Posted on 10/19/2012 5:26:12 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
Think. Candy Crowley and Obama colluded in the debate. It's obvious. How would Obama know to tell her to "Get the transcript!" unless they had planned a response ahead of time on the Benghazi issue? Then, Crowley enabled Obama's lie about the topic and cut Romney off. The next set of questions that must be asked must deal with the supervisors who knew that the collusion took place prior to the debate.
Candy Crowley did not have the authority to use her firm's equipment to video conference with the Obama camp about debate topics/answers (had to have video conferenced to try and cover -- couldn't be anywhere near each other physically, obviously). Candy Crowley did NOT unilaterally decide to collude with the Obama camp. People at all levels of Crowley's firm had to know this was taking place including the technicians who made it happen. Those individuals must be prosecuted for illegally trying to skew the governing process of this country. This is treason.
We have ranted and raved about the moderators/networks selected and still the GOP goes along with the libs, everytime. The Republican Party is, indeed, the Stupid Party.
Exactly!
It seems to me there has been a lot of this type of thing going on. The unemployment numbers being reported as dipping below 8% is one of them. Supposedly there was collusion with the person in California responsible for turning in the numbers, but many in the media immediately touted the decrease as truth without asking how it could have occurred.
I have been calling this group of sycophantic supporters The Mouthpiece Media for a few years. They have become more than that now. They are The Moat Media for Obama. They serve as a moat between the people and their boy king in the castle.
I agree. This all worked to Romney’s benefit.
I really don’t see that there was collusion ahead of time. And I think she said she didn’t have a transcript in front of her.
What I think happened was this. Obama made the tactical decision that if Romney started up with the YouTube stuff that O would claim he knew it was terrorism all along because he used the word in that speech. So O had his line ready, and since he’s a narcissist who doesn’t ever think he’s wrong, he figured his “Rose Garden Terrorism Speech” defense was foolproof. That’s why had acted like such a cock during the interchange.
In the case of Crowley, she’s just a partisan hack. The equivalent of having Sean Hannity moderate that debate for us, but the left can’t see that. So when her guy started to get pushed down on the mat, she emotionally couldn’t control it. She had to jump in and did so with an excited girlish smile like one of the slugs on The View.
Watch that tape, Candy gets all excited about putting down Romney. Then after five seconds, she catches herself and knows show screwed up and tries to then add something at the end about how Romney was right about the YouTube video in an effort to hide what she just did.
The whole country saw Crowley exposed as a dirty ref. And Obama’s crappy “defense” he trotted out doesn’t work, so he is exposed for the next debate on Monday.
It all worked out perfect for Romney.
Some other FReeper called her "Candybar Crowley".
Before the debate I predicted Crowley would advocate for Obama. She did. It's really not a surprise at all.
There need no have been "collusion" as you claim for the events to have transpired as they did. Of course he'd say "get the transcript" because it makes it sounds like he's absolutely certain of his remarked. He was bluffing and Crowley was fooled because she wanted to be fooled; she was on his side.
An odder moment came with Obama walking towards a questioner before the questioner was identified other than by name. He hadn't stood up for his question yet.
The question was about Libya and supposedly born of a workplace "brain trust" discussion. It certainly appeared Obama may have known the questioner on sight and went to him.
Romney saw the trap coming, and wriggled free. All this whining about how Romney did not prosecute the attack is just people upset because he declined to stick his head in the noose.
Agree. Also, this was at the end of the debate, and Candy certainly wasn’t going
to give Mitt more time to lay out the timeline, Carney stating “ it wasn’t a terrorist
attack” days after this speech.
In addition, for those who have given speeches natural breaks would be at
the 9/11 and today segments
Read this with that emphasis and the speech takes on a clear speaking about
9/11 and acts of terror and a closer on Bengahzi without lumping it into
acts of terror.
I have broken down the paragraphs that way from the original text.
“Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.
We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
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.
Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
Barry wants everything so loose and his way that he wants us to believe he really
did seperate 9/11 and clearly call Bengazhi a “ terrorist attack” cloaked under
“ acts of terror”
B.S.
