Why Mitt Romney Avoided The Benghazi Issue
"His campaign was telling him the country doesn’t care about this issue." So
said mark Halperin, the co-author of the book Double Down. "Every political
person on his campaign said, the base cares about this, but the polls say we
won’t win on this issue, you need to talk about the economy."
Revealed: Ex-Military's Shocking Secret About The Coming Food Crisis
According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted... Get The Full Story
(Western Journalism) What was behind Mitt Romney’s unwillingness to use Benghazi as an issue in the 2012 presidential race? The recent book, Double Down, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, which purports to give the most detailed account of the 2012 campaign to date, attempts to answer that question. Halperin appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel earlier this month to discuss the new book.
Bill O’Reilly wanted to know why Romney didn’t go after Obama more forcefully on Benghazi. “He was crazy, because he had the facts in the third debate right at his disposal,” said O’Reilly. “Yes, he got bammed by the press, but [Romney] could have hammered him easy.”
O’Reilly was referring to the Obama administration’s failures surrounding the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. The security failures at the State Department also reflect on Obama’s administration and on Hillary Clinton’s leadership as Secretary of State.
“His campaign was telling him the country doesn’t care about this issue,” responded Halperin, who works for both Time magazine and MSNBC. He added, “…Every political person on his campaign said, the base cares about this, but the polls say we won’t win on this issue, you need to talk about the economy.” In the book, they wrote that “The campaign’s research showed (as did Chicago’s) that Benghazi meant next to nothing to the small slice of voters who remained undecided.”
Actually, a review of polls at the time tells a different story. It meant a lot to the independents—in other words—the swing voters. According to an October 2012 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, 39% of voters said that the U.S. could have prevented the attack in Libya; and 34% didn’t know enough at the time. Obviously, there was room for a little education of the voters here.
Read The Full Story
Revealed: Ex-Military's Shocking Secret About The Coming Food Crisis
According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted... Get The Full Story
(Western Journalism) What was behind Mitt Romney’s unwillingness to use Benghazi as an issue in the 2012 presidential race? The recent book, Double Down, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, which purports to give the most detailed account of the 2012 campaign to date, attempts to answer that question. Halperin appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel earlier this month to discuss the new book.
Bill O’Reilly wanted to know why Romney didn’t go after Obama more forcefully on Benghazi. “He was crazy, because he had the facts in the third debate right at his disposal,” said O’Reilly. “Yes, he got bammed by the press, but [Romney] could have hammered him easy.”
O’Reilly was referring to the Obama administration’s failures surrounding the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. The security failures at the State Department also reflect on Obama’s administration and on Hillary Clinton’s leadership as Secretary of State.
“His campaign was telling him the country doesn’t care about this issue,” responded Halperin, who works for both Time magazine and MSNBC. He added, “…Every political person on his campaign said, the base cares about this, but the polls say we won’t win on this issue, you need to talk about the economy.” In the book, they wrote that “The campaign’s research showed (as did Chicago’s) that Benghazi meant next to nothing to the small slice of voters who remained undecided.”
Actually, a review of polls at the time tells a different story. It meant a lot to the independents—in other words—the swing voters. According to an October 2012 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, 39% of voters said that the U.S. could have prevented the attack in Libya; and 34% didn’t know enough at the time. Obviously, there was room for a little education of the voters here.
Read The Full Story
|
Before You Comment... Increase the audience and impact of what you have to say by a factor of 10-100! If you really want people to see what you have to say and can write 250 words (or more) that are grammatically correct and free of spelling errors, submit your work here. If we like it, we'll not only publish it with a hyperlink to your website or Facebook page or Twitter profile, but we'll promote it in our email newsletter as well. This is a great opportunity for new writers to establish themselves and webmasters to get some much needed link-juice to their websites. |
IF ROVE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ROMNEY/BENGHAZI NO COMMENT, THAT TELLS IT ALL!!
ReplyDeleteROVE IS A LOSER... I SUPPORT NOONE THAT HE PUSHES...
HE'S ALL ABOUT POWER... ROMNEY FELL FLAT WITH HIS NEGLECT OF THE BENGHAZI TRUTH!
AS YOU SEE, WE THE PEOPLE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE OBAMA REPORT!
WE HAVE GOT TO GET OB OUT. HE HAS DONE AND IS DOING A LOT OF DAMAGE TO US. WHAT ARE THEY WAITING ON???? THEY COIULD GO IN RIGHT NOW AND ARREST HIM FOR ALL HE HAS DONE., WAKE UP EVEYONE. I DONT WANT TO LOOSE OUR FREEDOM AND YOU WONT EITHER. HE IS AN ILLIGAL. GET HIM OUT NOW. !!!!!!!!!!!;
ReplyDelete