Althouse: "We’re going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time."

October 18, 2012

"We’re going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time."

CNN, working on the defense of Candy Crowley.

Mr. Romney, we're going to give you less time, because you talk faster.

97 comments:

Shanna said...: Wow.

Do um's count? I think Obama might have him beat if they do.; 10/18/12, 8:08 AM
campy said...: Remember, media bias is just a wingnut myth.; 10/18/12, 8:09 AM
Expat(ish) said...: Nice.

My somewhat politicized 17 year old (well, big-L libertarian leaning anyway) thought the debate was rigged. My very unpolitical daughter heard about it at school, watched the first half hour the next day and immediately posted a bunch of stuff making fun of Romney on facebook, but she also says the moderator "had ugly hair and was unfair."

So there you go, the brain trust has spoken.

-XC

PS - We *all* missed the "binder full of women" thing. Funny.; 10/18/12, 8:09 AM
chickelit said...: It's called handicapping fluency.; 10/18/12, 8:09 AM
KCFleming said...: They'll count Candy Crowley's words interrupting him towards his total because: Shut up/racism.; 10/18/12, 8:10 AM
Mogget said...: Should also check and see who used the most big words. Penalty for that sort of thing, because it unfairly marginalizes people who don't play Scrabble regularly.; 10/18/12, 8:11 AM
Christopher in MA said...: If CNN really wants to defend Crowley, perhaps they can answer this question -

If Romney lied about Benghazi and she only spoke up to correct the record, why did she sit there with her mouth sealed shut when Obama lied about Planned Parenthood performing mammograms?

Or why didn't she say something when the Chocolate Crackhead asserted that low gas prices were a harbinger of economic collapse?

(for garage and his ilk, those are what are known as rhetorical questions); 10/18/12, 8:11 AM
Tank said...: LOL.

Affirmative action for slow thinkers/talkers.

This is why irony and farce are dead. If we made this up, it would be too unbelievable.; 10/18/12, 8:12 AM
KCFleming said...: Did Crowley actually have the text of the Rose Garden speech on Benghazi in front of her when Obama said “Read the transcript”?; 10/18/12, 8:15 AM
KCFleming said...: NTTAWWT.; 10/18/12, 8:16 AM
Known Unknown said...: Equality of outcomes?; 10/18/12, 8:16 AM
Mogget said...: It does seem that Crowley knew that Obama was going to make a reference to the Rose Garden speech.; 10/18/12, 8:16 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Let’s start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley...

When I read that I thought it was fake... but the rest seemed like real.; 10/18/12, 8:16 AM
clint said...: Really the point we need to keep talking about is how President Obama couldn't defend himself: "Move on, Governor" and "Candy, can you say that louder" are really not Presidential.

Are we expecting him to bring along friendly press to help him out when he's negotiating with Putin?; 10/18/12, 8:17 AM
Known Unknown said...: Did Crowley actually have the text of the Rose Garden speech on Benghazi in front of her when Obama said “Read the transcript”?

I'm not a conspiracy guy, but this is certainly weird.

I mean, I get having it around, maybe, since Libya is bound to come up, but when Obama directs her to the transcript ... that was just really odd to me.; 10/18/12, 8:18 AM
campy said...: Did Crowley actually have the text of the Rose Garden speech on Benghazi in front of her

If O gave Candy an iPod loaded with His speeches, she'd listen to them.; 10/18/12, 8:18 AM
campy said...: What else she'd do while listening is too horrible to think about.; 10/18/12, 8:20 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Does an uh, or um, count as a word? Both of them stuttered a bit. Do we count words that are being droned over by uhs and ums?; 10/18/12, 8:21 AM
Tank said...: Here's the thing about that transcript.

