Romney: “I must admit … I was getting a little upset at Candy”

posted at 10:41 am on January 28, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Consider this today’s exercise in understatement.  The intervention in the second presidential debate by CNN’s Candy Crowley touched off outrage from Republicans and no small amount of criticism from other journalists — especially when Crowley turned out to be wrong on her statement of fact, and then very wrong when the facts on Benghazi and the nature of the attack kept coming out. Crowley’s intervention reversed the momentum Mitt Romney got from the first debate, although it’s probably a big stretch to say that it changed the election. It certainly didn’t hurt Obama, though.

Romney told Hugh Hewitt last night that he was “getting a little upset with Candy,” and called the intervention “a mistake”:

HH: Now in the film, Mitt, the conversation comes up, that sequence in the debate and Candy Crowley’s intervention in it. But the only negative word, Mrs. Romney at one point says Candy Crowley and sort of mutters under her breath. Did you feel she was unfair at that moment in the debate?

MR: Well, I don’t think it’s the role of the moderator in a debate to insert themselves into the debate and to declare a winner or a loser on a particular point. And I must admit that at that stage, I was getting a little upset at Candy, because in a prior setting where I was to have had the last word, she decided that Barack Obama was to get the last word despite the rules that we had. So she obviously thought it was her job to play a more active role in the debate than was agreed upon by the two candidates, and I thought her jumping into the interaction I was having with the President was also a mistake on her part, and one I would have preferred to carry out between the two of us, because I was prepared to go after him for misrepresenting to the American people that the nature of the attack.

HH: Do you think that even today the nature of that attack is being misrepresented by the former Secretary of State and the President?

MR: You know, I think they have now come to the conclusion that in fact, it was organized in part by an affiliate of al Qaeda, which was very different than what they told the American people in the two weeks following the attack. And as to what happened on the night of the attack and what actions were taken, that’s just something we just don’t know the full story on, and I think people still wonder what happened there. I don’t know that there’s a cover-up effort going on, but I do know that it’s something which I think deserves to be fully examined.

The RNC plans to cut back on the number of sanctioned primary debates to seven or eight in 2015/16, but expect them to take more control over moderation as well. Even before Crowley’s uninformed intervention in that process, Republicans complained that the media was either too flippant or too interested in picking fights that didn’t exist — such as George Stephanopoulos’ out-of-left-field question in New Hampshire about birth control that (coincidentally!) preceded the rollout of the HHS contraception mandate and the Democrats’ “war on women” talking point.

The RNC can’t do too much about the general election debates, as those are coordinated between the campaigns and the Presidential Debate Commission, which means that cable-net talking heads will probably still moderate them. Don’t expect the next Republican candidate to agree to a debate moderated by Candy Crowley, though, or perhaps any Republican candidate from this point forward.


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

Republicans should have their own debates with nothing to do with networks, choosing their own moderators.

Why they would continue to subject themselves to the enemy like this is completely baffling.

Akzed on January 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Don’t expect the next Republican candidate to agree to a debate moderated by Candy Crowley, though, or perhaps any Republican candidate from this point forward.

No, but they’ll probably be OK with Melitha Harrith-Perry.

bofh on January 28, 2014 at 10:49 AM

I remember that, Candy was the Hitman FemDemBot Sobatagey Liberal agent!!

canopfor on January 28, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Crowley is a pig who could use more lipstick…

OmahaConservative on January 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

“Republicans complained that the media was either too flippant or too interested in picking fights that didn’t exist”

Oh, suck it up GOP, the LSM is not will never be your friend, nor indifferent neutrals in debates. The LSM is your enemy and allied with the dems and will pick their fights as they please. To them its all out war. Treat the LSM accordingly.

hawkeye54 on January 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Typical GOP death wish…roll over and take it. Then say the person is “nice.” Sheesh. I wish they would take a few tips from the dems…kill your opposition any way you can get away with and never ever diss your base. Fat chance of that happening.

NJ Red on January 28, 2014 at 10:51 AM

The Third Debate Did You In Mitt. You Agreed With 0 On Too Many Points.

Bmore on January 28, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Mitt’s tepid response really does sum up why he lost.

He got screwjobbed on the largest platform humanly possible, and the most he can muster is “upset”.

If he really believed the country was heading in the wrong direction, that response shows a lack of importance and urgency to negate the motivation.

