Candy Crowley Screwed Up. We Told Her To Keep Her Mouth Shut.

Bookmark and Share  One of the most tense moments during last night’s debate came when the issue of the terrorist attack in Benghazi came up.  At one point President Obama tried to claim that he publicly recognized the tragic event as a terrorist attack the morning after it occurred, during a speech given in the  Rose Garden.  Upon hearing that, Governor Romney entered in to the following exchange with the President;

ROMNEY: I think (it’s) interesting the president just said something which —  which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said  that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act  of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re  saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed Governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the  president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

Then as Romney turned to the moderator, Candy Crowley took it upon herself to interject herself in to the debate by agreeing with the President by stating;

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir … call it an act of  terror.”

Her comment was then followed by applause.  The moment lended a total lack of credibility to notion that the questioners in the audience of this town hall and its moderator were impartial or undecided participants.  Nothing says undecided and impartial like the moderator making one side’s argument and the crowd cheering.  But this is exactly why in a pre-debate post , I specifically stated that Candy Crowley needed to keep her mouth shut during the debate.

As it turned out, within an hour of the debate, Crowley popped up on CNN admitting that she was wrong.  The President never actually called the violence that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi a terrorist attack as he and Crowley claimed he did from the Rose Garden on September 12th.

On that occasion the President avoided describing the assassination of our staff in Libya as a terrorist attack.  He did however say the following about the tragedy in general;

“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,” Obama said.  “Today we mourn for 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.”

Then for 14 days following that statement, the President and his Administration still refused to call the tragedy in Benghazi a terrorist attack and tried to claim that it was the result of a spontaneous riot inspired by a video.

So Candy Crowley was wrong.  She was wrong about her conclusion and in  her to attempt disagree with Mitt Romney over the stated facts.   And  she was wrong for refusing to leave the debate up to the debaters.  Instead she interjected her own biased conclusions into the debate.  This is something she was urged to avoid when I wrote the following about Crowley in White House 2012…

“You’re not on the ballot, so we don’t care what you know, what you think you know, or what your alleged unbiased opinion is!”

But Candy couldn’t help herself.  When she saw her prefered choice for President needing a lifeline she pretended to be the host of “Who Wants To Be  A Millionaire” and gave President Obama a chance to call on a friend for the answer.  That friend being herself.

If only she listened and kept her mouth shut.  Instead she confirmed that her next job should not be moderating a presidential debate or reporting the news, it should be as the White House Press Secretary in the next term of whatever Democrat wins the presidency after Mitt Romney’s two terms in the Oval Office.

Oh yeah, let us not forget the other thing confirmed during all this… our President was again caught lying in an attempt to save his presidency and get reelected.

Bookmark and Share

Second Presidential Debate; Obama Showed Up and Romney Held His Own (Complete Video & Transcript)

See the complete video of the debate at the bottom of this post and for a complete transcript of the debate click here

   Bookmark and Share  The second presidential debate was marked by a generally sharp and in-your-face diplomatic dialogue that brought the two candidates to their feet and at one point, almost nose to nose.   While it was not the one-sided match up that we saw Mitt Romney mop the floor with Barack Obama in the first debate, Romney was still confident, statesman-like, hard hitting and in command.  This time though, President Obama actually showed up to the debate and was willing to try to defend his record and doing his best distort Mitt Romney’s policy proposals.  For that alone one should anticipate the mainstream media narrative to run deep with claims that the President won this second debate.  But as usual, that liberal bias would not be inaacurate.  While President Obama did finally show a fire in his belly and some passion for his positions, he failed to land any punches that convinced anyone that his positions will produce better results than they have in the last four years.

For his part Mitt Romney did successfully land verbal punches on with several devastating indictments of the President’s economic, energy, and foreign policies.

President Obama did win some points during the debate but they were largely points scored with only his base.  The President’s attempts to consistently claim that Mitt Romney was not telling the truth failed to ring true.  Especially when the President tried to deny Romney’s claim that under Obama gas and oil production on federal lands decreased by as much as 14%.   Here Mitt Romney made a valid point about the President’s failed energy policy but Obama’s unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that in his drive to invest billions in failed alternative energy companies, he also reduced the number of permits that allowed domestic drilling on federal lands.   The President was so adamant in his denial that he ended up making it a bigger deal of the point than even Mitt Romney did.

But as the President tried to paint Romney as the liar in the debate, Mitt Romney was the one who actually proved Barack Obama to be the liar.

When the issue of Benghazi came up, President Obama tried to deny that he refused to call the attacks that killed our Ambassador and the members of his detail, a terrorist attack.  President Obama tried to claim that he called them terrorist attacks during a statement in the Rose Garden on the morning following the tragic event.  Romney doubled-down on the fact that President did not call them terrorist attacks and that he spent two weeks trying to claim the act of terrorism was the result of a spontaneous riot inspired by a video.  Making matters worse, moderator Candy Crowley aided President Obama by saying he did call the tragedy a terrorist attack that morning in the Rose Garden.  Some time after the debate,Crowley admitted she was wrong but President Obama has still failed to fess up to his lie.

All in all, the debate was an interesting verbal ballet which allowed each candidate to use dialogue that danced around the issues.  Mitt Romney offered only the minimal of details regarding his own economic plans and President Obama offered the same balme-it-on-Bush inspired excuses for the failures of his own Administration.  But Romney did do something which the President did not do.  He created more doubt about the President’s plans for the future of the nation than the President did about Mitt Romney’s plans for our nation’s future.  And Mitt Romney did something else too.  He kept the President on the defensive and at times, particularly when the issue of gun control came up.  On this, Romney left President Obama noticeably unsettled as he interjected Fast & Furious into the debate.   Romney stated;

The — the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to — to gun violence in some respects is what — what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to drug lords.

