Video: Who’s up for a focus-group shoutfest about Candy Crowley’s debate moderation?

posted at 10:13 pm on October 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

Video fun to help wind down the day after. It starts slow but perks up about halfway through. True story: An apolitical friend surprised me today by launching into a two-pronged tirade about the debate. Prong one was him insisting that when O got snotty with Romney about his Benghazi accusations, he came off like a — well, let’s say jerk, although “jerk” wasn’t the word he used. Prong two was him asking me, as a political junkie, to explain how Candy Crowley could have interjected on O’s behalf during the Libya exchange when the moderator’s supposed to be passive and impartial. I didn’t know what to tell him, except to reassure him that Candy herself used to think the White House’s spin about “acts of terror” was lame, and that Obama had all but admitted to an audience member afterward that, yeah, the Rose Garden statement didn’t mean a whole lot. But hey — she wanted a bigger role in the debate and the left wanted more “fact-checking” of Romney since the only reason he won that first debate was because he’s a lying liar who lies, you know, so she chimed in at an opportune moment on their candidate’s behalf. CNN sounds pretty happy about it, which is what’s really important.

Anyway, those are the results of my new poll of undecided voters about the debate. Sample size: One. Exit quotation: “Crowley did her profession a disservice last night and confirmed many American’s deepest suspicions about the media in the process.”



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Dang, some people are stoooopid. I can’t believe the excuses some of these people made for Crowley/Obama. It’s like facts don’t even matter.

SAZMD on October 17, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Some of them were leftists. So, yes, exactly.

tom on October 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM

I think Crowley did an embarrasingly awful job.

But please; can’t we be grown up enough to not make fun of her size?

pbundy on October 17, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Fat chance.

Doughboy on October 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Nice one, Doughboy. pbundy, hows about we talk about her chins; she has more of those than a Chinese phonebook – I mean, why waste time talking about her sham of being a professional journalist or her role as accomplice… I mean moderator. Those traits are so obvious…

ghostwalker1 on October 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM

I think Crowley did an embarrasingly awful job.

But please; can’t we be grown up enough to not make fun of her size?

pbundy on October 17, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Oh,….Stop your Blubber…ing.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on October 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM

How did Crowley know to have the Rose Garden transcript in front of her? How did Obama know she would have them to check?

John the Libertarian on October 17, 2012 at 10:58 PM

And the clincher: Why did Obama not even hesitate before saying, “Get the Transcript?” Is he usually so quick on his feet? If you’ve been watching the debates and seeing how long it takes him to answer a question, you know better.

When I first heard hints of collusion, it sounded like a conspiracy theory. Watching it live the first time, it looked plausible. But when you watch it again, you notice:

1) When he makes the claim that everyone immediately recognizes as false, that he identified the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism immediately, and Romney started to challenge him, Obama didn’t even look concerned that he might have made a mistake. He already knew how the whole thing was going to play out.

2) When Romney twice says, “Are you sure you want to claim that?” Obama still doesn’t look a bit worried. He tells Romney to “proceed.” Quite obviously, he knew what was coming and was anxious to finish it.

3) When Romney finally says outright that Obama did NOT identify it as an act of terror in the Rose Garden, Obama immediately says, “Get the transcript.” Obviously, he didn’t have to ask if the transcript was available. He knew it was right there waiting for him.

4) When Crowley reads from the transcript (out of context), Obama is immediately and smugly telling her to say it again. Obviously, he knew exactly what was coming.

Conclusion: Romney was sandbagged. And he was sandbagged because Crowley and Obama colluded.

At this point, it’s not just a conspiracy theory. It’s obvious.

tom on October 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Candy Crowey is a huge Obama fan!

Crowley is a big Obama supporter, but then again, she was big enough to admit she was wrong.

petunia on October 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Now we know who drank all the sugary kook aid!

petunia on October 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Kool aid… sorry.

Crowley was the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room and the elephant in the corner!

petunia on October 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

It seems odder still that she had the transcript at the ready, and Obama apparently knew it, too, since he asked her to check it. Almost as though it had been planned. And Michelle applauded when they pulled it off.