My biggest fear about Prez Mitt was that he’d enact legislation to safeguard the wealthy in a context that was protecting the country. Seems that would have been justified.

budfox on January 28, 2014 at 10:52 AM

She performed like a trained seal. “Get the transcript.” How many debate moderators do you know who sit at their table loaded up with transcripts, prepared to “correct” one of the debaters? (For that matter, how many debaters do you know who would appeal to the moderator to produce evidence in favor of his debate point?)

And if the topic had not been Obama’s unwillingness to label an action by terrorists as a terrorist act, how many other transcripts on how many other topics do you suppose the trained seal had in reserve?

That debate moment was pure collusion between the trained seal and the president.

de rigueur on January 28, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Why they would continue to subject themselves to the enemy like this is completely baffling.

Because they really, really want to be liked as warm-hearted compassionate and caring to win the enemy’s hearts and minds. Repeatedly subjecting themselves to the enemy as they have is a losing proposition.

hawkeye54 on January 28, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Flash: Martin Bashir set to host next presidential debate.

bofh on January 28, 2014 at 10:54 AM

RNC should just ignore MSNBC, CNN as long as they have an agenda. Hell what’s it going to matter, no one watches?

Tater Salad on January 28, 2014 at 10:56 AM

The Third Debate Did You In Mitt. You Agreed With 0 On Too Many Points.

Bmore on January 28, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Yup, it looked like Mitt thought this was a meeting of the “Mutual Admiration Society”, but the “Mutual” part was never gonna come from self-admiring Bammy.

hawkeye54 on January 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Step 1: Cut out the MSM altogether.

Step 2: Start your own network.

Seriously, how difficult is this? The Republican party is run by morons.

WhatSlushfund on January 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Mitt’s tepid response really does sum up why he lost.

budfox on January 28, 2014 at 10:52 AM

THANK YOU. This.

WhatSlushfund on January 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

So step in and call the braying journalist idiot out on her factual error(s), and keep talking.

Do not let the Democrat media steamroll you.

Good Lt on January 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Go watch mitt on Netflix…. he’s more vocal about Candy

That said…gop should make sure no candy or anyone from CNN or msdnc

cmsinaz on January 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

I must admit, I wish Mitt would go away, and take McCain and Graham with him..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

RNC should just ignore MSNBC, CNN as long as they have an agenda. Hell what’s it going to matter, no one watches?

Tater Salad on January 28, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Yup. It would certainly do no worse. Might even do better by focusing on alternative media.

hawkeye54 on January 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

(For that matter, how many debaters do you know who would appeal to the moderator to produce evidence in favor of his debate point?)

That was the worst of it for me – I’ll never forget it. Every time Mitt made a point Zero cried out “Candy! Candy!” Obviously this had been worked out but hearing that little piece of crap cry out for her like she was his mommy and he was being bullied was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on TV, not just in presidential candidate debates.

Shay on January 28, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Sigh. It wasn’t a “mistake,” Mitt. It worked beautifully.

fadetogray on January 28, 2014 at 11:02 AM

There’s a famous quote which drifts up in my mind. Somebody remind me, what is it again? Something about nice guys, and where they finish…

SacredFire on January 28, 2014 at 11:09 AM

I must admit, I wish Mitt would go away, and take McCain and Graham with him..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

And the Fat Man, too!

Bruno Strozek on January 28, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Nothing like waiting 3 months to complain about it.

portlandon on January 28, 2014 at 11:12 AM

A little upset? Good grief, man!

The self-loathing GOP is its own worst enemy. I cannot bear to listen to this stuff.

PattyJ on January 28, 2014 at 11:12 AM

What an ugly cow, from the inside out.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Mitt fights retrospectively as ‘hard’ as he did in the moment, alas…silky gloves for thugs…

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM

He could have nuked both of their lying arses.

John the Libertarian on January 28, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Given his loss, Mitt’s pretty easy to gang up on, however I do think the following would have occurred under his watch if he were president:

1) Balanced budget by the fourth year.
2) Serious tax reform.
3) Vastly improving economy
4) Dismantled Obamacare
5) Less fear of our government and improved individual liberties.

Not perfect, but a far cry from where we are today. It’s easy to see his faults but if would have accomplished this list he would be one of our greatest presidents.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Romney is a classy guy. Which, always upset the wingers. The right wingers that wanted him to be Godzilla, the left wingers that Romney always took the higher road over.

If Romney started waving his arms and pointing his finger now, it would look even worse and bitter. It’s just not in the guy’s DNA.

