo statement on free speech that is. Clarify.
Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:39 amYou have convinced me with some reservations on my part.
I would think, in light of all the legitimate questions raised by the video and the fact that the first six questions advanced the leftist narrative that Romney was engaging in cheap gotcha politics, that Jan Brewer would follow up with a piece either advancing an innocent explanation or affirming a coordinated effort by some to put forth a pro BHO narrative.
1. I can’t get away from the fact that all but one question to Romney mirrored the audio captured. If the conversation among them was not causal why did virtually every questioner follow the alleged script?
2. What question did Ms Brewer ask?
3. Where in the lineup of the seven reporters called on did Ms Brewer fall?
Grammie (c278c2) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:07 amI think that a certain amount of collusion or practice before a press conference is acceptable for reporters. Ideally, if there are a variety of questions to be asked, it would be a good idea that all reporters know what the main beats should be, so that if they are called upon in a random order they can come up with the “next” question.
Certainly, the candidate should be running through practice questions with his staff before he steps to the podium.
It is a game, after all.
I think without a doubt, 95% of the press were looking for something to tar Romney with. And their inexpert repetition of the same question shows which of their “beats” they felt were most important.
But I think this was a botched play. They were supposed to cover, say, three things but they all got caught up in the thing they thought helped the narrative along.
Everybody on the team wanted to score that touchdown.
Is there at this time any hard evidence that Ms. Crawford was not simply help coordinate the play? We only heard one suspiciously small part of the discussion, and she may have pushed for other legitimate questions to be asked as well, which in their haste to “get” Romney, were forgotten.
Pious Agnostic (ee2c24) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:18 amThese two Jan Crawford posts have both been very worthwhile, Patterico.
Good job at laying out the narrative in expanded context—it’s almost as if you have experience at doing so ! 🙂
We’re all so used to mainstream journalists giving us the Charlie Brown rocks in our Halloween trick-or-treat bags, that our de facto assumption is that every journalist is inevitably a wolf rather than a sheep.
By that token, I would just assume that if a reporter is assigned to cover an important presidential election, the bureau chief wouldn’t dare send a reporter who isn’t committed to Pravda as well as “Hope and Change or whatever.”
Of course, that’s true 99.7% of the time.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:46 amThe real trick of a good propagandist is framing the story in such a way that you support the propagandist no matter what they did or said.
When Jan Crawford (or any JOURNOLISTA) in the MSM grills Obama (or any Democrat pol) in the same way they regularly and without fail any Republican candidate, I’ll rethink my position.
Jack (520565) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:51 amMy honest view? I bet that somewhere in her current contract with CBS there is a list of goals for her to achieve. One of them is the re-election of Barack Obama.
And my guess is that it is a bonus clause.
What Crawford is doing is creating evidence that allows you to support her, and ignore her more grevious scale tipping and bias. It’s just a well meant mistake right? She isn’t really like that, right?
It doesn’t matter that she knee-caps Romney, she says all the right things. It doesn’t matter what she actually does, that is just sexism or something.
Jack (520565) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:57 amYou lie down with dogs, you wake up with flees.
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:07 amI wouldn’t be so upset about this if the press would do it on Obama once and awhile.
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:08 am…”Romney held his ground–and offered even stronger criticism”
Nice buried lede there. That’s sentence 3. It comes after:
“Conservatives have criticized Mitt Romney…”
“…he is running a timid campaign…”
“…he pulls his punches…”
“…doesn’t have the fire in his gut to win.”
During the press conference he also “deflected questions…”
Neutral language and story construction? Really?
Birdbath (716828) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:27 amI have no idea about Crawford’s politics and I don’t care. I care about her reporting and your post convinces me she is aware of the media’s liberal bias and sometimes tries to rein it in –but surreptitiously and in ways that won’t jeopardize her standing with her employer or colleagues.
I don’t blame Crawford for doing this but I won’t applaud her for it either, because conservatives have already lost if this is what passes for courage on the East Coast and the West Coast. I would applaud her for reporting what she hears and sees, but I’m not holding my breath.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:29 amFactcheck.org accurately states that Romney made a false statement.
“Romney: The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached.”
The statement was before the breach.
Romney was pretending that US reaction was in the form of an apology. How slick this guy is.
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-gets-it-backward/
Jeremy Wolcott (4228f0) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:33 amMs. Brewer??? Grammie up at #27 seems confused as to whom we are discussing here. Jan Crawford-Contessa Brewer–BIG difference between these lady reporters this week or any week.
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:33 amI’ve been at a number of press conferences, and I’ve heard journalists coordinate questions because they don’t all want to ask the same thing and come away with identical copy. That’s all this sounded like
Yet that is exactly what happened. The same hectoring nonsense. Over and over and over and over
JD (16fdce) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:42 amJeremy Wolcott thinks this week’s important event that needs to be reported and vetted is Romney’s presser– not the America hating murderous terrorist thugs or the administration who forgot that the 9/11 anniversary was this week and that there might, just might, be reprisal attacks at home and abroad which required increased vigilance and warnings and extra security. That’s a good little foot soldier, Jer. How are the Obama fall sweatshirt sales and drawings for “dinner with Barack” going?
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:46 amGood Lord. If Romney or Ryan can’t handle a soft ball tossed by Jan Crawford ….
nk (875f57) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:51 amIf people want to see partisan BS reporting, tune in to Randi Kaye on CNN. This morning she gave a BS timeline that omitted:
(1) that the embassy in Cairo stood by its sympathizing-with-protesters statement, issuing a series of Tweets, as its compound was under siege by those protesters; and
(2) that Romney initially criticized the sympathizing statement before anyone knew about Ambassador Stevens.
Kaye also criticized Romney for attributing the embassy statement to the administration, even though the administration did not disavow the embassy statement until AFTER Romney criticized it.
And then Kaye has the nerve to say that Romney should have behaved like Reagan (when Carter’s helicopter mission to Iran flopped). And once the “neutral reporter” Kaye finished propagandizing, she put on a DNC official and some middle-of-the-road uninformed independent. No Romney spokesperson or Republican or anyone who could actually call BS on Kaye.
Andrew (f38399) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:56 amGood Lord, NK–If you honestly think the last two posts by Patterico and the hundreds of comments have been about “soft balls tossed by Jan Crawford” you are not reading very carefully.
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:01 am“Conservatives have criticized Mitt Romney for a lot of things in this race”
Yes, some conservatives have.
“She can’t really come out and say: I lean conservative. I agreed with Romney. I tried to rein in one of the lefties sitting next to me. Even if that’s all true, such statements would be expressing political opinions, which reporters can’t do.”
They “express” their political opinions every day.
