Skip to comments.How Much of a Set-Up Was Crowley's Libya Question? (Jack Cashill)
Posted on 10/19/2012 6:39:23 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
On Tuesday night's debate, the evening's most notorious exchange did not begin with moderator Candy Crowley's wildly inappropriate intervention on the "act of terror" question. It almost assuredly began minutes earlier.
The audience question that prompted the exchange came from Long Islander Kerry Ladka, who, reasonably enough, asked in regards to the Libyan consulate, "Who denied enhanced security and why?"
The question went to President Barack Obama, and he launched into a well-rehearsed set piece about how he was handling the issue. Mitt Romney responded much as one would expect him to respond, criticizing the White House response to the attack, especially Obama's Las Vegas trip a day afterwards, and Obama's Mideast policy in general.
It was at this point that the debate, certainly from appearances, took a turn for the prearranged. It was now 70 minutes on. Crowley conceded a shortage of time and an excess of audience questions. Nevertheless, instead of moving on to that next question, Crowley asked a question of her own. Even before she began to ask, however, Obama was strolling confidently towards Crowley as though he knew what was going to happen next.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Get the transcript”
yep! I heard Obama say that too!
1st. Why would Candy have of that obscure speech sitting in front of her?
2nd. How did Obama KNOW Candy had it?
It’s obvious that Obama was told ahead of time what all the questions would be to “level the playing field” since he can’t have a teleprompter during the debate feeding him the answers.
If the GOP continues to cave in accepting only liberal moderators, they shouldn't complain about interruptions and being given less time as it's almost a given!
There’s something else that struck me: somebody must have known in advance that Romney was going to mention the Rose Garden speech, or they wouldn’t have had this whole set-up so well prepared. They knew exactly what words Romney was going to use. And somebody from inside the Romney debate prep had to give them that information, either intentionally or accidentally (discussing it in a public place or with a person planted to find out about it).
I think Romney should examine his debate prep staff very carefully, including people like sound and makeup. I also think that wherever he preps should be carefully checked for listening devices and should be in a very secure location. This may sound excessive, but the Dems are desperate now.
Great analysis. Great comments after the article.
Romney impresses me more with every passing day. He gets ambushed by 0bama and the media and handles it with aplomb in real-time. His demeanor showed that he was not expecting the “illegal hit” from the 12th man on the field, the supposed ref. No one would have anticipated such an egregious flouting of the rules. Yet, he keeps his composure and handles it very well. It’s nice to see that our next President can think on his feet.
Kudos, Mr. Romney!
we’ve had obviously biased liberal ‘moderators’... how about a conservative?
can you imagine if Rush was the moderator?
Even the Kos kids think it was a setup. Their evidence is thaat the WH website’s transcript of Obama’s speech doesn’t have the ‘act of terror’ quote. So more fuel for the fire.
Why has no one picked up on the fact that Obama said, in the Rose Garden these acts of terror. The important part is the phrase these acts...plural. If people would just use the fact that the President used the word acts not act they could easily prove that he was not referring to the attack in Benghazi.
Wow! If Zippy has lost Kos, he must be circling the drain.
“Romney impresses me more with every passing day. He gets ambushed by 0bama and the media and handles it with aplomb in real-time. His demeanor showed that he was not expecting the illegal hit from the 12th man on the field, the supposed ref. No one would have anticipated such an egregious flouting of the rules. Yet, he keeps his composure and handles it very well. Its nice to see that our next President can think on his feet.
Kudos, Mr. Romney!”
I’m with you!
This backfired big time. Hard to imagine how Obama and CNN thought this was going to help his cause, but what it accomplished was we got to see our big, tough, full-of-himself know-it-all President get rescued by a girl in front of millions of Americans on live TV. He seemed quite proud of himself too, which made this even more repulsive. It also exposed a particularly disgusting member of the press for what everyone knows the press as a whole has become. I think once again Obama’s strategy failed and the polls are showing it.
>If the GOP continues to cave in accepting only liberal moderators, they shouldn’t complain about interruptions and being given less time as it’s almost a given!<
Wouldn’t we all give our eyeteeth to see a Romney-Obama debate moderated by Judge Napolitano, or John Bolton?
