Tag Archives: al-Qaeda Libyan Murder

Should Candy Crowley be penalized for Presidential Debate Misconduct

CNN’s Candy Crowley breaks moderator rules to rule incorrectly for President Obama in second presidential debate

With the continuing furor erupting concerning the highly partisan nature displayed by Candy Crowley during the second presidential debate the real question has evaded the American voter. Who is truly responsible for acts of journalistic misconduct and what should be done when a debate moderator decides to go rogue, as Crowley did in favoring Obama?

The Commission on Presidential Debates is the organization which sponsors the presidential and vice presidential debates and it claims that these debates will be conducted in “a professional and nonpartisan manner.”

Presidential Debate Commission Rules:

“ (c) With respect to all questions…
(iv) The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits,”

Crowley deliberately and intentionally broke the agreed upon rules, and decided as Obama has decided during the course of his administration, that rules don’t apply and the ends justify the means.

So, what recourse do the American people have when a journalist is selected who openly ignores the rules in conducting the debate and in comments leading up to the debate? What happens when the journalist moderator interjects herself into the debate, in order to blunt a candidate’s momentum, as Crowley did to republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney?

The easy answer is to say; simply that Republicans and GOP candidates who are the favorite targets of biased coverage in the mainstream media should just grit their teeth and bare it. But that is not what the American public needs to see or should have to endure. If a presidential debate commission purports to field “unbiased reporters” who are going to be fair and balanced moderators, then failing to do so should result in a penalty, and or permanent suspension of the reporter and their affiliated network from future participation in debates.

According to the national Verified Voting Foundation, in 2012 there are approximately 180,802,372 registered voters in America. Voters are entitled to see a debate that is free from a moderator who appears to purposely steer a debate, to benefit the incumbent President Obama. Crowley’s behavior becomes even more suspect when one considers that Obama was increasingly losing ground to the republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Did CNN senior political reporter Candace Crowley conduct herself in a professional and nonpartisan manner? Examine her earlier statement, when she announced that she would evade and ignore the professional rules of journalistic conduct, and inject herself into the presidential debate if and when she saw fit. So one has to question, who judges the moderators when moderators declare that they are above the rules as Crowley did?

Examine the facts and you be the judge.

During the course of the 90-minute debate, Crowley allowed Obama to misuse the debate clock as if it was his own private football game. Instead of being fair and balanced, the clearly partisan Crowley allowed Obama 42 minutes and 40 seconds to make his points, while penalizing Romney constantly, with 28 interruptions. Her constant disruptions appeared to attempt to break Romney’s concentration and debate pace, leaving him at a deficit with 38 minutes and 14 seconds.

Crowley even allowed applause during the debate when Obama made debate points, against her own moderator rules she announced before the debate. In fact, at one point, when Michelle Obama and other Obama supporters in the audience applauded, she issued no warnings of any kind.

Again, the question has to be, where is the enforcement mechanism when a debate moderator decides to go rouge? Are 180 million plus voters simply shackled to a system where a Presidential Debate Commission remains silent when one of its selected moderators openly and brazenly announces, she will not stick by the rules?

It’s possible that the American people can supply the answer. Just as Congress has allowed taxpayers to devote a $1 to offset presidential funding of campaigns, perhaps a dime, per taxpayer can be donated to offset paying for fair and balanced debates. Open up the moderating of the debates to regional journalists as well as “Joe the Plumber” type everyday people to tag-team with journalist moderators.

If a moderator like a Crowley goes off of the reservation by announcing as Crowley did that she would make her own rules of engagement, then replace her right on the spot. The network or news organization that the moderator is affiliated with would be penalized for one election cycle by disallowing its reporters from participation in presidential primary or general election debates.

American voters deserve better than to have their vote and the nation’s future steered and diverted by bias purposeful conduct. Perhaps Crowley was hoping that she could pump some energy into staving off the plummeting viewership at CNN, where her network has suffered a reported 42 percent drop in the past year. CNN is hemorrhaging severe viewership loss, according to a measurement taken in June, which found that its daily ratings were at their lowest in over a decade.

Well, Candy, it did not work. The attempt to shut down Romney’s message of economic recovery and job creation got pass her maneuvering. The proof is in the snap polls conducted by Crowley’s own network, where registered voters who were polled gave Romney high marks in several key domestic areas.

The CNN poll gave Romney higher ratings, in who would handle the economy better with his 58% over Obama’s 40%. Romney also topped the president with a 59 % rating on the question of who would handle the escalating annual trillion dollar deficits, to Obama’s anemic 36 %. Romney even beat Obama when debate viewers gave Romney a 51% compared to Obama’s 44 % when it came to who would handle taxes better.

So in this instance, the viewers decided that despite Crowley’s attempt to rig the debate, America and it viewers were not biting. Yet, the reality of future debates and future moderators has to be dealt with seriously and openly. While CNN’s brass has already issued a statement stressing they would stand behind Crowley’s conduct, American voters do not have to.

The Presidential Debate Commission has to either end this gentlemen’s agreement to look the other way when moderators avoid or refuse to enforce the rules in a professional and nonpartisan manner, or be replaced by a system that is fair, balanced and unafraid.