PeeWee…Brian Kilmeade? and you’re serious…
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:03 am____________________________________________
Jan Crawford appears to have, at least for someone in the media, a bit of sanity in her perceptions of reality. It’s a relief when a reporter — particularly one who’s well past his or her college or post-college years (Crawford is in her 40s) — has some philosophical maturity in their way of looking at the world.
By contrast, I have a hunch that well-known MSM figureheads of yore like Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather (when CBS News was hitched to a media powerhouse known as the “Tiffany Network”) were or are as liberal — if not ultra-liberal — in their old age as they were in their youth.
Two things irritate me the most about bias in the media: When members of the MSM claim that they’re not tilted to the left (or say something dumb like “how can we be in favor of Democrats/liberals when big corporations own much of the media?!!”), or when such people haven’t evolved one inch — or not much more than that — beyond the nonsensical liberalism that might have been okay (or understandable) when they were kids, but becomes ludicrous when they’ve reached the level — chronologically — of fully-grown adults.
Mark (1e93ca) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:05 amThe statement was before the breach.
A statement that they reaffirmed after the breach. You can take your memecheck.org and shove it.
JD (16fdce) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:06 am#15… #31… #34… spot on!!!
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:09 amLook… these events and those that are still unfolding are the result of incompetence and malfeasance of EPIC proportions on the part of the Obama administration and the State Department.
TOTAL. UTTER. COMPLETE. FAILURE of a misguided, narcissistic foreign policy!
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:14 amJan Crawford is not the issue. Ear Leader is.
nk (875f57) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:16 am“I spoke with a well-placed journalist last night whose sources describe the situation at the State Department in one word: ‘Chaos.’ The working assumption is that several American embassies may have been penetrated, or are vulnerable to attack, because so many of them rely on local residents for staff needs at the embassy, and as such may be in a position to breach security if they have been recruited by Al Qaida. Moreover, the full story of the attack on the Benghazi consulate is much worse than we have been told.”
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150756/
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:24 amwhere is Ms. Jan Crawford on all of that… you know, the REAL story? Where are ANY of these sh*theels? Professional incompetence throughout the MSM. They should not be provided cover… ANY of them.
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:27 am” “Disgusting and reprehensible.” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Truly abhorrent,” an outraged White House official told an international conference. Were they talking about the murder of four Americans in Libya? Or perhaps the hoisting of an Islamist flag over the U.S. Embassy in Cairo?
No. For that they stuck to diplomatic speak. For the president, the harshest language was: “I strongly condemn the outrageous attack.” For Clinton it was that the US is heartbroken and she condemned “this senseless act of violence.” But “disgusting and reprehensible” and “truly abhorrent ” were reserved for an amateurish and silly film by someone nobody has ever heard of.”
– Kirsten Powers… a real journalist… who knew!!!
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:29 amBtw, according to Gateway Pundit, Egyptian state TV, Al Nas, ran the clip from the film, back on September 8th, this all stinks of Danish, just like the Abu Laaban production some years back.
narciso (ee31f1) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:33 amColonel,
Yeah, Kirsten Powers must have hit her head or something, to elicit her to see things clearly for once.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:55 amOn the other hand, she is married to a man whose family is from Egypt (Coptic, I think), and so that may help her to see what’s really going on in Egypt.
dint know that,thanks, stones.
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:58 amInteresting interview of Marist Institute for Public Polling Director Lee Miringoff… Hugh Hewitt:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/6ae5804c-e638-4ace-951b-8f36ec71e977
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:20 amRepublican conservative John Huntsman just scolded Romney on his handling of this situation.
““This was an opportunity to instruct, to elucidate, to educate, to talk about how you put the pieces back together again in North Africa and the Middle East,” he said. “Not to condemn, not to criticize, not to turn it into a political event, but to explain to the American people what we’re going to do during a time of need, during a time of crisis, during a time of uncertainty.”
Yahoo News
Jeremy Wolcott (4228f0) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:31 amooooooh! a spanking from Teh Huntsman! Go sell crazy elsewhere, wolcott…
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:37 amThese brainwashed Obama cultists are truly amazing, aren’t they, what with their blind obedience to the narrative no matter how stupid.
Part of the story that should be reported is that Obama was told the the embassy was under assault and the ambassador was unaccounted for in the evening.
Then went to sleep! Because the Magic Mouth needs his rest to campaign. And he doesn’t let minor things that don’t bother him interfere with what he cares about. Himself.
He learned that the ambassador had been killed when he awoke from his peaceful slumber. So while he was dreaming of all the golf courses and Martha’s Vineyard vacations he would enjoy in a second term, this was going on:
Bloody Hand Prints at Consulate Reveal Americans Were Dragged From Building Before Their Death
These Americans were fighting a losing battle for their lives.
(A Libyan offered an alternative explanation The Daily Mail reporter who took the photos was stupid enough to print. I dearly hope some Obamabot troll uses that to challenge me, because I know why you’d only see the bloody hand prints of someone clinging to that column desperately trying not to be dragged off by a mob, and not what the reporter foolishly wrote, in cases like this.)
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:37 am__________________________________________
“Disgusting and reprehensible.” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
I at first thought your post were words mainly from you. I also wanted to see the full context of Clinton’s “disgusting and reprehensible,” just in case it referred to something truly disgusting, so I googled the words.
I now know that Kirsten Powers is a Democrat who does analysis for Fox News. And while she may be of the left, she at least isn’t a fool and naif when it comes to this controversy (unlike Barry and Hillary).
The gut reaction of people like our current president and Secretary of State is so ridiculous, that I feel like I’m in the middle of a parallel universe. I’m in a society that is becoming more and more deranged, or truly a manifestation of what Obama’s former close adviser, Jeremiah Wright, was gunning for.
But the White House can at least blame their lunacy on the liberalism that oozes out of every pore of it. What excuse does the US military have for being not necessarily much less stupid? And if that isn’t necessarily in regards to their actually believing they’re required to approach the producer of “Innocence of Muslims,” then it’s in regards to their previously being even more berserk in the category of political correctness, namely their tolerating Nidal Hasan right up until the day of the Fort Hood massacre.
Bouts of liberalism are making this society both idiotic and flat-out nuts.
Mark (1e93ca) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:38 amBut of course the real news is the timing of that Romney presser, right?
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:39 amCute attempt at misdirection, nk. You know the discussion is not about Mitt Romney’s ability to handle a question. It’s about the nature of our press corps and whether it’s serving our country well and honorably. And when massive evidence exists that one standard is applied to one party and a different standard is applied to the other, free flow of information suffers. The ability to make a decision in the voting booth is contingent upon getting as much good information as possible on both candidates. But when the press covers for one candidate and targets the other they are ill-serving the public and the country, and its future, in their role as information providers.
kcom (4c0caa) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:39 amwith 0bama playin’ in Vegas, what happens in Tunis, Cairo, Benghazi, Afghanistan, etc., etc., ad nauseum, STAYS in Tunis, Cairo, Benghazi, Afghanistan, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:40 amLie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Jan Crawford may be a wonderful person and journalist, who’s usually ethical etc.
