Posted on 10/16/2012 8:52:50 PM PDT by bronxville
The lowest and most dishonest part of Crowley's disgraceful "moderation" was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama's side when the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration's lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as cover the claim that he had called the attack a "terrorist attack" on that very first day during his Rose Garden statement.
Romney correctly disputed that.
Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama's side and the crowd exploded.
Here's what Obama said that day:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
What is the difference between Aleister Crowley and Candy Crowley?
Exactly - it’s almost like it was pre-planned right?
That Obama knew, of course, Libya would come up - so they strategized this false narrative to throw Romney and everyone else off.
I think, in a way, Candy may have been duped.
I suspect they sent her an out of context quote from that speech and she probably accepted it at face value without reviewing the entire footage.
She is a hag but now Libya will be that talking point and help Romney. The media and barry cannot square a circle
There was one point in the debate that 0bama referred to the terrorists as “FOLKS.” It was like he could not even bear to say the word terrorist. He said we are going to go after these FOLKS. If someone can find that quote in the transcript...I think it says it all!
I am, first of all, appalled that anyone would set rules for a “town hall” in which the moderator gets to choose the questions.
There is absolutely no reason the “undecideds” couldn’t be numbered, and then numbers pulled randomly out of a bowl.
Instead, we get a question: “How are you different from President Bush?”
Besides being an absolutely stupid question, it is such a partisan question that if defies reason.
Moreover, that became Obama’s question, too. So, we have a question designed completely to put one side on the defensive, and then the other side gets to deal with it at the outset from the offensive. It is an unconscionable, extremely biased approach to a “neutral” debate.
At a minimum, Obama should have been asked “How are you different from Jimmy Carter’s presidency?”
Instead we have the referee forcing the Packers to kick off from the end zone, and then that same referee awards the ball to the Bengals first and goal from the one.
If any one question demonstrated extreme unfairness in the setting itself, it was that one.
She was definitely an Obot plant. Trying desperately to put Romney in a box.
If this wasn't evidence of a mostly rigged debate I don't know what was.
I would like to know who vetted these "undecideds"
What questions where asked of them, who did they vote for in the previous election, what is their party affiliation, do they work for the government, are they on the dole, etc,etc,etc.
Someone needs to investigate the woman that asked the questions about Bush. She was so far in the tank for the socialists/democRats it was oozing from her pores. Nothing but a sham in my opinion. Just pathetic.
Or was she provided with a transcript by the Obama campaign in advance of the debate.
Was this a set up?
Obama planned to say that he called it a terrorist attack on the 12th and Crowley was "prepped" to support that lie?
In fact, didn't Obama point at Crowley and say, "read the transcript?"
This is the last thing they wanted.....
You are both SO CORRECT!
“I’m glad to see my warning Crowley would ADVOCATE for Obama was on target. I’d have preferred to have been surprised.”
A comment of mine from yesterday;
““She gets to pick which pre-screened questions will be asked,”
So,,,, she and her team have been working frantically to figure out follow-up questions to slam Romney. Great.”
I think all of us knew this would happen. I didn’t watch.
Kind of odd, real odd.
Crowley, during her explanation about the Libya “fact check” said that she anticipated the Libya question (obviously, since she got to choose the questions that were used— it would be hard NOT to anticiate the question) and so she boned up on the topic. However, she didn’t come close to getting the quote of Obama at the Rose Garden statement on 9/12 right. She needs to bone up on her boning up.
I smell 'COLLUSION', as in 'PRE-PLANNED' and 'COORDINATED' collusion!!!!
Think about it...... - She 'picks' LIBYA question
- Obama already knows that Romney is going to bring the Bhengazi attack up, so he has (pre-Debate) PREPARED to DOUBLE-DOWN and answer emphatically that he called it an "act of terror" in the Rose Garden (when everyone knows he did not do so till 14 days later).
- Obama (and Crowley) HAVE TO ASSUME that Romney will be 'shocked' to hear that, and Romney will claim that Obama DID NOT SAY THAT!
- Crowley then (on cue) THROWS UP THE 'TRANSCRIPT' that OBAMA did say "terror" in the transcript, without even bothering to show the audience that she in fact READ IT right then and there!
Why is it that there is never a Republican moderator? 4 out of 4 liberal moderators is absurd.
Mitt still won big in my opinion.
Interesting that all those posters saying how great a job Cowley did in the second debate thread are absent from this thread...
He was so smug wasn’t he?
“Could you say that louder Candy?”
That was absolutely pre-planned
I agree that Romney won, if the measure is (as it should be) who gained more votes because of the debate. One can argue that as Krauthammer said, “on points” Obama may have won (not conceding that point, just noting it). But the ultimate goal of any debate is to sway voters to your side. I don’t think anyone who was undecided before last night will vote for Obama because of his performance, but many will vote for Romney because of his.
Obama laid out no new plans for a proposed 2nd term. He was wrong on Libya. His attacks on Romney largely fell flat. True, he was awake for this debate and thus his performance was greatly improved. Pretty low threshold for claiming a win, I’d say.
That is a great point.. Obama commanded, "Get the text." A microsecond later the "nonpartisan" moderator announced that the text proved that Romney was mistaken -- the "terror" was in like the 16th paragraph, the "nonpartisan" moderator must have had it already high-lighted.
It will be interesting to see if any "talking heads" in the MSM say anything about that.
What ever became of EXCELLENCE in American choices/decisions?
More accurately, she should be fired. A journalist's first job is to be accurate. It's not like Libya hasn't been in the news, despite the liberal media's attempt to hide it. It is not unreasonable to expect the moderator of a Presidential debate to have the known facts of the matter in hand when the issue arises in debate.
If we had a press in this country that was the least bit interested in neutral reporting, Crowley's resignation would be on the news director's desk this morning.
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.