Moesart on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

A damn lot of good it does to be Pizzing and moaning
now….

..I may leave this Earth before the GOP gets a damn clue
as to how to conduct Presidential Campaigns…The only
reason I supported Newt in 2012 was because of his
tenacity and smackdown of the Media…if WE refuse
to recognize the Enemy, then we will never win another
Presidential race, it’s that simple.

ToddPA on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

George Stephanopoulos’ out-of-left-field question in New Hampshire about birth control

Or David Gregory’s “out-of-left-field question” on MTP this Sunday to Rand Paul about the comment Rand’s wife made regarding Bill Clinton and Monica. The perfect trap question “are you going to say your wife was out of line or agree with her and give me a quote that we can tar you with?”

Just horrible people…

kcewa on January 28, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Republicans should have their own debates with nothing to do with networks, choosing their own moderators.

Why they would continue to subject themselves to the enemy like this is completely baffling.

Akzed on January 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Maybe Republicans — the establishment party apparatus — like having leftist media hacks dump on viable conservative candidates, on national television, in order to thin the herd and pave the coronation path for their hand-picked favorite?

Punchenko on January 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM

The Romney Political Autopsy continues.

We all know what killed it.

Why keep going over the coroners report?

portlandon on January 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM

The RNC can’t do too much about the general election debates, as those are coordinated between the campaigns and the Presidential Debate Commission, which means that cable-net talking heads will probably still moderate them.

The RNC may not be too involved but there is no reason at all that any Republican candidate should agree to another debate “moderated” by some fat pig who has all the integrity you would expect from the MSM. If there are to be televised debates the GOP campaign does not have to agree cable-net talking heads. Crowley ruined it for them all.

Happy Nomad on January 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM

ToddPA on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

While enjoyable, smacking down the media isn’t a qualification to be president.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM

The only
reason I supported Newt in 2012 was because of his
tenacity and smackdown of the Media…if WE refuse
to recognize the Enemy, then we will never win another
Presidential race, it’s that simple.

ToddPA on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

That was also the reason I supported Newt after the anti-amnesty candidates (other than Mitt, whose sincerity on the subject I doubted) had fallen.

In order to engage the enemy in battle, you must first be able to identify him. Newt was the only one doing that.

fadetogray on January 28, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Mitt’s tepid response really does sum up why he lost.

budfox on January 28, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Yep…

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Romney is a classy guy. Which, always upset the wingers. The right wingers that wanted him to be Godzilla, the left wingers that Romney always took the higher road over.

If Romney started waving his arms and pointing his finger now, it would look even worse and bitter. It’s just not in the guy’s DNA.

Moesart on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

This.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Romney is a classy guy. Which, always upset the wingers. The right wingers that wanted him to be Godzilla, the left wingers that Romney always took the higher road over.

If Romney started waving his arms and pointing his finger now, it would look even worse and bitter. It’s just not in the guy’s DNA.

Moesart on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Romney didn’t have any fire in his belly. And now we must all suffer for it, sadly.

Punchenko on January 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM

It’s just not in the guy’s DNA.

Moesart on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Winning elections is not in the Romney DNA.

Mitt’s won one political office of 4 tries. He’s at 25%.

Mitt’s Father won one of two. He’s at 50%.

Mitt’s Mom ran in 1970 & lost. She’s at 0%

Mitt’s Brother Ran for Michigan Attorney General in 1998. Lost. 0%

Mitt’s Sister In Law Ronna Romney lost her Senate Runs in 1994 & 1996. She’s at 0%

portlandon on January 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Romney is a classy guy. Which, always upset the wingers. The right wingers that wanted him to be Godzilla, the left wingers that Romney always took the higher road over.

If Romney started waving his arms and pointing his finger now, it would look even worse and bitter. It’s just not in the guy’s DNA.

Moesart on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Classy, but wimpy…

He is a classy guy, that lost…the problem is with your description, his only recourse is to wave his arms and point fingers…interesting that you find no middle ground.

Either he yells and screams or he sits and be quite?

Pal, there are a multitude of ways he could and should have handled this.

You chose to only look at the worse, to make your point seem logical. Might as well say he could have pulled out a gun and pointed it at her…

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Classy, but wimpy…

He is a classy guy, that lost…the problem is with your description, his only recourse is to wave his arms and point fingers…interesting that you find no middle ground.

Either he yells and screams or he sits and be quite?

