Presidential debate commissioner: We only made one mistake in 2012

posted at 10:01 am on February 20, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Well, perhaps two, if one counts 2013 in the mix.  The first, according to Presidential Debate Commission chair Frank Fahrenkopf, was selecting Candy Crowley to moderate a debate in which she obviously wanted to participate instead.  The second is probably talking on the record about it.  Jon Ralston, the dean of Nevada political media, reported last night from the Las Vegas Country Club event in which Fahrenkopf offered his thoughts on a wide range of topics:

What better place than the Las Vegas Country Club, where time seems to have stopped in 1974 or so, for a group of conservatives to gather to figure out how to capture the glory days.

And what better man to deliver the message than Frank Fahrenkopf, who chaired the state and national Republican Parties during the time of The Gipper and Bush 41 and helped rebuild the GOP in Nevada and nationally. Ironically, it was almost exactly 18 years ago, sitting with Steve Wynn and others under the low ceilings and shag carpet in the same venue, that Fahrenkopf sealed the deal to become head of the American Gaming Association. …

But while this was a day for nostalgia – Fahrenkopf immediately invoked then-Sen. Paul Laxalt, the NV GOP’s godfather during halcyon times – the man who has been in DC for 30 years quickly made the point that this was not the old days. He told the group of nearly all white men that the times had changed when the good old boys could count on the color of nearly all of the folks who belonged to the LVCC in those days to win elections.

No, Fahrenkopf did not, ahem, whitewash the stark reality that has been analyzed to death since November. As he would later tell the group that he wrote in an email after the election, “It’s the Hispanics, stupid.”

Much of Fahrenkopf’s analysis has already been given by plenty of other observers, so the real takeaway is this, as Dylan Byers noted:

Fahrenkopf said he was proud of his role in helping to pick the debate moderators, but then added, shockingly I thought: “We made one mistake this time: Her name is Candy,” a reference to Candy Crowley of CNN, who absorbed hosannas from the left and brickbats from the right after she corrected Mitt Romney during the second debate.

As I wrote at the time, Crowley was the big loser of the debate, especially since she had to walk her statement back immediately afterward.

[I]f you’re going to fact check in the middle of a debate you’re moderating, you’d better be sure you have the facts straight yourself.  Otherwise, you end up having to go on your own network, where you’ve already been fact-checked in the negative, and dance your statement back[.]

Crowley had made it clear that she wouldn’t abide by the agreement (to stay out of the arguments between the candidates) with the PDC when she got the assignment.  So why didn’t Fahrenkopf replace her then, having made the big mistake?  At least according to Ralston’s notes, he didn’t explain, and it doesn’t appear that anyone asked.

Admitting the mistake now isn’t particularly helpful, not to Mitt Romney, at least.  It might serve up another news cycle of embarrassment for Crowley, but as Katie Pavlich reminds us, she later backtracked on the backtrack by claiming she was just trying to keep the conversation moving.  Don’t moderators usually do that by asking questions rather than answering them?


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

Newt would have shamed her before the nation to thunderous applause.

Punchenko on February 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM

As i said in the headlines

These idiots will still select libs to moderate the debates

cmsinaz on February 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM

The second is probably talking on the record about it.

yeah Ed, we wouldn’t want to dogpile by mentioning what a hack Candy Crowley is. Its not like she took a drink of water or anything.

DanMan on February 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM

As I wrote at the time, Crowley was the big loser of the debate

Not sure if I buy this. Her actions in that debate directly affected the outcome of said debate, and hence the outcome of the entire election.

Del Dolemonte on February 20, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Newt would have shamed her before the nation to thunderous applause.

Indeed he would have. We need that part of him in a candidate, without his baggage.

Bob's Kid on February 20, 2013 at 10:12 AM

DanMan on February 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM

I’m not saying it’s a mistake for us to talk about it. I think it might be a problem for Fahrenkopf later.

Ed Morrissey on February 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM

So why did she have the transcript right in front of her in the first place? And why did Dear Liar ask her to read the transcript, as if he knew she had it in front of her?

It was a rigged debate.

rbj on February 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Newt would have shamed her before the nation to thunderous applause.

Punchenko on February 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I agree, but Newt most likely would have lost too.

ButterflyDragon on February 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

RNC’s fault for agreeing to a one sided debate.