They used those weapons against — against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a — this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can’t imagine. But it’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration. Which I think the American people would like to understand fully, it’s been investigated to a degree, but — but the administration has carried out executive privilege to prevent all of the information from coming out.

I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.

The point came up after President Obama used the question as an opportunity to lecture voters on an assault weapons ban and while Mitt Romney deftly responded by finding a way to interject the Fast & Furious scandal in to his own answer, it would have been much more effective if he came out and said… “Mr. President, you are the very last person in the nation who should be trying to lecture us on assault weapons.  Not after your Administration gave Mexican drug cartels assault weapons that they used to kill our border agents with”.  But despite not putting it that way, Mitt still successfully weighed the President with the Fast & Furious scandal.

By the time the sun comes up though, the mainstream media will be writing stories about a much different debate.  They will probably be printing and posting headlines like “Barack is Back” or “Prez Rips Romney Apart”.  However; the truth is this.  Typically a tie in a presidential debate is a win for the challenger and in truth Romney at least did well enough to make the debate a tie.  So by any honest assessment, Romney should be declared the winner of this second debate.  But regardless of which narrative about who won is printed more times than the other, the bottom line is this… President Obama will not get the same type of pronounced bounce from this debate that Mitt Romney got from the first one.  In fact, I predict that he gets no bounce and furthermore, from my vantage point, I believe Mitt Romney swayed more independent and undecided voters his way last night than did the president.  And that in the final analysis is the true determining factor here.

Bookmark and Share

Watch the Second Presidential Live Here on White House 2012

   Bookmark and Share  View tonight’s second presidential debate online here at White House 2012 and join our live Twitter conversation with your comments directed to @WhiteHouse12  or use the hashtag #wh12.

This Youtube feed offers a pre-debate program schedule that inlcudes the following:

8:00 PM ET :

  • ABC News Debate Pre-Show

8:30 PM ET :

  • Al Jazeera Debate Pre-Show
  • Wall Street Journal Debate Pre-Show
  • Univision Google Hangout
  • New York Times Debate Pre-Show


Bookmark and Share

Candy Crowley Needs To Keep Her Mouth Shut During Second Presidential Debate

   Bookmark and Share   Tuesday night’s second presidential debate is proving to be one of the most anticipated in decades.  After Mitt Romney’s stellar performance and President Obama’s disastrous performance in the first one, tensions are high as Obama supporters wait with bated breath to see their hope for a big Obama comeback come to fruition, while Romney supporters are praying for their guys ability to repeat his domination of the debate.  Meanwhile those independent and undecided voters who are not in one camp or the other are looking forward to seeing how both men do so that they can make an informed decision regarding  which of the two candidates they believe deserves to be President for the next years.

Left to their own devices, both President Obama and Governor Romney should be able to make their cases and the voters paying attention to the debate should be able to determine who made the best case.  But as the second debate approaches, its moderator, CNN correspondent Candy Crowley informs us that she intends to take the town hall style debate in the direction she wants it to go in.

According to Crowley;

“Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’”

Well I am glad to know that Crowley thinks she knows her A,B,C’s but FYI Candy… you’re not on the ballot, so we don’t care what you know, what you think you know, or what your alleged unbiased opinion is!

A good journalist is said to be one who never makes themselves a part of the news and when it comes to moderators, a good one does not become too big a part of the debate, they merely ensure that the debate keeps flowing.  Well as an anchor on CNN , Candy Crowley hardly ever reports a political story without interjecting her own mainstream media, liberal biases in to them.  Now she makes a statement that indicates to me that she will interject her liberal biases in to the presidential debate.

Crowley’s remark may initially sound innocent to some.  For some it may even sound responsible and sensible.  It suggests that she intends to hold the candidates accountable for their answers without allowing them to avoid full explanations.  But those who see it this way are missing the point of what a moderators job is and the purpose of a debate.

Part of any good debaters job is to hold the person they are facing off with accountable for their answers.  It is up to President Obama and Governor Romney to deftly find a way to say to each other,  ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”.   Not Crowley.

In most debates there is a moderator and either several prepared questions or a group of panelists who ask the questions.  The moderator simply manages time and enforces any of the rules agreed to by the debate’s participants.  In this second presidential debate, we have a town hall style forum where voters in the audience are suppose to ask the questions.  So the way I see it, as the moderator, Candy Crowley should not be asking anything.  And for good reason.

None of us have any reason to hear Crowley or any talking head interject their political biases in to any debate.  That means I do not need for her to try to press Mitt Romney to give additional details in a particular answer that she disagrees with, but not press President Obama for further details on an answer he gives and which she agrees with.

Part of the success of the first 2012 presidential debate was due to the fact that its moderator, Jim Lehrer,  for the most part, allowed the candidates to be the ones to ask each other  “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”    The fact that Lehrer did not interjecthis own judgment calls into the first debate allowed it to be defined by the two candidates for President, not the moderator who is not on the ballot.  Candy Crowley would be wise to follow Leher’s example and for the first time in her career, try to be a good journalist by interjecting herself into the story as little as possible, and by being a good moderator that is seen but not often heard.

In other words, Candy… shut your trap and let the audience ask the questions and allow the candidates to answer them and hold each other accountable to their answers.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: