Video(several): Who’s up for a focus-group shoutfest about Candy Crowley’s debate moderation?

Hot Air ^ | 10:13 pm on October 17, 2012 | Allahpundit

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Video fun to help wind down the day after. It starts slow but perks up about halfway through. True story: An apolitical friend surprised me today by launching into a two-pronged tirade about the debate. Prong one was him insisting that when O got snotty with Romney about his Benghazi accusations, he came off like a — well, let’s say jerk, although “jerk” wasn’t the word he used. Prong two was him asking me, as a political junkie, to explain how Candy Crowley could have interjected on O’s behalf during the Libya exchange when the moderator’s supposed to be passive and impartial. I didn’t know what to tell him, except to reassure him that Candy herself used to think the White House’s spin about “acts of terror” was lame, and that Obama had all but admitted to an audience member afterward that, yeah, the Rose Garden statement didn’t mean a whole lot. But hey — she wanted a bigger role in the debate and the left wanted more “fact-checking” of Romney since the only reason he won that first debate was because he’s a lying liar who lies, you know, so she chimed in at an opportune moment on their candidate’s behalf. CNN sounds pretty happy about it, which is what’s really important.

Anyway, those are the results of my new poll of undecided voters about the debate. Sample size: One. Exit quotation: “Crowley did her profession a disservice last night and confirmed many American’s deepest suspicions about the media in the process.”

Video at the LINK....

Great Action

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This has the clip from the debate with Candy interrupting....then her appearance on CNN and finally a Foxnews Focus Group of about 10 people that absolutely could not agree on much of anything....Megyn had her hands full.

Talk about people being confused.

This is not even close to being over......

[generally]

Personally, I think it was way beyond media bias. I think it was collusion with the 0bama campaign.

Re-Watch the debate when this occurs. 0bama says something like “Proceed, governor” and looks smug. Check out the body language. Then compare to the rest of the debate where he tried to talk over Romney, argued with him, or accused him of lying. Compare to the rest of the debate where he was not content to just sit back and listen while Romney spoke.

Why didn’t he do that in this instance? Because it was a trap that the Democrats and the media set for Romney and he wanted Romney to walk all the way into it.

How convenient that Crowley just happened to have the answer that 0bama needed! Would she have been able to produce the record of any other speech that quickly?

Anyone else think this was planned and rehearsed?

[acapesket]

yup

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

Look, the Muslim in the White House cringes at the very thought of saying ‘terrorist attack’. He simply will not do it when the offenders are Muslims. Romney screwed up when he said ‘act of terror’; He should look Obama in the eye and say “Why can’t you call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack?.. To date you STILL have not called what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack!! You even labeled the shooting at Ft. Hood by a killer shouting ‘Allah Akbar’ as ‘Workplace violence’.. Who are you trying to protect, Mr. President? Let’s hear you say it just this ONCE.. America’s still waiting..”

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And I think that someone shouted something about the transcript.....you might be right...

[Conservative4Ever]

In a time long ago, Ms candy would be unemployed today for her job performance from last night.

[MNDude]

My comments from before:

At: :14 Romney starts he statement about how Obama did not call the attack terrorism.

At :29 Obama smugly tells Romney to proceed.

At :38 Obama tells Crowley “Get the transcript!”

At: :39 (possibly before the word transcript even completely leaves Obama’s mouth) Crowley states “he did infact”

So, we are to believe that amoung hundreds of speeches, policies, political ads, and actions of the two candidates, that Crowley was able to find and fact check the transcript of that exact particular speech within zero seconds?

Even if she decided to stop worring about what her next question would be, and immediately start fact checking at the transcripts :14 seconds, that would given her only 25 seconds to find and verify that statement.

I challenge anyone to try to verify any statement at some Rose Garden speech within 25 seconds, let alone ZERO seconds!!

I rarely subscribe to conspiracies, but there’s no way you can explain this other than a huge setup.

[Seaplaner]

Just as with Mister Rather and his never-to-be-forgotten forged documents, one suspects that Ms. Crowley will never live her deliberate debate cheating down.

Question, would "whore" be too strong a term to describe her political activist immoderation?

.

[Marine_Uncle]

"when O got snotty with Romney about his Benghazi accusations, he came off like a ..."
Well perhaps the Ambassador Blind Sheik exchange will pan out and we will see just who should be placed in prison after being impeached. I'll let it go at that.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well Daamn....I just listened carefully to the clip....IT WAS OBAMA that said something about the TRANSCRIPT!

How did he know there was going to be a transcript there?

Does that mean he knew the question was going to be asked,.???

Was this Fair?

[butterdezillion]

Obama telling Crowley to get out the transcript that she just happened to have handy does seem a bit suspicious.... especially since she readily admitted afterwards that the transcript does NOT say what she claimed it did in the “script”.

Along with the other things you mentioned.

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

Mr. President, How long does it take you to recognize a terrorist attack; 12 hours, 4 days, 12 days? America was waiting for you to tell them what they already knew but you never did and still haven’t.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Nice Detail.....

[imskylark]

Megyn’s group were pundits. They were set up as focus group but they put what they were up when they spoke. I remember one was a Dem pollster.

[Revolting cat!]