Midas on October 17, 2012 at 10:35 PM

I’ve been tweeting this all day! If you listen he turned to her and said read it candy. So how did he know she had it? Of course they conferred & it was obvious she was a shill 4 the chicago thug! I am SO SICK of the left msm doing all the debates! Was poor widdle 0 afwaid to debate with a real moderator? And then poor widdle 0′s wife had to make sure she led the clapping even though they had agreed not to clap. Did widdle candy say anything? Nope! Did she throw kisses to michelle?
You can see I’m digressing into a 3rd grader!

Sorry, this sounds co-ordinated between the President and Crowley. Honestly, it came off perfectly and it would seem that the President and his team had prior knowledge of Romney’s attack…weird that Crowley had the fact check in front of her!!!

allstonian on October 17, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Even though the fact check was wrong!

Then they ignore all of 0′s supporter’s death threats against Romney!

Bambi on October 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Ok.. there wasn’t a two faced lying leftb wing douchebag on that panel, who shouldn’t have been shaken like a rat.

“Romney has never been held to account for his lies”?

An actual educated human said that,.. when the entire media minus FOX has been desperately trying to shovel dirt on the grave of his candidacy since the start..

The idiot left on that panel were outraged, they got called out for rigging the debate..

again.. the left cheats..

always..

They can’t even have a friendly game of catch with their kids, without tripping them… and throwing elbows like the thugs they are..

I have a lot of democrat friends.. and not one single progg.. or far left liberal.. because they’re not the kind of people anyone can trust,.. rank and file democrats, get misinformed, lied too.. and haven’t learned yet how badly they’re exploited..

Hopefully with that demagogue Obama gone.. the democrats will be able to yank their party back towards the center,, and away from the lunatic left.

mark81150 on October 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

It’s a little sad that liberals think so lowly of their politicians, particularly their black ones, that they feel they have to constantly help, cheat, thumb the scales for, and tell lies in order to help out their fellow leftists. It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations. I mean, if a liberal politician was all that and a bag o’ chips, then there would be no need for all this help from the likes of Candy Crowley.

ted c on October 18, 2012 at 1:03 AM

The revealing part.. was Candy admitting she couldn’t stop herself..

Never knew a progressive who could control themselves, when they wanted something. Eternally 5 years old and unschooled in empathy of the thought of sharing, it’s all MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE…….

That is every progressive I ever met.

Stupid reckless want wrapped in attitude and conceit.. with a big red bow.. and if they can’t have it..

They’ll burn the house down during the night, then blame you.. it’s YOUR FAULT,.. you made them into wannabe killers by saying no… Scratch a progressive, there’s a radical Marxist or random sociopath underneath..

every

single

time.

mark81150 on October 18, 2012 at 1:07 AM

When I read the Transcript I see;

Obama refer to the Benghazi Attack as Outrageous, Shocking, Terrible, Brutal, and Senseless Violence.
He also refers to the Attackers as Killers and Attackers.

“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.”

Now let’s look at the Context of the only place in the transcript where the word terror shows up…

“Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn 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.”

So the context of the word terror is remembering back to Sept 11 2001, not September 11 2012.

jaydee_007 on October 18, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Well stated, Mr. McCullough! I wish you had been able to express more of your opinion, but you would have had to talk over the others; this we know is repulsive to a gentleman.

Speaking of gentleman: Romney is. Obama most certainly is not.

I give top jerk points to Joe and Barack.

Americans abhor jerks.

Obama is going down in November.

Sherman1864 on October 18, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Kelly is a closet lib/statist. Mary Katherine Ham Michelle Malkin would make a far better moderator.

nazo311 on October 17, 2012 at 10:21 PM

FTFY.

Vic on October 18, 2012 at 2:00 AM

I think several of us are jumping the gun here. It is my opinion that Romney was setting up Obama, not for that night, but for the NEXT debate, which focuses on foreign affairs. I think he was surprised that Obama would slip a noose over his neck, and Romney was just making sure there was a snug fit!

Just imagine what Romney can say NOW: “If you knew this was an act of terror, why the HELL did you continue on your campaign fundraisers? Why were you so evasive with UN, Univision and Joy Beher on your trip to The View? How could you even go on a show like that and shmooze after a terrorist attack?”

I think a GREAT article right now would be a comparison to how each President addressed their respective 9/11s…..!