1. It really is a remarkable coincidence that Zero said "look at the transcript" and she had it right there.

2. I don't believe in coincidences.; 10/18/12, 8:21 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "On the legitimacy of Candy fact-checking Romney on Obama’s Rose Garden statement, it should be stressed that she was just stating a point of fact: Obama did talk about an act (or acts) of terror, no matter what you think he meant by that at the time. "

-- So, even here, CNN admits that Crowley was wrong and that the statement is open to debate.; 10/18/12, 8:22 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I've been pretty consistent on saying these sorts of things are not conspiracies, and really, Crowley doesn't need to be in on the plan for Obama to blindside Romney. She's going to look down at what the president gave her, see the highlighted section and say: "Oh, he -did- say that," without understanding what she's reading in that short, compressed time. If there's a conspiracy, Crowley does not have to be "in" on it to act the part she played.; 10/18/12, 8:25 AM
KCFleming said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/18/12, 8:25 AM
garage mahal said...: If Romney can't handle Candy Crowley for heaven's sake, how is he going to handle Ahmadinejad?; 10/18/12, 8:26 AM
KCFleming said...: Maybe O knew she'd memorized it, like the Lord's Prayer.

Our Barry, who art the President,
Hallowed be thy Name.

Give us this day our daily newsclip.
And forgive us our Republicans,
As we forgive Muslims that kill our ambassadors.

And lead us not into capitalism,
But deliver us from Romney.

For thine is the nation,
The power, and the Sharia,
For ever and ever.
Amen.; 10/18/12, 8:26 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Did Crowley actually have the text of the Rose Garden speech on Benghazi in front of her

She had papers in her hand, but I haven't seen evidence that that was the transcript.; 10/18/12, 8:27 AM
KCFleming said...: "If Romney can't handle Candy Crowley for heaven's sake, how is he going to handle Ahmadinejad?"

If Obama can't handle Romney without hiding behind Candy Crowley for heaven's sake, how is he going to handle Ahmadinejad?; 10/18/12, 8:27 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "If Romney can't handle Candy Crowley for heaven's sake, how is he going to handle Ahmadinejad? "

-- Romney did handle Crowley; she was forced to admit her error, on her own network, when Anderson Cooper called her to task on it.

The question should be: Why should Obama need Crowley's help to fight (and still lose, note) against Romney?; 10/18/12, 8:28 AM
garage mahal said...: Also: Why did it take Romney NINE DAYS to call the Benghazi attacks an act of terror?; 10/18/12, 8:28 AM
KCFleming said...: I do regret Romney not going alpha on Crowley at that moment.

But we're looking at swing voters, mostly women, who seem easily swayed. Would Romney have turned them off by being aggressive there? Dunno.; 10/18/12, 8:29 AM
Riley said...: It's somehow unfair that Romney's points are organized and coherent?; 10/18/12, 8:30 AM
Nathan said...: Romney talks faster? Or Obama talks too slowly?

Isn't this the equivalent of letting one basketball team shoot at a 9' hoop because the other team's members are "too tall"?; 10/18/12, 8:30 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Also: Why did it take Romney NINE DAYS to call the Benghazi attacks an act of terror?"

-- That's actually kind of adorable. Keep it up! Maybe Romney has a secret router on his bus.; 10/18/12, 8:30 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: If Romney can't handle Candy Crowley..

So garage does admit that Romney was debating two people... just so we are clear.; 10/18/12, 8:30 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: If Romney can't handle Candy Crowley for heaven's sake, how is he going to handle Ahmadinejad?

That's not really a fair comparison. The debate rules specifically prohibit the use of tactical nukes.; 10/18/12, 8:31 AM
Bob Ellison said...: The speed of political speech varies widely. Some politicians talk pretty quickly, like Paul Ryan and Chris Matthews, but most talk like Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, and John Kerry: very slowly. There must be a speech school somewhere, in a very private location, that preaches that slow talk wins votes.

Reagan and Clinton did slow talk rather well. They pause, as if thinking about what they're saying. Kerry talks slowly as if he doesn't quite understand what he's saying, and I suspect that's often the case. Obama talks slowly as though he's remembering what the Speech School told him: "The electorate is stupid. Slow down. That'll impress them."

Maybe that's why he has so few press conferences. He knows nobody will understand him anyway.; 10/18/12, 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: They should do a coherent point analysis to show that Romney didn't need as much time to make more coherent points.

