“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!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/18/1146592/-Did-White-House-set-up-Romney
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
Why?
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?
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.
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).
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.