Lots of people gave me flack for saying the debate was very poorly moderated. I say Candy was very biased, but let's just focus on one example. I want someone who loves Obama to explain why this wasn't an example of bias.
You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3ujxXuNgGs
An audience member asks: "President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?"
Romney speaks about Fast and Furious, a government program that put assault rifles into the hands of drug cartels. At 1:00 into the video, Obama says "Candy?" while Romney is speaking. Candy immediately cuts off Romney mid-sentence, and says:
"Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned."
That was not the question. Read for yourself, from the transcript.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/us/po … wanted=all
So, how is this unbiased? Fast and Furious is an embarrassment for Obama, and Candy ran interference on it, lying about what the question was.
I'm sure that I'm just imagining it though, right?
Jaxson, when does it stop? You don't like the polls when they do not go your way. When you lose a debate, you have a plethora of excuses. Because your man got caught with his britches down dows not mean that there is always some foul explanation other than poor preparation by the candidate. You certainly had no issues with Jim Lehrer in the first debate. You stop questioning the reliability of the polls, once things started going Romney's way after the debate.
You know what all this looks like.
So, you can't speak to the facts? You can't respond to anything I said?
I did have a problem with the first debate. It was bad, Obama ended up with 4 minutes more of speaking time, and the moderator kept trying to give Obama more rounds to talk on each subject than Romney.
Don't spew crap like that. I made specific arguments. So you should be able to explain them, or accept them.
What I described happened. You can watch it. You can read the transcript,
Come on. Man up and address the facts I posted.
Several people already have on several threads. Romney lost his own time (in the last bracket) by constantly interrupting which held up the whole debate but he got his comments in where he wanted them so it worked out to his benefit, he interrupted the moderator endlessly which is not allowed and thus made it impossible to know how the moderator would have run the debate if Romney had actually allowed him to.
Time spoken is not the important factor in a debate the important factor is getting in your statement at the right time which Romney did usually by interrupting the moderator.
But no one much complained, and Romney won, now that Obama won a debate it's nothing but whining about how unfair the world is to conservatives.
As soon as anything goes bad for conservatives the first thing they do is cry bias, the media is biased (even though economics, psychology and logic says this is largely impossible), fact check and snopes are biased even though they are reliable and have received a multitude of awards for journalistic integrity, the polls are biased (that mysteriously shut up when the polls got equal) BOTH the moderators chosen by a non partisan group were biased etc. etc.
Which debate are you talking about? In both, Obama was the one interrupting, and both moderators tried to give more segments to Obama.
You didn't address a thing I said. Why can;t you? Is it difficult to admit?
In the first debate who interrupted the moderator more? Romney robbed his own time by delaying the debate constantly.
The game is over. The players and referees have all left. The result is not going to be overturned.
Stop blaming the refs and get ready for the next game.
Hey Cody, how about you attempt to address what I posted?
You can't. It's fact. It happened.
Crowley cut off Romney and changed the subject. She lied about what the question was to try to move the subject from Fast and Furious(embarrassing for Obama) to the AWB that Romney signed(which very few people actually understand).
The FACT is Obama and Crowley were correct. Romney was off topic, dredging up the ridiculous "fast and furious" controversy instead of answering the question about his position on banning assault weapons.
The question wasn't about banning assault rifles!
Clearly you can't read Ralph. I quoted the question.
Just more delusion, although completely expected.
There you go again!
"Q: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?"
Ok, the original question was not about banning assault weapons. It was about "keeping AK 47s out of the hands of criminals" and what the Obama administration has done to "limit the availability of assault weapons."
You win, Jaxon, at least in your own twisted little mind.
Wow, that's amazing Ralph. I correct you, and you respond by admitting I'm right while simultaneously attacking me?
Classy Ralph. Classy.
You missed my sarcasm. THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S FAILURE TO DO ANYTHING TO BAN OR LIMIT ASSAULT WEAPONS. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH "FAST AND FURIOUS" WHICH ROMNEY ATTEMPTED TO INJECT INTO THE DISCUSSION ON WHICH CROWLEY PROPERLY CALLED HIM.
No, the original question was not specifically about banning guns. It was about keeping them out of the hands of criminals. Those are not the same thing.
Certainly, a ban on assault rifles would fall under the scope of the question.
However, mentioning a government program that gave assault rifles to criminals also falls under the scope of the question.
Don't walk back on your previous post Ralph. You were wrong, it wasn't about banning guns.
Your bias always precedes your logic. When it comes to debating a point you go to extremes to far to be believed and thus begin reading meaning into everything to defend your opionion. It is a shame as you are well read and versed in many topics but bely your abilities with your subjectivity of topics.
Just say you dislike Obama and everything he has and hasn't done based on your understanding of his liberal socialistic slant on things. I and everyone else on Hub Pages can better relate to you and respond to factual and not your conjered up reasoning.
