October 16, 2012

"The moderator will not... intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period."

That was the contractual term that Candy Crowley agreed to and blatantly violated in the debate tonight. She let us know in advance that she wasn't going to follow it:
"They will call on 'Alice,' and 'Alice' will stand up and ask a question. Both candidates will answer. Then there's time for a follow-up question, facilitating a discussion, whatever you want to call it," Crowley said. "So if Alice asks oranges, and someone answers apples, there's the time to go, 'But Alice asked oranges? What's the answer to that?" Or, 'Well, you say this, but what about that?'"
But she went way beyond her own statement of how much she was going to violate it.

206 comments:

1 – 200 of 206   Newer›   Newest»
ThomasD said...

In the world of Journolistism, we call that failing upwards.

YoungHegelian said...

It is just so wrong to say the media are whores.

It slanders far too many good & honest sex workers.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm laughing, Althouse, because I predicted that you would wait until tomorrow morning to go after this.

It's eating at you, huh?

Tomorrow should be fun. I'm looking forward to your lawyerly vetting of Obama's remarks re Benghazi.

T J Sawyer said...

She just wanted to prove that she has the second best intellect in the building - after Dear Leader.

Shantastik said...

Why the surprise? This has been going on for decades. The media and the DEM party are one and the same.

Shantastik said...

Why the surprise? This has been going on for decades. The media and the DEM party are one and the same.

John DeTombe said...

When was the last time you saw a debate moderator this biased in favor of a Republican candidate?

Ever?

gmama3 said...

Candy wasn't the moderator, she was Obama's debate partner.

Shouting Thomas said...

The Legacy Media continues its fight for survival against the New Media.

This is fun, isn't it, Althouse?

You're winning. Enjoy it.

pm317 said...

HE LIED and SHE LIED for him. But the disgusting part was that they both talked and interfered when Romney was talking. The reprehensible thing was that their MO was to drown out Romney. Throughout the debate, Obama cried "Mommmyyyy" and Candy obliged, by cutting off Romney in mid sentence and giving Obama more time and more opportunity to shout at the audience and at Romney.

Shouting Thomas said...

I had a great time tonight, Althouse. Rehearsal with the Old Dawgz. I predict that we will surprise you with where we go.

Think of the Legacy Media as people who are watching their job skills erode and disappear in the face of the New Media.

I'll bet you'll have trouble sleeping tonight, as you gear up for the vetting tomorrow morning.

marshall2twr said...

Absolutely unbelieveable, have you seen that Crowley has already retracted her defense of Obama and conceeded that Romney was correct in the point he was trying to make?

GeeGuy said...

Also, all of the 'fact checking' about whether Crowley was right or not misses the point. You didn't see her jumping in when the President claimed to the the king of fossil fuels. Right or wrong; she should have kept her damned nose out of it.

Pogo said...

Worse, they colluded. I sensed that Obama knew the questions beforehand. Crowley's interruption was too much at the ready for this. I call bullshit.

YoungHegelian said...

Look, there's more than enough blame to go around here. How many times does this have to happen to the Repubs before they get the big picture that the press is not on their side?

The Repubs should make demands of the press as conditions for the debate and make them stick or no debate, like a having a known conservative as a moderator. or, at least, dump these "pretend objective" reporters and go with an honest & intelligent lefty like David Corn.

Shouting Thomas said...

Now that you have the platform, Althouse...

Well, you know what to do.

What looks tonight like a victory for Obama will, I predict, slowly unravel over the coming week.

The cat is out of the bag.

Econophile said...

Crowley almost concedes being completely wrong here, but concludes that Romney could have chosen *his* words differently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs&feature=youtu.be

That she interjected at all was awful enough already.

Sammy said...

She was so awful... Why is it that unless the monderator is a third in the debate helping the democrats , the democrats can't get a tie... Republicans have to get more tough it isn't as if they can pull these off without them...


And she picked all the questions... Could they have been more tailored for Obama... So sick of it.

creeley23 said...

And once again the Democrat candidate got more air time than the Republican -- three minutes longer according to Jonathon Tobin at Commentary.

Shouting Thomas said...

When the history of the self-destruction of the Legacy Media is written, Althouse, do you think that the Crowley episode will be considered the critical moment?

mccullough said...

My expectations of Crowley were low and she didn't live up to them.

NoraCharles said...

Cary had the best question of the night, the one the professionals won't ask, who dismissed Stevens' request for additional security? We still don't know.

gmama3 said...

Pogo, I thought the same thing. Obama can't speak fluidly unless he knows exactly what he's supposed to say. He didn't do his uh, uh, incoherent thing he usually does.

He knew what the questions were in advance. Why would anyone think any differently given how biased all three debates have been in favor of the Democrats. They got more time and the Republicans were continually interrupted by the moderators. In every debate so far. Of course they sent a list of questions to Obama, they knew he had to win.

Donald Douglas said...

I got you linked up Ann, including your post from Instapundit: 'Candy Crowley Shills for Obama at Hofstra Debate!'

There's video at that link.

mccullough said...

Given the liberal bias of big media corporations, Citizens United is an important decision.

Dr Weevil said...

YoungHegelian:
There's another way in which it's unfair to Crowley to call her a whore. I forget whether it was Beavis or Butt-Head, but one or the other said about his mother "She's not a whore, she's a slut: she doesn't charge for it." I'm confident the Obama campaign would have felt no need to provide Crowley with money or gifts or favors of any kind, even if they were confident they wouldn't get caught: she doesn't charge for gross favoritism and they know it.

Lem said...

Crawly Crawled into the debate in the Benghazi question.

David said...

Obama needed the help. A fact that will not be lost on some undecideds.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Unexpectedly!

chickelit said...

What do they say in the NFL about complaining about the refs?

There's another debate and an election to go.

Can we mock Crawley's gravitas yet?

pm317 said...

David said...

Obama needed the help. A fact that will not be lost on some undecideds.
----------------
Yeah, that miserable SoB needed a pillow and he got one from Candy. "Mommmyyy"

ALH said...

I am not one for conspiracy theories.

Part of Crowleys job for the past month has been to parse the administration's statements about Libya and she plausibly could have remembered the mention of "acts of terror" by Obama.

BUT, it does seem odd that she rushed in so quickly to act on behalf of Obama. I mean if he said it, let him rebut Romney himself. Feeling charitable, i'll assume she was just caught up in the moment, forgot what her job was and wanted to look like the smart kid in class in front of Professor Obama.

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pm317 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

Two moderators: one picked by Rs to ask the D candidate questions and one picked by Ds to ask R candidate questions. No bias problems. No softball questions.



Oops! Had the Rs asking the D twice. Deleted and fixed.

chickelit said...

