Candy Crowley hosed Romney during the debate

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/candy-crowley-self-destructs-070000864.html

By L. Brent Bozell | Brent Bozell III – 9 hrs ago

Just how badly did CNN's Candy Crowley destroy her first (and hopefully last) attempt as a presidential debate moderator? More than 65 million people saw that she is to debate moderation as CNN is to "news."

Barack Obama made a fatal mistake when he lied, claiming he'd labeled the Libya attack as an act of terrorism. The look on Romney's face said it all: Mr. President, here comes checkmate.

Then Crowley leapt to Obama's defense, declared a lie a truth, changed the subject, and Obama was free.

It was a travesty.

Let's get beyond the perennial partisan toe-taggers Rachel Maddow (touting Romney's "political disaster") and Ed Schultz ("The president destroyed Mitt Romney on foreign policy"), who credited Obama. Look at those who gave the bouquet to Crowley for saving Obama.

That night on PBS, John Heilemann of New York Magazine insisted the subject of Libya would have been disastrous for Obama. "The worst hand that the administration and President Obama have to play in this debate was on Benghazi, and because particularly of Candy Crowley's follow-up on that question, it allowed Barack Obama to win an exchange that I didn't necessarily think it was possible for him to win."

Obama shouldn't have won, but Crowley saved him.

The next morning, Current TV host Eliot Spitzer told Current TV host Bill Press that Crowley caused the "emotional highlight of the night" by declaring Romney was wrong. "I think that really deflated what otherwise should have been on the Benghazi issue a moment when Romney could have hit it out of the park. But instead he took the step too far. Crowley came in as sort of the voice of neutrality and took the victory away from Romney."

Crowley crushed Romney. Even Spitzer wouldn't defend Crowley as staying within a moderator's role.

Crowley knew exactly what she'd done: validate a lie. Time for damage control. Within minutes of leaving the journalistic crime scene, Crowley was back on CNN admitting that Romney was right "in the main" — whatever that means — but he chose "the wrong word" by focusing on Obama's cursory use of the term "these acts of terror." If Romney was correct, why not just say it?

Again, Crowley rallied behind Obama — even repeating her verdict when the president egged her on to "say it a little louder."

So let's say it a little louder: Team Obama engaged in a massive cover-up, hiding and denying what it knew about this deadly terrorist attack for weeks. Even Heilemann and Spitzer admit that this scandal should be a "homerun" for Romney. Journalists know that the White House lied horribly day after day, and — with a few exceptions — have enabled that badly disguised cover-up. Obama claimed nobody cares about finding the facts more than he does. It's lie after lie at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Crowley knows full well that it's Team Obama that needs to be held accountable here, not the challenger. Back on September 30, Crowley herself pinned down Obama spinner David Axelrod on this point: "Why did it take them until Friday [september 28], after a September 11 attack in Libya, to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved? John McCain said it doesn't pass the smell test, or it's willful ignorance to think that they didn't know before this what was going on." Of course, Axelrod shot back that Obama in the Rose Garden called it an "act of terror."

How does Crowley square her October 16 performance with her September 30 performance? Try this theory: after liberals savaged Jim Lehrer as "useless" for somehow allowing Obama's first-debate fiasco, they've successfully worked the refs, both Crowley and Martha Raddatz, to push back at the "lies" of the Republicans.

Journalists now know Obama lied repeatedly about protests outside the consulate in Benghazi. In a September 20 interview with Univision, Obama said of Libya, "I don't want to speak to something until we have all the information.

What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.

There were no "natural protests." The story line had changed the day before when Matthew Olsen of the National Counterterrorism Center cracked under congressional questioning and said, "the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack." On the 20th, Obama spokesman Jay Carney suddenly jerked his knee and declared, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack."

"Self-evident?" If so, then Team Obama is guilty, period.

Instead, so many in the shameless media are still trying to pin the tail on Romney. They'll do anything to reelect Obama. Just ask Candy Crowley.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Poor Romney. Everyone is out to get him.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Poor Romney. Everyone is out to get him.

I take it that what she did as a moderator of a US presidential election debate is acceptable in your eyes.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I take it that what she did as a moderator of a US presidential election debate is acceptable in your eyes.

Perhaps Romney shouldn't have argued every time he didn't get the last word on a subject ... even when it wasn't his turn! If Romney has no respect for any rules (interrupting, arguing with the moderator, ignoring one question because he wanted the last word on a previous one) why should I care if someone else doesn't?