Yet another response that doesn't address a thing I said.
Does anybody here want to pretend that Crowley didn't cut of Romney? If so, say it.
Does anybody here want to pretend that Crowley didn't change the subject? If so, say it.
I love how people say I'm being biased and not being logical, when my argument is simply showing what happened, using QUOTES and a VIDEO of it happening, that can be verified by anyone... yet I'm called biased or illogical, using arguments that don't even attempt to rebut what I've presented.
Sorry, logic doesn't work that way. You can't say 'you're not being logical' and that makes it true.
If you were not so blinded by your own bias you might have noticed that Romney was allowed to come back several times after Obama was done with his answers. After awhile Obama started doing the same thing as he did not want Romney always getting the second and third responses as he did in the first debate. Besides towards the end Romney kept morfing all his answers into his talking points and in some blatantly did not even address the question. Crowley was at least trying to chorale them both towards addressing the question and consequently the voter in mind. You are so blinded by your dislike for Obama and are looking for any talking point you can make. The interuption by Crowley to put the record straight with the terror in Libya debacle for Romney was a gasp of frustration I am sure as to all the crap coming out of Romneys' mouth.
Romneys' campaign is like "The Field of Dreams". If you promise it, it will happen. Typical slimebag politician crap. Lots of promises and no details.
So, can I just assume you're never going to address the first post I made?
Obama got more talking segments than Romney. Go count them, don't pretend that Romney got more.
In the first debate, the moderator kept trying to give OBAMA more responses for each question than Romney. Romney didn't steal extras, he stole an equal amount. HUGE difference.
"Crowley was at least trying to chorale them both towards addressing the question and consequently the voter in mind."
NO! How can you say that? It's blatantly wrong. Crowley CHANGED THE QUESTION, drawing attention away from Fast and Furious. Romney was answering the question, and she changed it to 'the guns that used to be banned but no longer are'. That wasn't the question. Go watch it or read the transcript.
But, you will likely NEVER admit that. You have IGNORED the simple FACTS(sourced facts, with both transcript and video) that I included in my first post.
You are the one showing your bias. Everything in my first post is fact. You can read it. You can watch it. You can verify it. You just come back with lies and attacks.
Come on rhamson. Man up and address what I actually posted. How do you claim she was bringing Romney back on-topic, when she changed the topic away from what the audience member asked?
Who could possibly reason with you and your blind hatred. You can't even read the answer I wrote. I don't know why you carry on like this as you only fool yourself with your bias. I said that she interupted both after answers were made and both wanted to get the final word in.
I am sorry you waste your talents with such misguided passion.
I've read everything you wrote. You haven't addressed any of the facts I presented.
So, come on. Let's make this simple.
Can you, or can you not admit, that Crowley lied when she said "Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned."
Yes or no. Was that what the question was, or wasn't it?
Show me YOUR objectivity by answering that question, without deflecting to anything else. Can you?
Okay, make your point. Yes she said that and many other points of order as both Romney and Obama got off point. She said from the beginning in many interviews prior to the debate that she would interupt either candidate if they started to rant or make talking points off subject. Can you admit that in some questions Romney did not even address the question. How about the "Binder" moment when asked what he would do to provide equal pay for women. Binders full of women? How did that address the question.
So please now make your little point of how the big bad Candy Crowley dissed Romney and favored the big bad Obama.
I'm confused, are you saying that yes, she was wrong, or that she was bringing Romney back to the topic?
She was trying to bring Romney back to topic.
The question was
"President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?"
Romney was talking about a government program that put assault weapons in the hands of criminals.
Crowley said "Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned."
So, are you saying Crowley was right about what the question was? Because you can read the question, and what Crowley said it was, and see that they aren't the same thing.
How can you continue to deny VERIFIABLE FACT like this? SHE CHANGED THE TOPIC
And for some odd reason you thought she was talking about Fast and Furious? She was trying to bring him back on the topic of assault weapons in the hands of sickos like the shooter in Colorado. That was the topic. I don't see what the lie was. As usual Romney wanted to pivot the question to his advantage. She put him back on topic.
The question was about keeping assault rifles out of the hands of criminals.
Crowley said it was about assault rifles that had been banned, but no longer are.
Quote me, please, where in the question the audience member asked about the expired Assault Weapons Ban?
You're deluding yourself. Fast and Furious is related to the question.
It is exactly on topic and if you can't see it I can't help you. Once again you reading your hate and bias into a subject to compromise someone else. Really is that all you have.
You are unbelievable!
How can you argue with a video, and a quote from a transcript?
The question was about what Obama's administration had done to limit the availability of assault rifles.
Crowley said the question was about the expired assault weapons ban.
How can you say that Crowley was right?
I swear, you're acting as bad as Ralph. If you are SO CERTAIN, then MAN UP and QUOTE from the questions where the audience member mentioned the assault weapons ban.
