Given the critical role that debates have played in this presidential cycle, it’s not surprising that so much attention has fallen, of late, on the moderators. Two weeks ago, PBS’s Jim Lehrer was roundly mocked for his failure to control the conversation between Governor Mitt Romney and President Obama. Now, CNN’s Candy Crowley is in the spotlight for her more forceful interjection during a discussion about the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi.
When Romney, in finger-pointing prosecutorial mode, began advancing on Obama, insisting that the president was lying when he said he had called the attacks “acts of terror” on the very first morning, Crowley fact-checked him on the fly. She noted that Obama “did, in fact” use the word “terror” in a Rose Garden speech the day after the attacks, prompting Obama to say, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”
Comments
This comment has been removed.
I don't it make it habit of lying or distorting seeing I'm not a huge fan of either. The question was did he say "it was an act of terror", the facts bear out he did.
Now, if you re-frame it and ask did he say it was a "terrorist attack" the answer would be,a resounding, No. But "system" is so hyper he can't even be logical. You make the same idiotic mistake Romney did. You argue over the wrong point.
The transcripts of Obama at the Rose Garden press briefing DO NOT have any words from Obama's calling the Benghazi attack, "a terrorist event." The White House claim for more than a week was that the Benhazi "protest" was a "carry over" from other Muslim protests within the area. The White House claimed the protest escalated due to a VIDEO shown on YouTube.
Hence, the Secret Service & CIA were tracking the producer of the video!!!!
WOW - if readers cannot remember what happened last month - it is no wonder they cannot remember that the Obama - Biden team have accomplished NOTHING for middle class Americans.
Two points: It is NOT the role of the moderator to join the debate, as Candy did. She has no business being a "fact checker" to defend either candidate. Second: Obama referred generically to terrorism, in that speech, and did not declare that this specific event was a terrorist act. He then flew off to Vega and to be on "The View". Romney was not aware of this distinction Tuesday night, but I promise you he will on Monday. Candy will not be able to join the debate this time.
In your description of what the President said you are correct. Regretfully for Mitt that isn't the way he went at. He can't dance around it now he might as well move on.
I would disagree regarding the "moderator" that's just whining. I wish the moderator would call out either candidate when they get it wrong. I wish the moderator would press for more succinct answers from both candidates. But then I don't like Mitt or Obama hiding behind the wonderful world of shading.
Picture the headlines the following day if Gov.Mitt Romney would have challenged Candy Crowley & the President to speak the truth!!!!!
ALL HELL WOULD HAVE BROKEN OUT WITH THE MEDIA. As it was, there were many articles questioning Gov. Mitt Romney's tone(?) This was written after the television audience saw Obama smirking, and using his office to throw his weight around like a bully.
This comment has been removed.
Keep spinning "system" you can't change the fundamental goof. I find the attempts to spin this one a bit pathetic and merely emphasises the mistake. Given you're a Mitt fan you're not helping.
You are wasting your time, amigo. There is a type of individual who will regard even the 'dislikes' to his posts as validation and affirmation of his 'legend in his own mind' status. Sure, some people can be so annoying you just want to dope slap them, but do you really want to risk breaking a finger on an extra-thick skull?
I cannot begin to recall how many times I saw one of the President's surrogates, like Susan Rice, on various tv programs on several networks including CNN, clearly telling us it was not terrorism but rather caused by that video. Now the president stood at that debate and blatantly lied to us and Ms. Crowley backed it up? I guess they don't know that we all have televisions, so they want us to believe what they're tellng us now and not what we saw and heard with our eyes and ears before.
bit of semantics. He did use act of rterror, but you can read that many ways. The more damning is Susan Rice's appearances over the next few weeks and her blaming the video
Candy Crowley, frequently prevented Gov. Mitt Romney from answering the questions posed to him. In the question about the Benghazi attack, Moderator, Candy Crowley, AGAIN abruptly CUT - OFF Gov. Mitt Romney from answering the question: To add insult to injury, Ms.Crowley then spoke out supporting the lies of Obama's lie who claimed he had called the attack a "terrorist attack" in the Rose Garden (9/12), the day after four Americans were killed. WRONG. That is NOT what Obama said in the Rose Garden.
Ms. Crowley's support of Obama's lie on national television provides an example of press manipulation of the truth & the media lies for the Democrats with odds stacked high against Republicans getting their truthful position statements and facts to the voters.
WAS Candy Crowley at the press meeting with Obama in the Rose Garden on 9/12/2012?
Crowley inferred she was in attendance when Obama uttered his lie in the Rose Garden on 9/12/2012.