Snitchmo on October 18, 2012 at 2:29 AM

Notice that Crowley claimed (at about 1:00 & 5:30) during her “fact check” that Obama had claimed it to be an “act of terror” in the Rose Garden, and then evolved the story to the YouTube video of the next 2 weeks or so … which is completely wrong.
Then she started to claim it the other way around on the day after, but it was still an “act of terror” or something.

J_Crater on October 18, 2012 at 2:44 AM

And the clincher: Why did Obama not even hesitate before saying, “Get the Transcript?” Is he usually so quick on his feet? If you’ve been watching the debates and seeing how long it takes him to answer a question, you know better.

When I first heard hints of collusion, it sounded like a conspiracy theory. Watching it live the first time, it looked plausible. But when you watch it again, you notice:

1) When he makes the claim that everyone immediately recognizes as false, that he identified the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism immediately, and Romney started to challenge him, Obama didn’t even look concerned that he might have made a mistake. He already knew how the whole thing was going to play out.

2) When Romney twice says, “Are you sure you want to claim that?” Obama still doesn’t look a bit worried. He tells Romney to “proceed.” Quite obviously, he knew what was coming and was anxious to finish it.

3) When Romney finally says outright that Obama did NOT identify it as an act of terror in the Rose Garden, Obama immediately says, “Get the transcript.” Obviously, he didn’t have to ask if the transcript was available. He knew it was right there waiting for him.

4) When Crowley reads from the transcript (out of context), Obama is immediately and smugly telling her to say it again. Obviously, he knew exactly what was coming.

Conclusion: Romney was sandbagged. And he was sandbagged because Crowley and Obama colluded.

At this point, it’s not just a conspiracy theory. It’s obvious.

tom on October 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Thank you tom! I think this is so good that your entire comment needs repeated! Excellent evaluation!

dominigan on October 18, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Please follow this closely if you haven’t already figured this out. This is a smoking gun that Barack Obama and CNN coordinated a trap to damage Mitt Romney before the debate.
Follow Obama’s words and actions here:

“Please proceed Governor”
“Get the transcript”
“Can you say that a little louder Candy!”

The whole thing was a set-up!
Obviously the Obama campaign coordinated with CNN and Crowley before the debate because they new Romney was going to hit Obama over his failed handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

This is why Obama goads Romney forward into the CNN-Obama trap and then says “get the transcript” (the one sitting on Crowley’s desk of Obama’s Rose Garden speech) a split second after Romney says that Obama never mentioned terrorism.

OxyCon on October 18, 2012 at 3:06 AM

This supersized Obamuh shill couldn’t even speak coherently while she was sputtering lame excuses for herself and her behavior. She stuttered and stumbled over her words bcuz she knew she was wrong and couldn’t wiggle her way out of it. And of course the Dem shills in the focus group made lame excuses for her, made sure they recited at least one ignorant Dem talking point, and gave their own version of revisionist history as to what Obamuh did and said about the Benghazi attack. Oh yeah and the one Dem shill called Romney the bully while Obamuh was sitting there egging Crowley as they lied in unison and she backed up the lie. It’s true what Rush says–libs couldn’t care less if they lie as long as the lie works in their favor to steal votes.

stukinIL4now on October 18, 2012 at 3:50 AM

Win or lose in this Presidential race, Crowley needs to be made an example of–Republicans should just refuse to deal with her at all for at least the next four years. Don’t make a fuss about it, just respond to all questions with: “No comment” or something similar if “no comment” would be problematic for some reason. Treat her like she doesn’t exist. It goes without saying that Republicans should refuse to participate in any debate or similar procedure where she is moderating or otherwise participating for the rest of time.

M. Scott Eiland on October 18, 2012 at 4:50 AM

This is why–GOP get this–never wait until a liberal does what liberals always do by default; lie,cheat, deceive, frighten, manipulate, pretend, accuse, double down on false accusations etc. Tell the world beforehand, what we all know they are about to do, and let them do it anyway. Now you’ve pre-focused attention and they can’t get away with it. Whining and complaining about it afterwards is folly–no one cares or listens.
Those many “pay no attention” sheep out there need to hear the cry: liberal wolf coming, before they get gobbled up with the wolf’s line of BS. The usual GOP hand-wringing after, is worthless and frustrating.
What took the GOP so long to do battle, to take it to the obnoxious people who now openly admit what they wish to do to America, its constitution, its respect for nature’s God, its families, its free citizens, namely,convert them to a perverted form of government where even freedom of thought or conscience is a criminal offense against the state and those who would dare to control us?
Win, then do it. Clean house of the contamination in government, dismantle their political machine, from the courts, the schools, the millions of anti-American acronym groups. Then clean up the filthy culture, the sloth, the free lunches, help the family, the backbone of America.
But then, I dream too much.