But she hangs with a crowd–today’s pack of lying hyena, Obama leg humping sycophants, whose dedication to truth and accuracy is not only highly suspect but non existent.
So, even if a Jan Crawford is known to be a good and truthful person, most of us in the reality based world are not going to cut any one of those bozos any slack. As I said, lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
She’d be in a more honest and worthwhile job if she played the piano in a whorehouse.
Comanche Voter (29e1a6) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:42 amI wish our foreign policy was being run by Dr. Phil. At least he’s an American.
Unfortunately our foreign policy is being run by Huma Mahmood Abedin, a devout Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. And since Obama’s prism through which he sees the world was shaped by Rasheed Khalidi, a PLO spokesman, her advice (delivered unfiltered via FP know-nothing Hillary!) simply reinforces and confirms his juvenile worldview.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:46 am______________________________________________
These brainwashed Obama cultists are truly amazing
I often wonder how bad and extreme things have to get before such people at least raise an eyebrow, much less cry wolf. But then I consider the example of Detroit, Michigan (or just about any major urban American area) and how such places never change their voting habits one iota. Or Venezuela, whose populace has embraced, and continues to embrace, Hugo Chavez, no matter how Detroit-like their nation is becoming. Or societies like Argentina, whose people keep returning to power a variety of Eva-Peron extremists, time and time again, and that nation over and over (eg, right now) facing economic crises.
Kirsten Powers mentions the battered-wife syndrome, and that really does fit the behavior of a large number of people throughout the US and elsewhere. Although such people reside in different countries and cultures, they have one thing in common: they’re almost always of the left or are easily conned by liberal sentiment.
Mark (1e93ca) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:49 amJeremy Ocelot is so cute. Huntsman is a conservative Republican? It is to laugh.
JD (16fdce) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:50 amThat’s what’s most shocking. The only timeline that matters, and the one I assumed was being referred to when I first heard tangential references to timelines, was the timeline of what happened in Cairo and especially in Benghazi.
For instance:
What was the ambassador doing there?
How long had he been there?
Who knew he was there?
What security did he bring and when?
When did news of the movie hit Libya?
When did the crowds gather? Before Cairo or after.
When did the shooting start?
When did the embassy in Tripoli know their was a problem?
When did the State Department know?
When was our military informed and what assets did they have in the area?
How lond did the attack last?
When was the consulate breached?
What happened after that?
Etc. Etc.
Imagine my shock when I learned that wasn’t what people were discussing at all in terms of timelines. The only timelines people were discussing were focused on Mitt Romney? And that there were multiple, competing versions. And the minutiae of that was drowning out the facts on the ground – i.e. that a U.S. ambassador had been killed in the line of duty and we don’t know how and why. There is no logical explanation for that other than gotcha politics. The amount of time wasted on compiling and arguing competing Romney timelines that instead should have been focused on the actual story tells you all you need to know about the media’s dereliction of duty in informing the public.
The whole brouhaha is absolutely and completely absurd in light of the circumstances.
kcom (4c0caa) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:52 amRather than attacking one of the better reporters out there, consider this:
During the Cold War, the Soviets took great effort to plant agents of influence in our government, our institutions, even our entertainment media.
How sure are we that the Democrat Party is not actively running agents within the news media, either for ideological reasons or for payment? Are there reporters who are intentionally advancing Democrat candidates, not though bias or ideological blinders, but as an intentional and calculated program of propagandizing the news?
Just a thought. If so, how does one correct that, given the first amendment?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:56 am______________________________________________
Unfortunately our foreign policy is being run by Huma Mahmood Abedin, a devout Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer
And the extremely absurd nature of the irony behind that is such people are very liberal. So although they’ll be bitten in the butt the most within the parameters of sharia-law thinking and policies, they nonetheless are so inept in judging both good and bad (people and situations), and distorting the concept of underdog and top dog, that they’ll also be the last to realize just how foolish they are.
Some have said that liberalism is a mental disorder. In many instances, I think that’s not a quip but actually an accurate diagnosis.
Mark (1e93ca) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:57 amIf she weren’t a proud, card-carrying member of the most corrupt profession on the planet, we might give her the benefit of the doubt, Patterico.
Rob Crawford (d8dade) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:02 amI do realize that if you have a large number of journalists and a limited number of questions that will be asked, it would be natural for them to talk among themselves to sort out what might be the questions they would most want to hear. That is a natural thing to do in that situation, I think.
We also hear in Ms. Crawford’s words “we can’t say that” or words to the effect that she is attempting to keep the wording within some boundaries of common sense, we don’t know the context of her statement. But it is also quite possible the proposed wording was unflattering to the Obama administration and she was steering the question to be better for Obama and worse for Romney, I don’t know. Because we only get bits and pieces of the conversation, it is difficult to know the whole thing and speculation based on hearing bits of it is just that, speculation.
crosspatch (6adcc9) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:04 amBTW, for an example of press hectoring the Obama folks, see this video regarding Israel’s capitol.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:08 amBTW, we seem here to be falling into the Democrat’s trap. We’re discussing what they want us to discuss, not what would SHOULD be talking about; the chaos in US Middle East policy.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:11 amsomeone what carries water for CBS, it’s really hard to put that person in any kind of “reformer” column
I bet this lady drives a really really nice car
like with those cameras to where you don’t have to worry about backing up over your dog
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:16 amWell, the good news for the Obama administration is that they’ve launched an official
cover-upinvestigation. And by doing so, Obama has essentially ordered his DoJ to shut everyone in the DoS up.This will not be the story.
This allows the presstitutes a to focus on the OFA-directed media strategy of making Mitt Romney the story.
If Jan Crawford is one of the good ones, she’ll blow this open.
I tend to view reporters sort of like Congressmen. A lot of Democratic Congressmen will break ranks with the party and vote with the GOP. When Pelosi as minority leader doesn’t need their votes; either she has enough to win, or the GOP has such an overwhelming majority it doesn’t matter. So then they are free to vote in whatever way will impress their constituency, and not how party loyalty demands when it’s critical and every vote counts.
Consequently, I tend to agree with DRJ’s opinion as expressed in comment #36. And happyfeet’s in #2. We all saw the press ambush Romney. We saw and read them continuing to push that silly, baseless, fact-free story while deliberately avoiding real reporting (sort of a press tradition of 9/11; recall how they all colluded to not show images of those trapped above the fire jumping to their deaths on the original 9/11, lest that contribute to our impression our anger was well justified).
