Posted on 10/18/2012 1:04:46 PM PDT by NYer
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 18, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Critics of CNN moderator Candy Crowley’s performance in the second presidential debate Tuesday night claim that it is part of a larger pattern that sees Democrats consistently receiving more time to speak, being interrupted less often, and being asked fewer probing questions than their Republican challengers.
Republicans have cried foul after Crowley wrongly corrected Mitt Romney’s statement that Barack Obama did not refer to the assault on the Libyan embassy as an act of terrorism. A transcript indicates Obama did use the term “act of terror” the day after the attack, but in reference to 9/11, not Benghazi.
“I’ve never seen a moderator in a major debate interfere with the two people and take one side and indicate the other one was not telling the truth,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-OK. “I think it was orchestrated.”
“Did the president willfully lie, and was that a set-up deal with Crowley?” Senator Inhofe asked.
Shortly after the debate, Crowley admitted that Mitt Romney was “right in the main.” Later Wednesday, she stepped back, denying that she had acted inappropriately, adding she didn’t think her statement was “a leap.”
The incorrect correction broke Romney’s momentum on what should have been his strongest attack of the debate.
The statement represented only the most memorable facet of what critics see as Crowley’s biased performance.
The veteran CNN journalist interrupted Mitt Romney 28 times, Barack Obama only nine, in keeping with a pro-Democratic pattern that holds true throughout all 2012 debates so far.
Moderator Matha Raddatz interrupted vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan 15 times, but cut off Joe Biden only five. Biden himself erratically interjected himself into nearly all of Ryan’s answers.
Crowley, who has a history of pro-abortion statements, personally vetted all questions the candidates were asked. According to one analysis, since the advent of the town hall debate, moderators have chosen liberal questions over conservative questions by a margin of two-to-one. Some say the same pattern held true last night.
At all three debates, Democrats have received more speaking time than Republicans.
President Obama spoke for 44 minutes, four seconds Tuesday night, while Romney talked only for 40 minutes, 50 seconds.
In the first presidential debate Obama spoke for three minutes, 14 seconds longer than Mitt Romney. Joe Biden got one minute, 22 seconds more speaking time than Paul Ryan. Altogether, the Democrats have enjoyed nearly nine minutes more debate time than their Republican counterparts.
Rush Limbaugh mentioned the Crowley controversy on his radio show Wednesday, saying, “She committed an act of journalistic terror or malpractice last night. If there were any journalistic standards, what she did last night would have been the equivalent of blowing up her career like a suicide bomber.”
“And opened to the right page??”
Not only opened to the right page, but it would have had to be highlighted as well considering Crowley wouldn’t have had time to search for it.
The ‘please proceed’ comment was all you need to know. It was a set up from the get go. And Candy Crowley has absolutely NO journalistic credibility. How cheap did you sell you soul for, Candy?
And the topic of he next debate will be foreign policy, so the lame new excuse of cutting off off-topic discussion will not apply.
Romney will be able to focus on Benghazi next time.
Watch the video closely at the beginning of the question on Libya. Right after Crowley names the questioner, Obama turns to him directly and greets him by name -- before the questioner even stood up and identified himself.
It was a complete setup. Obama knew the question was going to be asked, and knew who was going to ask the question.
Someone from the Romney camp needs to ask Obama point blank whether he had “any foreknowledge whatsoever about the questions for the townhall debate”. Candy promising that the candidates haven’t “seen” the questions is narrow phrasing that in no way means that they don’t know what the questions are.
1. Selected questions.
2.. Unfair allocation of time.
3. Orchestrated interruptions (AFTER OBAMA SAID, “CANDY”) every time Romney was going to make his point.
4. Camera angles favoring THE ONE.
5. Cutaway to show MOOSHELL clapping in violation of the rules.
6. Audience applause after Obama scored points.
7. Benghazi gotcha.
8. Stage theatrics: “Show him the transcript, Candy”—Then he turns and walks imperiously away leaving Romney dazed and stuttering.
This was a production of the Obama Campaign— a carefully scripted and shot fantasy to obscure the failure of the most odious ONE. It was collusion and very well may have been criminal.
What soul are you talking about?
The please proceed comment is a dead giveaway. If Obama thought Romney was actually going to score points he would`ve interrupted. That Obama says check the transcript and Crowley just happened to have that particular transcript is a joke. The media should be all over this rather than blabbering about binders.
Then in front of millions of viewers misrepresents the issue...settled time to move along
The ability to abort her spawn if someone was desperate enough to mate with her successfully.
Romney did not approve her...that is done by the Debate Commission..a weak body...look them up
all any candidate can do is refuse to debate
not much of an option
Don’t blame Crowley, Romney APPROVED HER AS MODERATOR.
I don’t blame Crowley ,I blame the fool that HIRED Crowley.
That’s why we are in the horrible shape we are in today.
Crowley would have done herself and other female “moderators-to-be” a huge service had she just allowed herself to be a “fly on the wall”.
Her incorrect interjection to Romney is exactly the reason that female moderators will continue to have low profile roles.
If there’s ever a “next time”, Candy, keep yer yap SHUT!!!
Romney could bring it up in next debate, should also apply to foreign affairs given the spillover of violence from Mexico
It was the ‘please proceed’ followed by the ‘ could you say that a little louder, Candy?’ comment at the end. He was squealing like a girl when he thought he had pulled off a debate coup. I bet that he could get a royal flush if he stacked the deck, but that would not make him a great poker player.
It was that she happened to have that transcript right at her fingertips for me. How would Obama know she had that transcript
I think there’s an additional possibility - which is that a spy on the inside of the Romney campaign debate prep let them know that when Romney worked the issue of Benghazi into the debate, he wa gong to cite the Rose Garden talk.
Interestingly enough, Crowley herself, about two weeks after the attacks, pointed out that Obama hadn’t called the attack a terrorist attack in his Rose Garden speech, so she knew perfectly well that Romney was correct. However, they clearly knew how Romney was going to phrase this, and the fact that the words “act of terror” technically did occur in the talk (although in reference to 9/11) gave Crowley the leeway to stage this event. At the same time, it gave her deniability since she could just say that she had misremembered the context.
I think Romney had better check his debate prep participants and also have the room and surrounding areas inspected for listening devices.
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.