I'm with Althouse here and if she keeps it up I will hit the tip jar. This story is all about getting right what happened when and where in the past, which is what litigation is.

This is not the Wild West of John Ford. It's important to print the facts before they distort into legend.

Chip S. said...

It's gonna take a while for Candy to wipe all that presidential jizz off her chins.

ALH said...

Hey, thanks for the visual Chip!
Think I will skip my midnight snack...appetite seems to have mysteriously vanished.

Chip S. said...

Sorry, ALH.

Good thing I didn't draw a parallel to this, I guess.

Oh, wait.

pm317 said...

Transcript of the debate:

"Crowley interrupted Romney during the debate, insisting that President Obama had in fact called the attack an “act of terror.”

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that."

Sammy said...


Romney, much like the Last Starfighter, appears to be equipped with some sort of 'Death Blossom' multi-vectored defense mechanism.

Biased crowd, planted questions, Obama lying through his teeth, Crowley the Hutt and the entire Kodan armada came after him...and he held them off.

chickelit said...

Biased crowd, planted questions, Obama lying through his teeth, Crowley the Hutt and the entire Kodan armada came after him...and he held them off.

Thank goodness Crack is no longer with us to remind us about the plane Kolob.

Lem said...

The Last Starfighter... I loved that movie.

Sammy said...

Is anyone asking how Crowley came up with that ‘acts of terror” quote so quickly? It was an obscure line in a speech given weeks ago.
Could it be that the Obama camp tipped her that he was going there?
How else to be prepared to back up Obama when a clearly thunderstruck Romney pounced? He couldn’t believe Obama would spout such a brazen falsehood yet Crowley was prepared to leap to the One’s defense. Fishy.

Lem said...

Crack will be back after the election.

chickelit said...

Lem said...
Crack will be back after the election.

And you know this how?

Lem said...

Is anyone asking how Crowley came up with that ‘acts of terror” quote so quickly? It was an obscure line in a speech given weeks ago.

Thats a very good question.

Lem said...

And you know this how?

I'm predicting.

chickelit said...

Chip S. said...
It's gonna take a while for Candy to wipe all that presidential jizz off her chins.

Let's hope that Bob Shieffer lacks Candy's weakness for eye candy.

Chip S. said...

My guess is that Axelrod alerted her to the presence of the magic word in the transcript yesterday.

Chip S. said...

I suppose the question about Bob Schieffer will be, how many falsehoods will he be willing to swallow?

Sammy said...

CNN POLL POST DEBATE BREAKDOWN!!!

Romney wins strong leader over obama 48% to obama 45%

who attacked more? 49% obozo -35% Romney…

who would do a better job on the economy? 58% Romney 40% Obozo

Who would do a better job on health car? 49% Romney – 46% Obama

Who would better handle Taxes? 51% Romney 44% Obama

Who would better handle the deficit??? 59% Romney 36% Obama

= win

Lem said...

I think we treated Crack very well... given his, at times, rough manner of discourse.

Not many people out there are prepared to allow themselves to be as accommodating.

Chip Ahoy said...

I see now. Candy was once a waitress. She's developed that uncanny knack for breaking in with squirrel right as you're zeroing in on the point. Right when you're face to face in earnest discussion, right as you're at the punch line to the joke,

Is the fuzzy peach okay?

Yes the fuzzy peach is fine everything is fine we're having a wonderful time and you're the best. Now where was I?

Chip S. said...

The Luntz focus group broke along the same lines as the poll reported by Sammy. Amazing video.

furious_a said...

State Dept should hire Ms. Crowley for Embassy security the way she had the President's back tonight..

Sammy said...

On Sunday, September 30th, Candy Crowley interviewed John McCain on the Benghazi scandal. During the interview, she said:

Friday [Sept 28th], we got the administration’s sort of definitive statement that this now looks as though it was a pre-planned attack by a terrorist group, some of whom were at least sympathetic to Al-Qaeda. Why do you think, and are you bothered, that it has taken them so long to get to this conclusion?

Those remarks seem to contradict her statement tonight that the President clearly labeled the attack on the Benghazi consulate a terrorist attack in his Rose Garden statement on September 12th.

That’s a good catch by Johnson, and indicates there may have been some collusion and prepping going on.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I hate being in a double bind situation which is where the president and Ms. Crowley seem to want to place me. Lets start out with what the three of us by consensus, they say and I agree, want, the truth. The events in Benghazi were 'a copycat reaction that got out of hand,' Susan Rice days after. We were kind of struggling with how blasphemy should be handled, little example the spraying of an anti-Islam ad in the NYC subway as an anti-blasphemy action. Now history is that we were concerned primarily about terrorism. The head spins; Jesse Jackson,Jr. wanting to come back as an honestly winning aggressive chariot driver gets to be appealing.

Lem said...

Let's hope that Bob Shieffer lacks Candy's weakness for eye candy.

I wander what the first lady has to say about all this sweeteners.

Lem said...

State Dept should hire Ms. Crowley for Embassy security the way she had the President's back tonight..

She spoke softly and carried a big candy for the president.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

I would love to see everything fact checked.

Not just this BHO saying "terror" in the Rose Garden thing. Everything.

I want to have a debate where we hear a giant gong or buzzer every time a candidate (both D and R) says something false.

If we can have a crawl that shows a handful of idiots' feelings expressed via handheld dials, we can surely have a "lie gong."

That would be awesome.

Irony Abounds said...

Althouse, I believe you are completely incorrect in saying CC agreed to those terms. She was not part of the agreement and never agreed to its terms. Will you retract your statement, or leave your misrepresentation of the facts uncorrected?

grackle said...

In a Presidential election the GOP has to play the game with a 10-point handicap. The other side always gets to rig the debates, has the moderators always intervening in its favor, especially if any unforeseen embarrassment should threaten, has the MSM in it's pocket, has academia firmly in its corner, 95% on those involved in the arts backs the other side and the intelligentsia went south a long time ago. The predictability of it is grimly amusing; the unfairness of it is depressing.

Romney did a great job tonight. He had to. Whether it was good enough to break through the handicap only time will tell. Obama did a mediocre job but that's all he had to do. The bar is low for him.

Revenant said...

She's a reporter and a Democrat (but I repeat myself). You honestly expected her to be an impartial moderator? :)

Chip S. said...

Romney should've brought a freshly baked pie to the debate and put it on that table in front of Candy.

She'd have been too distracted to talk.

John said...

Seeing the three of them in the arena showed starkly that Democrat elites today are a society for the mutual protection and advancement of mediocrities. Romney is obviously an achiever -- the other two represent a banding together of slouches.

Lem said...

A big shutout to whoever thought of putting in Candy.

The name alone has been good for... three and a half candies.

bagoh20 said...