Mr. Arrogant on February 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

The second is probably talking on the record about it.

yeah Ed, we wouldn’t want to dogpile by mentioning what a hack Candy Crowley is. Its not like she took a drink of water or anything.

DanMan on February 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM

The “second” he is referring to has nothing to do with Candy. And everything to do with the “color” comment by Fahrenkopf last night.

ButterflyDragon on February 20, 2013 at 10:16 AM

No recourse.

Bmore on February 20, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Presidential debate commissioner: We only made one mistake in 2012
=====================================================================

Oh ya,letting Lefty so-called Moderators control
the format!!

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Newt would have shamed her before the nation to thunderous applause.

Punchenko on February 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I agree, but Newt most likely would have lost too.

ButterflyDragon on February 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Yeah, he would have been obliterated.

But the enemy is the media — it has always been the media. The media sets the narrative, presents itself as authority (along with the university), and shames, shames, shames anyone who deviates from The Faith.

Punchenko on February 20, 2013 at 10:19 AM

This isn’t what cost him the election.

NorthernCross on February 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM

My mistake Ed. I don’t know who this guy Fahrenkopf is. If Candy Crowley was the only mistake while George Stepanoupolis and Bob Scheiffer were the standard bearers we need to ascribe to in the debate moderation arena then I guess the reputation of a political dinosaur that had actual influence in the format and choice of moderators is worth preserving. Let’s keep that flame burning and all.

DanMan on February 20, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Crowley was the big loser of the debate, especially since she had to walk her statement back immediately afterward.

Romney was the big loser because there’s no way to unspill that milk. How could he have expected Crowley to jump in and support Obama’s lie while holding up a transcript that Obama asked her to “go to”. How’d Obama even know she had in on her podium? Nobody was even talking about that throw-away platitude-filled speech. In a sane world, Crowley would never work in the news media again and Obama would have paid a price for rigging the exchange.

but the cheaters and liars won instead.

forest on February 20, 2013 at 10:25 AM

As I wrote at the time, Crowley was the big loser of the debate

…that’s odd!…didn’t seem to hurt her much!…Candy Cow seems to be in more demand than ever!

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 10:26 AM

How was Crowley a loser? Not politically – her actions had a significant impact on the debate, and most likely, the election as well, for her chosen guy. Nor personally – no one’s opinion of her was changed, since sapient viewers already knew she was a political hack, and Barky’s believers applauded her courage. Mission accomplished.

The really sad thing about this is the GOP take-away: “Boy, that was a mistake. But I’m sure they’ll treat us more fairly next time to make up for it.”

bofh on February 20, 2013 at 10:27 AM

This isn’t what cost him the election.

NorthernCross on February 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM

It was a big part of it. The media was in his opponent’s corner.

Everything Mitt said is now turning out to be true — even the stuff about Benghazi and the President’s absence.

The President’s inability to negotiate — to be anything other than a campaigner — is becoming obvious too.

In the liberal component at work, I am already hearing buyer’s remorse.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM

This isn’t what cost him the election.

NorthernCross on February 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I agree. I don’t think there is one single big thing that cost him the election. Take all 10 or 12 things people claim are the most important reason, add them together, and it’s a 4% loss.

forest on February 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM

As I wrote at the time, Crowley was the big loser of the debate

…that’s odd!…didn’t seem to hurt her much!…Candy Cow seems to be in more demand than ever!

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 10:26 AM

KOOLAID2:)

Mount Up,….Forward Yo Ho,….er wait……
(sarc)

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM

No, Fahrenkopf did not, ahem, whitewash the stark reality that has been analyzed to death since November. As he would later tell the group that he wrote in an email after the election, “It’s the Hispanics, stupid.”

No, it’s the base, stupid. Man, these idiots are so predictable.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM

So why did she have the transcript right in front of her in the first place? And why did Dear Liar ask her to read the transcript, as if he knew she had it in front of her?

It was a rigged debate.

rbj on February 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Sure looked and sounded like it to me.

