Skip to comments.CNN ADMITS THAT CROWLEY’S DISREGARD OF THE RULES WAS INTENDED TO HELP OBAMA
Posted on 10/18/2012 7:46:01 PM PDT by tobyhill
If authentic, CNNs memo explaining why Candy Crowley permitted President Obama to speak four minutes more than Mitt Romney during Tuesdays presidential debate is devastating to that network:
On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. Were going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.
One of Crowleys main jobs as moderator was to enforce the rules that were established for the debate. The rules established time limits, not word limits.
When I debated in high school and college, we had to stop speaking when our time ran out. It didnt matter how many words we had gotten in (I wish it did when I debated John in practice rounds). When, as I lawyer, I argued cases before Courts of Appeals, I had to sit down when my time was up. It didnt matter whether my opponent had uttered more words in his or her alloted time.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Ah, brings back fond memories, but will it also have that loud tone playing under the Indian test pattern?
That has to be one of the stupidest excuses I have ever heard!!!
Crowley chose ALL of the audience question (11), and then asked more that 11 questions OF HER OWN.
BTW, how many of Crowley’s questions were fed to her by Axelrod and Jerrod?
If the MSM fired their talking heads for "Lack of Integrity" they would have dead air. (crickets)
Typical libs. If they can’t win legally, they change the rules.
“Ummmmm....Uhhhhhh......Duhhhhhhh”, which do nothing more tht tie together emplty slogans, should be counted as words in order to reflect equity. Ms (Mr.?) Crowley should never be on CNN after the false reference to the ghost transcript. Let’s have electric buzzers prepared for the hosts, triggered for any and all interruptions.
It was worth several million dollars to CNN to please Obama...
CNN has a multi-million dollar appeal languishing in Obamas stacked NLRB (NLRB Case 05-CA-031828).
the administrative-law judge (an Obama donor) already ruled against CNN in 2009 .
Their appeal has since set before the 4 member NLRB board: 3 of them Obama appointees.
Journalistic integrity. Journalistic integrity.
That’s CNN’s idea of affirmative action. They are helping the slow guy by handicapping the normal guy.
Today Show Ann Currey argues with Libyan president, insisting Obama has not called this a terrorist attack.
Politico states Obama has not called it an act of terror.
I think a seriously entertaining debate structure would be to eliminate the moderator and eliminate questions.
Instead, each candidate would get specific periods of time. The first candidate would get 1 minute. Then they would alternate 3-minute time periods, and could say whatever they want. And at the end, the 2nd person would get 1 minute, the first 30 seconds, and the second 30 seconds (to limit the damage of the last person getting to throw out a bunch of stuff that doesn’t get answered).
The microphones would only be on during their periods. That would control the time. 3 minutes up, your mike cuts off. If you stop early, the other person still doesn’t get to start until their time starts.
Each candidate would either answer something the opponent said, or introduce a new topic, or raise questions — and the opponent could ignore those questions. People would decide for themselves how “presidential” each candidate was, and whether they seemed serious about the issues that were important.
If structure is needed, there could be “subjects” for each half-hour period, and the subject would be put across the top of the screen, so people would see the subject while the candidates spoke. The candidates could ignore the subject, and the viewers could decide if that was a good or bad decision.
Crowley didnt change the rules she just interpreted them Liberally.
I don't believe that ever happened.
I hope that sucking sound we hear is Crowley’s career circling the drain!
Why did the RNC and Romney campaign allow all debates to be moderated by Liberals? Drives me crazy.
It’s every election. The idiots fall for it every single time. I’m done asking why they only allow liberals to moderate debates - if someone’s stupid enough to allow it, they deserve what they get.
I would say I refuse to participate unless there is a change to these so called moderators.
Give Mitt 4 extra minutes to talk during the next debate.
They’re trying to spin it as “oh both sides are complaining of unfairness to their guy” when the facts and statistics don’t support that. Especially when there’s been a pattern of it in all three debates held so far.
Who would you prefer? A candidate who goes through unfair opposition to win the presidency, or won who deals well with having plenty of little helpers to hold his hand. The fact that Romney and his wife bother letting people who hate their guts host debates or interviews tells me one thing: he really means business with whatever he is going to do as president. Do you think the Halls of Congress are going to instantly comply with whatever a president Romney wants? not a chance! The fact that he bothers doing as well as he does when his opponents like Obama try and rig the game to favor him and the ultra-liberals gives a pretty good idea of the kind of person Romney is. I would rather have a guy who goes into rigged debates than a guy who gives up or relies on finding a room full of fans like Obama does. Just my two cents.