"Yes the fuzzy peach is fine everything is fine we're having a wonderful time and you're the best. Now where was I?"

Man, that happens all the time, and it really pisses me off, but I never heard anyone mention it before you just now. Even right after it happens nobody ever says anything about the interruption. Thanks for that, I thought I was the only one who noticed.

Darrell said...

Jim Treacher said--
"Candy Crowley said she wasn't going to sit there like a potted plant. True. She sat there like an Obama plant."

clint said...

I still love the comment from the other thread comparing the Libya question debacle to the end of the Packers game with the replacement refs.

gk1 said...

Even with Candy running interference the whole evening obama can only manage a draw. I think by friday panic will be setting in with the democrats that "Obama has one more debate to turn it around!" while all the downstate dem tickets high tail it for the exits.

wyo sis said...

What!?
Crack is gone?
I go visit the grands for 4 days and Crack disappears.
Did the Mormons finally get him?

bagoh20 said...

Twice when Romney was making a killer point, Obama decided he was the moderator and told Romney to move on. That seems like a pretty rude way to debate, and it looks really bad.

Darrell said...

shiloh is gone, too.
Fell into the cooker on his first
night at the Bumblebee Tuna plant.
Or so I think. The timing couldn't be a coincidence.

They decided to go with packing him in oil. Let's not speculate as to why--that would be in poor taste.

wyo sis said...

shiloh too?
This is terrible.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

wyo sis said...

Inga isn't going is she?

wyo sis said...

Why couldn't it have been Ritmo?

Darrell said...

We're not that lucky.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

So, this is a legal, contractual issue.

And yet, no "law" tag.

For some reason Althouse seems to have been (consciously or not) too embarrassed to link this so-called breach w/ her day job.

wildswan said...

Thanks to all these commenters. I tried to go to sleep but kept thinking about the debate, fired up my computer and here are some others talking about it. My trouble is that my mind is made up that Obama is a liar so I can't quite see the same debate as an undecided person might see. So I have to wait to hear what they say. Apparently they still are moving toward Romney. Obama is just unpersuasive when he says he has a good record - it seems to be as simple as that. At least he is unpersuasive if someone challenges him at once.
Candy Crowley also did the media no favors. Once again Obama got four minutes more than Romney. How is that impartial? Also she interjected but she had no right to do that and why did she think it was needed - can the President of the United States handle a question on his own or can he not? Does wittle cwybaby need Big Momma Crowley to talk for him? Yes. He said so.

AF said...

Dear Right-Wing Noise Machine:

To undo the damage from tonight, you need to come up with something better than complaining about Candy Crowley.

Yours
AF

Lem said...

We're not that lucky.

lol

clint said...

Wow. The MSNBC focus group went overwhelmingly for Romney.

Darrell said...

To undo the damage from tonight, you need to come up with something better than complaining about Candy Crowley.

Is Candy Crowley "Beet Of The Week" with the KosKidz and DU?
Last time America saw that the emperor had no clothes. This time we all had to sit through a Home Shopping Network presentation hosted by Candy telling us how we can buy them and how great they look.

America just voted "Too pricey!"

Palladian said...

wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Trying to dislodge something from your throat, Zachary?

Chip Ahoy said...

Whilst waiting for one of these people to mention the issue of hummingbird migration and hummingbird equal rights protection, which didn't happen
I worked out the most well-crafted NYT Sunday crossword by Richard Silvestri from 1999, so quite old, titled "That Woman"

That's an important clue, the title is. What could it mean?

It means "her."

In the crossword world, the way you jack around with 'her' is to stick the particle where it doesn't belong or remove it from where it is needed, or start things with it or end things with or connect things with it or turn it inside out somehow, to turn it into numbers like telephone key numbers, or perhaps to actually name some specific female within the answer.

The theme is common phrases with "her" dropped into them resulting in a new nonsense phrase that is clued nonsensically but legally and fairly.

With the subtle understanding of experienced solvers that wherever an H or an E or an R occurs within the answer then the rest of HER can be logically attempted, and the solution arrived at quicker.

Angel seeker?
CHERUBSCOUT CUB SCOUT + HER

Blue Grotto cats?
CAPRIPANTHERS CAPRI PANTS +HER

Bottom bottom line?
NETHERPROFIT NET PROFIT +HER

Detect Dan's cologne?
SMELLARATHER SMELL A RAT +HER

Undead in the water?
VAMPIREBATHER VAMPIRE BAT +HER

If 50% survives the heat, then ..?
HALFWITHERS HALF WITS +HER

The plume that's mightier than the sword?
FEATHEROFSTRENGTH FEAT OF STRENGTH +HER

Kin to a kingfish?
LORDOFTHEHERRINGS LORD OF THE RINGS +HER

Darrell said...

Chip Ahoy--

One suggestion, though--don't tell that story if you ever work at The Suicide Hotline.

Chip Ahoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chip Ahoy said...

I made a chocolate pie
And I put it on a plate
And I go, here Candy, have a chocolate pie.
So I get a bunch of apples
And I make another pie
And I go, hey Candy, have an apple pie.
So she's scarfing that and I turn around and made a butternut cheese cake and I go Hey Candy here have some more pie.
And Candy's all nomnomnomnomnom
And then I go, CANDY LOOKY HERE, some ice cream pie.
And she's all, WHAT? NOMNOMNOMNOM
No srsly, Candy, have a square white chocolate cake
And she's all damn, Chip, and I'm all, don't even get me started.

Chip Ahoy said...

That story?

Darrell said...

Excuse me.
I was in the bain-marie when you called.

Chip Ahoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chip Ahoy said...

And Candy goes, stop it Chip I can't stand it
And I go, have some lemon beignets I love you Candy
I really do here's some birthday cake
I love the way you control things with banana flambé
the way you control everything like peach cupcakes
total control, like the banana chocolate malted milkshake badge of self control

Chip Ahoy said...

Did you know you can buy cooking merit badges on eBay?

There are two kind. The old kind is a black metal pot and the new kind is a chef hat, toque if you will, with big fork and spoon and knife.

We used to have giant fork and spoon carved from wood. GIANT. Totally cheesy things to hang in the kitchen. We had a lot of cheesy things.

The worst cheesy thing that mum hung up I'm afraid was my fault. I found a cockroach and became fascinated with its wings. Didn't know they had wings, but they do. Drew it on a white plate with a black crayon. The whole plate.

I do not know why I did that, but it's the sort of thing my parents put up with. Mum got those plate hangy things and displayed the cockroach plate in the kitchen.

Sammy said...

At the very beginning of the Hofstra University presidential debate, “moderator” Candy Crowley announced the rules of the road and noted that the “audience has agreed to be polite and attentive — no cheering, no booing, or outbursts of any sort.”