Mimzey on February 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM

but the cheaters and liars won instead.

forest on February 20, 2013 at 10:25 AM

spot on

DanMan on February 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM

It was a big part of it. The media was in his opponent’s corner.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM

It always was, it always will be. It’s part of the landscape.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 10:30 AM

The Candy Crowley Term

Candy Crowley decided the election. On Oct. 16, Mitt Romney’s campaign had strong positive momentum. He had overwhelmed Obama in the first debate and was about to overwhelm him in the second by exposing the president’s cover-up of the fatal failure in Benghazi. But then “debate moderator” Crowley stepped in, embarrassed Romney unjustifiably and eliminated any chance the press would examine or explain the Benghazi scandal between the second debate and the third, final debate.

She cost Romney at least 2 percentage points at the Election Day polls. CNN’s chief political correspondent cost Romney the election.

J_Crater on February 20, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Only one mistake? I don’t think so. I believe many were made.

With vote tallies in the five key swing states where questionable practices took place in the liberal,heavily-populated areas, a leftwing propaganda machine presently called the news media that impeded the Republican message from getting out and perpetuated lies, near lies, and factual sins of ommisson,the Republicans had little room for mistakes. So, the ones they did make were worse than they would appear on the surface.

And, it would have helped to have a candidate that spoke like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz to get the message out and quit playing footsie with the takers on the left.

iamsaved on February 20, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Do you hear that roar? I do. Its the hollering of the leftists feminists complaining about Mr. Fahrenkopf’s take on a female moderator. Oh yeah. Thats how they’ll roll with this story.

tommy71 on February 20, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Oh yeah. Thats how they’ll roll with this story.

tommy71 on February 20, 2013 at 10:32 AM

No they won’t. If they talk about it at all, it’ll be how the GOP needs to win Latinos, as above.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 10:33 AM

I agree. I don’t think there is one single big thing that cost him the election. Take all 10 or 12 things people claim are the most important reason, add them together, and it’s a 4% loss.

forest on February 20, 2013 at 10:28 AM

This forever. Tried of people telling us they have the key for the next election’s success. There were a lot of problems that need to be worked through smartly.

thebrokenrattle on February 20, 2013 at 10:34 AM

As i said in the headlines

These idiots will still select libs to moderate the debates

cmsinaz on February 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM

As I said in the headlines…

I blame the GOP as much as MSM for caving to the MSM format year after year after year.

petefrt on February 20, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Expect to hear more about why the election was lost in March

News2Use on February 20, 2013 at 10:36 AM

So why did she have the transcript right in front of her in the first place? And why did Dear Liar ask her to read the transcript, as if he knew she had it in front of her?

It was a rigged debate.

rbj on February 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Yep.

petefrt on February 20, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Serves her right to be called out like this. It’s another black-eye on CNN and their efforts to pass themselves off as serious news

Tater Salad on February 20, 2013 at 10:39 AM

There’s nothing wrong with the “moderators” aka “tag team partner for Giggles” that can’t be fixed with Louisville Kentucky’s famous export.

harlekwin15 on February 20, 2013 at 10:40 AM

The entire Crowley episode was a total set-up between Crowley/CNN and the Obama team. An absolute disgrace, journalistic malpractice.

matthew8787 on February 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM

It was the turning point sadly…she should be so proud….

hillsoftx on February 20, 2013 at 10:44 AM

I hope all of the non-Romney conservatives who complained and possibly didn’t vote, now realize no matter who was nominated the deck was going to be stacked against them. The GOP needs to make this a rallying cry in the press to force a bit of fairness. They too should start boycotting news reporters annd organizations who clearly have an agenda.

Tater Salad on February 20, 2013 at 10:45 AM

@forest and tbr Yep.

tommy71 on February 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Hate that woman.

bluegill on February 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I hope all of the non-Romney conservatives who complained and possibly didn’t vote, now realize no matter who was nominated the deck was going to be stacked against them. The GOP needs to make this a rallying cry in the press to force a bit of fairness. They too should start boycotting news reporters annd organizations who clearly have an agenda.

Tater Salad on February 20, 2013 at 10:45 AM

You know, I love how all the Romney twits who swore he was our savior lord over us now. YOU DO KNOW THAT YOU GUYS WERE WRONG RIGHT? You do know that maybe it is you that should be a little humble.

And furthermore, I voted for Romney. I gave the Republicans squishes ONE more fricking chance after the McCain fiasco, and still you IDIOTS blame me. NO MORE…especially after your smug a$$es are all over these boards acting like I was the one who put up Romney and lost the campaign for him. Maybe if your damn savior had fought Obama half as hard as he went after Republicans then he could have salvaged that debate and the campaign.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I hope all of the non-Romney conservatives who complained and possibly didn’t vote, now realize no matter who was nominated the deck was going to be stacked against them..