“Collusion”, “conspiracy”, give it a rest! There was neither. It is worse, much worse. It is a conspiracy of minds, and has always been such. They don’t have to collude when they already think alike. As for sweet Candy, she’s a professional, she prepared, and she anticipated Romney’s attack, which wasn’t hard to do, and she was ready to defend her hero of radiant socialist future.

[Marine_Uncle]

I'm more interested in what the these two posts have brought out:
Post 1.
Post 2.
But I do totally respect the concerns we all have over the set up between Obama's operative and himself during the debate.

[RobinOfKingston]

And I think that someone shouted something about the transcript.....you might be right...

I went back and listened twice. That was obama saying, "get the transcript."

If the transcript was not there at the time of the debate, there was no time in the debate to get the transcript. If the transcript was on hand, there had to have been collusion.

[tx_eggman]

How convenient that Crowley just happened to have the answer that 0bama needed! Would she have been able to produce the record of any other speech that quickly?

... and, if it wasn't a preplanned setup, how in the hell did Bambi know that Crowley had the transcript in front of her in her stack of papers? He would only have commanded her to "read the transcript" if he knew she had it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the comments at Hot Air:

*******************************EXCERPT******************************************

How did Crowley know to have the Rose Garden transcript in front of her? How did Obama know she would have them to check?

John the Libertarian on October 17, 2012 at 10:58 PM

And the clincher: Why did Obama not even hesitate before saying, “Get the Transcript?” Is he usually so quick on his feet? If you’ve been watching the debates and seeing how long it takes him to answer a question, you know better.

When I first heard hints of collusion, it sounded like a conspiracy theory. Watching it live the first time, it looked plausible. But when you watch it again, you notice:

1) When he makes the claim that everyone immediately recognizes as false, that he identified the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism immediately, and Romney started to challenge him, Obama didn’t even look concerned that he might have made a mistake. He already knew how the whole thing was going to play out.

2) When Romney twice says, “Are you sure you want to claim that?” Obama still doesn’t look a bit worried. He tells Romney to “proceed.” Quite obviously, he knew what was coming and was anxious to finish it.

3) When Romney finally says outright that Obama did NOT identify it as an act of terror in the Rose Garden, Obama immediately says, “Get the transcript.” Obviously, he didn’t have to ask if the transcript was available. He knew it was right there waiting for him.

4) When Crowley reads from the transcript (out of context), Obama is immediately and smugly telling her to say it again. Obviously, he knew exactly what was coming.

Conclusion: Romney was sandbagged. And he was sandbagged because Crowley and Obama colluded.

At this point, it’s not just a conspiracy theory. It’s obvious.

tom on October 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Candy Crowey is a huge Obama fan!

Crowley is a big Obama supporter, but then again, she was big enough to admit she was wrong.

petunia on October 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Now we know who drank all the sugary kook aid!

petunia on October 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Kool aid… sorry.

Crowley was the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room and the elephant in the corner!

petunia on October 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

It seems odder still that she had the transcript at the ready, and Obama apparently knew it, too, since he asked her to check it. Almost as though it had been planned. And Michelle applauded when they pulled it off.

Midas on October 17, 2012 at 10:35 PM

I’ve been tweeting this all day! If you listen he turned to her and said read it candy. So how did he know she had it? Of course they conferred & it was obvious she was a shill 4 the chicago thug! I am SO SICK of the left msm doing all the debates! Was poor widdle 0 afwaid to debate with a real moderator? And then poor widdle 0′s wife had to make sure she led the clapping even though they had agreed not to clap. Did widdle candy say anything? Nope! Did she throw kisses to michelle?
You can see I’m digressing into a 3rd grader!

Sorry, this sounds co-ordinated between the President and Crowley. Honestly, it came off perfectly and it would seem that the President and his team had prior knowledge of Romney’s attack…weird that Crowley had the fact check in front of her!!!

allstonian on October 17, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Even though the fact check was wrong!

Then they ignore all of 0′s supporter’s death threats against Romney!

Bambi on October 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Ok.. there wasn’t a two faced lying leftb wing douchebag on that panel, who shouldn’t have been shaken like a rat.

“Romney has never been held to account for his lies”?

An actual educated human said that,.. when the entire media minus FOX has been desperately trying to shovel dirt on the grave of his candidacy since the start..

The idiot left on that panel were outraged, they got called out for rigging the debate..

again.. the left cheats..

always..

They can’t even have a friendly game of catch with their kids, without tripping them… and throwing elbows like the thugs they are..

I have a lot of democrat friends.. and not one single progg.. or far left liberal.. because they’re not the kind of people anyone can trust,.. rank and file democrats, get misinformed, lied too.. and haven’t learned yet how badly they’re exploited..

Hopefully with that demagogue Obama gone.. the democrats will be able to yank their party back towards the center,, and away from the lunatic left.

mark81150 on October 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

It’s a little sad that liberals think so lowly of their politicians, particularly their black ones, that they feel they have to constantly help, cheat, thumb the scales for, and tell lies in order to help out their fellow leftists. It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations. I mean, if a liberal politician was all that and a bag o’ chips, then there would be no need for all this help from the likes of Candy Crowley.

ted c on October 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2

You must be logged in and have JavaScript enabled to post a comment.

Logged in as . Log out »