Skip to comments.Re: 2nd debate: Was “get the transcript Candy” a pre-arranged and scripted setup?
Posted on 10/18/2012 5:59:46 AM PDT by FiddlePig
She seemed to have the transcript as if on queue
if not, a strange coincidence indeed!??? Obama saved by the girl?
No such thing as a coincidence in politics. The fact that she disputed something Romney said is a disgrace - fully expected but a disgrace nonetheless. She’s was the moderator not a debate participant!
Obama throws like a girl and has to be defended by a girl (”girl” in the latter case is used very loosely).
Anyone ever see “Lie to Me”?
One of the frequent tells they exposed in that show
is a verbal response that is way too quick.
It was obvious.
Obama was waiting for that challenge, and the rose garden speech transcript on hand by the moderator is proof that conspiracy took place prior to the debate.
Obama and Crowley choreographed the debate? (Posted on 10/17/12 at 10:14 p.m.)
When the inevitable Libya question was asked, Obama baits Mitt by saying, “I said on day one that it was an act of terror.”
Mitt, knowing the administration sold the youtube theory around the world for nearly two weeks after the attack, moves in for the boom.
Obama says “check the transcript.”
Moderator picks up a piece of paper and says “he’s right.”
Why did Obama say “check the transcript” and Crowley just happened to have one sitting right in front of her? What are the odds?
Then what else is left for her to do, but incorrectly back up the president in front of millions of people. The most puzzling thing during this orchestrated insanity is the crowds applause as if the president has just been exonerated. They were in effect applauding the idea that the president knew it was a pre-planned terror attack on day one and had been lying to the world the whole time.
Did the president and Crowley orchestrate this exchange and bait Mitt into it?
When Mitt brought up Fast and Furious Obama says “Candy?”. Immediately she interrupts Mitt and tells him to stop talking about it.
I have been Tweeting out this very question and it seems most missed the ‘coincidence’. The very transcript that would be needed to back up Obama just happens to be available and read to go. A slamming video needs to be made so Obama and CNN are exposed for this BS.
Can Mitt request that the Presidential Debate Commission look into this? He should demand that the rules in the next debate be adhered to or he should just go off and break them the same as obama does. If he sees the moderator is not giving him a fair shot, he should call him out then and there. Why should Mitt play by the rules if debate ethics are a thing of the past?
That said, if she read the transcript and then accepted the Axelrod/Obama interpretation that Obama was indeed calling the Benghazi attack an "act of terror", she's an idiot.
This obvious set up has become widely commented on in the new media. I trust team Romney will devise a way to turn it into another exploding cigar for Obama during the foreign policy debate.
That was my first thought -
How did she know Obama was going to say that?
Even granting (for argument’s sake) that she did not let the campaign know what questions were going to be asked, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to know Libya was going to come up.
Somebody somewhere had to have told Crowley what Obama was going to say.
In other words, while we heard she would not give advance info to Obama, there was no talk of Obama not giving her any.
Because she could immediately input on Obama’s Rose Garden “terror comment”, I’d say collusion without a doubt.
Drudge had this article from liberal SF up this morning. The article isn’t the story. The comments at the end are the story. For anyone who thinks the American people aren’t paying attention......
Does a Democrat covet your freedom and your money?
Here’s the problem....The transcript was inches away.
I don't believe this for a New York second. She 'got' it because she gave them the question in advance and she colluded with them to defeat Romeny, period. Nothing less than blind obedience was expected from her.
I posted this earlier but I thinnk it needs to be repeated.
Not sure if this is on another thread but I looked at the video of the debate and it looks like BO was given the questions.
At 1:06:35 in the debate, a question from Kerry Luska was going to be asked. BO actually walks up toward the man, nods at him and says softly, Hi Kerry before the man is even identified by name. Then he appears to step back and tries to look confused by looking all around but Kerry stands up practically right in front of him.
I am not defending her actions -- I am saying that it is not necessarily an ambush pre-planned with Obama.
O’Reilly addressed that in answering a letter last night. He said that Crowley picked the questions, that she would have the transcript, and that it was no big deal.
Personally, I don’t think so at all. O’Reilly’s take is ridiculous.
First, the question was “who approved the removal of the security detail?” Is it possible that question would generate recrimination over when Benghazi was first called a terrorist act? Maybe, but not certainly. Would that cause Crowley to bring a transcript of a speech from Sep 12? I doubt it, and not even if she had a discussion with Axelrod on that subject.
BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY:
How did Obama know she had the transcript there?
Finally, in an interview with the dude who asked the question, he stated that he was undecided, but that he did not want obamacare to end, that the nation needed national health care. Then he tossed in a few lines about Romney’s business acumen appealing to him.
He’s no more an undecided than Mooch.
My understanding is that Candy interviewed Axelrod on CNN a couple of days previously and he tried out this line on her at that time. She probably got the transcript then to see what was said. So it is possible that it is not a coincidence.
It is very nice of you to give them the benefit of the doubt but of ALL the Libya statements made by ALL the people in the administration she just happened to have the one in question (in her hand)?
HE GOT HILLARY AGAIN...(You are not President...hahaha....I am....I won....)
At least it's a big girl.
The entire debate was tigged: the interruptions “every time Obama said, “Candy”), staged theatrics, selected questions favoring Obama, the transcript and the Benghazi gotcha. What we witnessed was collusion and corruption o the political process. Chicago politics center state: COLLUSION: CRIMINALITY.
Candy Cowpatty was unprofessiional at best. She should be fired or at the very least demoted to a off air office job.
