Tag Archives: Candy Crowley

Obama Lies, Michelle Cheers, Crowley Retreats & that Videotape Smears

obama-romney-debate-moderators

Candy Crowley missed her true calling.  Unbiased, professional debate “moderator” remains to be seen, as Crowley’s passion to “save” Obama morphed on stage during Tuesday night’s debate.   The townhall style debate turned into a virtual slug fest, as Romney and Obama punched and counter punched their way through a debate that may go down in history as the “umpire debate”.  No doubt, much will be written and the talking heads will be talking about “who won,”  but will anyone address who “really” lost?  I believe the American people lost.  Lost a chance at truth, as Crowley dug her heels in, and Michelle Obama broke the decorum rule, clapping mighty hard as Crowley “shut down” Romney during a question on Benghazi.  So much for “fair and balanced”.

The key point in this past debate, surrounded a question by a gentleman in the audience.  Let me state here, that Crowley and her “team” decided which questions would be allowed.  Ergo, the “Benghazi” question was “soft” asking Obama who was responsible for the dialed down security in Benghazi?   We already know this, in a Congressional hearing on October 9th, State Department officials, and one in particular, Susan Lamb stated she denied the requests for added security.  Obama responded with the typical faux anger at Romney, stating how could anyone say he or anyone in his Administration would intentionally “politicize” such an event?  Romney stood, and countered recalling the day after the event. September 12th, pointing out Obama’s Rose garden “address” wondering how Obama could spin such an event, not mentioning Benghazi for what it really was—“an act of terror”.  And here is where it gets dicey, Crowley butts in, playing “umpire” and fact checks Romney on the spot, stating basically “No you’re wrong Governor Romney,  the President did call it “an act of terror” in the Rose Garden.”   Michelle Obama erupts with loud applause, and President Obama says “Candy, can you say that a little louder!”  It was a travesty.

Post debate, Crowley makes a statement that “Romney was right, Obama was wrong, and that “Romney just didn’t pick the “right word”.  No Candy, you were wrong”, Romney was robbed,  Obama lied and Michelle acted like areality TV star.    Let me be clear.  Obama lied.  And digging his lie even deeper, he then had his moment of faux anger at “anyone saying he would politicize’ such an event”.  Let us recall, the flag draped coffins of the fallen four dead Americans, straight off the plane from Benghazi.  Obama standing over those flag draped coffins, recounts that “video” that spurred all the violence on in Benghazi.  Obama related this story to the View and on David Letterman.  That “story” was a lie, a lie concocted by someone in the White House to politicize the attacks! 

My one hope, is the next debate.  Its all foreign policy, and chances that Romney will be astutely ready are good.  We now have Obama caught in a lie, and all you have to do is watch the video of his Rose Garden address.  Yes, he does say “act of terror” however, listen to the context of this address, he cites “the United States as a place which respects all faiths” and never cites this attack as “an act of terror,” he mentions it in passing at the end of the address.  Crowley recounts this herself, post debate, saying she watched the video again, and in fact Obama was….wrong.  No, Obama was adamant, calling for the transcript at the debate, hollering  “Candy, can you say that a little louder” thinking he “got one over” on the American people, just like Bill Clinton thought, saying “what’s your definition of sex?”.  I’m tired of the semantics game.  Clinton had sex with Lewinsky, and Obama lied about Benghazi.  And President Obama, the truth is not a game.  Americans are tired Sir, we are tired of the game playing and all the lies.   Luckily we got you on video on this one.

Crowley and the Benghazi statements: the debate and mistruths

Crowley admits Obama was wrong on Benghazi

In the Presidential Debate, Mitt Romney challenged the President saying that he did not come out in the Rose Garden and call the attack an “act of terror.” The debate moderator, Candy Crowley supported the President when he said that he had come out the next morning in the Rose Garden and did refer to the tragedy as an act of terror. If Romney had been better prepared, he might have been able to make the correct point better, but he wasn’t.

Shortly after the debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley had to admit that Mitt Romney had been correct and that she had been wrong – but how wrong?

The reality of the issue is that the following Sunday, President Obama sent his U.N. Ambassadar, Susan Rice, out on Sunday shows talking about an out-of-control protest that never existed – citing a video that had nothing to do with the attack. For two weeks the administration stuck to the video and protest as the cause for the death of four Americans – something they now say was incorrect and that they knew it the second the attack happened.

On the merits of the argument, Romney is correct, but he failed in execution due to poor timeline study. Crowley was out-of-place to interject on either side, but was not necessarily wrong – the President’s Rose Garden Speech has no reference to the video or a protest, but he does talk about acts of terror.

In the President’s official statement (full transcript), he made no reference to terrorism:

“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.”

In the full transcript of the President’s Rose Garden speech the next morning, he made a general reference to “acts of terror”, but held short of calling Benghazi a terrorist attack:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

 

Last minute Change to tonight’s debate rules after Crowley controversy

The Commission on Presidential Debates has announced a last minute change to the rules for tonight’s debate, presumably due to the controversy started by moderator Candy Crowley’s remarks that she intended to play  a more central role than the rules allowed.

A follow-up discussion will now be added that will be directed by the moderator. This gives Crowley the latitude she felt she should have in the debate.

The change came after both campaigns sent letters of complaint to the commission after Crowley announced her intention to be more important than the rules allowed.

While the change is unlikely to drastically affect the debate outcome, it is something neither of the candidates could have prepared for with such short notice.