One can dream.
It is HUGH and SERIES!................
There was a time in journalism when Candy Crowley’s bias would see her humiliated and drummed out of the profession.
Today, sadly, she is a hero of the progressive left.
Thank you, Jack! The papers, whether they included a transcript of everything the debaters had said since campaigning began or (more likely) not, served solely as a prop. If those (fewer than 20) pages included anything more than the names of questioners and their respective questions (in whose selection she collaborated), the matter of moderator integrity becomes even dicier, almost as dicey as the bone she nervously and babblingly threw Romney after validating Obama’s claim.
Aside from all the other circulating violations of journalistic ethics, there’s the matter of waving a prop (if it didn’t contain the actual transcript) as if it were a valid vindication of Obama’s claim. Of course, if it DID contain a transcript of the president’s Rose Garden remarks, why did she, as a question-selector, happen to have it handy? The question on consulate security had nothing to do with the Rose Garden speech. If she’d had that degree of back-up info on every scheduled question, she’d have been waving a ream of paper.
Then, after the “get the transcript” order, he made her repeat it “louder”. He’s like an 8 year old saying, see I’ve got proof.
Only it wasn’t proof of anything except the fact that Crowley and Obama colluded on a Presidential debate.
Cashill says, “We need these answers quick. Forget the polygraph. Let’s go right to waterboarding.”
And, then the drawing of the beans from a jar with all black beans, then the wall.
CNN has apparently already admitted seeking to “level the playing field” in another way, by giving a time edge to the President since he didn’t get in as many words the last time - “he speaks slower.” At least the American people are finally waking up to the fact that there are is at least one job in which affirmative action should not put a less qualified candidate on top.
That being said, I honestly think Candy was more of a useful idiot than a direct conspirator. Prior to the debate the Whitehouse had made comments to the effect of the Rose Garden speech calling the incident an act of terror, probably reinforced to Candy by her cohorts in a manner to create plausible denial - she became aware of a potential line and she investigated, thus coming to the debate with a transcript of the speech (just wonder - have any other moderators ever brought such a document? I think not).
“Its obvious that Obama was told ahead of time what all the questions would be to level the playing field since he cant have a teleprompter during the debate feeding him the answers.”
Actually I think Candy herself was the designated teleprompter.
“can you imagine if Rush was the moderator?”
I’d settle on Monica Crowley
Did Candy really have a copy of the transcript at the debate? How did Obama know Candy would come to his assisstance?
I was acquainted with Candy in the 70s when I was in the scribbling profession. Her husband (at the time) was the regional marketing executive for the Associated Press in Des Moines.
I’d estimate she’s put on 150 pounds and more chins than a Chinese phone book since then.
The Achilles Heel of the MSM / Democrat cabal is their hubris. They just can’t believe that there are a sizable amount of citizens who won’t accept their sleight of hand without question. And worse, that they’ll be called on their journalistic malpractice.
Their pitiful performance, fully on display for the world to see, went over like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. And it was easily seen by those not intent on just chugging down more free purple Kool Aid.
As long as they consider themselves to be the enlightened, superior elite, the rest of us will be treated to more of these delicious moments where the emperor stands buck naked, totally unaware.
(I won’t even consider the mental image of the moderator in the same state of undress. Yuck.)
The whole thing was a set-up with Candy picking out the DNC plants to ask questions.
Once again i ask - why do Republicans allow debates to be managed on the opponents terms? Surely they can find other moderators besides NPR, CNN?
Surely they can go to other venues besides leftist colleges in big cities?
Thirty minutes into the debate I knew that. When Romney was asked a question he would hesitate a couple of seconds as he collected his thoughts. Obama would launch straight into his answers. When Obama speaks off the cuff there are many pauses and "ahs" and "uhs" in his pattern of speech. This did not happen in the last debate. Obama can read a beautiful oratory and sound very grand and wise. In an unprepared speech or answer he is neither wise, grand or knowledgeable. When he said look it up in the transcript it shows ineptness as is exposed the sham. When he said this Crowley became visible upset, nervous and unsure of what to do or say.