After all, American voters deserve to hear an open fair debate or perhaps voters will create their own. In 2009 the Tea Party Patriots did it in waking up America to a new and more vibrant political movement. In 2012, perhaps Crowley’s misconduct is just the right act that tips the scale. America is ready; to be unshackled from liberal media moderator misconduct and candidate intimidation.

Let the Patriot Debates Movement begin.

Let me know what you think: ( Click )

Will truth of Benghazi Murders determine battleground states election choice

Will Obama look American voters in the eye and tell the nation what he knew, when he knew it and what actions did he take to prevent it?

Obama’s election firewall is melting like a house of wax all over America.  States like Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin where President Obama’s election machines had once appeared impregnable are now crumbling.  What is even more telling is that Ohio, the battleground of all battleground states is now fast becoming Obama’s possible Waterloo.

According to many recent national polls, including results from Fox News Poll that was released Friday, October 19th, Obama’s lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney is narrowing.  The president’s former lead of 49-42 percent from late September has dwindled to 46-43 percent.  What appears even clearer is that the president’s second debate performance, while well scripted at how to be evasive and fact challenged, and has not slowed Romney’s growing momentum.

The stagnant economy, slow job growth, and annual trillion dollar deficits are no longer the current dominant key election issues.  The growing White House cover up of how U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and 3 other  Americans were murdered on September 11th  at the American consulate in Benghazi is taking center stage.  As more and more intelligence documentation, real time videos, and congressional documents are made public a bizarre and tragic web of deceit is being unearthed.

The White House and the president’s campaign have stepped up their visits to Ohio and other battle ground states as well as their attacks on Romney.  Their hope is that voters would ignore the facts that these murders were avoidable and preventable.  But on Monday October 22nd, the last presidential debate should bring the truth of the Benghazi scandal and the unraveling of the administration’s stonewalling into America’s living rooms.

The presidential election stakes are much, much higher now.  The administration’s attempts to first throw the intelligence community, and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the bus, failed.  Now the White House narrative and tangled terrorist assault storylines are unraveling, thanks to the recent congressional hearings on Capitol Hill.

Now, with the increasing surge by the Romney political machine, Obama and his campaign officials are even more nervous, because the president received no bump from the second presidential debate.  In fact, on Saturday, the Real Clear Politics poll average for Ohio now had Obama ahead by only 2.5 percent, which is well within the margin of error.  Its gets even worse. Now, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are now telling competing versions of the Libyan murders timeline.

Timing is everything, and with Foreign Affairs being on the table for the last debate, the White House is on lock down.  It is refusing to honor requests for documents from congress that detail what the president knew, when he knew it and what action did he take. Fear that truth of possible evidence being covered up concerning pre and post attack terrorist activity by the White House could prove an administration cover up is in play.

What evidence could the administration be afraid of providing congress and the American voter before the election?  Could it be proof that Ambassador Stevens desperately sent request after request to the State Department for more security, while terrorists linked to al-Qaeda steadily increased their attacks and assaults as late as August on the consulate?

Could it be evidence that the President decided to ignore in-person daily Security Council briefing.  Will White House meetings records reveal that he either golfed or attended entertainment and Hollywood fundraisers on the lead up to the anniversary of the most horrific terrorist attack in the nation’s history?

What is so important in the timeline which lead up the murders in Benghazi that Obama is afraid that voters will discover?  What the administration possibly fears can be found in the recent Fox News video concerning the timeline that led up to the Benghazi tragedy.   Examine the Benghazi timeline video yourself, not as a Romney supporter or an Obama supporter, but as an American who believes that the murders of four Americans by terrorists should not be in vain.

You will see that Ambassador Stevens made countless requests after request for additional security due to the growing attacks and threats by terrorist factions in Benghazi.  The ambassador’s requests were denied, and denied and denied again. Instead, the State Department and the administration told the now assassinated ambassador to make do, and make nice with the local Libyans in order to normalize relations with the locals as the al-Qaeda cells grow larger and more dangerous.

For the battle ground undecided as well as decided voter, the presidential election comes down to truth and honor, and will Obama display either at the debate on October 22nd.  Will Obama look American voters in the eye and tell the nation what he knew, when he knew it and what actions did he take to prevent it?  Or will the president seek another Candy Crowley like moderator performance from CBS Bob Schieffer to rescue him from admitting the truth about his administration’s role in purposeful dissemination of misinformation.

As you watch the third debate in your homes, remember that the honor and integrity of the office of the presidency is at stake. Only you, the voter, can be the firewall to prevent the Obama White House from hiding the truth in order to steal an election.  Don’t allow the Administration to use scare tactics to misinform and use pundits like MSNBC’s chief liberal sycophant Chris Matthews, convince you that it is unpatriotic to question and demand the truth from the president.

Instead, wisely consider the words of reflection from former President Theodore Roosevelt, before you cast your vote.  He warned, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

In the battleground for the nation’s future demand the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Freedom and liberty is neither free or has value if it is based upon a lie. Make truth your election choice on November 6th!

Let me know what you think: http://shar.es/crDL6