Don L on October 18, 2012 at 5:15 AM

petunia on October 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

I Candy

BigAlSouth on October 18, 2012 at 5:50 AM

Conclusion: Romney was sandbagged.
tom on October 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

I was skeptical at first, but agree with you now. At the very least, he made certain that Crowley would have the transcript before her during the debate, and she complied. Clearly he knew she had it in front of her.

petefrt on October 18, 2012 at 6:18 AM

thought it was funny that one of the panel called Romney a “bully” again……did the prez get his feelings hurt again, bless his heart.

DiabloAzure on October 18, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Crowley did her profession a disservice last night and confirmed many American’s deepest suspicions about the media in the process.”

Yes. And while CNN might like it now..it will only lead to even fewer people taking them seriously as a news organization…the thing about this situation is that most people who are interested enough to watch this debate are also interested enough in politics to know about the dog and pony show the Obama people have been putting on for the last month.

In other words, you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Terrye on October 18, 2012 at 6:51 AM

“Mitt Romney.. Get in my belly!!” – Crowley

Bradky on October 18, 2012 at 6:51 AM

Conclusion: Romney was sandbagged.
tom on October 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

It ain’t over yet and to be honest, I think the whole thing backfired on them.

Terrye on October 18, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Terrye on October 18, 2012 at 6:54 AM

I agree with you. I would be shocked if in the final debate Romney doesn’t go after this issue with the familiar 5 finger/five point takedown based on fact.

Obama: “You mean that Ron Reagan taught you the five finger exploding heart method? Why didn’t you tell me?”

Romney: “I guess I’m a bad person. Ask Seamus”

Bradky on October 18, 2012 at 6:59 AM

Just when you thought Obama supporters couldn’t get any dumber or more corrupt, there you go.

So the context of the word terror is remembering back to Sept 11 2001, not September 11 2012.

jaydee_007 on October 18, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Obviously. To pretend otherwise is dishonest, literally and intellectually.

talkingpoints on October 18, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Conclusion: Romney was sandbagged.
tom on October 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

It ain’t over yet and to be honest, I think the whole thing backfired on them.

Terrye on October 18, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Agreed. They were overclever, and it’s backfired.

tom on October 18, 2012 at 7:27 AM

The English have a phrase “too clever by half” meaning “too smart for your own good.” By loading the dice so heavily that they caused the table legs to creak, it became patently obvious, to even casual voters, that Crowley had attempting to “fix” the game with her bias in favor of Obama.Crowley’s biggest mistake was her bald-faced lie about what Obama said at the news conference just after the terrorist attack had killed the ambassador-the truth of which can easily be fact checked.

To help win “style points” Crowley compounded a lie begun with Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney & Susan Rice. Obama is the big loser here.

MaiDee on October 18, 2012 at 7:29 AM

Obama will be gone–but rest assured the media will stay on to corrupt truth and push the Alinsky agenda. (the failure to attack them as what they are-America’s enemy)

One question needs to be asked of the media by every freedom-loving politician they seek to use for their agenda.

“Why do you in the media shamelessly treat we citizens as if we are mere dogs to be manipulated and trained by your every contaminated utterance?

Don L on October 18, 2012 at 7:38 AM

By loading the dice so heavily that they caused the table legs to creak,…

MaiDee on October 18, 2012 at 7:29 AM

Marvelous metaphor!

Don L on October 18, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Obama has screwed himself on this one. If he maintains the lie at the next debate he is admitting that Rice, Carney and others lied to the American people when they denied it was a terror attack several days later. He then has to explain why he wouldn’t call it a terrorist attack on several tv shows later, such as letterman, Univision and the view.

Ta111 on October 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Isn’t this President wonderful?

Look at how he’s brought everyone together.