YOU CANT DO IT. THAT WASNT THE QUESTION.
Sorry, I'm done. You are staring at irrefutable evidence and saying 'nu-uh!'.
You have paraphrased the whole thing so I must also say unbelievable and bid you adieu.
No. I quoted from the transcript, both what the question was, and what Crowley said the question was.
I have linked the transcript before, you can check yourself. What I posted were direct quotes.
I'm still waiting for you to man up. Either quote what part of the question had to do with the expired assault weapons ban, or admit that Crowley changed the subject.
Also, Crowley was wrong in her correction. Obama didn't call the attack a terrorist attack in his speech. He specifically referenced the video.
Again, it's painful, but it's also verifiable fact, which you can't accept.
If she is not biased, she is completely incompetent or too much of a dullard to remember her own statements!
BLITZER: Our chief political correspondent Candy Crowley, the anchor of CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION" is here to follow-up on what we just heard from the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King. He's calling on the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Candy, Susan Rice, to resign because of what she said on your show and four other Sunday talk shows when she suggested based on the information she had at that time this was just reaction to that 14-minute anti-Muslim trailer as opposed to an organized al Qaeda- related terror attack. You interviewed her that day.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It is true that this was who the administration wanted to put out. The fact that she appeared on so many shows tells you exactly how this rolls. They say here's who we're going to put out. It is interesting to me that they did not put out the head of the National Security Council. It's interesting to me they didn't put out someone who was sort of in touch with the intelligence information. Now, we're assuming that probably the U.N. -- our U.N. ambassador, the U.S., U.N. ambassador does have some access to some of the intelligence information. But she was clearly going on what those departments told her because they put her out. This was -- she didn't voluntarily come on these shows.
This is what the administration wanted to have out there. Now, whether or not it's her fault certainly is sometimes in Washington it doesn't matter whose fault it is, she was the public face of this response. The question I think too is what you asked and Peter King wouldn't play, but the idea is why would you be so adamant? When most people look and said, well of course it's a terrorist attack. I mean, they had you know large weaponry. It's not something you bring to a protest. And now we're finding out there might not even have been a protest at the time this attack took place. So I think there are lots of questions to be answered here that the administration is going to have to talk about.
And what went on in Libya, what we know about it, when we knew about it, all that kind of thing. Whether or not Susan Rice is the person that needs to be fired, I can pretty much guarantee you the president won't do that. But whether or not she's responsible I think is an open question.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … om.02.html
"So I think there are lots of questions to be answered here that the administration is going to have to talk about."
She admits there are questions that need to be answered, as long as the questions are not asked of Obama in a debate she is moderating!
Whether she was in bed with the Obama Campaign, and they planned that together or not... one thing is for sure, she was ready to toss it out there.
A) No one had ever claimed Obama said that was a terrorist attack BEFORE she did so at that moment... never once saw Obama or anyone else say he called it that on the news (and I've been watching a lot of it lately).
B) Obama himself went out of his way on the View, just days prior, to make sure not to call it a terrorist attack...
Yet wala!!! There was Crowley with the EXACT quote, ready to defend Obama!
America... are you really as stupid as they THINK you are???
Crowley was in bed with the Obama Campaign, and they planned that whole 'terror' moment together.
Romney's eyebrows shot up, he was incredulous, almost shocked by Obama's statement and cavalier laid back responses...ONLY a person who KNOWS what is about to happen reacts like Obama did, that confidently, that smugly, that certain that even as he projects his lie, it is about to be backed up.
And then boom... there was Crowley waiving around a piece of paper saying "Yes, he did say that, he did call it an act of terror"... total misdirection from the meaning and intent , and totally taken out of context.
It was nothing, if not obvious, that she supported Obama.
You apparently didn't notice the times Crowley cut Obama off when he got off the track.
Yeah she cut off Romney 28 times in that debate, Obama 9 times, that was balanced all right. She stepped in and said Obama was right on two points, and not once for Romney, that was fair.
I have to laugh! Romney won the first debate,he interrupted, yet was acknowledged as the winner. Nothing was said by Republicans about his actions. Then you lose and you go wild saying "foul". Give it a rest. He won one and lost one. Oh well, can't change the outcome now can we? Neither side cant!
Obama interrupted Romney at least 6 times more in the first debate than Romney interrupted Obama.
It is what it is, can't change the outcome. Again, 1 Romney and 1 Obama.
Ha! Romney was apparently off base 19 more times than Obama!
You are so predictable and funny, and without a doubt Candy Crowley was predictably biased in the interests of puffing up her place in history, no surprise there,sadly it will be a dark note in history, her intervention attempts will be seen darkly down the road, no matter the outcome of this race for leadership, and she's not so entertaining as you! in conveying her deepest opionions......... just an old and dusty pushy broad acting predictably.......
