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?
yup
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.
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?
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.
... 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.
That should be the story.....when Obama said.. “get the script” Candy already had it in her hand...
The question should be to Candy.....
HOW DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?
Unintended consequences, too bad for them, gulp.
I was working last night. I was in ICU drawing a patient and I heard the first question and Romney answered it good, then Obama started speaking and I thought right there the fix is in. He was to rehearsed and to fast on the answer. I do think that the collusion was there.. Maybe in 2016 we will say “Hell No” to the John Candy Crowley’s and the Wolf Blitzers and the Jim Leher. No more liberal moderators. Get it repubtards when you stack the panel with people who hate you this is the outcome.
There is a CNN video of Axelrod trying to convince Crowley that O’Bummer said “terrorist” the next day after the event. The video date is September 30th.
Anyone else think this was planned and rehearsed?
YES! Absolutely. Those same thoughts went through my mind as soon as it happened live on TV.
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.