Obama's coherent point density is quite low, actually, so they need to balance the playing field.; 10/18/12, 8:34 AM
KCFleming said...: My guess is it would take a Hoyer lift to handle Crowley.; 10/18/12, 8:34 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Why did it take Romney NINE DAYS to call the Benghazi attacks an act of terror?

Romney doesn't get the daily treat assessment briefings... neither did Obama but that was because of the fundraising schedule conflicts.; 10/18/12, 8:34 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I don't approve of calling the President "the Chocolate Crackhead." I'm not going to delete that, but it makes you look like a moby. I think Obama supporters are desperate, and looking for ways to play the race card is one thing they are doing. I don't want gratuitous race-based name calling in the comments.

If you are not a moby, find a different way to express your disapproval. You are undermining your own argument by making a reference to race, even if you think "chocolate" is benign. I say it's not, and I'll delete things like that in the future.

Those of you who are inclined to disagree with me need to control yourselves and not write here about it, because you will be putting up material that will be used to make Obama's opponents seem to be motivated by racial animus.

Email us if you want to express yourself on this point.; 10/18/12, 8:35 AM
Christopher in MA said...: It's your blog, Althouse. Fine with me. I merely believe in giving Obama the same amount of respect slime like garbage gave George Bush.

But since I want to see garbage's complete, spittle-flecked meltdown when Obama gets stomped harder than a narc at a biker rally, I'll adhere to your wishes.; 10/18/12, 8:36 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: daily threat.; 10/18/12, 8:39 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Candy Crowley gets the daily treats.; 10/18/12, 8:42 AM
KCFleming said...: "daily threat" is better.; 10/18/12, 8:43 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Daily treats have nothing to do with chocolate... just so we are clear.; 10/18/12, 8:44 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Rush Limbaugh, by the way, talks pretty fast. Love him or hate him; he's still probably the best talker of the modern age.; 10/18/12, 8:47 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: BTW Pogo...

Your compliment the other night left me speechless... I realised later that when I used the word wow it could have been interpreted in other ways.

I never seen those two words together like that to describe so pithily something I like to do. (raphsodic soliloquy)

I just want to thank you for that.

Sorry about breaking the tread rule.; 10/18/12, 8:50 AM
garage mahal said...: Obama lays trap, Romney stupidly and blindly walks right into it, and closes shut around Romney.

I imagine our enemies were watching the debate and looking for weaknesses. After that debate I imagine them saying "wow, this Romney guy, he would be EASY to trick!"; 10/18/12, 8:50 AM
Rick Caird said...: When I saw the part about "talk faster", I looked back up to see if it was something from The Onion.; 10/18/12, 8:52 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: If Obama can't handle Romney without hiding behind Candy Crowley for heaven's sake, how is he going to handle Ahmadinejad?

We already know the answer to that.

Obama can't handle Ahmedinejad. Or Putin, for that matter.; 10/18/12, 8:52 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: If anyone ever wonders what severe epistemic closure is, refer them to the posts about the debates by Inga, garage mahal, AF, and AReasonableMan. Oh, and the probable sockpuppet Roberto, too.; 10/18/12, 8:55 AM
KCFleming said...: Obama doesn't need tricking.

Muslims just do whatever the hell they want, and he capitulates. It's all up-front, no tricks. Easy peasey japanesey.; 10/18/12, 8:55 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: garage, just once, I'd like to see you post something that isn't transparently partisan hack crap.

You must do this in some way in your life. It's hard to believe that somebody could actually be so obsessively blind.

Give it a try.; 10/18/12, 8:55 AM
Curious George said...: "garage mahal said...
Obama lays trap, Romney stupidly and blindly walks right into it, and closes shut around Romney.

I imagine our enemies were watching the debate and looking for weaknesses. After that debate I imagine them saying "wow, this Romney guy, he would be EASY to trick!"

Was this before or after they got done laughing at the fact that the Obama administration was pitching "it's about a video" for two weeks?; 10/18/12, 8:56 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: After that debate I imagine them saying "wow, this Romney guy, he would be EASY to trick!"