As I've said, I think Crowley was fair overall. I didn't like her behavior in the point Jax made. My hubby is much more conservative than I am, and he pointed out something to me tonight that I hadn't thought about or really noticed. During the argument about Libya, Obama said something like, "Read the transcript, Candy." And she read something from some papers. Why did she just happen to have a transcript of the speech, and how did Obama know she had it?
That would be interesting to know. Maybe she knew it was going to be a hot-button issue so she brought materials just in case?
Yeah, I considered that. Or maybe Obama was telling Mitt to read the transcript? Maybe Obama didn't say, "Read the transcript, Candy." Maybe he said, "Read the transcript," meaning for Romney to read it. I can't remember, and I don't really care enough to watch the debate again. lol
Crowley had facts in front of her about all of the issues because she was the one who chose the questions, and therefore prepared her facts ahead of time. It's no big deal.
It IS when you put it in context... that comment was an obscure reference to the attacks on 9/11/01 ... NOT on about the attacks in Libya... at best it was a general all around statement, again, not specific to Libya.
The for TWO WEEKS he denied that it was a terrorist attack, and they spent two weeks saying either it was under investigation, or due to a youtube video.
And then for this debate... Obama references that particular quote, and Crowley happens to have that quote (knowing full well it did NOT support Obama's claim that he has always called it a Terrorist Attack)... it was made for TV drama, and Romney got hammered with that pre-planned falsehood.
I've not said anything up till now about the debate, but I have been reading everything on here.
My husband and I watched the debate...I admit to not really wanting to, because I didn't necessarily care for either of the candidates. But, as an Independent I need to keep up with all of this, so I can try to make an informed decision on the day of the election.
For the most part, I agree with Jaxson. Candy Crowley seemed to follow the president's lead on several occasions. It just seemed so obvious that I don't understand how others are refusing to believe it happened. My husband and I looked at each other a couple of times in surprise, both of us commenting on how Obama almost seemed to be running to Candy to rescue him. Or, he'd agree with her about keeping to topic when Romney asked him something that he really didn't want to answer.
Obama also didn't answer some of the questions that were directly asked of him by the people. The Libya questions at the end was the main one, I suppose.
Honestly, I liked Romney's attitude and answers better than Obama's, but I'm old enough to know that just because you like what they're saying and promising right now, that does not mean that you will necessarily be seeing those promises fulfilled once they are elected...
I still haven't decided who I'm voting for...
Thanks for being objective... usually if you objectively say something against a candidate, those who support him will just start attacking you for being biased, or whining, or something like that.
I know it stinks that we can't trust our politicians, but to me, we have a POTUS with no record to run on(after being elected without having a record to run on), and we have a man who has a good record in the private industry, and as governor.
You place a lot of confidence in the smoke and mirrors this guy is throwing out there. You forget he is just another politician looking to get a job that weilds a lot of power and wealth. All these slimebags let everybody down. Romneys' base argument comes down to trust and that is where the whole mess breaks down. Why is it if he has been so successful that he only carries 20% of the vote in Massachusetts. Talk to the people up there. They don't trust him and don't want him as president.
Those posting here should pay attention to this little piece of information: A few years ago we had a guy running for Governor in the state of Florida. He spent 70 million dollars of his own money and bought the election with it, but only be a few votes. He ran on the idea that he was a successful businessman who knew how to save our economy and would bring 7 million jobs to Florida. Since he's been in office, he's cut 1 million state workers from the budget, increased pension contributions for state workers, refused stimulus help, refused to approve a cross state rapid rail system and refused to support Obamacare, thus leaving tens of thousands of people without the Medicaid assistance they so badly need. His approval rating, the last time I looked, was something like 26. Oh...one more thing...he was involved, prior to taking office, in the largest Medicare fraud in history and had to pay something like 170 million dollars in fines for it. Let me repeat this: THIS is the guy (yes, a Republican who is good friends with Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney) who ran on the promise of fixing Florida's economy, creating millions of jobs...all because he was a successful businessman (aka crook) who "knew" how to get the job done. Sound like anybody you guys know??
Sorry rhamson, unless you admit Crowley lied, you are showing your own bias.
Read the transcript. Watch the debate. She lied about what the question was.
If Obama said the sky was green, you would believe him.
I'm biased against Obama and I can say without a doubt that neither one of them won! Romney had opportunities to win but let Obama get in his head. Obama is a punk who will lose this election and I believe he is happy about that, he was and is in way over his head, no game what so ever!
Oh yeah, Obama couldn't win even with the moderators assistance.
Seriously rhamson, it's getting old. Either run away and quit posting in this thread, or show me how
"President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?"
"Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned."
