Skip to comments.Candy Crowley’s Journalistic Reputation is Debate’s Biggest Loser (as if she had some to start with)
Posted on 10/18/2012 6:43:05 AM PDT by tobyhill
CNNs Candy Crowley has always seemed like a tough, sharp and relatively fair reporter. So when she said earlier this week she was going to take an active moderator role in last nights debate, that didnt immediately seem like a bad thing. Theres no problem with an impartial moderator keeping the candidates on topic and pressing them with follow-ups.
But by the end of the night, it was clear Crowley had done damage to her own reputation of objectivity. It wasnt just because of the Benghazi question, either. Matt Latimer lays out the instances of bias at the Daily Beast:
By far the biggest loser of the debate (after my former boss, George W., that is) was Candy Crowley. She is one of the most seasoned political reporters in Washington, but she came very close to becoming a participant in the debate. At some points she almost lost control, then seemed to interrupt Romney more often than Obama. The president also was given more time to speak overall. Ms. Crowleys decision to buttress Obamas declaration that Romney was being dishonest on Libya, however, will go into the Republican Partys media-bias file for decades to come. Enjoy that momentyoull be seeing it again and again for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
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?
If you re-watch that segment, Obama says "Check the transcript" BEFORE Crowley ever says she has it. How would he know that she had one?
Remember, she picked the questions and their order. I have no doubt that she shared them with Obama and his campaign. Who knows, she may have helped him practice.
I had never seen Candy Crowley before. My first impression of her was that she is just another liberal Obama lapdog.
Please. Candy Crowley was never “sharp” or “fair” before this debate. She was a typical liberal reporter. I can never understand why conservative columnists feel the need to call Lib MSM reporters anything other than what they are. Candy Crowley was and still is a liberal who spins stories and questions to the left, period. And when she opens her fat mouth on opinion programs, its clear that her personal views are far Left and that she wouldn’t remotely consider supporting conservative politicians or positions.
Lapbison is more like it.
Didn’t Crowley start off with CNN doing “human interest” type stories? I haven’t watched CNN since the mid-90s but the only thing I remember about her was she was doing some rather innocuous stuff.
Obama chose the questions.
The applause was planned.
The camera angles were strategic.
The interruptions after Obama said “Candy”
The transcript: “Show the transcript, Candy”
The Bwenghazi gotcha.
The entire debate was orchestrated by Axelrod. This was collusion.
Obama and the MSM knew if he had another fail debate, it would be over. They were willing to pull out all of the stops to get him to a ‘win’ on this debate. No one is saying this was a big, decisive win like Romney had against Obama. Most people see it as a draw, at best, with only hard core MSM partisans declaring it a win for Obama.
When Mitt brought up Fast and Furious Obama said, “Candy?”
On cue she interrupted Mitt and told him to stay on topic.
Totally orchestrated and set up and it was still a draw.
Since when? Who wrote this article? She's always been a libtard hack! I'm still wondering what happened to that big mole she had on her cheek years ago.
The entire debate was orchestrated by Axelrod.
Next year I hope he can’t get a job as dog catcher.
By involving Mexico, Fast and Furious is fair game for the foreign policy debate. Maybe Romney will go after it again.
And besides, if you want to watch the news, who would you rather look at — Megyn Kelly or (shudder) Candy Crowley?
Candy Crowley reminds me of a BC comic strip character, can’t think of her name right now but the woman with the belligerant bossy attitude who had it in for the snake.
What the world saw was an affirmative action president who couldn’t get the job done without Candy’s help. Like all affirmative action hires, Obama’s enabler had to lie and exaggerate to get him through the debate. Americans have seen this time and time again at the work place, at least back when Americans had jobs. We’ve experienced it as employees, managers and business owners. Someone is always picking up the slack for the affirmative action guy. It’s all we will ever get from Obama, a teleprompter doofus who gets carried by an enabling media.
According to the EPA, secondary smoke is bad for pets.
LOL! Providing documents on demand, repeatedly shutting down one participant'd line of questioning in order to blatantly shield the other.
That's not 'close', it's way over the bloody line!
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.