Pal, there are a multitude of ways he could and should have handled this.

You chose to only look at the worse, to make your point seem logical. Might as well say he could have pulled out a gun and pointed it at her…

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM

I remember when Team Classy nuked Newt Gingrich and every other Not Mitt candidate.

Punchenko on January 28, 2014 at 11:29 AM

I must admit, I wish Mitt would go away, and take McCain and Graham with him..

melle1228 on January 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Amen.

Stoic Patriot on January 28, 2014 at 11:31 AM

…Not perfect, but a far cry from where we are today. It’s easy to see his faults but if would have accomplished this list he would be one of our greatest presidents.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Finally! Thank you.

Tsar of Earth on January 28, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Watch paid Republican consultants go soft on Hillary because, “Gee golly whiz, we’re making history, the moment, glass ceilings, and stuff.” Russia and China are licking their chops at the thought of having another eight years of ignorant and self-absorbed Democrats at the helm.

Punchenko on January 28, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Consider this today’s exercise in understatement.

Romney was being a gentlemen.

The problem is that ladies [and gentlemen] are a vanishing breed.

Shy Guy on January 28, 2014 at 11:35 AM

It seemed to me during that debate that The President was waiting and expecting Mrs. Crowley to intervene. And what was interesting at the time, I switched channels after the debate to watch CNN, was Crowley’s attempt at excuse making for intervening and her attempt to try to claw back some of what she had done.
The leadership of this administration, throughout the career of the President, has leaked sealed documents, intimidated, and otherwise used strong-armed tactics to win – the Chicago way. Thus, I have always wondered, what did they have on Crowley, and through whom did they get to her?

A.S.R. on January 28, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Romney is a classy guy. Which, always upset the wingers. The right wingers that wanted him to be Godzilla, the left wingers that Romney always took the higher road over.

If Romney started waving his arms and pointing his finger now, it would look even worse and bitter. It’s just not in the guy’s DNA.

Moesart on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Meanwhile the leftwingers rule. Maybe Republicans should run some DNA tests on their candidates.

aryeung on January 28, 2014 at 11:38 AM

You had to first expose the corruption and the lies, before any GOPer was going to make headway. The only one willing to do that, regardless of what you think of his politics, was Newt. I guarantee you he would have flattened the pompous Candy with his counter remarks.

hillsoftx on January 28, 2014 at 11:40 AM

I remember when Team Classy nuked Newt Gingrich and every other Not Mitt candidate.

Punchenko on January 28, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Well, when he did that, he showed leadership or something.

aryeung on January 28, 2014 at 11:41 AM

So step in and call the braying journalist idiot out on her factual error(s), and keep talking.

Do not let the Democrat media steamroll you.

Good Lt on January 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Exactly.

ShainS on January 28, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Crowley’s fervent rush to defend Obama was a hanging curve over the plate, and Romney went down looking.

Christien on January 28, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Uh, it’s a little late to complain about this now. Why the hell didn’t Romney raise this issue immediately, during the debate, or immediately after, like EVERYBODY else did?

Pork-Chop on January 28, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Consider this today’s exercise in understatement. The intervention in the second presidential debate by CNN’s Candy Crowley touched off outrage from Republicans and no small amount of criticism from other journalists — especially when Crowley turned out to be wrong on her statement of fact, and then very wrong when the facts on Benghazi and the nature of the attack kept coming out. Crowley’s intervention reversed the momentum Mitt Romney got from the first debate, although it’s probably a big stretch to say that it changed the election. It certainly didn’t hurt Obama, though.

I hope that was just understatement. When a moderator of a debate decides to jump into the debate like that, it shouldn’t just get you upset. It should get you mad.

But maybe since it’s so long after the fact, he wants to downplay the incident and not be seen as bitter.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 28, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Romney could have made the point about how biased the media is without coming off like some unhinged loony.

Problem is, the looney approach is what many want. And how it would be described by the media if anything is said at all.

Someone is going to have to figure out a way to do it. Rand Paul seems to be good at it. There can be others.

Obviously many, many people see the problem with the media. It’s not like it is some tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

Moesart on January 28, 2014 at 11:48 AM

“A little upset” a year and a half later? Still, he’s probably doing better than 90% of the rest of the GOP.

The cluelessness and cowardice among the entire lot is breathtaking.

rrpjr on January 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Yeah, Right…
Mitt (That’s the House I’m Running for the Senate) Romney Would have shown her in another minute!