Obviously you still don't get it. The original question was about the assault rifle ban which Romney as usual went off topic to pivot onto the Fast and Furious debacle for his own talking point. The question by the audience member was exactly related to the mass shootings that have been going on for the last few years and what Obama was going to do about it. In truth Obama did not offer up an answer to the question but did offer his condolences to the families of the victims. Romney however spun it into a Fast and Furious talking point to which Crowley tried to reign him in and put him back on the subject. Your video evidence does not even address this point but picks it up from a point past the question and Obamas answer. Really you have to get a grip on your bias and not allow it to shield you from the truth. I am done with this topic with you, you have not proven anything other than your bias and distain for the truth when it comes to furthering that bias.
How was the original question about the assault rifle ban? The audience member didn't say anything about it?
You're being ridiculous. I've QUOTED the original question for you. It wasn't about the ban. How can you sit there and look at X and say 'No, that's not X, that's Y!'
I'll do this one more time.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/us/po … l&_r=0
Go check it yourself. If I'm wrong, THEN QUOTE WHAT THE ACTUAL QUESTION WAS!
It's nothing less than pathetic for you to sit there and say I'm biased and have disdain for the truth, when you can't even admit what the question was.
Come on! I'm calling you out. Quote the question. I already bolded it for you.
Can you read and understand? The president addressed the question about assault rifles. Romney went on about Fast and Furious. Crowley brought it back to the subject and not the Fast and Furious message Romney wanted to get across. It is as plain as the nose on your face. What about this can't you comprehend?
I am sorry but you need to chill and maybe take a course in reading comprehension but I am soooooooooooooooo done on this and You. I tried to reason with you in the past but everytime all I get is rhetoric and slanted reasoning.
Good day sir!
QUOTE THE QUESTION THE AUDIENCE MEMBER ASKED
You are the one who can't understand. The question didn't specifically mention mass shootings, or an assault weapons ban. QUOTE THE QUESTION.
I want to see if you can accept reality. QUOTE THE QUESTION.
Just put it in the next post. QUOTE THE QUESTION.
I do feel sorry for you as you cannot follow the line of questioning or the gist of the answer Obama gave. Just as Romney you couldn't or wouldn't because he wanted not to address the President but instead twisted it to make his political talking point and therefore try and put the president in a bad light.
The question was related to the theater shootings as the president addressed and you can't see it any other way. I am done. Accuse all you wish but the fact still remains that the audience and Crowley thought the same as I, and Crowley only tried to get it back on topic.
Sorry you have proved nothing but your belligerance to only discredit the moderator and not see anything negative with the Romney pivot which directly goes back to my assertion that your bias clouds your objectivity and understanding of the topic.
I will not conjugate the sentences of your transcript as you should be able to follow the series of events and are obviously caught up in some witch hunt that belies the statements.
Really? THEN QUOTE THE QUESTION AND TELL ME WHICH WORDS WERE TALKING ABOUT THE THEATER SHOOTINGS.
You are hillarious rhamson.
Yup... I have proved nothing. By quoting the question that was asked, I have failed to prove that the question that was asked was the question that was asked.
You, on the other hand, in refusing to even attempt to quote the question, have proven that the question asked was different than the question that was asked.
Have I denied even once the question quoted that you have referenced? The fact that you wish to strictly repeat the words of the question over and over again in no way reference Obamas answer or understanding of the question nor the conversation that ensued from it as Obama was asked the question first. Instead you continue to rant on about the redirection Crowley made as totally different than what was asked and answered by Obama as she was only trying to get the two to engage on the same topic as you would in any typical debate. The fact that the question could have meant Fast and Furious or mass domestic shootings means nothing as Obama addressed the question as he understood it to be towards the mass shootings. Romney got his answer time that he filled up with Fast and Furious comments to pivot the question his way. All Crowley did was try to get Romney to debate that which Obama had stated with regards to the question.
This is not rocket science but basic debate etiquette.
I don't see how we could be flagged as we have carried ourselves with respect and decorum throughout this topic.
Obama's response doesn't change the question.
The question was about what Obama had done to keep assault rifles out of the hands of criminals. Mass shootings are relevant to the question. An assault weapons ban would be relevant to the question. Fast and Furious(a program that PUT ASSAULT RIFLES IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS is relevant to the question.
You simply cannot say that Crowley's claim that the question was about an expired assault weapons ban is true. It wasn't. The question didn't specifically mention the assault weapon ban, in any form.
Romney was on topic, but F&F is an embarrassing topic for Obama... Mr. Transparency, hiding the AG behind executive privilege, while he is in contempt of Congress.
Obama can address the question from the aspect of mass shootings, but that doesn't mean Romney has to only focus on mass shootings. Crowley tried to change the topic, there are no two ways about it.
The worst part is, as you can see in the video... Obama said 'Candy?' and she immediately cut of Romney... She was playing interference, it can't really be denied.(Well, you can deny it, but anyone who looks at it objectively can see what happened).