It’s a simple test she has to pass. If she continues to report about whatever the David Axelrod-approved meme of the day happens to be, even if her reporting is less slanted than her colleagues, then she’s part of the cabal.
If she, along with the rest of the US press corps, goes along with Obama campaignistration’s strategy of making the story about Romney and let’s Obama get away with hiding its culpability under a cone of silence due to an “ongoing investigation” (their usual tactic of preventing Congress from conducting an independent investigation) then I really don’t care how fairly Jan Crawford reports Romney’s handling of the non-story.
The proof is in the pudding. If she’s not reporting the story, but about the Obama campaign’s latest diversion from the story, then she isn’t “one of the good ones.”
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:17 amHow many embassies have to be breached, burned, and attacked before the MFM will quit getting the vapors over Romney supporting the 1st Amendment !?
JD (16fdce) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:18 amHow many embassies have to be breached, burned, and attacked before the MFM will quit getting the vapors over Romney supporting the 1st Amendment !?
And when will they start getting the vapors over President Obama attempting to deny the 1st Amendment – the most devastating behavior of all.
Dana (292dcf) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:39 am“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
– Mohammed Ben Brahim Boukharouba, former president of Algeria, April 10, 1974
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:40 amOMG, how many embassies are going to stormed and burned when the
ObamaRomney sponsored movie “Killing bin Laden” is released?What are people thinking? Are they thinking at all?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:46 ambin laden was given a very respectful burial at sea
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:55 amMr. Feets – He sleeps wif teh fishes after he was shot in cold blood in teh face in front of one of his wifs.
We will spike the football wif a big movie release.
Where are our censors when we need them?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:59 amJeremy–are you going to participate in the treacly “National Garage Sale for Obama” fundraising event next weekend?. You prolly have some old stained and elastically challenged undies, a few dinged dishes, a much loved plastic Obama blowup doll, or a Che t-shirt you could sell for the cause.
Oh, and have Charlie Christ or Lincoln Chaffee made any statements about Gov. Romney’s presser that you’d like to share with conservatives, too?
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:02 amthe important thing is the sonywhores will make some money off the dealio Mr. daley, which they can then donate part of it to obama
show me what democracy looks like
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:02 am“show me what democracy looks like”
Mr. Feets – Democracy looks like having your own personal hit list and being able to send your personal death squads or drones to carry out your orders. It’s an Obama world.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:06 amOMG, how many embassies are going to stormed and burned when the Obama Romney sponsored movie “Killing bin Laden” is released?
What are people thinking? Are they thinking at all?
Comment by daleyrocks
Stone truth… staring everyone in the eye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:06 amI have no dog in this fight; HOWEVER, since our latest “special visitor” saw fit to post this:
“Romney: The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached.”
The statement was before the breach.
Comment by Jeremy Wolcott — 9/15/2012 @ 7:33 am
— Back here in the REAL WORLD, Embassy Cairo tweeted this, word for word:
Icy (818021) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:07 amThis morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy
The words in parentheses are part of the original tweet. AFTER the White House put out their statement distancing itself from the embassy’s tweets, this one was removed from Twitter by the embassy.
That’s the tricky thing about the Internet, though — you can remove stuff, but there’s always a record of what you originally posted, somewhere.
Icy – there is no room for honesty in Teh Narrative.
JD (16fdce) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:16 amEd,
With respect, I think you’re probably wrong about this. A friend of mine whom I trust reported his view that he was center-right based on personal conversations. If you have a link to back up your statement, please provide it. Otherwise I am going to assume that your memory is mistaken and you’re thinking of someone else.
That said, her politics should not matter. What matters is her fairness. And I think that she is eminently fair.
Patterico (b072a5) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:16 amI think she has shown herself to be fair in her writing. But she should explain her coordinating questions with her fellow journolistas as that directly led to this BS arrative pushed since.
JD (16fdce) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:21 ambeing able to send your personal death squads or drones to carry out your orders
i been preparing for this all my life almost
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:23 amAs for the Beldar theory that we should be upset that Crawford didn’t report the proposed question of her colleague, that strikes me (with respect) as setting an unrealistic and unnecessarily demanding standard. She is supposed to alienate her colleagues for what? To report that a reporter was considering hectoring Romney over his tone and she talked him out of it? Seriously?
Patterico (b072a5) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:23 amto be precise it was to report that a government-subsidized National Soros Radio reporterwhore was considering hectoring Romney over his tone
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:25 am#90… good point, JD. Perhaps she should take some time and give all a “this is how we make teh sausage” demonstration and then they can purposely turn their mic on the next time Teh Won holds a presser and give a live demonstration of how it works both ways.
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:26 amDaley… your post #80… my hat’s off to you. Such insight!
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:27 am(shameless plug) What the headlines might look like if the news media were honest (or if Obama was a Republican).
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:31 amElissa, I obviously went from my faulty memory when trying to remember the journalist’s, who I was not familiar with, from the article.
No biggie. Just replace the correct name and my questions stand.
Grammie (c278c2) — 9/15/2012 @ 11:43 amWell, what about watching to see if she reports about the Obama administration’s and it’s actions, or lack thereof, followed by its response in both word and deed to these continuing assaults on our embassies?
There is enough information out on the net to challenge the official narrative of the WH. The story they’re trying to sell goes like this: we had no prior warning, these riots are a spontaneous response to an offensive YouTube video, the US condemns all denigration of religion, and these assaults are not directed against the administration or the US.
Every one of those assertions is demonstrably false. For instance, this was posted on PJ Media on September 10th, the day prior to the assaults on our diplomatic facilities. Again, note the date both in the link and as stated in the text on the page itself.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/10/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo/
The US press corps, including Jan Crawford, continues to take the campaignistration’s narrative at face value despite the fact that there was information, freely available, that this was preplanned.
Such as the fact that one of consulate staffers killed in Benghazi mentioned on a gamer site the night before that he suspected the possibility that they were all going to be killed, given the fact that he noticed one of the “police” assigned to their security detail casing the compound and taking pictures.
Even if you ignore the fact that there was reporting prior to 9/11/2012 that these assaults were in the works, you have to be credulous beyond belief that the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, wasn’t complicit in the assault on our embassy in Cairo. I will try to find the link, but apparently Egyptian security melted away prior to the assault.
Just as they did a year earlier, 9/9-9/10 2011, when the mob assaulted the Israeli embassy.
Or that the Islamists could have assembled the forces and weapons they used to attack the consulate in Benghazi without anyone noticing. Or that it’s just a coincidence they targetted the Ambassador himself. And knew which building was the designated “alamo.”