But many debate watchers on Twitter noticed that First Lady Michelle Obama — in bright pink in the bottom right-hand corner of the cutaway shown on Fox News (we’ve screen-capped it above) — clapped loudly, vigorously, and ostentatiously during the shameful Obama/Crowley tag-team against Romney over what the president said in the Rose Garden about Benghazi.

Sammy said...

All the "fact checking " about whether her Crowley was right or not misses the point. you didn't see her jumping in when Obama claimed to be the king of fossil fuels. Right or wrong , she had no business deciding what was the truth and should have kept to the debate rules. At the very beginning of the Hofstra University presidential debate, announced the rules, “audience has agreed to be polite and attentive — no cheering, no booing, or outbursts of any sort.”
guess who... Michelle Obama— clapped loudly, vigorously, and ostentatiously during the shameful Obama/Crowley tag-team against Romney over what the president said in the Rose Garden about Benghazi.






MayBee said...

What was Crowley talking about when she said it took 2 weeks for the video/spontaneous attack to come out?

I think she's trying to say it took two weeks for that misrepresentation to be taken out of the talking points.

But what she says it it took two weeks for it to "come out"-- as in, be brought to light.

Weird. She totally bungled that.

Nora said...

Did you really expect integrity from a jorno? Pfff ....

Richard said...

"All I could hear when she spoke was: :Suey! Suey! Piggy! Piggy."

Richard said...

"All I could hear when she spoke was: :Suey! Suey! Piggy! Piggy."

Alan said...

Candy's word isn't worth a wooden Nobel Peace Prize. Or a real one.

Brent said...

This was a set-up by Obama's team.

History will show Crowley was slipped this by Axelrod or Cutter or someone on the Obama camp.

The fake angry "I'm the commander-in-chief" evasion by Obama was shameful and discusting. I am ashamed of this President's lack of backbone and easy willingness to use America's military for such a cowardly non-answer.

Romney did fantastic against 2 opponents last night. Obama only "won" wuth an assist.

Crowley's career is now going nowhere. Her show is gone in less than a year.

exiledonmainst said...

"The Luntz focus group broke along the same lines as the poll reported by Sammy"

The MSNBC focus group also broke for Romney. I'm sure Tingles wasn't expecting that.

Michael said...

Crowley appears also to have an eating disorder.

Rusty said...

AF said...
Dear Right-Wing Noise Machine:

To undo the damage from tonight, you need to come up with something better than complaining about Candy Crowley.

Yours
AF

And then there's:

clint said...
Wow. The MSNBC focus group went overwhelmingly for Romney.



You might need new glasses.

SDN said...

And Romney should have pulled a Newt, called her and her President a lying pair of oath-breakers who have proved again that we can't let Leftists like them live in a society based on binding agreements, and walked out saying "See you in court."

Oh, well. One doesn't expect a spine in an amoeba... or to live with gangrene. Cut off the leg and live, or don't and die.

edutcher said...

As I said last night, this is a net loss for Zero because people who heard almost nothing on Libya from the nets are now asking questions.

And it's going to go on for a week.

And then we have the foreign policy debate.

Which was supposed to be a walk for Barry.

Still is, only now it's going to be barefoot over hot coals.

AF said...

Dear Right-Wing Noise Machine:

To undo the damage from tonight, you need to come up with something better than complaining about Candy Crowley.


The damage is all to Zero.

Mongo only delayed the inevitable.

Unknown said...

Romney caught in flat-out lie and his supporters pillory the one who caught him. Ha-Ha! Sweet!

exiledonmainst said...

edutcher said:

"As I said last night, this is a net loss for Zero because people who heard almost nothing on Libya from the nets are now asking questions."

They haven't heard much about Fast and Furious either. Candy moved pretty quickly to get away from that highly uncomfortable subject.

Dustin said...

"Romney caught in flat-out lie and his supporters pillory the one who caught him. Ha-Ha! Sweet!"


"CNN's Candy Crowley admits that Romney was actually right during the debate on the Libya remark (October 16, 2012)."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs&feature=player_embedded

Apparently not.

exiledonmainst said...

Well, the left is happy because Obama didn't show up acting like he had just washed down 3 painkillers with half a bottle of Scotch, but despite their crowing, I would hardly call it a big win for King Putt:

"Despite Obama’s slight edge overall, Romney was seen as better able to handle most issues.

The trend was most notable in the CNN poll: he had an 18-point edge among registered voters on the economy (58 percent to Obama's 40 percent ); a 3-point edge on health care (49 percent to 46 percent); a 7-point edge on taxes (51 percent to 44 percent); and, largest of all, a 23-point edge on the deficit (59 percent to 36 percent)."

Yes, clearly, a HUGE win for Obama!

TWM said...

At least she didn't eat one of them.

Seriously, the moderators are not helping Obama with the way they favor him. He had, what, three plus minutes more than Romney and he still couldn't seal the deal?

Shanna said...

Cary had the best question of the night, the one the professionals won't ask, who dismissed Stevens' request for additional security? We still don't know.

Yeah, that would have been the time to jump in, Candy. Obama refused to answer. I wish Romney had called him on it.

Henry said...

What strikes me, from my friends on the left, is how these debates are increasingly seen as happening between Romney and the moderator.

It's not the revenge of the nerds. It's the revenge of the teachers' pets.

Henry said...

It's the revenge of the teachers' pets.

We all hate politics. But it seems to the province of the left to cover their hatred of politics by falling in love with the moderators.

And why not, if you're in favor of the bureaucratic state, of the panels of experts, of the soy-smooth tones of your favorite PBS host? Everything must be moderated.

Thus, even in politics. If your candidate is weak, your friend is the moderator.

hombre said...

Candy Crowley is now Obama's biggest contributor. What is the value of three minutes of prime time on the networks and cable news stations? $3 million? $6 million? More?

Surely the value increases if the time is rebuttal time or time answering supportive questions from a biased moderator.

Crowley's performance was shameless, but I'm sure scored points with her colleagues.

harrogate said...

Want to knw who won a presidential debate? Follow the well established rule, the side that did poorly, most invariably blames the moderator.

hombre said...

Obama's indignation about the implication that his administration mislead on Benghazi is laughable.

There is no credible evidence on the planet that the Benghazi attack stemmed from a protest about the video. Somebody simply fabricated that out of whole cloth. It certainly wasn't the Libyans, who called the story "preposterous" from day one.

The Administration (e.g., Biden, Rice) continually drops that whopper on the "intelligence community." Really? Which agency is that incompetent or dishonest?

It's a hell of a note when an Arab interim government is more believable than our own!

Michael K said...

I was hoping Romney would use Giuliani's line to Soledad O'Brien when he said to her, "Am I debating the Obama campaign here ?"