Tater Salad on February 20, 2013 at 10:45 AM

OK, so why was it so damn important to nominate Romney and nuke everybody else? I hope all those mindless Mittbots remember that.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

selecting Candy Crowley to moderate a debate in which she obviously wanted to participate instead.

Yes, it was a BIG mistake (pun intended). The woman literally put down her bucket of fried chicken and all but shared a podium with the rat-eared wonder. But the worst part was when she “coincidentally” found the very transcript about Benghazi that was in dispute and proceeded to lie about what it said.

She proved that journalists should not be moderators ever again.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

You know, I love how all the Romney twits who swore he was our savior lord over us now. YOU DO KNOW THAT YOU GUYS WERE WRONG RIGHT? You do know that maybe it is you that should be a little humble.

And furthermore, I voted for Romney. I gave the Republicans squishes ONE more fricking chance after the McCain fiasco, and still you IDIOTS blame me. NO MORE…especially after your smug a$$es are all over these boards acting like I was the one who put up Romney and lost the campaign for him. Maybe if your damn savior had fought Obama half as hard as he went after Republicans then he could have salvaged that debate and the campaign.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Testify.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 11:01 AM

WAR on BIG FAT OBNOXIOUS LIBERAL HAG-LADY PARTS!

Pork-Chop on February 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM

And furthermore, I voted for Romney. I gave the Republicans squishes ONE more fricking chance after the McCain fiasco, and still you IDIOTS blame me. NO MORE…especially after your smug a$$es are all over these boards acting like I was the one who put up Romney and lost the campaign for him. Maybe if your damn savior had fought Obama half as hard as he went after Republicans then he could have salvaged that debate and the campaign.
melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Ugh, Mark Levin-parroting, holier than thou, self-described “true conservatives” like you often make this site’s comment section almost unreadable. You guys are never helpful. Shouldn’t you be off somewhere trying to convince people that only Sarah Palin can save us?

bluegill on February 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Ugh, Mark Levin-parroting, holier than thou, self-described “true conservatives” like you

bluegill on February 20, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Unlike that pathetic-ass losing squish wing like yours, huh? You’re the ones who make the site unreadable.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 11:05 AM

The Romney-bashing lunatics on here like melle1228 and fellow Palin worshiper Ddrintn are a disgrace. They do Obama supporters’ work for them.

bluegill on February 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM

The Romney-bashing lunatics on here like melle1228 and fellow Palin worshiper Ddrintn are a disgrace. They do Obama supporters’ work for them.

bluegill on February 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM

LOL– I don’t listen to Mark Levin and I don’t worship Palin, but thanks for playing little fish.

Don’t you have a Romney/Buddha Shrine to go pray to?

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 11:08 AM

The Romney-bashing lunatics on here like melle1228 and fellow Palin worshiper Ddrintn are a disgrace. They do Obama supporters’ work for them.

bluegill on February 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Unlike those Romney Pimps such as the disgusting bluegill who were pushing that unelectable disaster of a joke for the past 3 years.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 11:08 AM

OK, so why was it so damn important to nominate Romney and nuke everybody else? I hope all those mindless Mittbots remember that.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM

You say that as if Newt, Santorum, or Perry might have been electable. I think the process of all those debates was one of the most stupid ideas ever because it did less to vet the candidates as it provided ammunition for the Dems to use in the general election. Nevertheless, none of the wannabes would have come as close to winning as Mitt did.

Beyond the voter fraud that clearly cost the GOP Virginia and Ohio (at the least), the real problem with the Romney campaign was not some fat cow tag-teaming a debate. It was that the Romney campaign needed to be less civil. They were so afraid of being called racist they did not challenge the rat-eared wonder when he hid behind dirty sluts like Sandra Fluke to launch the war on women meme. They did not challenge the HHS mandate on the basis of standing up for the Constitution and religious freedom. They did not call the President a filthy liar when he clearly was lying about the costs of Obamacare.