Finally we have some agreement! The question could have been seen either way but I still insist that Crowley redirected as was her job as the moderator to make the debaters engage each other and not go off on their own political point pivoting.
If Romney was a little more astute he could have declared a point of order within the context of Crowley's interjection and maybe he would have had her explain the basis of her redirect and then engage Obama on the Fast and Furious issue he wished to present. But he did a right turn right after Obamas non-answer with a rant totally opposite to the question Obama understood it to be on a mass shooting basis and Crowley went the way that Obama answered the question trying to get Romney to engage the answer Obama gave..
I don't see how it could have been understood any other way on Crowleys' part.
Crowley didn't say 'Governor, would you like to address what President Obama said?'
She cut him off, and said 'The question was about these guns that once were banned and are no longer banned'.
That's just a lie. She tried to draw Romney as being off topic, but he wasn't. She LIED about the question, where she had no reason to(she has the questions in front of her).
That's the whole point of a debate. There is a topic, and BOTH candidates get to address that topic as they see fit. There is no way to say Romney was off-topic, it wasn't his job to respond to what Obama said, it was his job to respond to the question.
Don't like the results.
Scapegoat the moderator.
Ok. I'll play.
Jim Lehrer wasn't biased. Prove it.
No. He was simply ineffective.
Romney tried to treat Candy Crawley in the same rude, dismissive way he treated Lehrer. She was prepared for his bullshit and wasn't having any of it.
Having to tell the governor to sit down -- Have you ever before seen a presidential debate where one of the candidates was told to sit his ass down? I sure haven't.
I suppose she's biased because she didn't tell Obama to sit down, too?
As to the AK47s question, what the heck does Fast and Furious have to do with gang bangers in South Central? Not a damned thing. Excuse the pun, but wasn't that investigation found to be yet another Republican smoking gun?
It's not Candy's fault or the president's fault that Romney's answer on this question was incoherent, off topic and frankly insulting to single parents.
1 - Yes, exactly. Telling Romney to sit down, but it's perfectly fine for Obama to stand up during Romney's two minutes and interrupt him on multiple occasions. I was watching on CNN, after they both answered one question near the end, Obama was up 5:30 over Romney, she wasn't even trying to give equal time. She kept giving Obama more segments in each question.
2 - First off, the question wasn't about gang bangers. The question was what the administration had done to limit the availability of assault rifles. A program that put assault rifles into the hands of criminals is on topic. The main point here is that Crowley lied. She had the questions in front of her, but she lied about what the question was, Check the transcript.
3 - Fast and Furious... Obama, Mr. Transparency, has invoked executive privilege to prevent any investigations from going further. Why do you think he would do that? Why do you think he would say 'No, you can't talk to this guy, and you can't see those documents.'?
Ok, you win.
Candy Crawley is a liar.
She is biased.
She is fat (or the exact term used by one of our illustrious female hubbers, I believe, was "lardass").
She did a horrible job moderating the debate.
If she wasn't a girl, Tagg Romney would probably want to take a swing at her.
She is disgraced.
She should be fired immediately from CNN.
She has cooties and her mother wears army boots.
She was biased, she did hinder Romney from making points, and more than once outright said Obama was right.
It wasn't HER place to do so... she wasn't supposed to be arguing anything on Obama's behalf, yet she did so, repeatedly.
That is bias... that is showing preferential treatment... and Obama on top of everything else, had more than 5 minutes extra to babble on.
Perhaps had Romney answered the questions, this wouldn't have happened. Instead he tried attack mode, which was successful for him in the first debate.
Mute points, he lost and won one. Maybe limbaugh would have been a better pick? lol
No, he was answering the question to Obama.
He was not answering for himself. He was basically usurping Obama's answer by talking about what Obama did or didn't do.
Which is why Crawley called him on it and insisted he talk about his own experience and plans related to assault weapons.
MM, that's how it works!
A member asks a question, and both candidates respond to the question. It's perfectly valid to talk about Obama's actions related to assault weapons, because that was the question.
If he wants to focus on his policy, he can do that too, but he isn't limited to that.
The question was about OBAMA'S policies and actions, so F&F is MORE relevant than Romney's policies.
I'm done. Not responding to this thread anymore. NO honesty from the left on this.
So now you're making up a new ad hoc debate format?
The primary question goes to Governor Romney.
Governor Romney talks about his experience/plans.
Then it's President Obama's turn.
He, too, talks about Governor Romney's experience and plans.
The primary question goes to President Obama.
Obama answers the question.
Romney comments on Obama's record on that question.
Taking the other guy's words and attacking them while not talking about your own experience and plans?
That's not a debate. That's a commentary.
Or an ad.
Obviously you have never been in a debate or had to moderate a meeting with Roberts rules of Order or you would know that as the chair or moderator you are under the obligation to keep the engagement between the two parties on topic. That is what both parties agree to when they accept the challenge.