Otherwise, I would not be shock if it was discovered that Candy Cowpattey and King 0bama Coordinated the whole debate as much as possible via e-mail.
If Obozo “knew” she had the transcript - can one assume he “knew” what questions were going to be asked? I read somewhere that only the moderator and her staff knew what questions were going to be asked. I’m betting she gave Obozo the list.
When Mitt brought up Fast and Furious Obama says Candy?. Immediately she interrupts Mitt and tells him to stop talking about it.
I wondered if anyone else noticed that. He was like a little boy calling for mommy to stop the meanie from calling him names. She stepped right in like a doting mother. This whole debate was a sham and shows how bad Obama really is. He still looks bad even with the entire media covering for him. He still can’t pull it off. Romney looked presidential inspite of overwhelming odds; he will need that ability in the coming years if he is to turn this mess around.
The "interpretation" by Axelrod of the President's Rose Garden statement was new. The administration changed their story and it it happened just before the debate, so it was fresh in her mind.
I just watched the exchange. Crowley named the questioner just before Obama said "Hi, Kerry."
Absolutely noticed it. I was so glad to hear Obamas response to the AK47, knew this would be Romney’s chance. She interrupted R and then O said, lets move on, people waiting with other questions. (something like that)
Boy, you are right. Not one pro-Obama comment, and this fron SF...
Clearly a gotcha trap. Straight from Chicago, you can bank on that.
What I am saying is that she heard the White House spin argument, looked up the transcript, bought into it, and then brought the thing to the debate on her anticipation that this issue would be raised
How did HE know she had the transcript? That’s why people suspect collusion. Too many questions.
Does the cow crap in the field?
Not only that but Obama then told Candy to say it louder, as if this was his chance to use that quote:
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?
Ah....makes more sense. So this was a setup, whether it was Axelrod laying the groundwork to a moderator/supporter who desperately wanted to believe in the “won” or out-right collusion. The fact that obama said, “Get the transcript,” proves it. Whether he knew Can-D would have the transcript or would jump in to defend him, he knew the transcript used that phrase, “act of terror”, even though its meaning had nothing to do with what he was trying to imply.
Axelrod/obama - SLEAZY.
Crowley did say the question was from Kerry Latka just before Obama says “Hi Kerry”, but you are right, he did walk straight towards him before seeming to realize that was a giveaway and deciding to scan the audience.
Obama got in his "lie" and she got carried away.
Wish we had a camera on her through the whole thing.
bingo. I didn't know that but what you are saying makes sense. These people are smart in an evil sneaky sort of way. It was a setup but no direct collusion was necessary. They 'laundered" the setup via dry run a few days earlier. Candy checked it out herself. She didn't defend obama on command. She did it based on ego because she had checked out axlerod's assertion herself and was probably surprised that obama did in fact say "act of terror".
Note that Obama didn't call them terrorists. He believed a mob was ticked off about a movie and committed an act of terror. Obama's words change nothing. mitt fell for a liberal wordsmithing distraction. The debate has never been whether the act was an "act of terror". It was whether it was planned and whether it was carried out by a terrorist organization. Distraction game.
Thanks for this. Most revealing. It’s probably been said somewhere, but it’s only now beginning to sink into my consciousness: Why would a “moderator” feel the need for at-the-ready research materials? Particularly a moderator who had chosen the questions? If she weren’t planning on reffing, what was the point?
Also striking is Obama’s cryptic “Proceed, Governor” (or something like that) as if the question weren’t finished or posed fully enough to elicit an Obama response. But the question WAS fully formed requiring only a yes or no answer—which the president decidedly failed to give. How convenient—since either a yes or a no would have sunk him. Time out. Ball to ref.
Completely reasonable. But why would a moderator have felt the need to fact-check during a debate? That wasn’t her role. Yet she was ready for it.
“”BO actually walks up toward the man, nods at him and says softly, Hi Kerry before the man is even identified by name””
Had to watch it to verify this and that’s not right! Crowley said she had a question from Kerry Luska (?)so his name was already spoken.
I sure don’t want to defend this creep in any way whatsoever, but let’s try not to muddy the waters any more than they already are.
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?
In fact, I have to say, Candy looked uncomfortable doing it when he prompted her. It was like she had to make the split decision of whether to help obama or put her reputation on the line. Sadly, she chose the latter.
Even the cinematography was choreographed, I noticed that last night. Go to the part where Obama is “vindicate” regarding his statements on Benghazi, and they show Obama standing in the background, looking back at Romney, who they show sitting in his chair, from behind, in the foreground. This shot was arranged to make Romney look small, as if he was a schoolboy being lectured by Professor Obama. It’s a pretty standard cinematic trick.
Now, the proof that this was intentional is that, if you look at the rest of the debate, there are many times when Romney looks back at Obama sitting in his chair to talk to him, but they NEVER shoot that from an angle where you see Obama’s back. It’s always either a wide angle shot showing the front of both of them, or a shot showing Romney’s back. They purposefully placed the cameras so that they could get shots making Romney look diminutive and Obama superior.
Yes! Obviously the two had coordinated before the show.
I think much of that debate was a farce. If you haven’t seen the site, check it out. It is laid out nicely.
P.S. Obama has a big mouth and cannot be trusted to keep a secret, from national security secrets that he and his administration leaks to this sort of screwup.
She didn’t get carried away. The applause tactic was planned too. The applause is what gave all the dumbasses the idea that Obama won the debate. Sealed the deed.
And then the lamestream coat-carryers were all too happy to corroborate the “judgment.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.