The greedy stupid people that stuck with Obama didn’t want to hear about 52 point economic plans. Half of them don’t even read. They simply wanted to be reassured that their entitement programs were safe or that their single issue of concern was going to be pandered to after the next election. As a candidate you don’t get any traction with these parasites by being nice to the rat-eared socialist who already has a built in advantage with partisan whores like Candy Crowley rigging debates.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Stench

Bmore on February 20, 2013 at 11:14 AM

You say that as if Newt, Santorum, or Perry might have been electable.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 11:13 AM

No I say that knowing it’s been proven that ROMNEY WAS NOT NOT NOT ELECTABLE!!!!!!!

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Beyond the voter fraud that clearly cost the GOP Virginia and Ohio (at the least), the real problem with the Romney campaign was not some fat cow tag-teaming a debate. It was that the Romney campaign needed to be less civil. They were so afraid of being called racist they did not challenge the rat-eared wonder when he hid behind dirty sluts like Sandra Fluke to launch the war on women meme. They did not challenge the HHS mandate on the basis of standing up for the Constitution and religious freedom. They did not call the President a filthy liar when he clearly was lying about the costs of Obamacare.

Bingo! Pretty much the same problem we had with McCain. We are fighting a gentleman’s fight with street fighters. We need to start fighting dirty. And we need to start dumbing down the message for the idiot populace.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I hope all of the non-Romney conservatives who complained and possibly didn’t vote, now realize no matter who was nominated the deck was going to be stacked against them. The GOP needs to make this a rallying cry in the press to force a bit of fairness. They too should start boycotting news reporters annd organizations who clearly have an agenda.

Tater Salad on February 20, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Now that’s never going to happen and you know it. First of all, ALL of the MSM has a freaking agenda and NONE OF THEM can be trusted. Secondly, the GOP as it exists right now doesn’t have the backbone and if it did, it would seek ways to go over, under and around the MSM as hard and as often as they could to purposely make them bleed, to slam them with their biases every chance they get and to get the conservative message out. That is, for those in the GOP who actually believe in conservatism. I have serious doubts about most of them — they are too lily-livered to protest, and that says to me that they’re scared to death and they want to belong too desperately.

PatriotGal2257 on February 20, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Yes, and in the end a hokey jokey jackball was elected to office. You own it now democrats.

jake49 on February 20, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Not sure if I buy this. Her actions in that debate directly affected the outcome of said debate, and hence the outcome of the entire election.

Del Dolemonte on February 20, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I don’t think I buy this. It probably swung the debate, but Obama won the election by almost 4 points, and that’s generally agreed to be a result of superior machinery, a conveniently timed storm, and a couple other things I’m probably forgetting. At most, “losing” the debate on that question cost Romney a couple tenths of a point.

LukeinNE on February 20, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I hope all of the non-Romney conservatives who complained and possibly didn’t vote, now realize no matter who was nominated the deck was going to be stacked against them. The GOP needs to make this a rallying cry in the press to force a bit of fairness. They too should start boycotting news reporters annd organizations who clearly have an agenda.

Tater Salad on February 20, 2013 at 10:45 AM

And by the way, I voted for Romney, although he, as with many others on this board, was not my first choice, and I also campaigned for him and urged others to vote for him.

PatriotGal2257 on February 20, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Newt would have shamed her before the nation to thunderous applause.

Punchenko on February 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Absolutely.

Romney lost to Candy Crowley because he let her get away with it.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Not sure if I buy this. Her actions in that debate directly affected the outcome of said debate, and hence the outcome of the entire election.

Del Dolemonte on February 20, 2013 at 10:11 AM

It’s not as if Romney was cruising before that debate. It didn’t affect the outcome at all.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM

The Romney-bashing lunatics on here like melle1228 and fellow Palin worshiper Ddrintn are a disgrace. They do Obama supporters’ work for them.

bluegill on February 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Your insanity is unmeasurable. There is no scale to base it on.

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 11:20 AM

You are correct petefrt

cmsinaz on February 20, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Crowley was the big loser

Crowley may be the big loser, but she’s certainly not The Biggest Loser™.

steebo77 on February 20, 2013 at 11:30 AM

The Gilled One.

steebo77 on February 20, 2013 at 11:34 AM

The Gilled One.

steebo77 on February 20, 2013 at 11:34 AM

LOL!

“I won’t be ignored, Mitt.”

