Crowley's Interventions Swung the Debate in Obama's favor

There has been a lot of discussion, quite properly so, about Candy Crowley's ill-timed and ill-conceived imposition of her personal interpretation of Obama'a September 12th Rose Garden monologue.

The nanny moderator was sure that the president had called the Benghazi murders "acts of terror" -- journalism’s equivalent of a replacement referee’s worst call.

In addition, however, there should be focus on her overall involvement and performance and the degree to which it affected the flow of the debate, and ultimately, people's perceptions.

William Bigelow, writing for Breitbart.TV, noted that she had interrupted Obama 9 times. She interrupted Romney 28 times

www.foxnews.com...

I was quite literally shocked when, at one point, Romney stood up to deliver a standard rebuttal to an Obama delivery - but Crowley told him to sit back down because she wanted to move on...as she said, many questioners had been waiting all day for their chance to ask (questions she had hand-picked)...

Romney tried to tell her that it was his turn to speak, but she just bulldozed over him, and moved to the next question.

I also clearly remember her locking in on Romney and saying, "But Mr. Romney...what if your numbers don't add up, will you reconsider your policies?"

Just as clearly, I do not remember Crowley saying, "But Mr. President...you said that deficits would be cut in half during your term, but they doubled...you said that unemployment would go to 5.8%, but it is nearly double that, if you count the people who have just given up...high paying jobs have been replaced by low paying ones...more people are in poverty, more people are on food stamps...what if your current Policies simply continue not to work, will you reconsider your approach?"

She should never be allowed near a moderator's desk ever again - far too partisan to give even the illusion of making fair or balanced judgement calls during a debate.

reply to post by mobiusmale


Who cares.

She cut both candidates off at critical times. She cut Obama and Romney off equally...

Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

Who cares.

She cut both candidates off at critical times. She cut Obama and Romney off equally...

That is bull - the numbers speak for their self. She cut Romney off more than double what she cut Obama off.... Just saying.

reply to post by daaskapital


Sure...

If 9 equals 28, you are right on the money.

Obama brought his A-game and played to his base - WELL - he won the debate that way.

However, Crowley made sure Obama covered the spread. I don't see any way around that. She didn't even attempt to control the audience applause on the whole Benghazi thing and - watch - she was happy about it. Not to mention the question selection.

However, there is no way around it - Romney missed a lot of opportunities and Obama showed up strong. And the whole Libya bit wasn't early enough to have accounted for much of the "momentum" shift.

And Crowley's revisionist approach to defending herself since has made it all the more clear.

I feel like I should say 'however' again.. However, Cheers, -Mags

reply to post by mobiusmale


You think Romney will now loose the election because of biased debate moderators? That would be outrageous.

I'm glad we have fair and balanced news networks like fox exposing the dirty tricks.

She kept interrupting him because he kept going over the time limit. You would think the idiots at FOX would have seen the clock that was running in the background. Funny how FOX ignores how many times Romney did the interrupting.

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

Who cares.

She cut both candidates off at critical times. She cut Obama and Romney off equally...

That is bull - the numbers speak for their self. She cut Romney off more than double what she cut Obama off.... Just saying.

edit on 18-10-2012 by MentorsRiddle because: (no reason given)

Obama didn't go over the time limit as much as Romney. It's not her fault that Romney can't tell time.

In a bizarre coincidence the Democratic candidate has had more time to speak in all 3 debates so far. If only there was some way to explain that.... what could it be.... hmmmmm.

I expect the same bias in the final debate as well.

CROWLEY INTERRUPTS ROMNEY 28 TIMES, OBAMA JUST 9

www.breitbart.com...

I agree Crowley was totally partisan and prejudiced against Romney...but Romney still won the debate.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

Who cares.

She cut both candidates off at critical times. She cut Obama and Romney off equally...

That is bull - the numbers speak for their self. She cut Romney off more than double what she cut Obama off.... Just saying.

edit on 18-10-2012 by MentorsRiddle because: (no reason given)

Obama didn't go over the time limit as much as Romney. It's not her fault that Romney can't tell time.

Is that why Obama was given 9% more speaking time than Mitt?

Maybe Mitt was trying to make up for the amount of time he was being robbed of....


EDIT: I'm sorry - I just looked it up. It was actually 11% more speaking time than Mitt....
www.nationalreview.com...

reply to post by IAMTAT

I agree Crowley was totally partisan and prejudiced against Romney...but Romney still won the debate.

Romney won because he's consistent, he doesn't rely on repeatedly pointing out what total failure and fraud Obama is. He just simply needs to outline his policies and people believe him, because they can look at his record. Romney has won because he doesn't flip flop.

Without Breitbart we wouldn't even know the truth.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

I agree Crowley was totally partisan and prejudiced against Romney...but Romney still won the debate.

Romney won because he's consistent, he doesn't rely on repeatedly pointing out what total failure and fraud Obama is. He just simply needs to outline his policies and people believe him, because they can look at his record. Romney has won because he doesn't flip flop.

Without Breitbart we wouldn't even know the truth.

I am a 100% Mitt supporter. But, I have to say, I think he corrects and points out Obama's failures as much as possible, haha.

But what can you expect in a political debate?

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

You think Romney will now loose the election because of biased debate moderators? That would be outrageous.

I'm glad we have fair and balanced news networks like fox exposing the dirty tricks.

Not necessarily...any more than negative or attack ads will necessarily swing enough votes against a candidate. However, given the numbers of motivated voters (motivated enough to specifically tune in to a debate) who watch, it can likely have a measurable effect.