Candy Crowley tried to throw the debate and committed an act of journalistic prostitution. However, Romney won the debate against Obama and against Crowley. What is my proof? The polls the next day went up for Romney and down for Obama. In reference to Crowley and journalistic prostitution, I extend my very sincere apologies to prostitutes
Judge Napolitano is a Liberaltarian. Half his questions would be worse than the stupid liberals.
If I were Romney...
Buy two minutes of network airtime.
Show the part of the debate where the Libyan question was raised. Show Obama greeting the questioner by name when he supposedly didn’t know him. Show that Crowley had the transcript handy, which proves collusion.
State that the President was dishonest and cheated - the tape proves it - and that he will not participate in any more debates and that he will recommend that the Republican Party not accept any more debates unless the moderator is approved by the Republican Party.
Any debates before the election will be hosted by Fox News and moderated by Sean Hannity. One has been scheduled for Monday. If Obama doesn’t show, he will debate an empty chair.
That should stir things up a bit...
Maybe that is why the debate prep was held at an isolated estate.
Had it been at the WH, and people had to sign in, we might have seen who all visited.
Did Crowley or any of her associates happen to visit the estate during the debate prep?
I think refusing to honor the commitment to the third debate would be a serious mistake, politically. Many people would point to it as him being afraid.
If the debate weren’t already agreed to, then it wouldn’t be quite as negatively viewed, but a better solution would still be to have a balanced moderating team.
I, personally, would love to see Greta VanSusteren (sp?) moderate a debate. She doesn’t wear politics on her sleeve, and she’s very good at asking pointed and pertinent questions, as well as calling out anyone who dances around the question rather than answering.
Mark Levin. Watch the fur fly.
What for? Surely CNN was in on it or was at least relieved that it was done. but it does not matter at all.In the longer term- a couple of hours- Romney came off first best from the exchange. At this point the kenyan cannot do himself any good with demeanor, tactics, or rhetoric, and certainly not with facts. He would not actually hurt himself any more by finding an excuse to cancel the next debate, though the loss of the election would then be generally blamed on that act. If he can gin up an international emergency of some sort he may just do that.
I would not want to see Rush as moderator. Just the fact of his fame and his talent would have the middle-othe-fog folks walling up against the designated conservative contestant. Besides when the Conservative is a quick thinker and an experienced debater/salesman any double-teaming will make points for him as it truly did this time. The kenyan won on the number of points scored. Unfortunately his points were all very small. Romney’s points were fewer but larger. His first point was worth all of the kenyan’s points and a bit more.
It would be interesting to know how many of those 88 “undecided” voters voted for Obama in 2008...whether 100% of them or only 80 or 90%.
This brings up some good points. I remain dubious though that it can ever rise above the level of speculation, but it does lead one to wonder whether Crowley went a step further and leaked the questions to Obama beforehand. For if she is willing to collude in one area, why stop there? This in turn would explain why Obama was virtually stutter-free in stark contrast to the first debate — was it that he simply spent more time in prep or was it that the teacher’s pet was allowed to take a peek at the test questions in advance?
We should also consider the unusual activities that took place even before the debate began, with Candy making it well known that she was going to flaunt the rules. Importantly, she received flak from both camps, thereby giving the appearance that neither side was happy at this development. Yet obviously, especially given Candy’s poorly disguised partisan leanings over the years, the Romney camp had much more to be concerned about than Obama’s. (My guess is that it was the republican side which had insisted on the limited moderation rules in the first place).
By making her intentions known ahead of time it then allowed others in media to jump in and say that she definitely should be more involved, for it is insulting that a journalist (especially a female journalist) be little more than a “fly on the wall.” Thus she essentially forced the republican’s to meekly go along with this abrupt change in plans or else risk looking sexist.
Was this then a necessary maneuver ensuring her more freedom to manipulate the debate on Obama’s behalf? Or was it simply her not wanting to be a mere moderator? But she didn’t stop stop at not being a mere fly on the wall, she instead went on to become one of the most interfering moderator’s ever.
