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?
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.”
Watching it live, I didn’t think so.
But the FACT that she had the transcript, rather than having any other of the dozens or even hundreds of press releases and q/a sessions about the issue, combined with the way he says “Say it louder...” or something to that effect, makes it sound pre-arranged.
And if it was, it is one of the greatest frauds ever foisted on the American people.
Case closed.
An out and out lie. And a conspiracy.
Excellent!
One of these days I will actually read all the replies to see if my take has already been posted.. SORRY!
No applause was allowed during the debate...and she did indeed get carried at the Rose Garden transcript......as if to say....Yay....we got it in...
I wasn’t that observant but it sure makes sense now that you mention it. A lot of money and preparation went into this fiasco. What infuriates me is the GOP leadership allowing this to occur OVER AND OVER again. Decade after decade.
Even if she had it, how did Obama know she had it?
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?
You don’t get it: OBAMA PICKED THE QUESTIONS THEN GAVE THEM TO CROWLEY.
Yep!
And in that interview -
Crowley On September 30th: Administration Took Weeks To Admit Benghazi Might Be A Terrorist Attack
So why was she trying to defend him against something she had already accused him off?
Amazing the GOP leadership allows this crap to continnue decade after decade.
As the debate was getting started she said that nobody knew the questions except her and those asking them, and I thought “WTF?”
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.