The transcripts don't support Obama's statements of what he claims he said to the media.
WAS Crowley in attendance? If so, her failure to support Mitt Romney's claim is more egregious.
This comment has been removed.
attaturk - ot - based on our HFT discussion yesterday.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-17/aussie-stocks-suffer-hft-stop-run-glitch-open
what is there to dislike??????
This comment has been removed.
A good timeline of events from various sources like USA Today and NYT
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/30891d21-1a35-4993-a3fd-db7b8f574d74
to the "dislikes" what it ruin your attempt to protect Dear leader?
to the "dislikes" what it ruin your attempt to protect Dear leader?
Is the Globe that much in the bag for Obama that they can't admit the simple truth that in his Rose Garden statement on 9/12, he clearly did not call the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack? He made a very generic statement about "acts of terror", not directing it specifically to the attack on the consulate. Susan Rice and others in the admin apparently agree with me, otherwise they would have been willfully misleading the american people and this totally transparent admin would never do that, would they?
"pdrom" So what? Do you not get politics. Do you not understand spin. Do you not get the fact that when the Pres. said "no act of terrorism" and then went on blah, blah, blah he politically speaking had covered all of his bases just as he had intended to do. Now Mitt foot in mouth disease guy months later walks into a political trap and gets nailed. You spend all of this time trying to make an argument that doesn't matter. No one cares.
The fact is on national television Mitt said as if he knew better you never said "terrorist", Obama had him at that moment and all ths spin and all the crying won't change the fact. The truth doesn't make one iota bit of difference. Mitt got caught trying to create a gotcha moment. Now all he can do is pay the price and try to move on. Something you all can't seem to do.
As "system" would say, "Way too funny. L-O-L" Please notice your so famous I quoted you.
Read the transcript of the Rose Garden statement again. Can you honestly say that Obama was refering *directly* to the consulate attack when he talked about "acts of terror"? This has nothing to do with what Romney said or did, either in the debate or when he sent out the statement shortly after the attack. The issue here is that the Obama Admin (Susan Rice, Jay Carney, Hillary, Obama himself) spent days/weeks blaming the attack on the video. Now, they want to take a throw away line and say "Look, we called it terrorism all along". That's not spin, that's a lie.
Regarding "directly" of course not. But it doesn't matter it accomplishes the same thing. He said it. He's covered.
You want this to be the issue, "The issue here is that the Obama Admin (Susan Rice, Jay Carney, Hillary, Obama himself) spent days/weeks blaming the attack on the video." But it's not. The issue is the debate and that moment in the debate. Mitt got it wrong and is paying and will continue to pay the price. All the spinning and twisting won't change that. Obama did what any good pol would do. He did exactly what your beloved Mitt would do. Some of you actually think these are good guys. They are pols. It's pretty simple.
Want to privatize SS, Medicare, etc. dump the safety net, go with "corporate capitalism" you go with Mitt.
You want the opposite you go with Obama. Why you folks want to argue one guy is a good guy and the other isn't is really kind of silly. They are pols and are in it for the power period. I don't understand how folks can completely lose there objectivity and the ability to see things as they are.
"begolfing" Just got back from my usual. Whipped out a couple of quick fun comments and then noticed you had written one regarding HFT.
First let me say that's how bad these threads get you got three dislikes regarding HFT's. Something that I imagine the three dislikes didn't even know what you were talking about.
As to the piece. That has always been my concern regarding this type of trading it creates these unfounded movements in the market. To me that is the "Mitt Romney" equity mentality at work. The actual value of a stock, its PE doesn't even matter any more. It is merely the churning of money. That is one of the reasons I don't like Mitt, that is his mind set. He likes to say he's a job creator. I have always considered him an opportunist and a money maker. But as I always say unlike some of these folks, I'm biased. I despise the guy for a lot of reasons.
Forget the likes and dislikes. (a) the buttons are screwy, so if you dislike someone's comment in reply to a post, that dislike show's up in the post you are presumably trying to support. (b) some people will get dislikes even if they post 'the sky is blue' because of misguided personal animosities (how much can you really dislike another anonymous poster?) or just hitting dislike because one is in a bad mood.
"JL" Thanks didn't know the buttons were screwy. I don't do the "like" "dislike" thing. I really don't see the point. Yeah I assumed some of the dislikes were just because they don't like "begolfing". He and I seldom agree on the politics but we share interests and he's not as nutty as some of the right wingers. Oh don't let me exclude the left wing zealots.
