Obama was given 3 minutes more speaking time in crucial second 2012 presidential debate after CNN and debate "commission producers" "tried in vain" to keep candidates to allotted time. CNN said this was because Obama "speaks more slowly"

.
10/17/2012: "Moderator Candy Crowley, the CNN chief political correspondent, tried in vain at times to prevent each candidate from going over allotted time, with Obama speaking for more than three minutes longer than Romney on the night."..."Obama gets the edge over Romney in a bruising debate," CNN, Tom Cohen

Oct. 2012 article

10/17/2012, "CNN Tries to Blunt Romney Criticism Over Candy," TMZ staff

"CNN's Managing Editor sent an email around the office today, praising Candy Crowley and trying to blunt criticism that she was unfair to Mitt Romney.

The email -- sent by Mark Whitaker and obtained by TMZ -- is almost a series of talking points to address Candy's critics."...

From the email:

""Let's start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable....She pulled it off masterfully.

The reviews on Candy's performance have been overwhelmingly positive but Romney supporters are going after her on two points, no doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver....On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly.""...

..........................

Ed. note: The point of this isn't that pathetic Romney might otherwise have won--he had no intention of winning, never wanted the job, and hated the whole idea of running. The point is that "the commission" and media involved were going to do their best to help Romney lose. After "trying in vain" to get Obama to stay within his allotted time....

10/16/2012, CNN

Dec. 2012 articles:

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I'd met in my life. He had no desire to...run,” said Tagg, who worked with his mother, Ann, to persuade his father to seek the presidency. “If he could have found someone else to take his place. . .he would have been ecstatic to step aside." 

"So, yeah, that might explain why Mitt lost. Not wanting the job you need to publicly campaign for more than a year to get"... 

12/23/2012, "Mitt's Son Says He Never Wanted to be President Anyway," Atlantic Wire, Connor Simpson 

"If you thought the tale of how Mitt Romney lost the general election was already told, you would be wrong. Because there is so much left to tell, like how Mitt never wanted to be President anyway. 

At least, that's what Tagg Romney says in this new Boston Globe report on what went wrong with Romney's campaign. While the rest of the piece seems to say the problems lay in the Romney campaign's lack of technical advantage, and refusal to introduce the world to Mitt Romney, the human being, this little morsel from the Republican's son points to a larger problem:

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire to...run,” said Tagg, who worked with his mother, Ann, to persuade his father to seek the presidency. “If he could have found someone else to take his place...he would have been ecstatic to step aside."

So, yeah, that might explain why Mitt lost. Not wanting the job you need to publicly campaign for more than a year to get is step one in the "Not Getting Elected Guide for Dummies" book. Again, the rest of the mammoth piece, which you really should read, paints a larger picture of the struggle between Mitt's inner circle and his campaign advisors over whether they should humanize Mitt, which was ultimately their downfall."...

Dec. 2012 Boston Globe article:

12/23/2012, "The story behind Mitt Romney’s loss in the presidential campaign to President Obama," Boston Globe, Michael Kranish

.............................

Comment: Romney and the GOP Establishment are very lucky they're not in jail having run a $1 billion fraud. Romney's still around because the media likes "Republicans" who've lost or who pose no threat of winning in the future. 

.................