Col. Haiku mentioned on another thread that one obvious question to ask is if there were other 9/11 anniversaries when security wasn’t beefed up. There are actually several obvious lines of investigation that stemming from this debacle. And hundreds of obvious questions branching out from each one. And so far, I’ve seen none of the US press corps, with the exception of Jake Tapper, ask any of them. And even the exception wasn’t really that robust; when Jay Carney said that Obama had been vigilant, or words to that effect, Tapper commented “Obviously not vigilant enough.” That was the end of it.
We continue to have to go to the foreign press to get any sort of actual reporting on this administration’s foreign policy failures. The US press corps, including Jan Crawford, continues to act as if Romney is the story.
Fine. Got it. Crawford’s reporting on Romney is more favorable. But she’s still missing the real stories.
One other thing. I know how the press would react if a military spokesman declared his command would not comment further on a subject pending conclusion of an investigation. Because reporters have told me what they would do. They would report anything, even if they had to make it up, to embarrass the command into responding.
In this case, they wouldn’t have to make things up. There are plenty of people around the globe not subject to the Obama administration’s gag order due to the pretense of an investigation.
How much, Pat, do you want to bet the US press corps doesn’t pursue that course?
And in response to this question:
How about to save a life. If, as the press is telling us, it is so obvious that this film that the salafists are using as a pretext would inevitably lead to murder and mayhem, what is the media’s goal then for identifying one of the film makers by name, disclosing his home town, and even pointing out you can recognize the unique facade of his house because it’s in the movie?
We know the guy responsible for the Danish Muhamed cartoons has to have a safe room in his house, and his home was already invaded once by an axe-weilding Somali muslim. We know Van Gogh was stabbed to death for his film, “Submission.”
The same people who claim that murder inevitably would result from this film, therefore the film maker should be prosecuted as an accessory, have fingered this film maker for the murderers.
Perhaps you’d like to ask Jan, if she gets back to you, if the press corps protecting Obama didn’t know exactly what it was doing? Especially after it lectured us on the inevitable consequences of this man’s film, and how it should be obvious to everyone, before doing it.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/15/2012 @ 12:28 pmInstead of viewing this as pro Romney, you can also read everything Crawford wrote as consistent with these two assumptions:
1. She was appalled by the State Department’s and the Obama Administration’s misunderstanding of First Amendment interpretation and law, something she is familiar with as a law school graduate and former Supreme Court reporter.
2. The fact that Romney got it right and the Obama Administration got it wrong might especially bother her — perhaps because of the principles involved or as a concerned citizen or even as an Obama Administration supporter. She used her media position and writings to try to get others to see her point.
In other words, maybe Crawford didn’t write or speak in order to help or hurt Romney but to reach those in the Administration and the media that she knew got this story wrong. Maybe it was because she cares about Obama, or the media, or the First Amendment … or all of the above. If so, was this even about Romney?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/15/2012 @ 12:41 pmI know, I should have broken up that wall of text comment. Sorry, I was in a hurry.
But I forgot to add the evidence that further destroys the Obama administrations obviously false assertions. I think I’ve linked to and mentioned enough information that demolishes the meme that we had no prior warning, and that these riots aren’t about a YouTube video. But if you want more Brietbart is liveblogging the media’s failure to pursue the evidence in it’s effort to prop up the administrations clearly false narrative.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/14/Insta-Fact-Check-Live-Blogging-Obama-Media-Sept14
As far as the administration’s assertion that it’s an American “principle” to reject any denigration of all religions, anyone who’s been conscious of the NEA’s distribution of grants to anti-religious bigots who produce scatological garbage and pronounce it art knows that’s laughable.
But so do the Islamists abroad, as they’ve witnessed this administration perform bureaucratic gymnastics in order to turn a bline eye to and remain silent about Muslim atrocities against Christians and the now nearly non-existent Jewish minorities in Islamic countries.
Such obvious lies, as is the administration’s claim it renounces all denigration of religion, simply encourages the radical Islamists to kill more Christian, kidnap and rape more Christian girls, burn and bomb more churches, and drive more Christians from their homes and property as as the Islamic extremists ethnically cleanse their countries one village and town at a time.
And the story line that these assaults aren’t directed at the administration or US is simply delusional. Even if you ignore the chants of “Obama, Obama, we are all Osamas” or the images of them burning the US flag, etc., you have to then ignore every stated grievance the Islamists are saying is behind these atrocities.
In order to cherry pick just one; the only one that isn’t directly aimed at the administration and the US. It’s all about the film.
The story the administration is putting out, even as they provide the media with cover for not doing it’s job and instead doing David Axelrod’s job with the announcemnt of this sham investigation, is paper thin.
If Jan Crawford is “one of the good ones” she’ll see through it and report on it.
If not, if she really is one of the thundering herd but more aware of how bad the rest of her colleagues look and therefor for appearances sake her own articles are more “fair,” she’ll continue reporting on Romney’s “gaffes” as if that were the story.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/15/2012 @ 12:45 pmDRJ, there are many ways to look at Jan Crawford’s reporting about Romney’s statement about that pathetic embassy statement and the later assaults on our embassies.
But if you take a step back, and don’t lose sight of the forest for the trees, then it becomes obvious that media bias is more obviously demonstrated by what they decide the news is.
It isn’t how fairly one reporter does or does not report on the story that everyone else is reporting, while so many obvious, newsworthy stories are spiked.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:16 pm“As far as the administration’s assertion that it’s an American “principle” to reject any denigration of all religions”
Steve57 – But the campaign will gratefully accept $1 million campaign contributions from unfunny misogynistic comedians such as Bill Maher who make movies denigrating both Christianity and Islam. I wonder which capital “J” journalist will be the first to point that out to the campaign and ask if they are planning to return the money.
Plus, the only verification we have the Washington did not approve the Cairo Embassy releases is from unnamed sources. Smells like a good way to protect Hillary and Barky and throw somebody else under the bus.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:19 pmIn other words, maybe Crawford didn’t write or speak in order to help or hurt Romney but to reach those in the Administration and the media that she knew got this story wrong. Maybe it was because she cares about Obama, or the media, or the First Amendment … or all of the above. If so, was this even about Romney?
Clearly, this was never about Romney – in reality – but rather our President and his administration’s response to a crisis and perhaps, being caught unprepared, unaware, and ignoring clear warnings. Unfortunately, Romney was a convenient distraction for a complicit media, thus the event was entirely about Romney and far less about incompetency, inability to lead, and the dreadful clusterf*** of a State Dept.
…which makes me wonder if there weren’t an upcoming election and no Romney to use as a scapegoat, how would the media have helped Obama and his administration come out of this looking competent and capable? Would it have even been possible?