I think that Crowley forgot (on purpose?) that this was not a CNN segment where she was interviewing the candidates, and where editorial comment or input might be expected - she was supposed to be the impartial moderator of a debate between the candidates...who were supposed to be answering questions from the citizens present.

reply to post by mobiusmale

...she was supposed to be the impartial moderator of a debate between the candidates...

If you really think you've seen a debate that is supposed to be substantial, open and spontaneous, you might want to take look here and here.

To argue what candidate spews more lies, is like arguing what mobster is more (or less) criminal while they're trying to take over your town.

Originally posted by mobiusmale
There has been a lot of discussion, quite properly so, about Candy Crowley's ill-timed and ill-conceived imposition of her personal interpretation of Obama'a September 12th Rose Garden monologue.

The nanny moderator was sure that the president had called the Benghazi murders "acts of terror" -- journalism’s equivalent of a replacement referee’s worst call.

Obama: "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened -- that this was an act of terror -- and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

Romney: "I think interesting the president just said something, which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror."

Obama: "That's what I said."

Romney: "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an "act of terror". It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?"

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."

Rose Garden Transcript

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.

Get over it...Romney made it an issue...He thought he had a smack down moment.."I want to make sure we get that for the record"..Just cuz he embarrased himself doesn't make it Candy Crowley's fault for STATING THE FACTS.

Look at what Romney said again...
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." "

He didn't say "administration" or "UN Ambassador" ...he said the President took 14 days to call it an act of terror and that he didn't call it that at the rose garden speech the day after.

FALSE on every bit of the claim. If he wanted to talk about inferences by the UN Ambassador then he should have. For effs sake he was pretty exact in calling the President a liar on the matter...Candy appropriately told him what was in the transcript.

If you are going to shoot for a "Gotcha" moment by calling the President a lair in front of Millions of people...then you better be right. HE WAS WRONG...REALITY and TRANSCRIPTS. Tough SH*&

Stop whining.

If Candy Crowley stating the sky is blue is a problem for Romney...then he is the saddest candidate for POTUS we have seen in a long time.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

...she was supposed to be the impartial moderator of a debate between the candidates...

If you really think you've seen a debate that is supposed to be substantial, open and spontaneous, you might want to take look here and here.

To argue what candidate spews more lies, is like arguing what mobster is more (or less) criminal while they're trying to take over your town.

We can never expect a debate to be "spontaneous", of course...any more than we can imagine a courtroom battle as being spontaneous.

In both cases we have opposing parties who wish to win...who will have prepared themselves in advance to make certain points to advance their cause - and how to defend against the anticipated counterattacks of their opponent.

Both sides will attempt to highlight areas where they feel they are strong...and areas where they feel their opponent is weak. So, of course, to a large degree each side will attempt to script the encounter.

But the contest is supposed to be between the combatants...and the judge/moderator is there to ensure that both sides are given the opportunity to air their views and to present their arguments...so that the jury/voters can reach a proper judgement.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

I agree Crowley was totally partisan and prejudiced against Romney...but Romney still won the debate.

Romney won because he's consistent, he doesn't rely on repeatedly pointing out what total failure and fraud Obama is. He just simply needs to outline his policies and people believe him, because they can look at his record. Romney has won because he doesn't flip flop.

Without Breitbart we wouldn't even know the truth.

Romney is consistent and doesn't flip flop? Really? I don't want to get too far off topic but could you address this article and explain to me how he's been consistent.
www.businessinsider.com...

Originally posted by Indigo5

Get over it...Romney made it an issue...He thought he had a smack down moment.."I want to make sure we get that for the record"..Just cuz he embarrased himself doesn't make it Candy Crowley's fault for STATING THE FACTS.

Look at what Romney said again...
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." "

He didn't say "administration" or "UN Ambassador" ...he said the President took 14 days to call it an act of terror and that he didn't call it that at the rose garden speech the day after.

FALSE on every bit of the claim. If he wanted to talk about inferences by the UN Ambassador then he should have. For effs sake he was pretty exact in calling the President a liar on the matter...Candy appropriately told him what was in the transcript.

If you are going to shoot for a "Gotcha" moment by calling the President a lair in front of Millions of people...then you better be right. HE WAS WRONG...REALITY and TRANSCRIPTS. Tough SH*&

Stop whining.

If Candy Crowley stating the sky is blue is a problem for Romney...then he is the saddest candidate for POTUS we have seen in a long time.

edit on 18-10-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Well, let's actually look at what Obama said...

...speaking of the attacks and the murders, he said that “we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”

Quite clearly, Obama...in this Rose Garden speech...stated that the attacks were the result of people's reaction to the video. That is, not a terrorist attack.

...Three paragraphs later, he said he had been to a memorial to commemorate 9/11 and paid tribute to those who had died in Iraq and Afghanistan. And a paragraph later, he added: “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.

Therefore...according to Obama...9/11 "act of terror" The killings in Libya...a "terrible act" that happened as a result of the video.

This interpretation is borne out by the next two weeks full of official Government statements (including more by Obama) claiming that this was not a terrorist attack, but only a mob's reaction to an anti-Islamic video.

And anyway...the point of this thread is that Crowley should have kept her opinions out of the debate...as they (right or wrong) affected the outcome.

Originally posted by mobiusmale

I was quite literally shocked when, at one point, Romney stood up to deliver a standard rebuttal to an Obama delivery - but Crowley told him to sit back down because she wanted to move on...as she said, many questioners had been waiting all day for their chance to ask (questions she had hand-picked)...

Romney tried to tell her that it was his turn to speak, but she just bulldozed over him, and moved to the next question.

NO...It WAS NOT his turn to speak. Romney tried to bulldoze and Bully Candy Crowley the way he did Jim Leher...and failed.

I don't think the way Romney treated Candy Crowley did him any favors with women either.