Good Lt on October 18, 2012 at 8:02 AM

All true about the collusion between The One and Cowley on Libya. And that inane question about how Romney sees himself different than Bush, making sure to plant the conscious/unconscious reference to Bush…wonder if Clinton would ever be asked how he see himself different than Carter.

RonRon on October 18, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Give us unknowns from the National Forensic League.

Enough with the celebrity status nonsense because you’ve been on TeeVee.

Their damn egos, coupled with their bias, does a disservice to us all.

Cleombrotus on October 18, 2012 at 8:30 AM

“True story: An apolitical friend surprised me today”

Love the apolitical types. Usually they are the first ones to win a free trip to the gulag, filling the freight trains like the sheep they are.

Rookie on October 18, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Oh.. and the fact that it takes so long for the American conservatives to realize that the whole Benghazi segment of the debate was orchestrated before hand.. gee, I guess I can see it more clearly not being an American.

“Please proceed, Governor” – look at this scum-eating worm 0bama face. And the fat cow was immediately following his order “get the transcript”.

If you guys think you will win this election fair and square, you’re in for a BIG surprise.

Rookie on October 18, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Hopefully with that demagogue Obama gone.. the democrats will be able to yank their party back towards the center,, and away from the lunatic left.
mark81150 on October 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Umm. mark? They dragged HIM in. Remember?

Cleombrotus on October 18, 2012 at 8:47 AM

If you guys think you will win this election fair and square, you’re in for a BIG surprise.
Rookie on October 18, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Truer words are seldom spoken.

Cleombrotus on October 18, 2012 at 8:49 AM

I was going nuts as this was happening.

Listen to O’s comments right before Mitt opened up. Ha Ha

If President Obama could run the country as well as he lies with a straight face, we would be living in a paradise.

Despite what the video above and Brit Hume asked, Mitt could disagree with, or “pull rank”, a woman moderator at his peril.

The video above has folks calling Mitt a bully, imagine what they could do with some pushing and sharp talk to a “lady”.

But all this conversation is good for the country. Many people are getting to know the issues and the candidates. Then they can’t sleep at night.

IlikedAUH2O on October 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

These lefties think that fact checkers should interject in the middle of the debate. Would they still think so if Sean Hannity was the fact checker? Obviously no.

The problem is that all fact-checkers are biased and that is why a moderator is supposed to only moderate and not provide their interpretation of any facts during a debate. It is the debaters that should be providing their interpretation of the facts and no one else during a debate.

These lefties are so clueless. Are their any lefty commenters here that agree with me?

shick on October 18, 2012 at 9:35 AM

their=there

shick on October 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Conclusion: Romney was sandbagged. And he was sandbagged because Crowley and Obama colluded.

At this point, it’s not just a conspiracy theory. It’s obvious.

That should be the subject of conversation. Cowly is a huge distraction. (Pun intended) Conservatives are systematically and continuously having their most basic rights violated by a media bent on re-electing their chosen candidate. This could be the basis of a huge class-action suit that would very likely be successful.

TrueNorthist on October 18, 2012 at 9:45 AM

AP: True story: An apolitical friend surprised me today by launching into a two-pronged tirade about the debate. Prong one was him insisting that when O got snotty with Romney about his Benghazi accusations, he came off like a — well, let’s say jerk, although “jerk” wasn’t the word he used. Prong two was him asking me, as a political junkie, to explain how Candy Crowley could have interjected on O’s behalf during the Libya exchange when the moderator’s supposed to be passive and impartial.

thanks, AP.

I love that story. It’s gotten so over the top that fair minded casual observer can’t believe it.

I hear the same kind of things from my kids’ mid 20′s friends.

My kids always voted to make me happy, but they didn’t care. This year they can’t wait to vote. My daughter literally said this is the first time she cares who wins. My son asked me for an absentee ballot because he’s going on a business trip.

Elisa on October 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I’m not sure who these people were, but I was surprised how the left wingers had all talking points (bully, binders, etc.) down so quickly after the debate. It was fun to watch.

lea on October 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM

If you guys think you will win this election fair and square, you’re in for a BIG surprise.

