Candy Crowley Not in ‘Cahoots’ With Obama; He and Axelrod Used Her

NewsBusters.org ^ | October 20, 2012 | Brent Baker

[Revolting cat!]

As usual, our side “wins” afterwards when the deed is done and the sheeple are no longer paying attention. D’uh!

[Beatthedrum]

I guess they are still talking about this fat bitch and her obvious attempt to help the Fraud in the debate.

[American in Israel]

‘I am not evil, I am just stupid!’ One sorry arse defense for the indefensible.

[Revolting cat!]

Cahoots, conspiracy, collusion! Why can’t you people see that it’s none of that, that it’s what even a liberal I spoke to last night admitted - a conspiracy of minds, and that is much, much worse!

[tflabo]

Sorry Meat---- it was Schnitts idea.

[American in Israel]

Bammy is their creation and their idol.

And their destruction as their ratings tank below water level.

[Kaslin]

You are welcome. Thanks for another great post. I believe James Taranto is correct. 0bama and Axelrod did use her, but she was she was willing to get herself used

[FredZarguna]

Nope.

Not buying.

I like James Taranto, but in order to buy this theory you have to disregard the entire context of the rest of the debate. Candy cut Romney off on Fast and Furious, and that answer was pertinent to the question. She selected questions which generally were hostile to Romney, and the one questioner potentially detrimental to 0bama was actually asking a question that was a perfect setup for the pResident to say what he wanted to do in a second term. Though that questioner appeared hostile (and probably was) the inquiry itself was a "soft" question. That 0bama did not hit it out of the park is a testament to the fact that he has no plan for the next four years except more anti-Constitutional executive orders, more debt, more welfare, more food stamps, more disability, more economic cronyism and of course more golf and more vacations for Mooch and her daughters.

It also ignores the fact that she repeatedly cut Romney off, and granted 0bama more time; now covered with a pathetically lame excuse that 0bama "talks more slowly."

I am truly amazed at the circling of the wagons around the collaborationist press here, even by columnists and hard news people who are supposed to be objective or conservative. In its totality, her debate performance was a clear, shocking violation of professional conduct and the rules of the CPD.

Stop with the excuses.

[Kaslin]

Oops that should be she was willing to let herself get used

[loveliberty2]

If she did allow herself to be used by asserting so strongly an error which is so easy to refute by simply playing the Rose Garden video, why would she sacrifice her own credibility as a "journalist" and appear to be either unintelligent, a "useful idiot," or a political pawn?

Talk about a "war on women"--if Obama and Axelrod did this, then the feminists should find such an action toward one of their own "offensive," to use a word from the President himself!

[loveliberty2]

Before I get responses, please note the sarcasm intended in my last comment!

[Colorado Cowgirl]

She will go to the dance with anybody, and lay down easy.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

bookmark

[freekitty]

BS. This wit knew what was going on.

[Ann Archy]

Oh PLEASE!!! James, why are you covering Candy’s wide arse??? She had thetranscript because Adolph Axelrod GAVE it to her and I’m SURE he HIGHLIGHTED that part for her!! How else could she put her finger on it so fast???

[opentalk]

....Libya embassy attack and F & F -- both involve major stonewalling and cover-up from this administration.

Crowley helped censor any discussion of both. She needed time for women inequality issue to help Obama with " war on women" campaign

[Rocky]

He can try to cut Crowley some slack if he wants. But she was doing much more than moderating when she corroborated Obama's distortion. Anyway, here is a column which describes very well Obama's dilemma, and the Rose Garden talk doesn't get him out of this:

Obama Lied, Crowley’s Cred Died

In particular, this passage is very good:

But facts that the president knew almost immediately, or even prior, began to trickle out, eroding the ground under his deception: There had been no protest at all in Benghazi. Al Qaeda was active in Libya. England had removed its diplomatic personnel for that reason.

There had been several threats and attacks aimed at the consulate and ambassador. He feared for his life. He requested additional security. The assault was sophisticated, well executed, and probably aimed at seizing intelligence about American activity in the area. State Department and almost certainly White House staffers watched the attack in real time from posted video monitors.

The truth now in plain sight underscores the president’s failures of policy and leadership. Until Benghazi, he could boast of a hopeful Arab Spring, winds of reform in the Middle East, advancing peace, and al Qaeda “on the road to defeat.” Those happy talking points lie in blackened shards.

[chiller]

Agreed that Taranto is right. I'm still waiting for an explanation of susan Rice's words, and the UN speech, etc.

Obie was trying to hang on to his one accomplishment; al Qaeda died with Usama bin Ladin

[livius]

It was a set-up, but how did they know Romney would refer to that phrase? I think there’s a mole in the Romney debate prep - or maybe he needs to work in a shielded room that has been swept for listening devices.

[Repeal 16-17]

So she wasn’t a corrupt moderator, just stupid. That makes it better. [/sarc]