January 18, 2008

AP reporter calls BS on Romney

This is an interesting little aberration, and something you rarely see. A reporter simply couldn't sit still while Wink Martindale told a fib (well, it depends on what the meaning of the word "running" is, for all you righties that had a conniption fit about Clinton parsing words.)

Romney keeps his glued on smile throughout, and admirably maintains his composure. (though of course talking heads tried to imply that he went ballistic) The AP reporter simply won't back down. Romney won't either, clinging desperately to a near meaningless semantic distinction, which therefore insures that it won't end well. It's also interesting to get a glimpse of how Romney's press flack then scolds the reporter for being argumentative with the candidate.

So.... what do you you think about this?

Was the reporter doing his job in calling Romney on this apparent attempt to be deceptive? Did the reporter overstep his bounds by essentially getting into an argument with Romney? Was it a little of both? How do you see it?


At 1/18/2008 7:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reporter was fine in asking his question. Maybe even fine in following up. But then he argued far too much.

The fact is that what Romney said appears to be true - he does not have lobbiest running his campaign (his advisor does not sit in on senior planning/staff meetings).

Romney was correct in his statement, but the reporter wanted to argue a different point - he wanted to argue as though Romney said,

"I have no lobbiests asssociated, in any way, with the campaign.'

At 1/18/2008 10:30 AM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

In context, I think the reporter behaved appropriately. "Senior Staff" ended up being the pivot point and, in the end, it got pretty silly. Everybody in big money poltics has feet of clay. Imagine that!

Continued success

At 1/19/2008 6:47 AM, Anonymous yinn said...

It takes two to argue. Romney didn't have to engage him like that.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home