Romney should have said, "I thought I was only debating the president !"

Candy will be the story for a couple of days.

Jay said...

AF said...
Dear Right-Wing Noise Machine:

To undo the damage from tonight


Dear silly idiot:

MSNBC Undecided Voter Panel Leans More Toward Romney After Debate

Dear silly idiot:

Romney was seen as better able to handle most issues. he had an 18-point edge among registered voters on the economy (58 percent to Obama's 40 percent ); a 3-point edge on health care (49 percent to 46 percent); a 7-point edge on taxes (51 percent to 44 percent); and, largest of all, a 23-point edge on the deficit (59 percent to 36 percent).


Thanks for particpating.

hombre said...

Want to knw who won a presidential debate? Follow the well established rule, the side that did poorly, most invariably blames the moderator.

There was no winner. Do you mean that the three minute advantage to Oblahblah made no difference or that the interruption giving the erroneous impression that Romney was mistaken about the President's misrepresentations about Benghazi didn't matter?

Really?

Darrell said...

Oh Nos!
The Left isn't setting the narrative anymore!
How distressing!
All those high fives at Kos and the DU going to waste when they see that regular people are moving to Romney in swarms. Better push that riot shit again. Maybe you can scare people into staying in the fold.

Lynn Meadows said...

I love this. Romney was clearly talking out of his ass and hoping to just sneak one through and got caught. It then is the referee's fault for throwing the flag.

When you get the concept that Romney just makes it up as he goes along, you might think again...but for that I have little hope.

Pogo said...

Michelle Obama described the 'recovery' as Huge.

Well, that's not what most people call 'huge'.

And now I know too much about BHO.

I'll take facts, hold the narrative said...

"The Last Starfighter"
Obama = Xur
Media = Xur followers
Election = Impacting the moon

Erika said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Erika said...

Want to know who won a presidential debate? Follow the well established rule, the side that did poorly, most invariably blames the moderator.

So under what conditions is the performance of the moderator open to scrutiny?

MadisonMan said...

As Big Mike said, it's all about her. She's the important one.

Erika said...

I love this. Romney was clearly talking out of his ass and hoping to just sneak one through and got caught. It then is the referee's fault for throwing the flag.

I love that you live in Bizarro World where you manage to get everything exactly backward every time you open your silly mouth.

Steve Austin said...

@Clint.....Yes, I still think the Packer game analogy fits. Mitt intercepted that pass on Libya until Crowley ran in and called a touchdown for Obama.

What I think is important for those of us supporting Romney to take away from this, is that I don't think the "53%" are dumb. Or more importantly those 6% in the middle who will decide this election if you assume a 47-47 base tie at the moment.

That 6% saw Crowley bust in to help her man and I'm guessing they didn't like it.

Additionally, I can picture my late father watching that debate and muttering to himself something along the lines of:

"Obama is sending us into oblivion printing money, half the country's homes are under water and my medicare benefits I worked 50 years for are about to get watered down just when I need them to pay for Obamacare for a bunch of illegals. And with all that, we're asking questions about birth control pills, assault weapons, and whether Romney beats his wife like George Bush did? Christ this thing is rigged for Obama.

Jay said...

Lynn Meadows said...
I love this. Romney was clearly talking out of his ass and hoping to just sneak one through and got caught. It then is the referee's fault for throwing the flag.


Hey silly idiot:

Crowley Admits Romney Was Right On Libya After All It is on video, stupid.

Thanks for participating.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Ultimately I think Crowley hurt him; she is so obviously favoring Obama, that he looks weak.

I bet we'll find out after the election that she's actually a Karl Rove plant.

Lynn Meadows said...

Oh run run run...bury the silver....hide the children...the evil main stream media is in town to ruin everything.....oh oh oh.

How pathetic the right wing sounds on this lovely morning.

Comanche Voter said...

Well Candy did wake up later and say she was wrong. That's sort of like the woman who goes to bed with another woman's husband--and then wakes up and says she was wrong. The damage was done when she got into bed with Obama.

Lynn Meadows said...

Jay said...
"Hey silly idiot: Crowley Admits Romney Was Right On Libya After All It is on video, stupid."

Hey Jay, just a shout out to ya' here but any idiot can see that 1. was not an admission that what she said was wrong and 2. that the segment was cut off mid sentence and what was cut off was Crowley standing by her statement.

Oh. Did I say "any idiot"? Well Jay you just aren't any idiot. You are a pretty special one.

Matthew Sablan said...

Isn't it funny how all these moderators keep making errors -- from timekeeping to this -- all in favor of one side?

Darrell said...

The sweet, sweet bitter tears are flowing on Lindsey's lying cheeks.
Better start spinning that since the Repubs fucked it all up, let them fix it so Obama can do what he has to do without worrying about their mess. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Matthew Sablan said...

Speaking of rule breaking, though this might just be rubbing it in at this point. So, with the refs paid for and totally ignoring the rules, Obama's able to barely eke out a win, while losing on the deficit, economy, health care ... so, yeah. Good night for Romney.

hombre said...

"How pathetic the right wing sounds on this lovely morning."

Oh. This must mean that Lynn thinks three extra minutes and an erroneous interruption by the moderator don't count.

Very good, Lynn. Anything to add?

Like maybe Benghazi was all about the video? Or Obama cut the deficit by half? Or he fixed the immigration problem during his first year? Or he doesn't really pay the women on his staff less than the men?

Darrell said...

Did that sexworker Lindsey Meadows have her lawyer send you a letter telling you to change your handle because you were ruiningg her reputation and good name?

Matthew Sablan said...

... Or maybe it is as big as Denver, I honestly don't know anything any more after this.

Jay said...


Hey Jay, just a shout out to ya' here but any idiot can see that 1. was not an admission that what she said was wrong


HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA

You keep telling yourself that you drunk old hag!

john sager said...

Wow. That Monica Crowley sure looks like she's put on a couple of pounds.

EFB said...

Damn it. If only the media would let Romney get away with his lies.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Damn it. If only the media would let Romney get away with his lies. "

-- Which lies? Note that ABC admitted Romney was right on the oil/gas leases and Crowley has admitted he was right on Libya. What lies? You cannot simply vaguely impugn a man's credibility and fight with strawmen. Name a lie; point it out. Prove it, or slink away in blurry shame.

EFB said...

Damn it. If only the media would let Romney get away with his lies.

CWJ said...

Obeying rules and honoring contracts are for the little people.

Paddy O said...

I'd be interested to hear an interview with Kerry (I think that's how he spelled his name), he seemed to like Romney's answer on Benghazi as he was nodding there at the end. Indeed, that would be very interesting for these town hall sorts of approaches, talking to the questioners afterwards, and see who they thought best answered the question and why.