-blueGills

portlandon on February 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM

The Fat Obnoxious People (Christie and Crawley) helped throw the election to the one.

Natebo on February 20, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Admitting the mistake now isn’t particularly helpful, not to Mitt Romney, at least.

It is helpful to us now; hopefully we can make some changes to the moderators next time. And irrelevant to Romney because he was going to lose with his mini-statist-me message of being a better big government steward than Obama.

besser tot als rot on February 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM

It was a set up and For the life of me I cannot understand why the GOP believes these people are honest or play fair. Romney should have been much faster on his feet. Movie Mr. President. your administration blamed it on a silly movie.

pat on February 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM

I hope all of the non-Romney conservatives who complained and possibly didn’t vote, now realize no matter who was nominated the deck was going to be stacked against them.

Tater Salad on February 20, 2013 at 10:45 AM

This has been obvious to almost everyone, except perhaps Romney and his ilk, for eons. That is why Romney needed to get his message together and push it. He had no message or platform (other than being a good manager of a big government behemoth), so he let Obama and the media make it up for him. Romney had no plan to deal with an adverse party or an adverse press. That is a travesty and it is on Romney.

besser tot als rot on February 20, 2013 at 11:57 AM

No I say that knowing it’s been proven that ROMNEY WAS NOT NOT NOT ELECTABLE!!!!!!!

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 11:15 AM

/thread

fossten on February 20, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Every single election cycle the Republicans agree to have every debate monitored by a liberal partisan. Every single time. They are masochists.

And the Reagan library is dead to me, it should be ignored by all Conservatives since it has such a snug relationship with MSNBC and Politico.

Daemonocracy on February 20, 2013 at 11:59 AM

No I say that knowing it’s been proven that ROMNEY WAS NOT NOT NOT ELECTABLE!!!!!!!

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Thanks to people like you. Bitter angry morons who had a temper tantrum that their guy didn’t get the nomination. So instead of focusing on the goal of ousting the worst President ever you all gleefully torpedoed the Romney campaign so that you could spend the next four years talking about why some serial adulter or far-right social conservative could have/ should have been the nominee.

STFU. You are as much a parasite as any Obama-voting illegal. In fact more so since your only goal was sticking it to Romney and not caring one bit about this nation.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM

you all Romney gleefully ho-hum-ly torpedoed the Romney campaign

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM

steebo77 on February 20, 2013 at 12:09 PM

As I wrote at the time, Crowley was the big loser of the debate

No, actually a few hundred million American citizens who continue to suffer under Obama were the biggest losers of that debate.

Midas on February 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM

The problem for the Republicans is the same as faces a district attorney or a civil suit defendant in an area that tends to be plaintiff-friendly or sympathetic to criminal defendants. You only get so many strikes on the jury pool before you have to go with what’s left, and sometimes what’s left is still not optimal.

The Republicans can blackball Candy Crowley as a primary or general election debate moderator from now until she moves from CNN into that inevitable Democratic Party position so many media types wind up with. They’re still going to be faced with the same problem in 2016 — getting a moderator who, in a debate on foreign policy, might actually ask Hillary a question or two about her past performance, including Benghazi.

(CNN tends to be the default network for yanking anchors off cable, because the Republicans allow the Democrats to equate Fox News with MSNBC, and basically say if Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow can’t moderate a debate, neither can Bret Baier or even Chris Wallace. My guess is the GOP will get suckered into this same trap in 2016, though hopefully they’ll at least hold out for new CNN hire Jake Tapper as moderator the next time.)

jon1979 on February 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM

STFU. You are as much a parasite as any Obama-voting illegal. In fact more so since your only goal was sticking it to Romney and not caring one bit about this nation.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM

You STFU. Neither I nor anyone else was under any obligation to say that a steaming pile of crap was caviar.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Thanks to people like you. Bitter angry morons who had a temper tantrum that their guy didn’t get the nomination. So instead of focusing on the goal of ousting the worst President ever…

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM

By the way, genius, that wasn’t MY job. That was the job of the awesomest, most electablest, most invincablest candidate the GOP ever fielded. For whom I voted, by the way. Moron.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Fahrenkopf *IS* the problem. Its like blaming the stab wound for death versus blaming the knife wielding perp.

Bleed_thelizard on February 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM

RNC’s fault for agreeing to a one sided debate.

