Replies

“He probably would have won this close election anyway, if it had not been for CNN and Candy Crowley, who colluded . . . “

Politics is a blood sport. Romney and his team agreed to the rules for the debates and the moderators. He knew the moderators were not neutral and Crowley was supporting Obama. He should have expected treachery. When you are under the cameras on live television you have to be on top of your game and even the smallest gaffe can be fatal.

I agree the Crowley incident was the turning point in the Romney campaign. Romney flubbed the chance to turn the tables on Crowley and Obama and by flubbing his response he looked weak. Americans do not want a president who freezes when he is blindsided unexpectedly.

Compare Romney’s behavior to Reagan’s response in the Reagan/Mondale debate when one of the questioners asked Reagan’s ability to perform the job of President due to his age. This was at theme the media and Mondale were trying to exploit, and clearly they hoped Reagan would flub the answer, supporting the elite perception he was a senile old fool. Instead of fumbling over an answer, Reagan turned the tables with the quip, “Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Reagan’s remark drew laughs, made a strong point he was more experienced (i.e. qualified) than Mondale, and effectively shut down the Democrat and media mantra that Reagan was old and senile.

What could Romney have done differently? First, like Reagan he could have quipped something like - “I thought I was here to debate Mr. Obama, not the moderator.” If he made the statement with a smile on his face and a chuckle, he would have made the point Crowley was out of line without appearing defensive or mean spirited. He could then have then said virtually anything attacking the President’s policy on Benghazi and not respond at all to Obama’s nit picking accusation he was wrong about Obama’s failure to call it a terrorist incident. If Romney had made a joke and then told the American people why Obama’s policy leading to Benghazi was wrong he would have looked presidential and diminished both Obama and Crowley.

In any event Romney should have won the election of 2012. He lost because:
1) He failed to go on the attack against Obama’s policies. He ignored the opportunity to portray Obama as being over his head.
2) Romney allowed Obama to define him as a wealthy capitalist exploiter who was out of touch with America.
3) He failed to clearly distinguish his policies from Obama (healthcare, immigration, abortion, gun control).
4) He failed to develop a response to the “war on women” theme of the Democrats.
5) He failed to clearly distinguish himself from Obama in the debates.
6) He distanced himself from the Tea Party, thereby failing to capitalize on the Tea Party’s ability to get people out to vote on election day. Instead his own ground game was pitiful.
7) He and his ground team were not prepared to aggressively go after voter fraud during the period when votes were begin cast.
8) He failed to execute his campaign with passion. He didn’t seem to care if he won or lost.
9) He was the wrong candidate for the out of office party to run. Opposition to Obamacare could have been the winning issue in 2012 and a counter to the “war on women” theme. However, as the architect of Romneycare in Massachusetts, Romney could not go on a all out offensive against Obamacare. A candidate who is unable to capitalize on a winning issue, that resonates strongly with the American people, is the wrong candidate.