Because at the end of the day, we know only who Crowley liked, and she's not any more interesting or important than any of the other participants last evening.

john sager said...

This seems akin to VP debate. We're left just discussing the Adminstration and their lapses. Good times.

Darrell said...

ExtraFatBastard doubles down.

Nice.

Paddy O said...

They let Obama get away with his lies, so I don't understand why consistency would be so wrong.

Christopher in MA said...

So under what conditions is the performance of the moderator open to scrutiny?

When they actually try to act like a moderator and not an Obama fellator. See Lehrer, Jim.

EMD said...

We used to have giant fork and spoon carved from wood. GIANT. Totally cheesy things to hang in the kitchen.

We had those, too!

Christopher in MA said...

Hey Jay, just a shout out to ya' here but any idiot can see that 1. was not an admission that what she said was wrong and 2. that the segment was cut off mid sentence and what was cut off was Crowley standing by her statement.

So saying that Romney was "right in the main" isn't an admission that she dropped to her knees faster than a 13 year old girl at a Justin Bieber concert to fluff for the SCOAMF?

It must be an interesting world you live in. Or at least one with top-shelf drugs.

Matthew Sablan said...

"That’s a good catch by Johnson, and indicates there may have been some collusion and prepping going on."

-- Or she's an incompetent idiot who can't remember the order things happened. Occam's Razor: She's just not very good at this.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Twice when Romney was making a killer point, Obama decided he was the moderator and told Romney to move on."

-- I remember those; it was on the oil/gas permits (which Romney turned out to be right on and Obama wrong) and about Obama's Chinese and Cayman assets.

Joe Schmoe said...

As a follow-on to Ann's post a few days ago, did Candy's performance advance the cause for women?

Doesn't sound like it. Add her to the list of prominent women who throw away their hard-earned reputations just to be mindless, parroting shills for Democrats.

hombre said...

Damn it. If only the media would let Romney get away with his lies.

Yeah. I can't believe how they jumped on Romney for that bullshit about how Benghazi was a spontaneous massacre stemming from a demonstration about a video.

Oh, sorry, that wasn't Romney's lie, was it?

X said...

Candy looks like she's dropped about 150 pounds, so she's got that going for her.

JAL said...

I signed off last night before AA posted this, but I was going to put it into the discussion and then didn't have time to find the actual Candy quote where she said she wasn't about to follow those [damned] rules she had inked her name to.

This is one more clue to the problem with where we are in America.

I believe there are enough decent honorable people left to kick sand in the face of the arrogant elites who think they own us, and we can get on with the American Dream.

November 6 is toss-them-all-in-the harbor day.

paul a'barge said...

Say, Althouse ... does that make her UGLY?

furious_a said...

Somebody simply fabricated that out of whole cloth. It certainly wasn't the Libyans, who called the story "preposterous" from day one.

The Administration stuck with it's-the-video talking point as long as they could be because it provided them an excuse for the intel failure in Benghazi. Who could foreseen a video nobody saw inciting a "spontaneous" protest which then morphed into a lynch mob?

Now they've switched to "most recent intel", but that isn't working because of the record of prior attacks, the consulate's denied requests for more security, the real-time drone footage and State's assertion that from the start they didn't accept the "spontaneous mob" theory.

JAL said...

Re the video fabrication:

I have found it intriguing that the WH knew about a youtube video which 99.99% of the rest of America had no idea existed, but he didn't know (or care) about the Libyan security issues -- the attack on the Brits, the threats, the security detail cut backs, the hiring of locals, the Facebook plans?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

He shall ... nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors

He should be fired along with Hillary.

furious_a said...

After the debate, debate moderator Candy Crowley said Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word” on the Obama administration’s immediate response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi...

So, "accurate, but fake"?

hombre said...

The Administration stuck with it's-the-video talking point as long as they could be because it provided them an excuse for the intel failure in Benghazi.

It wasn't just the intel failure, furious. A terrorist attack wasn't consistent with their themes that things had "normalized" in Libya and that al Qaeda was finished.

Obviously, Libya isn't normalized and al Qaeda is resurgent.

Darrell said...

and al Qaeda is resurgent

Heck, al Qaeda's video of the attack is their new recruitment DVD and Obama their new poster boy.
No ammo, I keed you not!

furious_a said...

The next time the President attacks the Gov.'s record on "outsourcing", the Gov. should ask why the President outsourced security in Benghazi to a British firm with little in-country experience?

Who then, of course, outsourced the actual securing to unreliable locals.

Luke Sneeringer said...

Does anyone happen to have a link to the debate "statement of understanding" thingie that Ann quoted in the title?

I'm curious if the debate rules had anything about the first word / last word issue, which Romney flagged in both debates. (My uninformed guess is that Romney is right about that -- and it matters!)

Matthew Sablan said...

Luke: You don't need the rules to see that. Watch how Obama got to have his rebuttals while Romney did not. Even if those were not set down in the rules, it is clear that Obama was being given those opportunities where Romney was not.

Darrell said...

the Gov. should ask why the President outsourced security in Benghazi to a British firm with little in-country experience?

Easy. Because the "no ammo" stipulation by the State Dept. made it a job that Americans didn't want to do. Blackwater wants to keep its charges alive.

chrisnavin.com said...

Candy better watch out. You get seduced into helping Obama and then he throws you under the bus. He's not that into you, ladies. He likes you if you line up with his ideology and you shill for him for a while: Sandra Fluke, Debbie Wasserman Schulz, but even if you've got a mind of your own, he'll throw you under the bus eventually. See Hilary.

I still think people have yet to realize how much of a snow job this administration is, and that Obama is only capable when propped up and when he drags the debate to where he really is ideologically (60's progressive, anti-wealth, community organizing...Lily Ledbetter, DREAM act, pandering to feminists and race politics). Divide and conquer.

Incompetent economically, he lacks leadership, and really the furthest Left in recent memory. Honestly, I can't think of a further Left President domestically and foreign policy wise after watching this unfold.



edutcher said...

harrogate said...

Want to knw who won a presidential debate? Follow the well established rule, the side that did poorly, most invariably blames the moderator.

harro also thinks Joe won last week.

AlphaLiberal said...

This whole "you must say 'terror'" schtick has gone beyond farcical to the deeply absurd.

For Republicans this has now become their cant and their incantation must be said exactly so or it will lack the magical power.

Obama clearly and eloquently described the armed attacks of the "acts of terror" and we stand up to those.

Candy Crowley was supposed to sit by for some reason and let Romney's dishonesty, mendacity and lies stand? Why? Why is it her job to help Romney lie?

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said. "Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers."

Cedarford said...

NoraCharles said...
Cary had the best question of the night, the one the professionals won't ask, who dismissed Stevens' request for additional security? We still don't know.