Mr. Arrogant on February 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

THIS +INFINITY!

ToddPA on February 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM

er, most invinciblest. Or something.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Candy is on the “A+++” cocktail party list in DC and NYC for life… she won…

Khun Joe on February 20, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Lesson to ALL GOP “leaders” in Washington.

Everyone knows the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog, so I suggest that the idiot Fahrenkopfs of the GOP read it again and take note.

Scorpion/Progessive – “I could not help myself. It is my nature.”

Bleed_thelizard on February 20, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Romney should’ve simply responded: Candy, we all know that most presidential debate moderators are biased in favor of Democrats, but this is beyond the pale. I will thank you to please refrain from debating on behalf of the president and stick to moderating.

Christien on February 20, 2013 at 12:47 PM

You know, I love how all the Romney twits who swore he was our savior lord over us now. YOU DO KNOW THAT YOU GUYS WERE WRONG RIGHT? You do know that maybe it is you that should be a little humble.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM

That you tell others to be humble is such an irony. You are the ones who claim absolute moral superiority.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM

It was for Romney to clobber cow Crowly and the Punk, alas.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 12:58 PM

How to lose weight:

Refrain from carbs and processed food until Candy Crowley is asked again to moderate a debate.

Syd B. on February 20, 2013 at 1:00 PM

You know, I love how all the Romney twits who swore he was our savior lord over us now. YOU DO KNOW THAT YOU GUYS WERE WRONG RIGHT? You do know that maybe it is you that should be a little humble.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM

That you tell others to be humble is such an irony. You are the ones who claim absolute moral superiority.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM

And not only moral superiority. Only you are conservative, nobody else. You are pure. You are perfect. You don’t have to compromise. If America doesn’t vote for your candidate, then let America burn. You will build your utopia on her ashes.

Talk about humble!

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 1:02 PM

And not only moral superiority. Only you are conservative, nobody else. You are pure. You are perfect.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Straw men don’t help your argument.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 1:05 PM

And not only moral superiority. Only you are conservative, nobody else. You are pure. You are perfect.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Straw men don’t help your argument.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 1:05 PM

That’s not a straw man argument. It’s a rant.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 1:24 PM

That you tell others to be humble is such an irony. You are the ones who claim absolute moral superiority.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Hey dim bulb-maybe you should actually read the posts I responded to which lectured all us poor schmucks who didn’t agree with tator twits…Please point out where I stated “my moral superiority?”

And not only moral superiority. Only you are conservative, nobody else. You are pure. You are perfect. You don’t have to compromise. If America doesn’t vote for your candidate, then let America burn. You will build your utopia on her ashes.

Talk about humble!

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Nobody claimed moral superiority. And I certainly didn’t say to let America burn. Really you should do something about those voices in your head.

I will rephrase my post for you since you seem to have reading comprehension issues: Stop blaming me for Romney’s loss. I did not endorse Romney, but like a good soldier I still voted for him.

Despite your claims to the contrary of Romney’s electability, the concerns that we all had prior to him winning the nomination are what killed him in the election. Obama’s biggest weakness was OBAMACARE. We were told that SCOTUS would take care of that problem. It didn’t. Romney could not fight Obama on Obamacare because he fricking created it. Furthermore he could not be an advocate on the economy because most “regular” folks saw Romney as the big bad banker who was responsible for their current financial woes think Enron etc. Romney fought like a prize fighter in the primaries but rolled over like a beta dog when Obama pulled the racist, homophobed, sexist crap against Romney and he let the media write the social issue narrative for him. I can go on, but you get my drift. Your candidate was a disaster. And these were ALL concerns that you can SEE THAT I POSTED DURING THE PRIMARIES. And now you people come on here and smugly try to continue to blame me for YOUR CANDIDATE’S LOSS. You can kiss my butt.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Inferior thinkers from the right, and trolls, love to use a stupid form of argument “You’re sooo superior and self-important”…as if that strengthens their stupidities. Makes me laugh every time.

Some libertarians on HA, of all the people on Earth, use the same idiotic tactic. None makes it real. The truth is very tough to swallow.

Schadenfreude on February 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I will rephrase my post for you since you seem to have reading comprehension issues: Stop blaming me for Romney’s loss. I did not endorse Romney, but like a good soldier I still voted for him.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 1:26 PM

I don’t blame you for Romney’s loss. I blame you for beating a dead horse.