In any event, it shows that she was perfectly willing to circumvent the rules regardless of what either of the participants might think. Thus, if she is so brazen about breaking some of the rules, why should we think she wouldn’t be wiling to break all the rules?
I don’t know if we can ever say for certain that she had a transcript with her or if any of this will ever go beyond the level of conspiracy theories, but at the very least her actions before, during, and even after the debate are not those of a person who was at all concerned with being fair. Not with so many unusual things going on during the debate, all of them just happening to favor Obama of course (more time for him, more last words, fewer interruptions, steering the conversation away from his most vulnerable areas, etc).
If Rush was the moderator, when he was done asking the question...there would nothing left to say.;>0
Besides time would have all been used up./s
Did anybody see O’Reilly last night with the body language expert on? She stated that O’s body position for the question was very open and relaxed as he sat an listened to Romney. Then as O said “please proceed Govenor” his facial expression was one of someone who was taunting because they knew something that others didn’t. This was right before he called for the transcript from Crowley. That comfirmed for me what I thought as I had watched it originally.
Watch it again if you can and you will see it as well. Very hard to hide body language - O’s gave him away. This question should have scared the pants off him if he didn’t know it in advance but it didn’t thus the confident relaxed body language.
He had the same body language when he walked into the debate, the same confident air of someone who was given a copy of the test the day before.
I agree with you!! She doesn't back down on telling it like it is.
Anyone who thinks that Romney will get a chance to bring up the Benghazi cover-up in the final debate is sadly mistaken.
Bob Schieffer has announced that the debate will 90 minutes long, divided into six 15-minute segments as follows:
- America’s Role in the World
- Our Longest War — Afghanistan and Pakistan
- Red Lines — Israel and Iran
- The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism I
- The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism II
- The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World
Benghazi is in Africa, not the Middle East! Libya has been suspiciously left out of the discussion altogether.
If Romney brings the Benghazi subject up, Schieffer will promptly intercede and claim that Romney has strayed off topic, and besides, Benghazi was already discussed and settled in the last debate.
If the GOP continues to cave in accepting only liberal moderators, they shouldn't complain about interruptions and being given less time as it's almost a given!
It is a given that it is impossible to even try to be objective without being open about the reason you know of why you might have incentives to not be objective. And it is a given that journalists claim objectivity for journalism, and hence ultimately for themselves.
It follows that journalists are not being open about their own motives, or else they could not be claiming to have no motives (by claiming to be objective). And it follows from that that journalists are not even trying to be objective. And even if they actually think they are trying, by giving "both sides of the story," they dont even know what the sides of the story really are - and dont know that they dont know.Thus the objective journalist, consciously or (worse yet, not even realizing it) falls in with those who reinforce journalisms biases in favor of criticism - and "good intentions -over performance. And calls the favorable names such as liberal, moderate, or progressive.
The Republican candidate wants the debate and the national TV audience which journalism can provide. Journalism doesnt have to give it to him, and doesnt want to be doing the Republican any favors. They agree to the debates only on the condition that one of their own be the objective moderator.
If you want it bad, youll get it bad. And the Republicans do. Every time.
The only solution I can see is an extension of the law requiring that political commercials be aired without editorial control by the broadcasters. Congress should make it a condition of FCC licensing that broadcasters televise political debates. And that such debates be moderated only by a chess timer controlling the candidates microphones such that each candidate yields the floor to the other when he wants to conserve his own time more than he wants to talk. Such debates should also allow notes and laptop computers by means of which to display Power Point presentations (provided that such information be sourced online).
IMHO that would minimize the utility of sophistry and emotional appeals, and promote the use of facts and logic in debate. But Journalists must be required to carry such debates, because they have no reason to want to do it. Be it never so clearly in the public interest.
We could even hope that candidates as egregious as Obama-Biden would be so clearly vulnerable in that debate format that the Democratic Party would have to consider nominating actual patriots . . .
>> “can you imagine if Rush was the moderator?” <<