Accused by republicans of “spiking the ball” on the anniversary of Osama bin Ladin’s death, the Obama campaign’s reply was a mixture of denial (the celebration isn’t excessive), justification (he has a right to tout his accomplishments) and counter attack (based on Romney’s own past comments, he wouldn’t have ordered the raid). Whether you agree or not or support Obama or not, the “spiking the ball” charge was addressed head on and not deflected by counterattack ALONE. Contrast this with the Romney campaign, which SELDOM responds to the actual charges being made and relies SOLEY on counterattack and/or diversion. Obama’s reference the Romney statement “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person” was met by this response from Romney campaign press secretary Andrea Saul: “It’s unfortunate that President Obama would prefer to use what was a good day for all Americans as a cheap political ploy. President Obama’s feckless foreign policy has…” (and so on) Yeah, Andrea; but what about the “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth” statement? She could have said the statement was taken out of context and/or several years old but didn’t even try. She simply ignored the charges and counterattacked. This is fairly typical of the Romney campaign response to VIRTUALLY EVERY CRITICISM OR ATTACK. Watch for yourself. Let us know if it varies. It seldom does. Watch also if the media EVER asks the obvious follow up; but Andrea, what’s your response to the specific allegations of the attack?
Of course counterattack is a valid and valuable political response. But Romney uses it as a device to enable evading his own actions. If caught burglarizing, Romney would point to all the other criminals out there committing more egregious crimes. Given the overly accommodating media, this non-response would serve him well in politics. But to an arresting officer faced with evidence of a crime it would not keep Romney out of jail.