Any Republican or independent beating the "if only there was more security emplaced!" angle is chasing a red herring. The major thing is the reaction of the Obamites in the aftermath.

Keep in mind the security request was for guarding the embassy at Tripoli. And no one knows why Chris Stevens decided to go to very dangerous Benghazi without taking more security with him than a driver. And even if he had 6-8 security 'heroes' with him, I tend to doubt the outcome would have been different - given 50-80 Islamoids hit the place with heavy weaponry in a surprise, well-plaaned and highly organized attack.
We lose a few dozen spec forces or Marines in similar attacks every month. The Islamoid enemy is good at fighting, they are a thinking enemy.

It's not "extra security heroes!!" that should frame the discussion if you want to sway voters.

It is the coverup. What Obama and his henchmen and henchwomen knew, when they knew it as they lied.
Or the Obamites being so incomptent they did not even understand it was a well-executed terrorist attack.

Thinking the most important matter is not having optimum security staffing - is like saying deep into Watergate Hearings that the real issue is if better doorknob locks could have stopped the breakin in the 1st place.

AlphaLiberal said...

And why didn't George Bush nail Osama bin Laden, anyway? He had 7 years to get that job done and he did not. Obama got the job done!

Oh, but he said terror alot! Well, okay then! All is well!

And if we elect Mitt Romney, he will, also, say terror alot! And he will say the incantation just so!

Question: Will any of the Romney boys sign up for their Dad's war(s) if he takes the Oval Office?

Judging by their ChickenHawk father's record (sought and got deferments, attacked those who opposed the Viet Nam War), they will demand other people serve while avoiding putting themselves in harms way.

tailwind said...

Apparently, Crowley never signed on the the same agreement that the candidates did, so she was not bound by the rules for the moderator.
Convenient, eh?

AlphaLiberal said...

And no one knows why Chris Stevens decided to go to very dangerous Benghazi without taking more security with him than a driver.

Actually, it's been said that he did not want to be distanced from the Libyans by an offputting security cordon. Without all that, one can get closer to the people.

And, it's unethical and immoral for Republicans to make an election issue out of the Benghazi attack. Disgusting.

AlphaLiberal said...

Romney never bothers to follow the debate rules. But, then again, he clearly does not think that the rules apply to him, like most Plutocrats and like most Republicans.

The moment was wonderful. It showed how the inflated lies and myths of the Republican party can burst like a balloon when a simple fact is allowed to enter the debate.

And Republicans really think they can make anything up they want to, and no-one should be able to tell the American their claim is a lie. That tendency is a huge weakness.

Cedarford said...

AlphaLiberal said...
This whole "you must say 'terror'" schtick has gone beyond farcical to the deeply absurd.

For Republicans this has now become their cant and their incantation must be said exactly so or it will lack the magical power.

Obama clearly and eloquently described the armed attacks of the "acts of terror" and we stand up to those.


AlphaLib, could you be any stupider, or at least as dishonest as your idol, Black Messiah??

The word coming from the intel community is they watched a well-organized military-style attack happening in Benghazi, and by the next day had identified elements of the attack as part of Al Qaeda in the Mahgreb.
And passed that up the chain.
Well before Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice went on their two week denial to the public that it was nothing but a Hateful video and "senseless violence" by a mob.

Read the text of Obama, Hillary, Rice. They never mentioned Al Qaeda involvement......just the video and apologies for that and "no excuse for senseless violence".

Al Qaeda does not do "senseless violence".
The violence organized Islamoids do makes a great deal of sense to them, and they put considerable thought into their acts of terror, or killing US soldiers.

They are enemy. It makes great sense to try and kill Americans when they have a chance. Just as America, outside liberal and progressive Jewish factions - sees great sense in killing Islamoids when we can.

Darrell said...

Obama's service record impresses chickenshit Alpha, though. Must be that he didn't even to bother registering for Selective Service until before he ran for President. Impressive bit of dishonesty, that--hypocrisy, too.

Darrell said...

You don't have to try so hard, Alpha.

Obama already got the coveted Honey Boo Boo endorsement.

Joe Schmoe said...

And, it's unethical and immoral for Republicans to make an election issue out of the Benghazi attack.

Hey, the government fuckfaces work for us and they owe us, their bosses, some answers. Who rejected the Ambassador's request for more security? Why did everyone in the admin blame the video for two weeks when they knew immediately that it wasn't an anti-video demonstration at all? What happened to the ambassador for six hours, and how did he actually die?

It's disgusting that you are happy to provide cover just to protect your party. Until we get answers this issue is live and fair game. Live with it. If you can't be upfront with your constituents, then get the hell out of office.

Cedarford said...

And, it's unethical and immoral for Republicans to make an election issue out of the Benghazi attack. Disgusting

Yes, absolutely unethical and immoral to point out Obama and crew's Nixonian level of lies and covering up what intel people knew in real time was an Al Qaeda participating attack in Benghazi, and which leaders in State and the White House were briefed on the next day.
Although Obama might have skipped those briefings, too.

Cosmic Conservative said...

It always amazes me how few people realize what is really going on here. Or at least how few people indicate that they understand the real reason Obama played the game he played with the "the video caused it" message.

The attack on Libya is proof of the fundamental failure of Obama's middle east policy. One of Obama's most famous promises four years ago was that if we could just get rid of Bush, quit being a global bully and let Obama's messianic qualities bathe the middle east in his awesoem glow, the US would no longer be hated by Muslims.

Then, as his laughable "smart diplomacy" unfolded he and his surrogates in the press waxed poetic about the "Arab Spring" that had been ushered in, and how that was proving the value of "leading from behind."

All the while the rest of the world, and the jihadists in particular, were snickering and laughing at Obama and the US. As Obama bragged about the Arab Spring, hard-core islamist elements gained control in country after country. Al Quada found more and more opportunity to recruit and train terrorists. The islamist ideology gained strength and credibility across the middle east.

Then Obama lit the fuse by "spiking the football" after killing Osama Bin Laden. Frankly I don't think the actual killing of Bin Laden was that big of a deal to the jihadists. Osama had been marginalized years earlier and no longer had any real power or impact except as a figurehead.

But Obama had an election to win, so he strutted and preened and sent his surrogates to strut and preen. Which triggered the predictable response from the jihadists.

As tensions grew and attacks became more prevalent across the middle east Obama looked for a scapegoat so he could claim his policies were not failures. As predictable staged protests erupted across the Muslim world on 9/11, Obama immediately reached for his canned talking point and blamed the whole thing on a lame youtube video. This was purely an attempt to deflect blame from his failed policies.

