I hate to keep harping on this but it's not just the Romney campaign that is reticent to beat up Obama over Fast and Furious; it's also his defenders. They don't even have to go far off the path to do it. The argument coming out of the mouths of the Democrats is that Romney is being too 'secretive' and that the reason for his secrecy is that he may have committed a 'felony'.
Both of those words (secretive and felony) are central components in what is shaping up to be the biggest scandal in U.S. Presidential history - Fast and Furious. When the left - in this case, Juan Williams - starts talking about how secretive Mitt Romney is, how hard would it be to retort with how secretive Obama is with the Fast and Furious documents? Executive Privilege was asserted to avoid having to comply with a congressional subpoena; the Attorney General was found in contempt of Congress; there are hundreds of dead Mexicans and at least one dead Federal agent.
Yet, for some reason, these comparisons aren't being made by the sharpest of Romney's defenders. In this exchange, former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu was on Hannity to discuss his smack down of Andrea Mitchell.
Sununu rightfully picked up on the use of the 'felony' word by the Obama campaign but didn't touch on the most obvious comeback, mentioned above. Instead, he focused on Obama coming out of the Chicago political machine, his ties to Tony Rezko (felon), his dealmaking with Rod Blagojevich (felon). All legitimate but they don't deal specifically with Obama's "secrecy" and possible "felony".
The 'felony' in Fast and Furious is likely a mass murder conspiracy to create a political climate that would welcome gun control. That doesn't mean Obama was involved directly but it does mean that he's part of the coverup.
Isn't being "secretive" about murder a "felony"?
Is it me or is team Romney refusing to swing at a slow, high-hanging curveball right in its wheelhouse?
Via MediaIte:
No comments:
Post a Comment