How would someone who really meant it have handled the Candy joins with Obama situation; like say Ronald Reagan?

“Candy, I’m glad you coordinated with my opponent before this debate and brought those transcripts with you. Since you have them on hand would you be so kind as to read to All of us here the section of his speech where he referred to the Attack specifically as Terrorism, not just a section where he mentioned Terrorism in Passing someplace in the speech.”

Deer in the Headlights stares don’t go very far Mitt.

jaydee_007 on January 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM

A simple question that no one asks.

Why do we need debate moderators?

Is this the 21st century or not?

Have a reporter pool submit a list of questions by topic.

A computer randomly selects questions by topic and displays them on a video monitor, visible to the home audience, the candidates and people at the event.

A green light lights up on a candidates podium when it’s his or her turn to talk. It flashes when they have 15 seconds left to wrap up. A red light turns on when it hits zero. Out of cordiality, we give the candidate another five seconds past the red light, and then we cut off the mic.

If a candidate finishes early, they can push a button to let the computer know they’re finished.

All of this could be done without even any human intervention.

You could even design in something that allows a short interruption. Maybe each candidate gets a total of 1 minute to interrupt the others during the course of the debate. They push a button, and then their mic is live even while the other candidate is speaking, as long as they still have time left on their interrupt clock.

Am I the only one smart enough to figure this out? I designed more complex circuitry when I was in college, and I wasn’t even a EE.

Chris of Rights on January 28, 2014 at 11:49 AM

The RNC never have should allowed a left wing stenographer to moderate the debate. That was just another capitulation on their part.

cajunpatriot on January 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Why is generating sympathy for the apathetic loser Romney suddenly Very Important?

ElectricPhase on January 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Romney is a classy guy. Which, always upset the wingers. The right wingers that wanted him to be Godzilla, the left wingers that Romney always took the higher road over.

If Romney started waving his arms and pointing his finger now, it would look even worse and bitter. It’s just not in the guy’s DNA.

Moesart on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Romney was framed by his opponent as a murderer (wanting to kill old people) while denying women their right to choose (murder babies). Its incredible, INCREDIBLE the Republican establishment publically gets their arse handed to them again and again over this obvious BS double speak.
Class plays no part in a war. And challenging/debating a despot is a war the republican establishment cowards and collaborators to this day deny exists. If they continue down this path we are all lost.
Why did no one accuse Stepholopogus of posing as a mediater while colluding with a marxit opponent?
Why couldn’t someone have just thrown some raw meat on the floor and yelled, “Fetus!” to keep Candy Crowley gob full while the debate was being thrown conducted?

onomo on January 28, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Can you imagine what we could achieve if we started our own network hiring people like Ed, AP, (even though they’re both squishes) Rush, Michelle, Robert Spencer, Pam, Jamie Glazov, most of the commenters on this site, and about another hundred people that I could name off the top of my head? Clearly there would be no shortage of employees. This would be the easiest thing in the world to put together (for anyone who had the resources, which I don’t).

We would absolutely steamroll these Socialist Islamo-loving scum. There would be no contest.

So

WHY

ISN’T

THIS

HAPPENING??

Clearly I feel very frustrated..

WhatSlushfund on January 28, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Given his loss, Mitt’s pretty easy to gang up on, however I do think the following would have occurred under his watch if he were president:

1) Balanced budget by the fourth year.
2) Serious tax reform.
3) Vastly improving economy
4) Dismantled Obamacare
5) Less fear of our government and improved individual liberties.

Not perfect, but a far cry from where we are today. It’s easy to see his faults but if would have accomplished this list he would be one of our greatest presidents.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

He’s a classy guy and would have done a great job.
I don’t think anyone could get the message to the people past the left wing media.
Look at how they completely turned around Huckabee’s statement.
Look at how they are defending Davis.
Remember how uninformed most voters are.
Remember how few people vote.
Remember how much voter fraud is going down.
Look and see how dumb the majority of the media are-I think a lot of them actually believed the group of pedestrians armed with rocket launchers had a spontaneous protest on the anniversary of 9/11 in response to a Youtube video that had been out for months narrative.

Look at Obama’s empty gesture to increase the minimum wage for federal contracts. Look at CNN’s headline. The majority of the media are stupid. They haven’t been taught to think critically, they’ve been brainwashed in their education and now they analyze news and present stories from their inane point of view. How do you get past it?

talkingpoints on January 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Romney: “I must admit … I was getting a little upset at Candy”

Because she blatantly and obviously lied on national television to support her Lord and Savior, Barack Obama.