What was Romney supposed to do? Look like a coward and back out of the debates? If he did that he’d be 6-10 points behind like he was before the debates. Luckily Jim Leher, a liberal himself, is at least a professional and didn’t act as a filter or a 3rd debater.
Why didn’t he say “Replay the video”?????
had to have video conferenced to try and cover — couldn’t be anywhere near each other physically, obviously)....It was stated from a Daily Caller (?) don’t know if that was the source, she visited the White Hut on Sunday, before the debate. Let me find that thread.
That's fine. She probably didn't. And I won't push the idea that the whole thing was choreographed and planned out -- that would be crazy talk, right?
But look at the sequence:
Romney: It took you 14 days to say this was terrorism.
Obama: No, I said it the very next day, in the Rose Garden.
Romney: No, you didn't.
Obama: Get the transcript.
Crowly: [Waving paper] Gov. Romney, he did say it was terrorism.
At that point, on stage, in front of 65 million people, should Romney assume that she has a transcript in front of her and that she is 100% provably correct in defending the president? Yeah, that's probably the smart choice. So, Romney had to taper back, play it safe and not go in for the kill.
It seems to have worked out very well for Romney anyway -- but if Obama says "Get the transcript" and Crowly starts waving paper and agreeing with him ... well ... maybe she didn't have the transcipt in front of her, but Penn & Teller themselves could not have supplied a better misdirection.
IMO the very worst part of this treachery on the part of the media is the stunning low regard in which they hold the American public. The truly galactic levels of hubris displayed by CNN and Crowley is almost beyond belief had I not myself been a witness.
It was obvious from the beginning how uneven this would be, but what would you have them do, not debate? Their position was not one of strength in this matter, and to raise a stink they would have been made to look even weaker, whiny and even more stupid.
I wish there were an easy solution, but there's not. After this last round of debates, after the election, if we (not they) don't go to the so called commission on the debates (yes, the commission decides) and demand change for some kind of new method to pick moderators and questions that are more even handed, then we are just as much at fault as anyone.
Crowley waved the transcript at obama, as if to say, “Got right here,Boss!” like a good little(?) sycophant.
People all over the country saw it. Left and right saw it. Of course, the left will ignore it and and try to change the subject. The Right should pound and pound and pound it home on the next debate which WILL BE ON FOREIGN POLICY.
This debate was supposed to be about DOMESTIC POLICY. Why then was a question on LIBYA allowed in the first place unless she planned this whole deal? She chose the questions! Then she set up the whole thing ON HER OWN, knowing that she would get an okay from upstairs suits.
Obama KNEW she had that transcript! He said, “Get THE transcript!” NOT “Get A transcript!” ..............
I don't think Crowley had the transcript. Nothing I see on the video makes me think she consulted a transcript to back up Zero's claim plus not enough time elapsed for her to actually do so. I think Zero's reference to the transcript was just a handy attempt at rhetorical evasion.
Don't get me wrong. Whether her bias is conscious or unconscious I don't know, but either way so her default position was to back up Zero which was manifested by, for example, the weird, liberal hobbyhorse questions she chose to include; or giving Zero a total of four more more minutes to speak than she allowed Romney; or allowing Zero to rebut Romney's rebuttals, which she never allowed Romney to do, etc.
Cordially,
The MSM is free to lie. However, they pretend tp be what they are not.
The problem wasn’t the ‘debate’. The problem was agreeing to its format to begin with.
The Lefterator was bragging that she was going to hijack the process several days before. Romney’s people should have played hardball and had her replaced.
Even if her replacement was another libtard, a stand would have been taken for future precedent.
Candy looks at Newsweek and sees her future.
If they don’t save Obama there will be no bailout for dinosaur media.
Obama ISN’T going to win. Time to dust off the ol’ resume and put it in a binder.
BTW, the proper phrase is “do you want fries with that?”
It is national security. CNN does not want the public to question this administration, know the truth or hold Obama accountable.
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.