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 ...
If I remember correctly, this sign and its accompanying obnoxious tone was then followed by a really long movie of a polar bear in a blinding blizzard...
After being elected, Romney should demand a formal letter of apology from CNN. Consequence is that CNN barred from White House access. Fox News has been frozen out of many arenas (White House, Air Force One, briefings, etc.).
1) was that piece of paper she picked up actually a copy transcript of Zero's Rose Garden speech? Very damning if it was, and it sure seems like Zero thought (or knew!) it was.
2) I think I missed the part of F&F - my 11 year old son was watching with me (never too early to get them on the right track, eh?), and he was asking Q's all the time and I was trying to answer them and watch at the same time, so I missed that.
I'll look for it on the web to re-watch it in peace and quiet (LOL!). I'm glad at the way FOX looks like it is really hammering back at Minitru (what I called the US media), and once in office, I hope President Romney let's Minitru know that they will continually be the last ones to get information from his administration.
Good post, but it has one big problem. It’s too simple for the libs to figure it out. They could “feel” something like that for hours and still be in the dark.
Well anytime you post a play on words you do take the chance that people will take it literally.
After all word play in print lacks the inflection of the spoken word.
You need two moderators - one conservative, one liberal.
They agree on topics before the debate.
Conservative gets to ask a question on Topic #1 to the DEM candidate, DEM answers. GOP candidate gets to respond.
Liberal gets to ask a different question on Topic #1 to the GOP candidate, GOP answers. DEM candidate gets to respond.
Then, they move on to Topic #2.
No going over 2 minute time limit. No interrupting PERIOD. If caught interrupting, candidate loses his 2 minute response time and they go on to the next question.
The Secret Service said today they are going to hire Candy Crowley. Anyone who can move that fast to protect the President should be training their agents.
H/T to the comment site I got it from!
I don't believe that ever happened.
Are you serious? It did happen. I've seen it repeatedly on re-runs on TV.
“If you’re not old enough to know what that is, it will be a teachable moment.”
Don’t forget the playing of the National Anthem...
Furthermore, a debater may choose to speak slowly for stylistic reasons. Such as to make what he is saying sound more profound or more eloquent. So not only would such a debater potentially benefit from speaking slower, but at least according to CNN he should also be given more time to keep hammering home his points.
Strange though that Crowley didn’t inform both debaters before it started that “just to let you know, if you speak slowly, i’ll give you much more time!”
Well okay, not so strange, for it would have sounded ridiculous. For the whole thing is laughable and obviously thought up after the fact as a means to try to justify a referee doing everything she could to help one contestant while delivering low blows to his opponent.
A quick summary: more time for Obama, more interruptions for Romney, more “last words” for Obama, more stepping in and preventing Romney from landing a knockout punch. So go ahead and count all you like CNN, but everyone knows that it all adds up to four measly letters: B-I-A-S.
I watched the whole debate...post a video link where she has, in her hand, a copy of the transcript of the Rose Garden speech.
I’ve seen it replayed over and over. She lifts a paper, motioning towards Romney when she says “That’s right.” Obama at that moment interrupts and says, “Say it louder, Candy.”
I don’t remember seeing it the night of the debate, but that was either the camera angle, or the fact that I am always doing something else and may have my eyes averted.
But, in the replays, it is really blatant. 1, 2, 3. Obama says, “Get the transcript” and she lifts the paper with a little wave and says, “That’s right.” You can tell that it threw Romney.
If they are going to base turns to speak on word count, then what’s the point of a clock?
Answer- the fix was in...
Dead air would represent the most truth ever to be broadcast by them!
I'm sure Obama knew the subject was going to come up and went back to reread his remarks...so he would know exactly what words he used...that's likely why he told her to “check the transcript”.
Terrific recommendations. I especially like the muting of the mikes at the end of his time.
Nobody knows what she had in her hand. The point is, Obama said, “Get the transcript” and Candy waved a paper and said, “That’s right,” as if Obama’s statement was correct. It wasn’t, but it threw Romney off his point.
She later admitted that she did it deliberately — said she was wanted to “help balance the debate.”
She should be fired, and she certainly should NEVER be allowed to moderate another debate.
What she did was bad enough on it’s own...there’s no need to add a baseless conspiracy on top of it.
Extreme doubt obtains in *my* mind she ever had any integrity (journalistic, or otherwise) to begin with...
It’s sort of an affirmative action approach to debate rules. Little barry just can’t speak as fast as that other guy. So we’ll celebrate by giving barry more time.
Hell, speak real slow and Mitt doesn't even have to show up.
I agree with you.
I don't believe that ever happened.