Presidents don't things on a vacuum... every detail of our dealings with foreign entities gets combed over and over... hopefully guarding to preserve our best interest.; 10/18/12, 9:00 AM
Darrell said...: Half the terrorists in the world strained their stomach muscles from laughing so hard when they heard that the US State Department had a "no bullets" stipulation for embassy guards, that they were put on limited duty for three days.

Obama's contribution to the war on terrorism.; 10/18/12, 9:02 AM
StoughtonSconnie said...: Pogo:

I do regret Romney not going alpha on Crowley at that moment.

But we're looking at swing voters, mostly women, who seem easily swayed. Would Romney have turned them off by being aggressive there? Dunno.

Interesting idea, and if I were looking for a conspiracy involving Crowley doing something to help Obama, this is what I would look for. Had Romney gone alpha against Crowley, it would have been portrayed endlessly as an attack on women. Look at Hillary in 2000. If you are looking for a conspiracy, perhaps the point of Crowley's interruption was not to help Obama on the issue then being discussed, it was instead a desperate attempt to goad Romney into an attack on her.; 10/18/12, 9:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Candy can count!
It's not how you vote, it's how they count.; 10/18/12, 9:09 AM
damikesc said...: Obama lays trap, Romney stupidly and blindly walks right into it, and closes shut around Romney.

Yes. "Let's focus MORE on the clusterfrick that was Libya" sounds like a master plan for success for Obama.

I imagine our enemies were watching the debate and looking for weaknesses. After that debate I imagine them saying "wow, this Romney guy, he would be EASY to trick!"

As opposed to their profound respect to the little lost puppy we have in the WH now?; 10/18/12, 9:09 AM
Brian Brown said...: garage mahal said...
Obama lays trap, Romney stupidly and blindly walks right into it, and closes shut around Romney.

That's right!

Nothing says "Trap"! Like a continued dialogue about your own foreign policy & security failure leading to a dead Ambassador!

Idiot.; 10/18/12, 9:13 AM
Christopher in MA said...: Obama lays trap, Romney stupidly and blindly walks right into it, and closes shut around Romney.

Still nothing to say about Obama's Planned Murderhood lie, garbage? Or his economic illiteracy when it comes to gas prices? Or was it that you only pulled your head out of your ass long enough for the Libya comments?

garage, just once, I'd like to see you post something that isn't transparently partisan hack crap.

You must do this in some way in your life. It's hard to believe that somebody could actually be so obsessively blind.

Give it a try.

Might as well wish for the moon to be made of green cheese, ST, it's just as likely to happen. He's incapable of being anything other than a blinkered political hack; witness his continual Baghdad Bob insistence that Walker's going down any day now!; 10/18/12, 9:15 AM
gk1 said...: I think I heard a CNN talking head yesterday admit "this will only fuel those that believe they see a liberal bias in the media". DOY! Do yah' think?; 10/18/12, 9:16 AM
Bryan C said...: Did Crowley actually have the text of the Rose Garden speech on Benghazi in front of her

I assumed she Googled it or something. If she actually had a paper copy handy that would be mighty strange.

Unless, of course, it was the leather-bound special edition of The Collected Wisdom Of Barack Obama. Every good journalist carries that with them at all times.; 10/18/12, 9:17 AM
Hagar said...: I am sure I have read an article that said Crowley thought the subject would come up and wanted to make sure she had it straight when it did, so she brought a transcript and had it on her desk. She also rose from her desk and had some papers in her hand when she gibbered at Romney.

However, what made her think that she needed to have the quote straight? The question would not be directed to her! And how did the president know she had it? He virtually ordered her to read it (twice!), which also was totally inappropriate, besides making it look like collusion and prior coordination between the White House and the moderator!; 10/18/12, 9:17 AM
garage mahal said...: I think Obama supporters are desperate, and looking for ways to play the race card is one thing they are doing.

Don't blame us for the stupid things your commenters say. And if you want to hear ugly racist and homophobic statements you need to look no further than the Republican Party in Wisconsin.; 10/18/12, 9:18 AM
Matt said...: For the record, there is NO evidence that Crowley had the Rose Garden transcript in front of her. There is an article on EW that suggests Crowley did in fact claim to have a copy of the transcript; however, I watched the episode of The View in question where she supposedly said that and heard no such thing. (I emailed the author of the EW article for clarification and have received no response.)