If you wish to continue claiming Crowley lied in her redirect it just does not wash with accepted rules that govern debate or meeting techniqes.
I think that in order for each of us to move on we shall have to agree to disagree.
Thank you for the conversation.
If we say Willard Romney wins a debate, you throw it in our faces. If we say Willard Romney lost the debate, you say it was unfair. Nothing but a bunch of sore winners and sore losers!
So, are you saying that Obama didn't get more time?
Are you saying that the moderator didn't interrupt Romney to influence the outcome of the debate?
Are you saying that the moderator didn't lie about what the assault weapon question was?
Or, do you just prefer to post without making any arguments, or addressing any of my arguments?
Frankly, I'm getting tired. There is so much dishonesty in this forum.
I quoted the question the audience member asked. I quoted what Crowley said the question was. They are different. Anybody who reads both of them can see that.
But here, we have people looking a blue stick and saying 'no, that's a green stick'...
It's disheartening, because that is the core of American politics. Your guy is right, the other guy is wrong. Verifiable facts are ignored, or challenged.
I'm tired of arguing with people who won't be honest with themselves.
There is no lie apparent in anything Candy Crawley said.
The question was:
President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?
Obama gave his answer.
Romney gave his answer but started going off on Fast and Furious.
Crawley attempted to get him back focused on legislation surrounding assualt weapons.
Here is what she said:
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts. Obviously with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that? Given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings, why is it that you’ve changed your mind?
Did she repeat verbatim what the original questioner had asked? NO
Did she say anything here that that is incorrect?
The topic of the question is assault weapons.
Which had been banned as of 1993 but that legislation expired.
She added a "phrase" modifying the words "assault weapons" to help frame for the audience that yes, these weapons had once been banned at the federal level and now are not.
Why might she do this?
Because, as it turns out (and it clear in her redirect), Mr. Romney has a history with assault weapons legislation in MA.
So is it not logical, is it not appropriate, for the moderator of the debate to ask Mr. Romney if his position on assault weapons as president would be the same or different from his positions on assault weapons as governor?
I think that's very relevant, given major discrepancies between his prior positions (for example) on Romneycare and women's right to choose, which now have changed.
There is no LIE here. She did not lie.
She's asking for a simple yes or no answer, which is in direct response to the original question!
What would you do, Governor Romney, to limit the availability of assault weapons?
Would you do as you did in MA... or would you not?
Romney's accusing Obama of "petty attacks and silly word games."
Between this and "terrorist attacks vs. acts or terror" we could say the same thing about the GOP.
Semantics ends up going round and round and getting nowhere.
See MM, here is where you start playing the partisan game.
Fast and Furious IS related to the original question. It is NOT off topic. The member asked what Obama had done to keep assault rifles out of the hands of criminals. Why is a government program that gave assault rifles to criminals off topic?
Right she injected into the debate questions not quite related to what was asked, like you just pointed out above. So why didn't she redirect those questions to ask about F&F rather than direct Romney away from it?
Why did she support Obama stating he had always said it was a terrorist attack when anyone who paid any attention at all, KNOWS he avoided calling it that for two weeks, his whole staff did.
What he was referencing was a statement the day after 9/11 about what occurred on 9/11/01... why didn't she put Obama in check for being deceitful rather than hammer Romney with "yes, he did say that"
Because she was biased... because she aiding Obama.
It was directly related to what was asked. She clarified the question is all.
On the Libya tempest in a teapot.
She basically gave a split decision on that.
She pointed out that Obama used the words "acts of terror" in his Rose Garden speech on September 12.
How could anyone think he was only talking about what happened on 9/11/01?
This wasn't a 9/11 anniversary event.
The one and only reason he was in the Rose Garden at all making this address to the American people was because of what happened the night before in Benghazi.
As it happens, the most recent report from the intelligence community seems to refute the idea of a premeditated attack specifically tied to 9/11.
Yes, it was definitely an attack.
Yes, it was perpetrated by terrorists.
Was it, in fact, a "terrorist attack"?
I would appreciate anyone who can provide a universally accepted GOVERNMENT definition of "TERRORIST ATTACK." Assuming said officially sanctioned definition fits 100% with what occurred the night of 9/11/12 at the consulate in Benghazi, I will be happy to reconsider my position.
