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

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.”

Posted by MNDude in #8 on this thread:

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.

Great post, MNDude... thanks for those details.

As I posted on a similar thread:

1 - Per debate rules Crowley was not to interject herself into the conversation since the candidates were addressing members of the public. (hmmm)

2 - Crowley actually asked the question that started the exchange vs. a member of the audience. (hmmm)

3 - Crowley had a piece of paper that she waved as she “corrected” Romney and Obama asked Crowley to “read the transcript” even before she indicated that it was indeed a copy of Obama’s Sep. 12 speech. (hmmm)

4 - Crowley clearly took Obama’s cue when he deigned that he would gladly talk more foreign affairs BUT...and Crowley ended the segment. (hmmm)

5 - The audience was prompted to applause by someone. M. Obama may have started it (that would be doubly scandalous) but we know for a fact now via a CNN reporter herself that she did applaud. (hmmm)

All-in-all it was clearly an activist act by Crowley that probably was not a whispered conspiracy between her and Obama but simply an obvious leg up in the form of a softball to allow Obama to spout his “outrage” and, when the opportunity arose, to counter Romney.

This is not 2008. More and more people are seeing the obvious pro-Dem bias in the media in general and pick up on the cues a lot easier. It has become more instinctual. Even if you were a pro-Obama person you would have be self-delusional to not see a level of favoritism in that particular exchange.

The fact that Crowley essentially rescinded her interjection and agreed that Romney was right will be very useful in the next debate on Oct. 22. This debate, format-wise, is the same as the first but is strictly foreign policy. If the Obama camp really thinks that this stunt by Crowley has put them in a better position for a 90-minute debate on foreign policy (and the last time the candidate will be seen together) they are gravely mistaken. This became the most memorable moment of the night and still, as an issue, is not only completely unresolved but has only added more fuel to the fire.

“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? “

No. Axelros already said this BS to Crowley on September 30. Crowley adopted this talking point she was fed by Axelrod.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2945905/posts

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.