I remember watching that part of the debate. People complained that Mitt didn’t respond to Crowley’s bovine excrement. Really? Watch the video and check out the expression on his face. He -being a genuinely decent guy- simply could not believe that Obama and Crowley would have the balls to lie so openly. It caught him off guard as, I date say, it would have caught most people off guard.

Physics Geek on January 28, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Can you imagine what we could achieve if we started our own network hiring people like Ed, AP, (even though they’re both squishes) Rush, Michelle, Robert Spencer, Pam, Jamie Glazov, most of the commenters on this site, and about another hundred people that I could name off the top of my head? Clearly there would be no shortage of employees. This would be the easiest thing in the world to put together (for anyone who had the resources, which I don’t).

We would absolutely steamroll these Socialist Islamo-loving scum. There would be no contest.

So

WHY

ISN’T

THIS

HAPPENING??

Clearly I feel very frustrated..

WhatSlushfund on January 28, 2014 at 11:57 AM

To lose total control of the boob tube messaging is the left’s greatest fear. Fox has its moments but I believe it would have happened by now. If Andrew Breitbart were alive today.

onomo on January 28, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Someone please shuffle Willard off the stage. His rehabilitation campaign is working about as well as his passive Presidential campaign.

wraithby on January 28, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Given his loss, Mitt’s pretty easy to gang up on, however I do think the following would have occurred under his watch if he were president:

1) Balanced budget by the fourth year.
2) Serious tax reform.
3) Vastly improving economy
4) Dismantled Obamacare
5) Less fear of our government and improved individual liberties.

Not perfect, but a far cry from where we are today. It’s easy to see his faults but if would have accomplished this list he would be one of our greatest presidents.

Tater Salad on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

I think you’re seriously overstating what could have been. Would Mitt have been better than Obama? Certainly. But there’s no particular reason to believe he would have been a conservative president.

With a President Romney, there wouldn’t have been a government shutdown, and the spending increases would have been a lot more reasonable. The economy honestly had several years to recover, and any modest improvement in the business landscape would have led to significant improvement by now, which would have helped raise tax revenue and reduce the current astronomical debt.

But I don’t believe he would have done much to dismantle Obamacare. The only thing he could have done was executive actions and waivers, and he would have been sharply criticized for it. I think he would have pushed for reforms and made it at least work, but not really dismantled it.

Let’s face it: when Romney meets opposition, he compromises. He was a poor governor, and would have been a poor president.

And even though I understand how Romney might want to downplay the Candy Crowley incident now so he doesn’t look bitter, it’s still a perfect illustration of why he lost in the first place, and why he wouldn’t have been an effective president. He caved then, and would have caved as president.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Someone please shuffle Willard off the stage. His rehabilitation campaign is working about as well as his passive Presidential campaign.

wraithby on January 28, 2014 at 12:04 PM

If you don’t want to have to deal with him, a good way to start is by not clicking on threads or links relating to him.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2014 at 12:08 PM

…she needed to be roasted in a pit…with an apple in her mouth!

KOOLAID2 on January 28, 2014 at 12:10 PM

The RNC never have should allowed a left wing stenographer to moderate the debate. That was just another capitulation on their part.

cajunpatriot on January 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM

That is an absolute…

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 12:11 PM

If you don’t want to have to deal with him, a good way to start is by not clicking on threads or links relating to him.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Good idea, if you don’t like something, don’t complain, just ignore it…

I think that would limit the debate a bit, but I imagine a Mitt supporter would embrace that. Don’t confront, run from it.

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Candy Crowley is the Lena Dunham of journalism.

myiq2xu on January 28, 2014 at 12:14 PM

I may leave this Earth before the GOP gets a damn clue
as to how to conduct Presidential Campaigns.

ToddPA on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

I suspect that there are as-yet-unborn generations who will live their whole lives and leave this earth before that happens.

J.S.K. on January 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Good idea, if you don’t like something, don’t complain, just ignore it…

I think that would limit the debate a bit, but I imagine a Mitt supporter would embrace that. Don’t confront, run from it.

right2bright on January 28, 2014 at 12:13 PM

That’s not what I said. Romney is of no consequence now. He’s not going to run again, and his opinions have very limited value now. That’s like if someone were to say that he/she wants Palin to go away because a lot of people don’t take her seriously. I would tell that person the same thing. If you want her to go away, the best way to do that is by not giving her any attention. The more hits/comments a thread gets, the less likely it’ll happen. It’s just common sense. I’m all for debate, but it’s obvious that the more you debate about if someone should stick around, the more likely that person will stick around, just by virtue of that person being talked about.