Dana (292dcf) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:25 pmI am becoming more and more convinced that some of this supposed bias is bought and paid for, particularly at the editor/publisher level. There is so much money flying around that even a fraction of it could influence the news.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:27 pm“how would the media have helped Obama and his administration come out of this looking competent and capable? Would it have even been possible?”
Dana – Libs blame global warming for virtually everything, so they might have gone there. 🙂
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:27 pm…which makes me wonder if there weren’t an upcoming election and no Romney to use as a scapegoat, how would the media have helped Obama and his administration come out of this looking competent and capable? Would it have even been possible?
They would have found someone to blame. Rush, for example.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:28 pmRush…or global warming, perhaps, and what would give it ridiculous credence would be the squishes like McCain, or Huntsman, or Lindsay Graham earnestly nodding in agreement. And then the weak GOP, desperate to appease and ever weak, would acquiesce and apologies would be issued.
Dana (292dcf) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:33 pm_____________________________________________
Libs blame global warming for virtually everything
So who is the left in the US and elsewhere (eg, Western Europe) going to blame the following on? Are they going to say the Chinese are being inappropriately inflamed by what? By Japanese electronic equipment, Japanese automobiles, by the imperialism of Tokyo Disneyland? Perhaps they’ll say the Chinese are insulted (and rightly so!) by those who say dim sum isn’t as good as sushi? (Yea, that’s lame, but this whole circus that’s currently happening — hosted by clowns like Barry and Hillary on one hand, Islamo-kook clowns on the other (with the PRC getting in on the act) — is lame.)
Mark (1e93ca) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:48 pmThe next TEA Party gathering should be 100K+ folks gathering outside the Egyptian Embassy in DC, and their UN Legation in NYC, to just stand and watch.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 9/15/2012 @ 1:52 pmWhen that occurs, they need to make an emergency delivery to Foggy Bottom of truckloads of Depends for all the Knicker-knotters and Bed-wetters that work there.
Amen, AD.
Hey… given how the administration, State Dept. and the in-the-bag-for-0bama media keep insisting that this hopelessly inept, dumbass “movie” is at the root of this Islamic firestorm, I can’t strees enough how I think daley nailed it in his post #80:
OMG, how many embassies are going to stormed and burned when the
ObamaRomney sponsored movie “Killing bin Laden” is released?What are people thinking? Are they thinking at all?
That 1st question is so obvious that I don’t think it has occurred to very many people. His “OMG” was an understatement.
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:05 pmCaptain Ed over at HotAir has a good take on how short-sighted the media is in his report of the LE/Media siege of Sam (im)Becile’s house in Ed’s hometown of Cerritos CA.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:25 pmBut then, the Left has never been one for thinking-through what the unanticipated consequences of their actions might be.
Why do you people keep blathering on about distractions such as bond downgrades, foodstamps, trashed American flags, burned embassies and dead ambassadors? President Obama has promised us free birth control products and late term abortions. He will stick it to the rich! Get yer prioroties straight will you!
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:26 pmfoodstamps eff yeah!
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:28 pmand if you ask me why I’ll SAAAAAY
cause Barack Obama has a way
of food stamping the USA
(it’s cause his drunk-ass daddy left his no-account mom and she wanted some tasty tuna salad before dumping Barack on grandma and tarting her way across the pacific)
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:33 pmThanks elissa, we needed that reminder to “get our heads straight”.
Is it true that if you take your voter receipt into a PP clinic, they’ll give you free condoms/BC pills?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:34 pmWar on Wimyns not War on Islam!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:36 pmelissa – Is my sammich ready?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:38 pmGet yer prioroties straight will you!
Isn’t it sill about Romney’s tax returns??? Hard to keep it straight.
I just better hustle in and get daley a beer to go with that sammich.
Dana (292dcf) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:44 pmCareful, daley, I hear that Dana sent elissa some of her best flying pumps.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:44 pm119- more….
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:47 pmIf you’re lucky daley, you’ll end up with a matched pair from one of Dana’s earlier tosses.
Heh. AD, I suspect elissa is well-armed with the necessary accessories every girl needs to keep those who require it, in line, and I also have no doubt that her aim is rather deadly.
Dana (292dcf) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:49 pmNo need AD– I have quite a closet full of my own! (And with Dana in Cali and me living north of daley the
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:53 pmshoesChoos’ll be flying in at him from different directions.)LOL Dana– crossed posts. Like minds and all…
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 2:55 pmI wonder if daley would like to buy a flak-jacket and helmet?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 9/15/2012 @ 3:09 pmI deference to Patterico I really am trying to see this from his point of view and give Ms. Crawford the benefit of the doubt. A few commenters here have suggested that we can judge her intentions based upon whether she is equally active in coordinating tough questions for the President Obama. I’m not sure that is the way it is going to go, however. Aren’t reporters like her mostly assigned to one candidate or the other? If she’s covering Romney, it would be unlikely that she will have the chance to cover Obama.
JVW (edec8d) — 9/15/2012 @ 3:10 pmBut hey, it’s over anyway. Go to Ms. Crawford’s employer’s politics homepage and note all of the “stories” and “opinion pieces” telling us that Obama has now turned the corner and is heading full-steam to victory. Yet another reason to be a little bit wary of Ms. Crawford.
JVW (edec8d) — 9/15/2012 @ 3:13 pmdaley–your congresscrone’s felon hubby has a delightful little piece about national security up at HuffPo. Have you seen it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/five-reasons-we-cant-trus_b_1884366.html
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 3:13 pmSteve57,
I’m glad to look at the big picture but what it tells me is that most but not all reporters lean left. That’s helpful from a statistical standpoint but it doesn’t tell us anything about this particular reporter, Jan Crawford.
What the facts tell me is that Crawford was concerned about the First Amendment issues. As a law school graduate and a former Supreme Court reporter, she knows better than virtually all reporters that the statement issued by the State Department consulate, and approved by the Administration, was wrong. She also knew Romney’s statement was right.
The question is why she made a point of correcting other reporters about Romney’s statement. One reason could be because she knew Romney was right and highlighting that would help Romney. Another reason is that it would keep the media from looking wrong. Still another is that it would make it easier for the Administration to adopt Romney’s position later. I don’t know the answer but I think any of these reasons is possible.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/15/2012 @ 3:13 pmThanks for that, Patterico
tyree (84087f) — 9/15/2012 @ 3:34 pm“No matter who he calls on, we’re covered on the one question [that we think will damage him].”