Crowley has long since drank the Kool-Aid literally by the gallons. Her actions were predictable from the moment that she was named as moderator. There is no basis for having a media personality as a moderator. Let's face it the press has been on a "Hollywood" ego hunt ever since the fame and recognition was garnered by the outing of Watergate. The outcome of this particular format was nothing less than a pile of hanging chads. Accusations are insinuated but there is no time for response because we have to move on. Why worry about covering ground if there is no substance in the ground that is covered? One moves forward in the interest of time and leaves whatever impression is in place based on the last person allowed to speak. Then, we score the debate as if it is some kind of college competition giving the win to Obama on the basis of points and the win to Romney on style. Pleasssssse! This is a useless process to the America voter in its present format. It is nothing short of a media circus side-show doing more to sell soap than providing the listening audience with knowledge. Crowley's behavior demonstrated very effectively that was ready to put Romney down for the count if the opportunity arose and it did. The previous moderator chose to pin Romney down with a question of what he was immediately going to do for out of work people as President and then turned to Obama and tossed him a softball with, "Mr. President, is it not true that $4 per gallon gasoline is the new NORM? What? Why not just pedaled the suggestion that Obama is not to blame for high gas prices....it's the new norm! This is nothing but a left leaning media performing at their trashy best to convince the American public that Obama is still the savior regardless of what their eyes, their ears, and their brain can tell them. ~WB
Ralph, just go look at what you did.
You said the question was about banning Assault Rifles.
Then you posted the question, and admitted that it wasn't.
Then you got right back on Romney for not answering the question about banning assault rifles.
Romney's answer was in no way responsive to the young woman's question. And Obama's response wasn't much better. Both of them danced around the question and failed to give her a direct answer. We used to call that a "trip around the world."
How is talking about a government program that put assault rifles into the hands of criminals 'in no way responsive' to a question about keeping assault rifles out of the hands of criminals?
Let's use an analogy.
Q: President Obama, what has your administration done to prevent people from entering this country illegally?
A: President Obama's administration drove 1000 immigrants across the border into the US.
See how that is relevant?
Never fails Ralph.
When you can't construct an argument, just leave.
Bye bye. Next time try to have a little integrity please.
You accuse just about everyone who disagrees with you with lying or lacking integrity. Try looking in a mirror! I keep telling myself that I'm a fool for attempting to discuss anything with you.
Let's look at this another way.
The original question, address FIRST to President Obama, was to ask him what he had done or planned to do to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals.
This is a multiple part question.
1. What have you DONE?
2. What do you plan to DO?
3. What options are available to keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?
4. How are we defining criminals? Certainly drug lords in Mexico qualify. But so to mentally ill people (Gabby Giffords, Aurora). So do teens who go into their schools and mow down their classmates and teachers. So do gang members.
Obama had several ways he could answer the question, all basically ending up with "This is not a topic I want to address because it's politically loaded and basically a no-win."
Ok, he gave his dance around it answer.
Now, when it was Romney's turn, he chose to interpret the question literally. As in, "What has President Obama done (or not done) to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals?"
But the format of the debate, and the purpose of the debate, is for each candidate to present their OWN plans or experience on a given topic.
Crawley let Romney slam Obama on Fast and Furious for awhile.
ultimately her JOB was to get Romney to present his OWN plans and experience on the subject.
Which, as I pointed out in my post last night, is very relevant. As the audience deserves to know that Mr. Romney actually DID something to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals.
He had the opportunity to score bigtime on Obama on this question. He could have touted his record. He could have made the questioner really, really happy. Yay! Here's a candidate who is serious about an issue I care about.
So instead of seeing this as some conspiracy, instead of accusing the moderator of lying, could you at least consider that she was, in fact, handing Romney a GIFT here?
The glass has 50% water in it. It can be viewed as half full, or as half empty.
Romney being able to point out Obama's failures is ABSOLUTELY part of the scope of the debate.
It's not just about talking about your own plans.
Crowley lied about the question. That's not up for debate. There was a question, Crowley said something else.
by Susan Reid4 years ago
This is from FORBES. I am posting the whole article for your consideration:In tonight’s debate we saw a transformed Barack Obama, and it made a very big difference. In the first debate Governor Mitt Romney was relaxed...
by Holle Abee4 years ago
Finally - something both camps agree on. Apparently, no one bothered to tell Candy Crowley about the agreement made between Obama, Romney, and the debate commission.http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/mode …...
by JaxsonRaine4 years ago
Habee got the jump on the debate last time. This time, it's my turn.I predict that Obama is going to end up with 4 minutes more speaking time. Liberals will complain that Romney was rude, interrupted Obama, and bullied...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
I do not feel anger, contempt or scorn. I do feel pride, but not what I believe this article is talking about (e.g., egotistical, self pride).If that is what you value, your choice for president is clear.Vote for Mitt...
by Holle Abee4 years ago
Just thought I'd get a jump on the MSM. Many right-leaning reporters are already saying if Obama shows up tonight, the left will declare him as the ultimate, supreme, audacious, awesome, comeback winner. lol
by k12rswow4 years ago
When Romney caught Obama regarding "a terrorist act in Benghazi" and then pointed out the White House didn't make that known for 2 weeks.Tomorrows headlines will be buzzing.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.