GOPRanknFile on January 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM

No Neck Crowley is in the tank for the Libs. Not a big secret & Romney’s to blame for accepting her as moderator.

RdLake on January 28, 2014 at 12:24 PM

It’s just not in the guy’s DNA.

Moesart on January 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Neither is being POTUS.

Bmore on January 28, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Republicans should have their own debates with nothing to do with networks, choosing their own moderators.

Why they would continue to subject themselves to the enemy like this is completely baffling.

Akzed on January 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

For the primary debates, Republicans should be able to choose their own moderators without too much difficulty. Even MSNBC would probably be willing to broadcast a Republican-produced debate with a conservative moderator, since it would mean that they would win the ratings race among the cable news networks that night. (The debates tend to generate good ratings by cable news standards.)

But for the general election debates, I don’t hold out much hope for our candidate’s ability to negotiate. We’ll be lucky if we can avoid having NBC News special correspondent Chelsea Clinton as a moderator.

J.S.K. on January 28, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Winning elections is not in the Romney DNA.

Mitt’s Brother Ran for Michigan Attorney General in 1998. Lost. 0%

portlandon on January 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Scott Romney is at 50%. He did win election to the Michigan State University Board of Trustees (a statewide public election) in 2000.

J.S.K. on January 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM

The fix is in, it doesn’t matter who you vote for. Buy guns, ammo and prepare for the collapse of the dollar. Too many stupid people are allowed to vote and it will be impossible to roll it back and stop voter fraud.

It doesn’t matter anymore. The new paradigm is coming.

spec_ops_mateo on January 28, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Just because Candy didn’t know what she was doing/talking about and was helping Adolf…er, Obama with the debate?! Turn the other cheek, Mitt….you have to be more ‘tolerant’. (Said in my best ‘Liberal Progressive’ voice)

easyt65 on January 28, 2014 at 12:39 PM

If Candy had falsely corrected Obama, she’d have been summarily fired and now be working for Third Way.

Debates either need to be boycotted unless we get a decent moderator. Either that, or he/she needs to be equipped to call out and humiliate the moderator when necessary, a la Newt. None of this deer in headlights, aw-shucks garbage. That’s for losers.

GOP candidates need to understand that if you’re in the ring, both your opponent and the referee are your mortal enemies. These so-called journalists are corrupt to the core. ABC would see nothing wrong with having an ex-Clinton top adviser moderating a debate featuring Mrs. Clinton. Think about how outrageous that is. That’d be like Karl Rove, reinvented as a journalist, moderating a debate featuring Jeb Bush. Would the left ever stand for that?

crrr6 on January 28, 2014 at 12:46 PM

First of all, CC should never have been agreed to as the debate monitor, never. Secondly and most importantly, don’t ever forget that When CC reminded Romney that Odumbo did classify the attack as a terrorist attack the following day, Odumbo interjected “can you say that again, Candy.” An out and out devious LIE.

rjoco1 on January 28, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Romney should have hit back hard at the dog with hair, but, well, that’s Mitt … and he lost the election in part for being too GD soft when he needed to get mean. Poor ole Mitt and even poorer ole we the American people. I can’t and will not ever forgive Mitt for his softness.

Sherman1864 on January 28, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Crowley was despicable but Romney as gutless to let them get away with it. We need warriors not wimps.

neyney on January 28, 2014 at 12:51 PM

J.S.K. on January 28, 2014 at 12:29 PM

So what?? Meaningless trivia. The point is Mitt lost and we suffer. Have google will travel, eh?

Sherman1864 on January 28, 2014 at 12:53 PM

neyney on January 28, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Exactly!

Sherman1864 on January 28, 2014 at 12:56 PM

The GOP establishment always responds this way when dealing with the Leftist Media. They’re disappointed, or troubled, or mildly upset. That is the WRONG response.

The correct way to handle democrat-shilling heffers like Candy Crowley is mockery. Call them on it, right then, on the spot, as though you can’t help but laugh at them. Deny them the cover of treating them like they’re anything but partisan hacks for Obama.