Doesn't matter to me. I find the moderators useless to begin with since the candidates get away with whatever they want anyway.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I take it that what she did as a moderator of a US presidential election debate is acceptable in your eyes.

You libs are funny... Always blaming someone else....

Romney stuck his foot in his mouth, therefore it must be the moderator's fault....

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Always someone else's fault if Romney doesn't say something properly or get his point across.

And I hate to break it to you, but the President did use the words "act of terror" the very next day.

Candy also told Romney he was correct in some of his points.

The transcript:

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.

And here's what Obama said on Sept 12, the very next day:

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "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. Today we mourn four 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."

Edited October 19, 2012 by Evylin

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's really no different than Charles Gibson calling Obama out during the Democratic primaries in 2008 on the Capital Gains tax.

Obama made claims that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax out of fairness and because the government needed revenue. Gibson corrected him and told him that throughout the history of the tax that each time it had been lowered that the government actually made more money because it caused more investments to be made and people to buy/sell more often.

So this is really nothing new.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/candy-crowley-self-destructs-070000864.html

Within minutes of leaving the journalistic crime scene, Crowley was back on CNN admitting that Romney was right "in the main" — whatever that means — but he chose "the wrong word" by focusing on Obama's cursory use of the term "these acts of terror." If Romney was correct, why not just say it?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Read the transcript of the debate. She said that Romney was correct on some points, but incorrect on the fact that Obama did not call it an act of terror for two weeks.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

It's really no different than Charles Gibson calling Obama out during the Democratic primaries in 2008 on the Capital Gains tax.

Obama made claims that he wanted to raise the capital gains tax out of fairness and because the government needed revenue. Gibson corrected him and told him that throughout the history of the tax that each time it had been lowered that the government actually made more money because it caused more investments to be made and people to buy/sell more often.

So this is really nothing new.

The difference is that this happened to Romney. So now we're upset.

[SMR 368]

The thing about the Obama speech is that he doesn't use the words "act of terror" to specifically reference Benghazi. You can, of course, easily argue that since he was talking about Benghazi in the speech and used the words "act of terror" at all, he was talking about Benghazi. However, it seems to me that the speech is intentionally vague so as to give Obama deniability. In short, Obama was voting 'present.'

However, all of this is really missing the mark on the Candy Crowley thing. The point is that Obama and Romney called each other liars at least half a dozen times throughout the debate and contradicted each other even more often. Even if Crowley had been indisputably right with her 'fact check,' she would need to fact check every claim made in the debate to really remain unbiased. Otherwise the bias comes in when she picks and chooses what facts she wants to check.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

The thing about the Obama speech is that he doesn't use the words "act of terror" to specifically reference Benghazi. You can, of course, easily argue that since he was talking about Benghazi in the speech and used the words "act of terror" at all, he was talking about Benghazi. However, it seems to me that the speech is intentionally vague so as to give Obama deniability. In short, Obama was voting 'present.'

However, all of this is really missing the mark on the Candy Crowley thing. The point is that Obama and Romney called each other liars at least half a dozen times throughout the debate and contradicted each other even more often. Even if Crowley had been indisputably right with her 'fact check,' she would need to fact check every claim made in the debate to really remain unbiased. Otherwise the bias comes in when she picks and chooses what facts she wants to check.

That would hold SOME water if she hadn't said both Obama and Romney were technically correct.

[akihon 129]

boggles my mind to see how blindly biased most of the frequent posters are on P&R.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I take it that what she did as a moderator of a US presidential election debate is acceptable in your eyes.

The point Obama and Romney disputed, did Obama call the attack terrorism is debatable. Obama did say acts of terror in his Rose Garden speech after the attacks, though Romney is correct it was not specifically aimed at the attack.

It would be absolutely fair to say the moderator shut down both sides in the exchange. Since the words of the President in his Rose Garden speech could be construed either way it's a stretch to claim Obama flat out lied. Ditto to claim Crowley reenforced the lie.

The moderator tolerated plenty of Romney whoppers during the debate.

Edited October 20, 2012 by ready4ONE

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Read the transcript of the debate. She said that Romney was correct on some points, but incorrect on the fact that Obama did not call it an act of terror for two weeks.

Actually Obama did not call "it" meaning the attack an act of terror. He said 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.