With these recent changes, the moderator is likely to become a much bigger part of the debate story than the town hall format intended.

Crowley: Biased Bad Joke

120814035159-candy-crowley-state-of-the-union-c1-main

For the pending second presidential debate, the format agreement says that after each question from the audience and a two-minute response by each candidate, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are expected to have an additional discussion facilitated by the moderator.  This year the Hofstra University town hall debate moderator will be Candy Crowley of CNN.   The language of the debate-format agreement means that Crowley’s participation is to be limited.

As the document states: “In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic … 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, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.”

http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/moderator-role-under-scrutiny-before-the-debate/

Yet Crowley’s take on her role is: ‘I’m not a fly on the wall’.  It has been suggested that debate questions must be pre-submitted in order to allow Crowley to choose the questions.

Of course, coming from members of today’s openly biased media this is nothing new.

In 2008 Tom Brokaw of NBC News moderated a town-hall debate between Obama and John McCain. Brokaw redirected the topics, changed questions from the audience and asked too many of his own questions.   Brokaw defended his performance by citing that a debate commission official praised that debate as “good television.”

Good television?  Has the bar for debates between two people vying to be President of the United States of America been arbitrarily reduced by news media pundits to being “good television”?

So, when are the hosts of Survivor, American Idol, or Snookie and Kate plus eight going to declare their candidacy?  Should the briefcase brigade from Deal or No Deal be considered among the front runners for 2016?

Members of  today’s news media are so openly biased they would keep protecting and defending Obama while actively working for his re-election even if there was verifiably authentic video showing Obama burying Caylee Anthony’s body in the Florida swamp.

Having people of this ilk unilaterally changing their role in debate proceedings because it is “good television” is most certainly not in America’s best interests.

It is a suicide pact.

America is at an existential decision making point.  The 2012 presidential election will be a watershed moment in history.

All the questions submitted by the Hofstra audience should be shuffled by twelve different people who are not actively involved in the debate proceedings, then read by Crowley in the order she receives them.  She should be a professional, stick to the role assigned her and keep her two cents out of the debate.

As NewsBusters reported immediately after Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate:

“…the goal of the Obama-loving media is to rip him to shreds.  Doing her part Saturday was CNN’s Candy Crowley who claimed some Republicans (unnamed, of course) think this ‘looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.’”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/08/11/cnns-candy-crowley-ryan-pick-looks-little-bit-some-sort-ticket-death-#ixzz29N2psx9D

The reason Romney won the first debate and is experiencing a major surge in popularity is it was the first time a large number of American voters were able to see Romney as he is, rather than the filtered version presented to the public by the “progressive” Party Pravda.

When watching the Hofstra debate proceedings, remember Crowley, like her fellow “progressives” in the media, is openly pulling for Obama.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/crowley-biased-bad-joke/

Thought the VP debate moderator was bad? Crowley intends to go farther

CNN's Candy Crowley

CNN’s Candy Crowley

The two campaigns have been far apart on just about every issue, until this week’s moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, decided to ignore the terms agreed to by the candidates campaigns and announce she would take a more central role in the town hall-style debate.

Town hall debates are supposed to be led by audience members, but Ms. Crowley has announced that she will be pushing the candidates as she sees fit. In a series of interviews on CNN, Crowley has stated that after the basis of the question has been set, she intends to say things like, “Hey, wait a second, what about x,y,z?”

The candidates organizations agreed to the terms set in a memorandum of understanding between themselves and the Commission on Presidential Debates. That memorandum states that the moderator would play a limited roll. Unfortunately, the memorandum was never agreed to by Crowley.

The audience members are picked by Gallup from a field of likely voters. The intent is to give ordinary voting Americans the chance to ask questions that they feel are important. Having a moderator change the tone or direction of the questions minimizes the importance of the voter and raises the influence of the moderator.

According to the terms of the agreement, the moderator is not to “rephrase the question or open a new topic.” In even more explicit terms, the agreement firmly limits the moderator’s role to traffic cop:

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, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.

Crowley’s interview statements show that she intends to change the debate into something she would prefer – ignoring the agreement between the campaigns and the commission.

Both campaigns have now sent letters to the commission complaining about Crowley’s intentions to change the terms of the debate.

Moderators Announced for 2012 Presidential Debate Series

On Monday, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that Jim Lehrer, Candy Crowley, Bob Schieffer and Martha Raddatz have been selected as debate moderators for the series of 2012 Presidential debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and for the Vice Presidential Debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden.

Jim Lehrer hails from PBS, which receives government subsidies to fund part of its broadcasting budget. It’s left-leaning content and tone are a testament to the network’s understanding of where its bread is buttered. Mr. Lehrer will be moderating the first debate on October 3rd despite having previously stated that he would not be moderating any more debates. Reportedly, the PBS host changed his mind once learning of the debate format. Lehere said that he shares “the Commission on Debates’ belief that the format has the possibility to open up the debates for a more spontaneous and deeper exchange of positions and ideas.”

CNN’s Candy Crowley, who recently said that the Romney-Ryan ticket “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish”, will be moderating the second Presidential Debate on October 16th. Crowley is the first woman in 20 years to moderate a Presidential debate.

Rounding out the Presidential Debate moderators is CBS’s Bob Schieffer who just completed a Sunday night interview of Romney and Ryan. Schieffer will host the last Presidential debate on October 22nd.

ABC’s Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Martha Raddatz, will handle the Vice Presidential Debate on October 11th.