“Now Candy, we all know you’re pulling your hardest for Obama but let’s at least try maintain the pretense that you’re capable of objectivity.”

SAMinVA on January 28, 2014 at 1:00 PM

The fix is in, it doesn’t matter who you vote for. Buy guns, ammo and prepare for the collapse of the dollar. Too many stupid people are allowed to vote and it will be impossible to roll it back and stop voter fraud.

It doesn’t matter anymore. The new paradigm is coming.

spec_ops_mateo on January 28, 2014 at 12:33 PM

I believe you are right on the first part – the fix is in, but I don’t think the collapse will come all at once. The country will continue deteriorating at roughly this same pace. We have enough of a minority (albeit diminishing) to slow the slide, which is almost unfortunate since the morons that reinstalled Obama will believe it’s because their initiatives failed to go far enough and we’re preventing the promises that the left-wing political class promises them.

Look around you. This is no longer an enlightened electorate. You don’t import millions of third worlders and expect them to turn into Jeffersonian democrats. Perhaps from the rubble of this former republic some good guys can build a new one, firewalled with a statist-proof constituion, but I agree – this country is finished.

Election day 2012 is when I stopped loving this country. I’m in it for myself now. I will do everything I can to discourage my children from ever serving in this country’s military. Who and what are they serving anymore? The only thing that’s getting me by now is watching the poor people who voted for this fool suffer even further. Can’t fix stupid – you just have to laugh and let ‘em drown.

crrr6 on January 28, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Talk about a delayed reaction, Mitt!

One year and almost three months later he decides to call out Candy.

This story is the perfect microcosm for what’s wrong with the Republican Party.

Barrack on January 28, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Election day 2012 is when I stopped loving this country. I’m in it for myself now. I will do everything I can to discourage my children from ever serving in this country’s military. Who and what are they serving anymore? The only thing that’s getting me by now is watching the poor people who voted for this fool suffer even further. Can’t fix stupid – you just have to laugh and let ‘em drown.

crrr6 on January 28, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Yep.

Message board that I belong to with a lot of leftists has been filled with several of them begging for jobs for the past few days, saying that they’re running out of money, etc.

My answer has been very simple: you voted for Barack Obama, you can starve. I wouldn’t feed someone who aided and abetted my mortal enemy and who supported and endorsed people stealing from me, and Barack Obama and his filthy sick Obama Party have done nothing but.

The only thing the Obama supporters will ever understand is pain. It’s time to give it to them.

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2014 at 1:24 PM

To say she had little effect on the election may or may not be true. There were 60 million people watching the debate so, if only 10% of them decided Romney was a liar, based on the exchange, that’s 6 million votes, he lost by 5. Now, did all 6 million decide to vote for Obama? Who knows, but to say it had no effect whatsoever, would be a stretch.

If I were any Republican, I would refuse to go on Crowley’s show, period.

bflat879 on January 28, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Barack Obama and his filthy sick Obama Party

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2014 at 1:24 PM

The Obama Party. Nice. Time to strap Mr. Teflon to his tribe.
“Join the Obama Party. Lie, steal, rape, and murder. Its all good. We’re the Obama party.”
“I’m Barrack Obama and you paid for this message.”

onomo on January 28, 2014 at 2:53 PM

If any “Investigative Journalists” actually existed they would be busy investigating any interactions Candy Crowley and CNN had with the Obama campaign before the debate.

Where are the “Journalists” who should have asked how Candy Crowley happened to have a transcript of the Rose Garden speech handy during the debate?

But since we no longer have real Journalists, we the American People, need to make Candy Crowley and CNN famous as the poster children for media bias.

wren on January 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Why in the world does the Republican Party agree election after election to having only liberal biased moderators in the Presidential debates?

Is it too much to ask for even just one neutral or right leaning moderator?

RJL on January 28, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Meat Loaf was a terrible moderator…

PointnClick on January 28, 2014 at 5:42 PM

The RNC can’t do too much about the general election debates, as those are coordinated between the campaigns and the Presidential Debate Commission, which means that cable-net talking heads will probably still moderate them.

Yes, they could. They could go back to allowing The League of Women voters to run the debates the way that they used to for over 100 years before The Democrats and The Republicans pulled out of the 1988 League of Women Voter debates simply because the League of Women Voters decided that The Libertarians were strong enough to be invited to the debates. That was the moment when the elites took the process out of any hands other than their own.

Theophile on January 28, 2014 at 11:19 PM