Romney did very well in the debate especially considering it was two against one, Obama and Candy Crowley vs. Romney. She showed her bias by NOT sticking to her job which was to moderate not to fact check. Monday evening will be different. Obama will not have Crowley to prop him up.
Am I to assume this your objective viewing of the event. You zealots both left and right crack me up. There is always an excuse.
"pdrom" said, " I've got to give you credit. You have an almost god-like ability to know that I consider Mitt "beloved"."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look I'm just going by your postings. You seem to always support Mitt. Later you said you do because of the deficit. And seriously that's cool can even be a good reason to support the man of your choice. "Beloved" wasn't meant as a knock it merely represents the way so many people view these pols and the way you have written regarding Mitt.
Now if you think Mitt will do anything about the deficit, I frankly don't see it. The tax cuts he proposes don't fly, the numbers won't work without it costing a lot of people money or increasing the deficit. I mean heck that's just logical. You're short money and you will make yourself shorter. Well where do you make up the shortage. It has to be from the middle class or SS and Medicare. Do I think Obama is going to make this great deal to reduce the deficit. Heck no. I don't think either will.
I have always said I dislike Romney the man and Romney the business man. I'm a stock guy. I lean conservative when it comes to business. Mitt is an "equity" guy. I don't like "equity" guys because they don't "build" things the go with the old "destructive creation" jive. I just don't believe in that stuff. I don't believe in wrrecking companies to make a profit. I don't believe in falsely inflating "profits" to pump up stocks. That's Mitt. I'm different. So if I got to choose I'll choose what I conser to be "corporate" Obama over "equity" Romney.
I guess it's somewhat flattering, if a little creepy, to hear that someone reads my posts. Thanks for noticing.... Like I said, I'm supporing Romney beacuse this year, he's the alternative to Obama. I'm voting for him only because I hope can pull us out (or at least slow down)of the debt spiral we're in. Do his numbers add up? We'll see. I'm very sure that Obama's numbers don't add up, since the only plan that he has is to tax "millionaires and billionaires", which I reject as class warfare, and to "invest" in more "shovel ready jobs", which has been proven to be a failure. Most of the other issues like the "war on women" to me are just shiny things to distratct the uninformed. The fact that Libya has entered the discussion is a horse of a different color, since it has the potential (to me anyway and I know you don't agree) to be the kind of thing that *might* cause heads to roll.
Well one would hope others read their posts or otherwise why post? As you said some of the side issues are merely that side issues. But how you figure he reduces the deficit by reducing income is beyond me. If I want to reduce my debt I "increase" what I take in or pay out. I don't reduce my revenues. Like I said I don't like Mitt. If he wins I think I'll lose money in my portfolio. But then the market has not in recent years done well with a Republican. I think it's because they've lurched away from business building over the last twenty years into what I call "money churning". But we'll see.
I find your editorial point to be inconsistent...why would the moderator serve to try and save either of these candidates from themselves? Let them sink or swim on their own remarks...even if they ultimately turn out to be incorrect. Trust the wisdom of the electorate and ultimately the subsequent news analysis to allow us sort through it all.
In Cantabrigiano1's response to attaturk, he states:
"The transcripts of Obama at the Rose Garden press briefing DO NOT have any words from Obama's calling the Benghazi attack, "a terrorist event."
To allay his symptoms of "Romnesia," first Canta+ must:
1) Remove partisan blinders;
2) Remove ear plugs;
3) Engage brain cells (if possible).
Rack up the video and LISTEN to Obama in the Rose Garden the day after the Benghazi assault.
If you can't hear him clearly, put on ear phones and turn up the volume.
He states "no acts of terror" in one sentence.
In the sentence IMMEDIATELY following, he states the "Benghazi attack ..."
The statement is so plain vanilla in clear English that any second grader would get it.
What's the matter with the 50 percent of Americans who can't understand what is being said?
Failure to understand what President Obama is talking about leaves me aghast.
He grouped the Benghazi attack with all the plaguing attacks on embassies throughout the Middle East (I think there were 20 before the film imbroglio ended), almost all of which were directed at American embassies, in his description of "acts of terror".
There is no question that the Benghazi attack was the most deadly, since 4 of our own diplomats were slaughtered.
Does anybody know when the ban against pre-existing conditions for supposedly sensient adults kicks in?
Candy Crowley would have been ripped to pieces by her fellow journalists had she NOT fact-checked a blatant falsehood.
Moderators are professionals, not asked to function as inhuman robots.
And, I will add, Candy Crowley signed no such "agreement" as was negotiated by the candidates' campaign committees.
She was not restricted to mindlessness, nor should she have been.