Skip to comments.The Presidential Debates Have Devolved Into Liberal Controlled And Hyped Media Events
Posted on 10/17/2012 9:06:00 AM PDT by Starman417
We had our debate last night, and as was expected, Crowley made her partisan views and bias a significant factor in the debate: if you deny this obvious fact, you suffer from willful ignorance or you are so lost in your bias your sanity might be in question.
Crowley let it be known, before the debate, she planned to inject her influence into the debate; after all, she has a superior intellect and is a member of the elite cadre of media engaged in the reelection of Obama. How could anyone expect or ask that she be a neutral moderator, with such superior talent, she needs to be an active participant and personality within the debate. Who knew the debate, between men vying for the most powerful position in the world, required the participation of an obvious shill for Obama to clap for Obama and allow him extra time to make crucial points because they are "important."
When the "approved questions by undecided voters, who show up decided, and then ask questions like "how are you different from Bush" the debate has ceased to be a debate and has become a Liberal media event. Forget the fact that Michelle Obama is allowed to break the rules and lead the questioners and Crowley in applause, the debate has lost its validity. The moderators have reduced the debates from important historical meetings that allow the public to view the candidates under stress competing against each other, to the level of another Liberal hosted talk show on the alphabet networks. Allowing Obama to interrupt with impunity and talk over Romney was only one of many examples of the debate taking on the appearance of a Liberal media event; this ruins the spirit of a legitimate debate. We deserve better.
The question of President Obama's reluctance to use the word terror in reference to Islamic Fundamentalists is well known and has brought into question the dubious nature of his loyalties. In the Rose Garden speech on September 12, 20120, Obama used the word terror once near the conclusion of his speech:
"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."
To those of us who study the often convoluted and purposely vague speeches of politicians and Obama in particular, such a generic statement regarding terror toward the end of a speech seems to reply to terror in general; but Crowley felt the obligation, as an Obama Bootlicker, to interject herself and correct Romney, based solely on her personal assumption and interpretation of this vague reference to terror.
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Of course.....that IS what they are and have ALWAYS been.
Anyone who watches them to gain any MEANINGFUL information on either candidate is a fool.
Anyone swayed by them is beyond hope as an intelligent voter.
We need to start TEAing and FREEPing these town hall debates next election cycle.
1. Say that you are undecided.
2. Submit the most stuipid innane liberal leaning pointed question ahead of time to you are picked to ask the question.
3. When given the microphone, ask the REAL question you have, and not a question about WHAT the government is going to DO FOR ME, but instead a question about the PHILOSOPHY of Government and Centralized Government Control.
4. IF they bitch about it, simply say, I changed my mind, don;t I as an Undecided voter have that right?
I think if this happened enough the left would havwe to abandon the whole “Town Hall” format because they wouldn;t be able to pre-pick the questions.
Someone mentioned what we really need is a 6 hour Lincoln Douglas type debate, I would love to see someone like Obama after 6 hours of debating I think his true self would start showing through around hours 2-4 and it would only get worse.
OUTSTANDING analysis and posts! BTTT!
They should demand, at the very least, that there will be any one of these demands to be met:
1) Each debate will have a representative from both liberal and conservative media to co-monitor each debate.
2) Every other debate will be monitored by the opposite point of view (therefore, 2 libtard debates and 2 honest debates.)
3) The conservative candidate will NOT SHOW UP!
My God, how can the RNC allow this crap to continue!
You have an interesting idea, but I suspect they investigate folks in depth before approving them.
For most FReepers, there is likely a trail of evidence ( being a registered Republcan , contributions to conservative candidates, etc) that would be found.
GENERIC reference to terrorism ... not a response to the murder of our ambassador, and attack on our facility.
If Os initial response was vague on the Libya issue
that is what the WH wanted!
If America did not comprehend precisely what the WH response to this was that was the plan!
If the debate venue looked like a Mulligan for O, on his response to the Libyan attack THAT is what it WAS!
THIS is the usual Liberal procedure in dealing with everything. Buying acres of wiggle-room RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING with deliberately confusing and ambiguous language IS their standard practice.
The administration (AND O) was NEVER clear or consistent in their response to this.
It is typical of the way O has handled EVERYTHING. That was intentional and calculated.
He is so disinclined to the idea of personal responsibility, so unqualified at decision-making and incapable of commitment that his responses ALWAYS take on this imprecise, ill-defined and ambiguous character.
It is INVARIABLY the way he responds to a challenge or a question!!
Whatever these so-called "debates" really are, they're certainly not a battle of ideas in an open and neutral forum. Theyre run by the disinformation arm of Obama's Reelection Committee AKA the MSM. They're set up to fool the gullible and keep the real issues as far away from Obama as the east is from the west.
You notice FOX is the same type of analysis. Even Kraut said he won because he made jabs even though Romney was throwing haymakers. Pathetic he couldn’t notice the lying.
Pray for America
They are nothing more than info-mercials with the writers of each campaign trying to come up with the most remembered one-liner.
I wouldn't know.
I haven't watched a "debate" since Nixon/Kennedy.
I don't watch, listen to or read "analysis" of the "debates"
I haven't even read the article at the start of this thread. The headline is what grabbed my interest and was what I used in my post.
I think they are ALL a waste of time and money and serve ONLY to satisfy the FCC's requirements for some sort of "public service" in order to maintain their licenses.
What the heck? IS BUSH RUNNING AGAIN???
Wish Romney had asked her if BUSH was a candidate now, or I wasn't aware that BUSH was running. Or, if Obama had not been thinking so much about BUSH maybe he could have concentrated on the job at hand.
OH BUT, Crowly wants to skip over the miserable past 4 years of Obama,(he gets a mulligan) and go right to the real problem, BUSH. BUSH FAULT AGAIN, still Bush fault, always will be BUSH FAULT.
Kraut played it both ways. Kraut went on to say, when Obama gets fact checked after the debate, he will found to be lying.
Yeah, a no duh moment Kraut.
The headline is right, the date is wrong. Kennedy/ Nixon is when that change happened. Much like TV news televised debates the TV comes first. It’s about looking good, looking “presidential” (whatever that means), the only time what you say matters is if it’s REALLY stupid.
I thought the ‘Lincoln-Douglas’ type debates Newt introduced into the primary were great.I’d LOVE to see something like that with Obama. He’d probably end up having to resign from office halfway through as it was unmasked as a complete moron and socialist.
Presidential debates did not change with Nixon/Kennedy. That is when they started. Before TV, there were NO Presidential debates by nominated candidates.