She claimed to remember it, which, while odd that she would remember that minor detail, is not something that can be readily disproved.

In summary, there is no evidence she had the transcript.; 10/18/12, 9:20 AM
DADvocate said...: CNN - the groupie channel. John Sununu is right. This is a meme that needs to grow and flourish.

What a fucking ridiculous email. Give Obama moer time because he talks slower. The rules are minutes, not word count, dumb asses. Next you'll be wanting to count syllables with extra credit for multi-syllablic words, which I'm sure Romney knows more than Obama.

CNN needs to get larger buckets so they can carry more water for Obama.; 10/18/12, 9:21 AM
Writ Small said...: The first debate this cycle Romney lost was the final South Carolina primary. Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry appeared to have non-aggression pacts and trained all attacks on Romney, especially over releasing his returns.

Now we have a debate where Crowley hand-selects questions that are in the main from the liberal world view (Explain how you're not like that scary Bush who got us into this mess. How will you address the gender pay gap? What is the government going to personally do for me to earn my vote? Crowley ad-libs a version of "assume your plan doesn't really add up. What would you then do, Governor?" etc.) Crowley then gives the president more time and intervenes on his behalf by "fact-checking" - in the liberal sense by agreeing with the opinion on the left - a highly debatable point.

Romney has only "lost" debates this cycle against more than one opponent at a time. And now we get to listen to Diana Moon Glampers give her justifications. Great.; 10/18/12, 9:23 AM
edutcher said...: They want to do a word count?

Hate to tell you, but that does sound as if they already know the answer.; 10/18/12, 9:32 AM
bob said...: pathetic. what really stinks about Crowley is on her Sept 30 show she grilled Axelrod on the very point Romeny was making -- that it took the administration 17 days to tell the american people that it was a preplanned attack by terrorists. so she knew romney was right all along, yet still interrupted him in order to come to obama's defense. indefensible and disgusting.; 10/18/12, 9:34 AM
Steve Austin said...: When I saw the CNN email came from "Mark Whitaker" I thought, is this the same guy who was the editor at Newsweek?

I used to enjoy Newsweek until Whitaker became editor and over time turned it into a lefty rag to the point they finally decided to admit they were a lefty rag.

Same Mark Whitaker. I'm not surprised.; 10/18/12, 9:39 AM
DADvocate said...: And if you want to hear ugly racist ... and bigoted against the poor statements you need to...

read Obama's statements on gun control. He assumses poor people (which means "blacks", remember?) are more violent. That we give them special treatment because they are more violent.

Funny thing, how poor were Jared Lee Loughner, James Holmes, and the Columbine kids?

Obama also says "Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill." So if you're depressed, have OCD or a neurosis you're more prone to violence than the average person? I'd like to see those statistics. Automatic weapons are already illegal, too. Does Obozo even know what an automatic weapon is?; 10/18/12, 9:44 AM
Matt Sablan said...: The trap failed; Romney was right, Crowley & Obama wrong.; 10/18/12, 9:56 AM
AaronS said...: There is a word gap in this country. The Democrats(and media) must fight the word gap.; 10/18/12, 10:05 AM
Christopher in MA said...: Don't blame us for the stupid things your commenters say.

But if one person supposedly at a Romney rally wears a shirt encouraging people to keep a white man in the White House, do make sure to blame the entire Republican party, right, garage?; 10/18/12, 10:06 AM
Cedarford said...: garage mahal said...
If Romney can't handle Candy Crowley for heaven's sake, how is he going to handle Ahmadinejad?

------------
From 2009. If Obama cannot handle an Islamoid attack at FT Hood, calling it "a senseless act of workplace violence" and refusing purple hearts to the soldiers because they were crime victims....How would Obama handle a large scale attack by Al Qaeda??

Now we know.
He called the organized assault on the Benghazi Consulate and safe house by 100 heavily armed Jihadis led by Al Qaeda elements - a crime and a "senseless act of violence" started due to a videotape.

He dispatched his minions to emulate his video/senseless act of violence story.