In response to Obama's "let's go to the transcript," directed to Candy, She was waving a sheet of paper as if it were the transcript as she responded.
She was fingering it as soon as Romney stepped up, sliding it out so it would be easy to pick up quickly (at 1:10:04--->). Perhaps it was just the next question, but she responded as if it were the transcript that Obama specifically and directly asked her to go to.
That is so lame it finally convinced me to dismiss all your prior statements.
And what if Ms. Crawley had said, "What transcript?"
And what if Ms. Crawley had said, "What transcript?"
Look at it yourself. Note how the minute BO starts talking about the events of the day, she starts waving the paper. She also cuts off Romney and loud clapping ensues. We are told by those there that the loud clapping was Michelle O.
Candy even says that they don’t need to discuss it anymore because “they can go to the transcript” as she waves the paper. Do I know for sue that that was a trasncript? Of course not, but she certainly implies it.
She claimed afterward that it was her “instinct” that made her do it.
WHO gave Candy that TRNSCRIPT from the Rose Garden??? Obama, that’s WHO!
I agree CNN should keep her. Promote her. I’d rather American’s see that network for the journalistic fraud that it is. This will haunt her for years, and will taint everything she does in the future.
So how did Crowley “just happen to have” that particular quote/transcript? And more interestingly, how did obama “just happen to know” she had it? Remember, he told Crowley to read it. He KNEW she had it. Only one possible answer,,,the two of them collaborated before the debate started.
i think of it this way. When the president goes into Congress, he is going to have to contend back and forth with Congress, and they will not debate fair.
You've got to be kidding.
People communicate with far more than words. 4 minutes more is 4 minutes more chance to communicate. These people must think America just fell off the turnip wagon.
Public communication is body language, laughing, staging, moving, pausing, emoting, you name it.
Not a chance. She has her ideological credentials and is now assured of a job for life!
How Much of a Set-Up Was Crowley’s Libya Question?
Did she wave the paper intentionally to give the illusion that she had the transcript in hand?
But more to the point. This is just another unprovable conspiracy that sidetracks the real issue, which is....
Who came up with the "it was a protest against an offensive anti-Muslim movie" lie? And why did they continue to promote the lie when they knew it wasn't true almost immediately?
Why people waste time on these silly unprovable conspiracies when the main issue is much worse, baffles me.
The paper she shuffled may indeed not have been—and probably wasn’t—a transcript of the Rose Garden speech. That would be for subsequent deniability, but at the time it served its purpose—to make Romney believe that she had such transcript at hand and whatever came forth from her was about to be “the verified, gospel truth.”
There may have been two or three such pre planned triggers (Zero’s arranged word and/or gestures) that were intended to engage set plays. More than one set play might have involved pulling out a piece of paper meant to rattle Mitt, as if the Candy Masticator “had the goods,” but since everything had been committed to memory anyway—again, for deniability—it never mattered, whatever might have been written on the paper.
Whatever. There is actually an article elsewhere on FR that purposts to identify Obama’s “tell” in such situations. In any case, the more I look at that video, the more that it seems planned between Obama and Crowley.
See Reply #90 for another egregious flaunting of the rules by Crowley. I would never have used the word “conspiracy”, but since you suggested it...
“Why did the RNC and Romney campaign allow all debates to be moderated by Liberals?”
RNC/GOP has highly paid attorneys whose job it is to negotiate the debates. And this is the best they can come up with... a plan to sabotage the candidate. It’s clear they’re incompetent. Daily, I get multiple emails from people in the Romney campaign requesting money. Why should I donate when the campaign itself is doing a piss-poor job of furthering the effort? Like you, “I refuse to participate unless there is a change to these so-called ‘moderators’.”
A couple of minor modifications, if I may:
no longer has
any journalistic integrity!! She needs to be FIRED
CNN supports cheaters!
Knock yourself out.
RNC/GOP has highly paid attorneys whose job it is to negotiate the debates. And this is the best they can come up with... a plan to sabotage the candidate. Its clear theyre incompetent. Daily, I get multiple emails from people in the Romney campaign requesting money. Why should I donate when the campaign itself is doing a piss-poor job of furthering the effort? Like you, I refuse to participate unless there is a change to these so-called moderators.
I didn’t realize all of that. I figured it was someone in the candidate’s campaign staff that did the negotiating.
I think if this is the best the legal staff can do, then they need new legal staff! My gosh, these lawyers that negotiated this mess would surely fail as trial lawyers! No wonder they work for the RNC!
I don’t get the emails begging for money anymore, nor the phone calls. I’ve told them all to unsubscribe me and take my phone number off their lists.
Thank you again for the information.