That would be bad enough, but when the also utterly predictable Libyan terror attack occured, Obama and his surrogates were still "on message" and they just folded the terror attack into the general "you can't really blame Muslims for being so angry at our lamentable first amendment rights" message.

At first I am sure the campaign thought the attack was a way to cement the message Obama wanted to send. And since the Obama campaign runs the Obama White House, campaign considerations immediately became US policy statements.

By the time it was clear that the world was not buying the lies, they were so deep into it that it took days for them to realize the damage and come up with a damage control plan.

That's why it's a big deal. And that's why Candy Crowley tackled Romney as he was running for a touchdown on the issue. Candy Crowley knows exactly what's at stake, and she wasn't about to let Romney make the situation clear to the American public.

It's not about some minor off-the-cuff "lie" that Obama may have told. It's about repudiation of Obama's entire failed middle east policy.

That's why this is such a huge deal.

Cedarford said...

Darrell said...
Obama's service record impresses chickenshit Alpha, though. Must be that he didn't even to bother registering for Selective Service until before he ran for President. Impressive bit of dishonesty, that--hypocrisy, too.
===================
Liberals have locked into the chickenhawk smear to go at anyone who is a Republican who advocates military action in certain circumstances, but who didn't personally serve in the Armed Forces.

Even though most actual chickenhawks, boy-chasing Homos, happen to be gay Democrats. With the usual Sandusky exceptions...

With respect to Alpha Liberal, I say turnabout is fair play.

So we should start calling any liberal who advocates fighting against an enemy, but who personally never served in the Armed Forces, a traitor.
By this logic, McGovern and Kerry who advocated against some wars are immunized from being branded Traitors because both Served!!

But Obama, Biden, and Alpha Liberal....none of which Served!!!...can be labeled as Traitors.

Romney is a chickenhawk.
But Obama is a Traitor.

jr565 said...

If candy Crowley didn't exceed her bounds she wouldn't have to walk back her interruption later. Also, if she's going to stick her nose in and try to act like the truth squad, then it becomes an issue what she acts as truth squad about and when. It's hard to argue impartiality when the moderator inserts herself. Which was the reason she was told not to do so. Irregardless of who won or lost is the question going forward of the role of moderators. Maybe the next moderator should be Monica Crowley. She's easier on the eyes for one. Two, she is clearly a partisan, but since its been established that that's no longer an issue who cares. Not only should she moderate but she should step in when Obama is lying as per her and correct the recording real time
This will never happen of course, but if it did libs shouldn't complain

Luke Sneeringer said...

Luke: You don't need the rules to see that. Watch how Obama got to have his rebuttals while Romney did not. Even if those were not set down in the rules, it is clear that Obama was being given those opportunities where Romney was not.

Sure, but I would like to know what the rules say. The rules are a stronger argument than just pointing out bias.

furious_a said...

Ms. Crowley's performance as moderator demonstrated the competence of an NFL replacement referee and the professional detachment of an East German gymnastics judge.

AlphaLiberal said...

This is pretty rich. I understand there was also a debate rule that the candidates not address each other directly.

At the moment Candy Crowley had the audacity to point out that what Romney was alleging was false, Romney was breaking this rule, badgering Obama with the same question over and over again.

So, it's okay for Romney to break the rules, just no-one else.

Romney thought he had a gotchya moment but he wound up shooting himself in the foot because he was so deep in his own alternate reality bubble.

Hilarious.

I Callahan said...

Romney never lied once. Not once. The idea that lefties have that if you disagree with them, you're lying, needs to end now.

The lefties on this site have gone full-on stupid and insane.

I Callahan said...

At the moment Candy Crowley had the audacity to point out that what Romney was alleging was false

IT. WAS. NOT. FALSE.

I don't care how many times you repeat this blatant idiocy, you're wrong.

AlphaLiberal said...

So, Cedarford, now a person is a traitor for not having served in the Armed Forces? Wow. I don't where to even begin.

"Romney is a chickenhawk."

Glad we agree on that one, at least.

Darrell said...

"Obama’s Sept. 12 statement did use the phrase 'acts of terror.' 'Yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks,' Obama’s said in the Rose Garden. 'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,' he said. But during the following two weeks, he and his deputies refused to describe the attack as a terror strike, and instead repeatedly described the attack as a spontaneous protest to a little-known video critical of Islam’s prophet, Mohammad. On Sept. 25, for example, Obama pitched this view during his speech at the U.N. General Assembly. 'In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening… That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world,' he declared."

From the Dailer Caller.

furious_a said...

At the moment Candy Crowley had the audacity to point out that what Romney was alleging was false, Romney was breaking this rule, badgering Obama with the same question over and over again.

...and at a later moment:

"[Romney] was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word"
-- Candy Crowley

AlphaLiberal said...

"The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates.”

This is the rule that Mitt Romney violated numerous times. I just came across it and thought I'd post the actual rule, to share.

Obama called the attack an act of terror. But, whether he did or not, it doesn't matter. You guys had your bellicose President in George Bush and Bush ignored multiple warnings from the intelligence servics about an imminent attack by al Qaeda.

We now know the President's Daily Brief (PDB), titled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" was only one of many warnings to Bush and Cheney that they doggedly brushed aside.

The Bush-Cheney refusal to heed warnings about the nation's worst terror attack got so bad some intelligence officers sought to be transferred, to avoid being blamed when it happened. And, sure enough, the GOP blamed the intelligence services.

All of which makes this faux outrage over the Benghazi attacks more reprehensible and hypocritical.

AlphaLiberal said...

Darrell:

"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world"

So now you guys deny that the anti-Muslim sparked outrage in the Muslim world? Wow, put the Kool aid down!

You know, we get that (perhaps) most American conservatives hate Muslims and many, not all, want a war with Islam. But it's good to have an American President denounce such hate propaganda. It helps reduce the inflammation.

I do wonder how many modern conservatives hate Islam. It does seem like a majority.

AlphaLiberal said...

Oops. Typo.

So now you guys deny that the anti-Muslim VIDEO sparked outrage in the Muslim world?

My bad.

Michael said...

AlphaLiberal. Dont hate Islam but am bored with it. Predictable, backward, anti female, violent, humorless.

bob said...

if obama made such a definitive statement on Sept 12 that this attack was "an act of terror", then why did his UN Ambassador get sent out days later to five Sunday talk shows and claim it was a spontaneous protest fueled by the YouTube video. So despite the presidents indignation, his administration did mislead the American people -- five times in a single day. If it wasn't intentional, but was based on bad information, then who was the source -- a source mind you that the administration believed over what was told to them by libyan officials, libyan security guards, US intelligence and survivors from the consulate who reported to the state department. They all said is was a terrorist attack. And why was the president still blaming the videos at the UN (and the View!) up to a couple weeks later.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 206   Newer› Newest»