Candy Crowley
One CNN Center
Atlanta, GA 30303
Gadzooks! I am stuffing... 
my envelope right now—
The moderator’s cover for obama is actually a good thing.
Just when the Libya scandal and coverup were dying down, now everyone is talking about it again...
This is what happens when the Stupid Party (Republicans) let the corrupt MSM drive the debates. We get Martha Raddatz assisting Joe Biden and Candy Crowley assisting Obama. A complete disgrace. I hope Alan Simpson and Frank Fahrenkopf, et. al., are happy with what they’ve rendered.
The next debate, Romney needs to refer to the Benghazi attack as, “The 2nd Sept. 11th terrorist attack” or something similar. He needs to connect the date with the attack, because that’s what Obama’s people have been trying to avoid being said in the MSM.
Candy Crowley
One CNN Center
Atlanta, GA 30303
Gadzooks! I am stuffing... my envelope right now—
Every GOP nominee needs to keep this in mind:
Presidential/Vice Presidential Debates in a libMedia venue is a tag team event — for the opposition.
Raddatz, Crowley, Lehrer. Each, as if on cue, interjected into the debate — for the benefit of Obama/Biden.
Good Article of what took place. It did appear to be a setup orchestrated and coordinated between the zer0 camp and crowley to cover-up lies on libya by zer0. Another reason not to believe the lamestream on anything. Just believe me and zer0 was the MO by crowley. Glad there was enough outrage to set the record straight, though the damage was done by crowley. The woman (crowley) should never have been allowed to be in front of a camera or behind a camera at an event of this magnitude. She lied. crowley is a known commodity. True liberal and liar. It is and was almost as if she and zer0 rehearsed this lie.
I noticed how COWley and Hussein signaled each other a couple times with a nod/finger point, Hussein got three minutes more and COWley subsequently cut Romney off. Pretty obvious, if it was supposed to be subtle.
I hope she continues to take tons of flack for her lousy *moderating* in the upcoming daze.
The Frank Luntz focus group .... REAL people as opposed to talking heads, was ‘wowed’ by Romney. About 3/4 of them voted for Obama last time .... maybe 2-4 are voting for him this time. Two of those still voting for Obama are Ozombie women spouting the line of ‘going back to the stone age’ on women’s rights if Romney is elected. Frank went down the front row asking for descriptions of Romney - “presidential” was probably the most frequent word used. I was really surprised and encouraged when I saw the reaction - very enthusiastic. I got the impression that the first debate was ‘hey, this guy is good, I think I could vote for him’ and the second debate, with Romney holding his own (at a minimum) with having to debate Crowley as well, tipped them over the edge & convinced them Romney is the real deal. Romney’s economic message/plan is really sinking in and making sense. Obama was referred to as a “bullshitter” by one fellow and a lot of heads were nodding - the fellow using that term said he was fooled by the BS & voted for Obama the last election, but not this one. These are real people as opposed to the ‘talking heads’. If this group’s views of the debate(s) are anywhere near true for others watching the debate, Romney’s numbers will continue to go up and Obama is going to lose.
• If “O’s” initial response was vague on the Libya issue… that is what the WH wanted!
• If America did not comprehend precisely what the WH response to this was… that was the plan!
• If the debate venue looked like a Mulligan for “O”, on his response to the Libyan attack… THAT is what it WAS!
THIS is the usual Liberal procedure in dealing with everything. Buying acres of wiggle-room RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING with deliberately confusing and ambiguous language IS their standard practice.
The administration (AND “O”) was NEVER clear or consistent in their response to this.
It is typical of the way “O” has handled EVERYTHING. That was intentional and calculated.
He is so disinclined to the idea of personal responsibility, so unqualified at decision-making and incapable of commitment that his responses ALWAYS take on this imprecise, ill-defined and ambiguous character.
It is INVARIABLY the way he responds to a challenge or a question!!
Crowely is just another obama slut who never intended the debate to be fair or moderated— just won by obama.
” - - - After the debate, an unapologetic Crowley jovially admitted on CNN that Romney was correct - - - “
Candy was handy to Censor Mitt,
No apologies there, not one little bit!
“Keep Obama afloat” was her duty charge,
Keep censoring Romney and make Obama look fit!
The Censoring Liberal Agenda Media (CLAM)
Will give Crowley her reward,
The First Woman Referee in Presidential Town Hall,
Proudly, so proudly kept Obama from a bad fall.
And now the CLAM workers,
And all Axelrod’s men
Will spin Demo glue
Over Obama’s thin skin.
Just saw a clip of her explanation on CNN:
http://freebeacon.com/candy-crowley-he-was-right/
It wasn’t an apology at all, and she led her comment right off by IMO purposely misquoting the quote, if you will.
She said, “When Obama said ‘These acts of terror won’t stand’ or whatever the whole quote was’”, when he never referred to “these acts”, implying that’s what Benghazi was, at all. And it was based on this further lie that she tried to claim that Romney was wrong for using the word ‘terror’.
Despicable.
She made it clear before the actual debate that ‘she wasn’t going to be a fly on the wall’.
She was certainly not a fly on the wall- she was participating—not moderating.
However, I would call her a walrus at the table—not a fly on the wall.
Video(several): Who’s up for a focus-group shoutfest about Candy Crowley’s debate moderation?