– Jan Crawford
Colonel Haiku (fd6b33) — 9/15/2012 @ 3:48 pmor perhaps:
“No matter who he calls on, we’re covered on the one question [that we think needs to be asked].”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:02 pmFinally, I know Patterico disagrees but I’m having a hard time grasping how it’s a neutral question to ask Romney whether he regrets his statement — let alone asking it over and over. Asking whether someone has regrets implies they did something regrettable or wrong. That’s not neutral.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:02 pmIt appears Jan Crawford has chosen not to respond to Patterico’s invitation, and that’s her choice. But she and every American reporter who cares about America should respond to this.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:08 pmno matter who Romney called on he was gonna be asked the question the propaganda whores wanted to build their narrative around
in America, this is called “journalism”
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:16 pmThat’s how I initially reacted too, I admit. It seemed like asking if he regretted the comment was a loaded question. But now that I know that a) a lot of people did criticize him before similar questions were proposed; b) Crawford agreed with his stated position; and c) Crawford covered his answer fairly . . . with the benefit of that hindsight, I can easily see how someone might ask that question and intend it to be (and have it come off as) neutral.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:24 pmI’m not 100% confident that she has made that choice, actually.
I’m working on it.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:25 pmOur host asked,
Once again, my friend, you mis-define the question. Now you’re spinning.
I’m content for my arguments to stand on their own, but do not think that I agree that you’ve correctly paraphrased them.
Beldar (58b74d) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:29 pmIsn’t it more common for reporters to ask a candidate something like this: “What do you say to your critics who say X?”, as opposed to asking whether he regrets his statement? IMO the former asks for comment but the latter suggests wrongdoing.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:29 pmBy the way, a lot of people have asked whether Crawford is going to go after Obama / pose equally difficult questions to Obama. I could be wrong about this, but I am under the impression that Crawford is actually covering the Romney campaign. In other words, she is (I think) part of a gaggle of press folks following him around. Whereas the White Press Press Corps is likely the group following Obama around. If I’m right about that, I’m not sure it’s fair to impose on her an obligation to ask a bunch of questions of Obama, any more than you’d criticize Tapper for not asking questions of Romney when he doesn’t cover the Romney campaign (again, that is my understanding; I hope I am not getting that wrong).
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:31 pmI think that would be a better question.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:35 pmBut now that I know that a) a lot of people did criticize him before similar questions were proposed; b) Crawford agreed with his stated position; and c) Crawford covered his answer fairly . . . with the benefit of that hindsight, I can easily see how someone might ask that question and intend it to be (and have it come off as) neutral.
And yet she still colluded with others to press with that loaded question. Why be a willing participant in a group
attackline of questioning specifically involving “regret” rather than simply asking him to explain himself further or if there were anything else he wanted to add? The use of “regret” and her decision to go with that is the sticking point for me.Perhaps you are right, Patterico, and we are just too weary and cynical to give anyone in the MSM a fair shot.
Dana (292dcf) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:35 pmPat, you yourself originally described what she was doing as “coordination of questions,” which is probably overkind but at least captures the essence of what she was doing.
Now you’re trying to re-write yourself, and you certainly ignore my characterization of this as an unethical conspiracy, and mis-paraphrase it, by calling this merely trying to “talk a colleague out of hectoring” Romney over his tone. That’s not all she did, nor the essence of what she did.
That’s spin. And not even very good spin.
Beldar (58b74d) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:39 pmIf witnesses in a trial secretly negotiated and agreed upon a mutual pact as to how they were going to answer questions on the witness stand in one of your criminal trials, Patterico, would you just spin that as one witness trying to help another out? Or would you recognize it as a conspiracy to obstruct justice?
I will grant you that there are differences in the responsibilities of reporters and jurors. But you were wrong to fail to condemn this “coordination of questions” to begin with, and now you’re actively defending it by trying to soften it around the edges.
If Ms. Crawford herself attempted such a defense, I would think much, much worse of her that I do right now.
Beldar (58b74d) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:50 pm==Isn’t it more common for reporters to ask a candidate something like this: “What do you say to your critics who say X?”, as opposed to asking whether he regrets his statement? IMO the former asks for comment but the latter suggests wrongdoing.==
It used to be that way, absolutely, DRJ. This open ended technique (“How do you respond…”) is taught to high school journalists as a way to get their interviewees to open up. The disgraceful gotcha question attacks that are now so common in mainstream “journalism” used to be reserved for investigative reporters who were yelling at fleeing lawbreakers and attorneys who were performing for a jury within a trial setting.
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:51 pmBah. Wrote “jurors,” meant “witnesses.”
Beldar (58b74d) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:52 pmBeldar
Accusing someone of spinning is a very polite way of saying they are a liar – Pat’s not a liar he simply feels that way about her and her motivations and gave a lengthy defense of why he feels that way.
Implying Pat is rewriting himself when he is explaining more fully why he feels “x” or “y” isnt very helpful
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:53 pmAccusing someone of spinning is a very polite way of saying they are a liar –
It is no such effing thing.
JD (c926af) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:56 pmmaybe she just likes to have everything organized just so like tracy flick
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 4:56 pmEddie Haskell
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:05 pmNo matter under what spirit the question was asked, it was still an opportunity for Romney to man up and say, “I have said what I have said”.
You may consider the question an attack, but aren’t we always criticizing the media for the slack they cut the weasel-in-chief?
nk (875f57) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:05 pmHow specifically am I trying to rewrite myself?
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:08 pmAlso, my hectoring line was not an attempt to paraphrase your argument, Beldar. That was my characterization.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:10 pmeveryone please to get your question assignments from Jan.
Um, I’m Jan by the way for those of you who are new. Nice to meet you!
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:14 pmnk–“journalists” are supposed to ask questions that will elicit new information and will add value and depth to the public discourse on a topic— not decide in advance and then narrowly frame (up front) where the response should be channeled.
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:14 pmI don’t think your courtroom analogy is very apt, Beldar, because the reporters are question askers, not question answerers.
If I had an eight-defendant case I would not be surprised to see the defense lawyers discussing in advance who would ask what questions of the star witness.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:15 pmThe main reason I don’t have a strong opinion on the “coordination of questions” issue is that I’m not sure exactly what happened. The audio is choppy and poor.
I’m going off what I do know: Jan’s history; her opinion on the substantive issue; and her fair treatment of Romney’s answer.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:18 pmMy courtroom analogy is not very apt, but I was trying to imagine a conspiracy that you would recognize, since I’m puzzled by your failure to recognize the one going on among the Romney press corps. It seems I’ve failed. If you think what they were doing is okay, then we’re wasting our time arguing about Crawford’s participation in it.
Beldar (58b74d) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:38 pmHere’s a rather interesting topic the professional press might ponder upon and pursue were they real journalists:
Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.
That’s the pathetic foreign policy of the Obama administration, says Caddell today in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” Caddell explains. “The media has been completely uninterested. We don’t provide security for our ambassador in Libya, but she needs a full Secret Service security detail. And nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with this. And nobody in the press will ask. What kind of slavish stoogery are they perpetrating here?