His Administration at State Dept told elements of the Marine fast reaction force stationed in Sicily, that were geared up and on the tarmac AN HOUR into the attack - and Mediterranean 5th Fleet naval vessels and aviation off Libya - to stand down.

Marines told they were to go in and secure the area the next day were waved off instead. The decision was that this was now a Heroes of the FBI matter - and the FBI would secure the "crime scene".

Which the Heroes of law enforcement eventually did 3 weeks later after the sites were picked clean by victorious Al Qaeda fighters, common Libyans scavanging useful stuff, and Libyan stringers for CNN sent in to find anything valuable.
When CNN got the Ambassador's notebook, instead of it becoming an Al Qaeda trophy, they were denounced for reporting on it.; 10/18/12, 10:06 AM
Darrell said...: I fully expect the FBI to visit the "crime scene" in Libya during my lifetime.; 10/18/12, 10:09 AM
jr565 said...: Do garage, Obama and co weren't on tv suggesting this was an unplanned attack that grew out of a demonstration over a video?
Be precise.; 10/18/12, 10:11 AM
garage mahal said...: The trap failed; Romney was right, Crowley & Obama wrong.

LOL.; 10/18/12, 10:13 AM
Original Mike said...: Why stop at words? Why not characters?; 10/18/12, 10:16 AM
Cedarford said...: bob said...
pathetic. what really stinks about Crowley is on her Sept 30 show she grilled Axelrod on the very point Romeny was making -- that it took the administration 17 days to tell the american people that it was a preplanned attack by terrorists. so she knew romney was right all along, yet still interrupted him in order to come to obama's defense. indefensible and disgusting.
==================
An excellent point, but keep in mind that much of what talking heads like Crowley, Hannity say is not thought or written by them.

It is not from their brains, but the brains of the show's producers and copywriters that assemble the "feed" that Hannity, Maddow, Crowley, Shepard Smith, etc. regurgitate.

Because she read it Sept 30th, doesn't mean she understands what she said.

There are a few long-time talking heads that do review all their material and own every word said and every topic does go through their brain and judgement and editorial process 1st. Rush Limbaugh, love him or hate him - is an owner of what he says. He ain't just reading off a teleprompter like Obama or Crowley.; 10/18/12, 10:16 AM
jr565 said...: Bob said:

pathetic. what really stinks about Crowley is on her Sept 30 show she grilled Axelrod on the very point Romeny was making -- that it took the administration 17 days to tell the american people that it was a preplanned attack by terrorists. so she knew romney was right all along, yet still interrupted him in order to come to obama's defense. indefensible and disgusting.

EXACTLY! It's like the media doesn't read it's own paper or watch its own news. And in this case doesn't pay attention to its own report.
Garage mahal and others are simply seeking to get by on a technicality because whileing a speech on 9/11 about 9/11 Obama also referenced Benghazi and then
Used the words acts of terror as a boiler plate.
Candy Crowley seemed to be under the impression that Obama and his crew were suggesting
Otherwise. Hence the grilling of Axelrod.
A riot over a video that goes bad is not the same a a pew planned attack by al Qaeda affiliates.; 10/18/12, 10:20 AM
Cedarford said...: I really hate the "senseless act of violence" routine of liberals to describe any attack on Americans.

Damn, that sticks in my craw.

It comes from a mentality and worldview that there are no intelligent thinking enemy...just mindless, disorganized crimninals that cause harm.

There is nothing "senseless" about a well planned and executed enemy attack on Americans months in the making. A mission worked with a battle plan, teams assigned to targets, ensuring a preponderance of force exists to prevail over the US targets.; 10/18/12, 10:23 AM
Known Unknown said...: pew planned attack

I gallup away whenever I'm confronted with a pew planned attack.; 10/18/12, 10:26 AM
Darrell said...: I bet you it's "pre" as in pre-planned attack--and some spell checking program.; 10/18/12, 10:34 AM
Joseph of FP said...: Romney has to speak faster because the Legacy Media gives him less time.; 10/18/12, 10:41 AM
jr565 said...: By the way garage, who is saying that Romney couldn't handle Crowley. Saying that there was bias or saying that Crowley interjected herself into the debate unfairly doesn't say anything about Romney at all. This wasn't a blowout debate for either.
The previous debate, where Obama failed to show up in all but physical form- that was a blowout.; 10/18/12, 11:07 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: Unless, of course, it was the leather-bound special edition of The Collected Wisdom Of Barack Obama. Every good journalist carries that with them at all times.

