Posted on 10/18/2012 6:43:05 AM PDT by tobyhill
CNN’s 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 night’s debate, that didn’t immediately seem like a bad thing. There’s 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 wasn’t 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. Crowley’s decision to buttress Obama’s declaration that Romney was being dishonest on Libya, however, will go into the Republican Party’s media-bias file for decades to come. Enjoy that moment—you’ll be seeing it again and again for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Proof that the whole "debate" was rigged, Obama was on all the questions, no wonder he "won on points". It is SICK!!!
Says it all. Relative to what?...and that is the problem.
Why is Obama’s logo on the paper Candy is holding?
The 2nd Debate. The series of the Punk Romney shows great success.
Unfortunately Crowley playing second to Obama was not given due credit by key reviews offered in the Mainlining Socialist Media. And most kudos given to Obama fail to mention Crowley’s calculated interruptions which caused the off script and never had one Romney to stumble (later promoted as “gaffes”)to the scripted questions and answers or leave last questions unanswered.
For a competent campaign this issue is gift. The Benghazi exchange put Obama on record that he "knew" it was terrorism less than 24 hours after the attack. Then he and his minions went on TV and to the UN and said otherwise, repeatedly. So he either lied at the debate or he lied everywhere else, there is not other option like "well I never knew because I had bad intelligence" anymore. His righteous indignation that anyone would suggest he would mislead the people over this issue shows what a fake he is.
Romney (knowingly or not) nailed him by making his own his lie that he knew it was terrorism on Sept 12th and Crowley's ham handed attempt to support Obama only made the exchange global news, making his assertions irrefutable later. Now Romney needs to bring it home.
“Why yes, President Obama, I just happen to have the transcript here on my desk.”
If CNN had any journalistic principles, they’d can her. She can always get a job at MSNBC.
Obama also says, “Proceed, Governor”, waiting for Romney to fall into the hole. My question is, why did Crowley have a transcript of this particular speech in front of her? Not the usual thing you would carry in debate preparation. And how did Obama know she had it?
The evidence never lies, friends. The people involved will and do, but the physical evidence never lies.
Fat Broad.
Some Obama staffer probably gave her the transcript.
So much for unbiased moderators.
Her next gig will be as a bouncer on the Jerry Springer Show.
The transcript failed to uphold Obama’s lie.
It merely gave Crowley the opportunity to compound it, thus leaving Romney with no further need to comment.
This wasn’t a stumble for Romney; it was a skillful manipulation of two rambunctious fools, leading them into the snare.
This mistake will haunt Obama all the way to the election, exactly because Romney left a huge opening for all the pundits and bloggers to jump through.
>> “I had never seen Candy Crowley before.” <<
.
You were fortunate.
Alana Goodman is no conservative.
>> “The entire debate was orchestrated by Axelrod.” <<
.
Did Axelrod really set Obama up for the lie that is going to end his presidency?
I tend to doubt that. This was childish theater, planned by two children.
>> “who would you rather look at — Megyn Kelly...” <<
.
Megyn was quite a doll before she got so skinny; now she’s beginning to look old.
Perhaps there will be unintended consequences—but the selected questions, transcript, cued interuptions [”Candy”], camera angles, Mooshell’s applause, Benghazi gotcha, “Sit down, Governor”, “That’s enough, Governor”, all point to collusion. Will it unltimately work? I sure as hell hope not.
Did anyone notice the discerning look Candy gave Mitt
when he first walked in. That alone is enough to see
what was about to unfold. She gave him the look of a Jr. High
teacher when a popular student walks in.
Like would you just go sit down and shut up!
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.