“This country has reached the the point of absurdity. There are people dead because we don’t have security details for them. But she’s privileged to have a full Secret Service detail on vacation?”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/valerie-jarrett-pat-caddell-libyan-embassy
elissa (182596) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:43 pmI wish we could live in an alternate universe where everything the Democrats and media do to Republicans is reversed and they would see what it’s like.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:48 pmThe product of the “consultation” with the others, the actual story on CBS.com, is evidence of her intent to gore Romney. The story she wrote isn’t neutral.
Birdbath (716828) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:51 pmComment by DRJ — 9/15/2012 @ 4:08 pm
The actions of the L.A.Co. Sheriffs in this matter are indefensible, and Sheriff Baca needs to be asked about this every day until facing the voters once again in 2014.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:52 pmIf the FIBS wanted to talk to this guy, they are perfectly capable of rousing some Fed District Judge and getting a warrant, except for the small fact that they probably didn’t have any PC; so they sloughed this off onto the locals for a Michelle Maouse Probationary Violation (?).
Sounds like someone might end up sueing for a Civil Rights violation.
Hllary in 2008
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:55 pmI have a new thread on the arrest of the YouTube guy, as linked by DRJ.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 5:59 pmIf that’s your view, I won’t convince you of anything. So I’ll stop trying.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:00 pmI’m not exactly sure what they were doing, Beldar.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:00 pmGood point, EPWJ. That’s close but she still had some of the media.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:00 pmDRJ
Oh I agree, but for two painful weeks she was media boarded
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:03 pmMr. P- Your advocacy for Ms. Crawford, and the resulting journalistic standard, is more than worthy. I will enjoy reading her in the future to see if she remains deserving of your professional blessing.
Birdbath (716828) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:09 pmIf the right wants to challenge the administrations narrative they’ll have to do it as a ‘road dog’.
What do I mean?
Buy full spread ad space in the NY & LA Times, WaPo, ect and on a weekly basis challenge the lefts narrative on variety of topics and the their op-ed journalists.
One week have Niall Ferguson, another Hewitt, Steyn, ect.
We have to win the fight on the enemies turf, bloody their nose, make them uncomfortable, challenge their ideas, and most important be relentless in exposing their lies in front of their ‘fans’.
scott58 (3375c8) — 9/15/2012 @ 6:29 pmPatterico –
I’m late to the conversation, but I think the standard for who in the media is to be trusted and who is not should be not what they have done in one instance of reporting.
The standard going forward should be for reporters to prove their objectivity over time. Prove you are a fair and honest reporter who follows the “Journalist Code of Ethics” http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
There are few real journalists in modern journalism. Ethics in reporting is something most never consider. As Limbaugh said the other day they are simply Democrats with Bylines.
jasond (0b7791) — 9/16/2012 @ 7:11 amWhat an insanely poor analogy!
The media is now the deflector of events? Paid to actively misdirect the public? Happy when ignorance or process wins?
Pat, that hole is not your friend, and for the love of god, stop covering for the people that actively wish for your silence.
bastiches (31c9c3) — 9/16/2012 @ 7:34 am____________________________________________
Buy full spread ad space in the NY & LA Times, WaPo, ect and on a weekly basis challenge the lefts narrative on variety of topics and the their op-ed journalists.
Only reason why I’d be hesitant about such an idea is that it would result in thousands of additional dollars being funneled to those publications. Otherwise, that would be a good way of poking them in the eye. As such, I wonder if their advertising departments would even allow such material? Or would they eventually be pressured by the editorial side to refuse such advertising?
With so many liberals directly or indirectly making a mess of things — of being the reason that many newspapers are saturated with Occupy-Wall-Street biases, “goddamn-America” preferences, and illegal-immigration-is-xenophobic sentiments (“and a semi-literate populace makes for a lot of potential new subscribers!!”) — it is a deserving case of schadenfreude to observe members of the MSM biting the hand that feeds them and, in the process, bringing down their own well-being.
Mark (1e93ca) — 9/16/2012 @ 7:36 amAsking the mofo looking for power over our lives and property a tough question is not misdirection.
nk (875f57) — 9/16/2012 @ 7:36 amMs. Crawford may be the best journalist in America, but that doesn’t matter to me because I don’t trust the crowd she runs with, so I don’t trust her. Romney got 7 questions regarding his statement from the MSM at his press conference. The MSM then turned the entire affair into an attack on Romney while ignoring the disturbing implications of the attacks. The MSM did this openly and notoriously to harm Romney and protect Obama. Therefore, no one should trust them.
Lavaux (a74f72) — 9/16/2012 @ 8:18 amCNN Political Reporter, Peter Hamby, includes a link for Donate To Obama in his tweets from the campaign trail
Icy (bd5af0) — 9/16/2012 @ 8:37 amJonathan Karl said on This week that people in the Romney campaign felt he mishandled it.
Peggy Noonan also has written this is bad, but maybe she’s biased.
Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/16/2012 @ 8:52 amYeah, Sammy. A whole bunch of people have hopped aboard the “he was wrong because the left criticized him” train. Next stop, Rhinoville.
Icy (bd5af0) — 9/16/2012 @ 8:57 amIt’s dissapointing on Crawford’s side, not a reason to write her off, as for Noonan, totally useless
narciso (ee31f1) — 9/16/2012 @ 8:58 amThis begs a completely different question:
Had Romney NOT jumped on the Obama administration for the egregious statement out of Cairo, we may well have seen many other journalists take the course Jan Crawford did, which was to condemn the craven Cairo statement. Journalists held back their defense of the 1st amendment because it was an inconvenient position for the pro-Obama media.
How many jornolistas held back because it was a Romney position?
Patrick M (56524c) — 9/16/2012 @ 11:00 amJonathan Karl said on This week that people in the Romney campaign felt he mishandled it.”
What, did Romney flub a question about whether Egypt is an ally or not? Did he cravenly blame a movie for an assassination of an ambassador, and make his military call up a private US citizen, throwing the first amendment under the bus to cater to the Arab mobs? Did he accuse his oppenent of politicizing these events during a Vegas fundraiser?
Meanwhile, Romney stood firm and said the right thing and Ryan’s speech on Friday was a home run.
Patrick M (56524c) — 9/16/2012 @ 11:07 amRomney is mis-handling one thing: He has some of the same RINO media whore advisors as McCain did; they will sell out to the pro-Obama media in a heartbeat.
Jan Crawford’s played it straight before, as when she tweeted an image of an hilariously misspelled MoveOn banner towed behind an airplane over a Romney rally…
furious_a (3a3354) — 9/17/2012 @ 7:28 am