Or, Obama might have graced her with a copy of all his utterances on an iPod, which she then dutifully transcribed because Barry is too busy off dreaming about his next great accomplishment that will go unrecognized by the unwashed masses.; 10/18/12, 11:12 AM
Baelzar said...: Obama 2012: Takes 8 Years to do a 4 Year Job; 10/18/12, 11:15 AM
Michael said...: Cedarford @ 10:23 Couldn't agree more. I don't want Dick Tracy as my president and thus recoil when the dipshit (Bush or Obama) claim they are going to get to the bottom of it, investigate it, etc. Obviously, dipshit, you are going to do that. Or when they say something is a "tragedy" when it is an act of terror or war. The language is mutilated by these people; 10/18/12, 11:15 AM
n.n said...: So, that's a talking point, developed by a central committee. Some of our local journalists were using it in an effort to moderate criticism of Crowley.

The press's attempts to manipulate perception have become progressively brazen and overt. It is utterly ridiculous how they are permitted to abuse their privileged positions.

Anyway, I guess every nation and society has their version of Pravda. Still, I am surprised that in a nation like America, which has a diversity of competing and empowered interests, that they are capable of such open displays of prejudice with absolute impunity.; 10/18/12, 12:06 PM
Dante said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/18/12, 1:35 PM
Dante said...: If Romney can't handle Candy Crowley for heaven's sake, how is he going to handle Ahmadinejad?

I'm sure in a setting where truth reigned supreme, and substance beat out style, he could.

But somehow we elect alleged rapists to the white house these days, we elect racially divisive presidents, etc. So the facts aren't important.

It's what you can get away with, without seeming "mean."; 10/18/12, 1:45 PM
furious_a said...: Those of you who are inclined to disagree with me need to control yourselves and not write here about it,

Prof. Althouse has already made clear her feelings on "it's ugly", and it's her bandwidth we're using for free. Duly noted.; 10/18/12, 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: So we now know for facts that:

(1) Crowley intentionally gave Obama more time than Romney, over three minutes more.
(2) Crowley interrupted Romney three times more than Obama.
(3) Crowley jumped in to support Obama on the Libya question, against debate policy.
(4) Crowley got her intervention sufficiently wrong that she has had to acknowledge and apologize later.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a rigged debate.

From there it's not that much of a stretch is it to suppose that:

* Crowley managed to slip the questions to Obama ahead of time, which would help explain why Obama was so much more articulate and prepared than he was in the last debate and in his unscripted appearances.

* Crowley and Obama set up the Libya question as a trap for Obama, which would explain why Crowley had a copy of the Rosegarden speech on hand and the immediate back-and-forth from Obama to Crowley, back to Obama then to Michelle leading applause, against debate rules, from her seat.

That was very smooth and fast, like a magic trick. It depended on Crowley falling right in with Obama's misleading claim about his Rosegarden speech. Hard for me to believe.; 10/18/12, 4:46 PM
Hagar said...: I think I remember that Romney brought up Libya, and Obama got a relieved expression on his face and went back to his chair, and then there was the interchange with "Proceeed, Governor," etc., which Romney obviously had not expected, and then when he did, Obama called out to Crowley, "Get the transcript!" (Not "read", but "get"), and then when Romney kept talking Obama again called out, "Candy!"

That really smells!; 10/18/12, 8:44 PM
Hagar said...: I would think a student that tried a word-play like that on the word "terror" in one of the professor's classes would get the sharp edge of her tongue and not much of a grade.

Not to mention conspiring with the judge!; 10/18/12, 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Hagar: What we saw the other night was a scene from "West Wing."

Real life is almost never as satisfying, given the number of moving parts.; 10/18/12, 9:23 PM