Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAlright, What’s Up?
Alright, Whats Up?
Josh Marshall
Im not sure whats up with this. But earlier this evening the Times ran a story entitled Behind Romneys Decision to Attack Obama on Libya. The byline was David Sanger and Ashley Parker. The big news out of the story was that Romney himself had been the driver of last nights decision making. That and a lot of other color and interesting news. As I write, its still that piece and lede thats on the front page. But now its been replaced (same url) by an almost unrecognizable piece entitled A Challengers Criticism Is Furiously Returned, bylined by Peter Baker and Ashley Parker.
I first saw the story through a blast email. Then I saw it on the Times website. Then it was gone.
The thrust of the piece is dramatically different and, unless Im missing something, leaves out this critical quote from a Romney senior advisor explaining their rationale. Weve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obamas foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique, that Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy, especially if you look at his dealings with the Arab Spring and its aftermath.
So basically, we saw this thing happen. It fit with our campaign narrative. So we pounced.
What happened to the other story? Pieces get rewritten all the time, especially with a breaking news story. But this would seem to require some explanation.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/alright_whats_up.php
Josh Marshall
Im not sure whats up with this. But earlier this evening the Times ran a story entitled Behind Romneys Decision to Attack Obama on Libya. The byline was David Sanger and Ashley Parker. The big news out of the story was that Romney himself had been the driver of last nights decision making. That and a lot of other color and interesting news. As I write, its still that piece and lede thats on the front page. But now its been replaced (same url) by an almost unrecognizable piece entitled A Challengers Criticism Is Furiously Returned, bylined by Peter Baker and Ashley Parker.
I first saw the story through a blast email. Then I saw it on the Times website. Then it was gone.
The thrust of the piece is dramatically different and, unless Im missing something, leaves out this critical quote from a Romney senior advisor explaining their rationale. Weve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obamas foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique, that Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy, especially if you look at his dealings with the Arab Spring and its aftermath.
So basically, we saw this thing happen. It fit with our campaign narrative. So we pounced.
What happened to the other story? Pieces get rewritten all the time, especially with a breaking news story. But this would seem to require some explanation.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/alright_whats_up.php
Check out a snip from the original piece here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014227817
In addition to the changes mentioned by Marshall, the current piece is also missing this paragraph:
For a country looking to understand how Mr. Romney, a Republican candidate with no foreign policy experience, would respond to a major crisis, this was a first glimpse. And as an adviser to the campaign who worked in the George W. Bush administration said on Wednesday, Mr. Romneys accusation that Mr. Obama had invited the attacks because he had weakened America looked like he had forgotten the first rule in a crisis: dont start talking before you understand whats happening.
The adviser's quote is cited in this post:
Mitt Romney Now Has Less Foreign Policy Credibility Than Sarah Palin
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021332016
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 885 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Alright, What’s Up? (Original Post)
ProSense
Sep 2012
OP
Mopar151
(9,983 posts)1. I think the Pres got it in the fewest words
"He tends to shoot first and aim later."
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)2. Absolutely!!! n/t