Many of you anti-Romneys are still fighting the primaries and yelling at us about what a bad candidate Romney is. But it’s over. Your candidate didn’t win the primaries. Somehow you can’t get over that.

The big mistake of the anti-Romneys was that they jumped from candidate to candidate, because nobody was good enough for them. Romney was the last man standing.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

<blockqThanks to people like you. Bitter angry morons who had a temper tantrum that their guy didn’t get the nomination. So instead of focusing on the goal of ousting the worst President ever…

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM
uote>

Very Well Said!!!!

I say to hell with these spoiled losers, that always find every candidate “not good enough” and therefore not worthy of support or a vote. This past election seperated the wheat from the chaff..It was the Makers vs the Takers and if you are a so called conservative and sat it out…then you sir are pathetic. Let’s reach out and expand our party to team members that understand how important the elections are.

Natebo on February 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM

One mistake that they never make is having a Conservative, Republican or even a moderate as moderator, it’s always 100% liberals as moderators.

RJL on February 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM

The three most influential women in politics for the last 5 years:

Candy Crowley
Sandra Fluke
Tina Fey

can_con on February 20, 2013 at 2:42 PM

That’s not a straw man argument. It’s a rant.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 1:24 PM

No, it’s a straw man. Object to a squish candidate, and it’s because the objector considers him/herself “perfect”. That’s a load of logically fallacious bullshit and it’s really gotten old.

I don’t blame you for Romney’s loss. I blame you for beating a dead horse.

Many of you anti-Romneys are still fighting the primaries and yelling at us about what a bad candidate Romney is.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

That’s because we see the very same game being played all over again. That horse is nowhere near dead yet.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 2:51 PM

The big mistake of the anti-Romneys was that they jumped from candidate to candidate, because nobody was good enough for them. Romney was the last man standing.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

They jumped from third-stringer to third-stringer because the field had been thoroughly prepped for 3 years with “only Romney is electable” b.s.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I listened to an interview with Frank Fahrenkopf prior to the debates (I think the first one). He was some kinda honcho in the RNC I think, and he was the “Republican” on the debate commission with, I think, Mike McCurry (Clinton spox) as the Dem. Fahrenkopf boasted that he had ensured the most diverse moderators EVAH.

What did this mean, I wondered. A conservative moderator? Someone from the blogosphere or talk radio or a thinktank or conservative media, such as it is? Breitbart? Blaze?

Frank gushed that Candy Crowley would be the FIRST WOMAN to moderate a Town Hall debate!!!! That’s diversity! And Martha Raddatz would be moderating the VP debate! First Something woman something!

Right. That’s what diversity means to this tool. He accepts that having a woman is good in and of itself because it’s diverse, which is good in and of itself. Diversity means gender, color, race, whatever. As we have learned from politics, the media, and academia, this kind of diversity leads only to more and more ultra left wingism.

This clown cannot be allowed to get anywhere near the “debates” next time.

str8tface on February 20, 2013 at 2:55 PM

I don’t blame you for Romney’s loss. I blame you for beating a dead horse.

Many of you anti-Romneys are still fighting the primaries and yelling at us about what a bad candidate Romney is. But it’s over. Your candidate didn’t win the primaries. Somehow you can’t get over that.

The big mistake of the anti-Romneys was that they jumped from candidate to candidate, because nobody was good enough for them. Romney was the last man standing.

Gelsomina on February 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

AGAIN you have a reading COMPREHENSION problem, because my ORIGINAL post was in RESPONSE to A ROMNEY SUPPORTER BLAMING ANTI-ROMNEYS FOR LOSING THE ELECTION FOR ROMNEY I.E., BEATING A DEAD HORSE. I got over the election just fine. You guys are the ones that can’t get over that your savior Romney lost. I didn’t bring it up… Get it.. Tator twits did.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM

That’s because we see the very same game being played all over again. That horse is nowhere near dead yet.

ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 2:51 PM

LOL– I love how they come on a thread blame us for being anti-Romney and when you respond it is YOU who hasn’t gotten over the election and YOU who is beating a dead horse.

It is as bad as telling us we lost the election for Romney even though we voted for him despite our hatred for him as a candidate. Ugh..

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2