Rookie on October 18, 2012 at 8:40 AM

I hear ya. I’m worried about some last ditch dirty trick they may try out of desperation. With this bunch of lawless thugs, anything could happen.

petefrt on October 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Why is nobody on Fox or the conservative blogs mentioning that Jug Ears shouted to the moderator to “Read the transcript”? How on earth would he know she had it right there in front of her? She responded so quickly (less than a second) that she had to have had it staged right in front of her. How is this possible without prior coordination between the moderator and Jug Ear’s team? IMO, this whole thing was completely staged. It was a set up to bail the preznit out of a very difficult spot that they absolutely knew ahead of time was going to come up. I know some other commenters have wondered this too, but why isn’t it getting any traction?

MarkM on October 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Crowley = NFL REPLACEMENT REF.

Not only did she improperly assume the role of referee, she blew the call.

MarkM on October 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Excellent questions. I also suspect an ambush was planned in advance. Too bad for Obozo and the Heifer it didn’t hurt Romney at all.

Worst. Moderator. Evah.

OneVision on October 18, 2012 at 11:09 AM

And the clincher: Why did Obama not even hesitate before saying, “Get the Transcript?” Is he usually so quick on his feet? If you’ve been watching the debates and seeing how long it takes him to answer a question, you know better.

When I first heard hints of collusion, it sounded like a conspiracy theory. Watching it live the first time, it looked plausible. But when you watch it again, you notice:

1) When he makes the claim that everyone immediately recognizes as false, that he identified the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism immediately, and Romney started to challenge him, Obama didn’t even look concerned that he might have made a mistake. He already knew how the whole thing was going to play out.

2) When Romney twice says, “Are you sure you want to claim that?” Obama still doesn’t look a bit worried. He tells Romney to “proceed.” Quite obviously, he knew what was coming and was anxious to finish it.

3) When Romney finally says outright that Obama did NOT identify it as an act of terror in the Rose Garden, Obama immediately says, “Get the transcript.” Obviously, he didn’t have to ask if the transcript was available. He knew it was right there waiting for him.

4) When Crowley reads from the transcript (out of context), Obama is immediately and smugly telling her to say it again. Obviously, he knew exactly what was coming.

Conclusion: Romney was sandbagged. And he was sandbagged because Crowley and Obama colluded.

At this point, it’s not just a conspiracy theory. It’s obvious.

tom on October 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Thank you tom! I think this is so good that your entire comment needs repeated! Excellent evaluation!

dominigan on October 18, 2012 at 2:50 AM

I agree it needs repeating. Let’s do it a third time. Thanks.

Elisa on October 18, 2012 at 12:01 PM

. . . Despite what the video above and Brit Hume asked, Mitt could disagree with, or “pull rank”, a woman moderator at his peril.

The video above has folks calling Mitt a bully, imagine what they could do with some pushing and sharp talk to a “lady”. . . .

IlikedAUH2O on October 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Or so she could let him to shut up and sit down, which is what she did all night long anyway. No matter what Romney did or said during this Bengazi portion of the debate, he never would have been allowed to succeed that night.

But there is another debate and Obama might have screwed himself for that one.

Elisa on October 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Bob Schieffer is the next moderator.

Uggggh!

Elisa on October 18, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Crowley = NFL REPLACEMENT REF.

Not only did she improperly assume the role of referee, she blew the call.

Crowley’s behavior needs a stronger analogy. I’d say that she, as a referee, attempted to sack Mitt from behind while he was in a well-protected pocket, and about to throw a long bomb into the end zone.

It drove him out into the open, made him scramble, and eventually he had to throw the ball out of bounds. Then she flagged him for grounding.

It’s ok, he’ll be so well set up for the final debate that Obama and Crowley will wish they’d never tried to pull off this horrible cheat.

Freelancer on October 18, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I’m sure Candy Crowley The Hutt thinks she’ll be flooded with career making offers now that she has rendered such good partisan service to the Democrat party… but she’s a disposable tool.

DANEgerus on October 18, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I agree with the lefties in this case… Obama did vaguely imply that it was somewhat similar and possibly related to what the more radically racist among US would call an Act of Terror… and it was caused by…
a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!! a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!!
a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!! a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!!
a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!! a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!!
a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!! a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!!
a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!! a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!!
a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!! a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!!
a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!! a NASTY MOVIE ABOUT MOHAMMED!!!

or… maybe it wasn’t about the movie after all…”

RalphyBoy on October 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2