GOP whimpering about media already

[Synthaholic]

To my knowledge none. Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating. It would do them more harm that good.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.

Britt Hume, definitely yes.


anyway, this has been one of the more instructive and revealing threads around for a while,

now in all seriousness, notice how the folks whom have have had a lock on every single slot for every single presidential debate, since day 1, ( I mean having a moderator moderate a pres. debate who is writing a book on the prez...I mean come on, seriously? ) how many chances has that added up to? 30? 40? 100?

yet when you even question that paradigm they get all antsy and start their trademark splenetic gobbledegook unreal, you have to possess a special kind of head up the ass my crap don't stink holier than thou mindset to get worked up because someone even questions your absolute franchise...I mean how dare us for asking..

and then of course when you mention that obama edwards and hillary took a powder on a Fox debate....huh? what?

^^^ Actually believes FOXNEWS is a journalistic enterprise.

 

[Synthaholic]

4. Stupid and vulgar.

Yes you are, but we were talking about Hillary.

Oh wait, she's stupid and vulgar as well....

Carry on.

Wow, an, "I know you are but what am I" response. A comment a dull-normal third grader would eschew.

Rhetorically, why do self defined conservatives so often default to boorish and indecorous sexual references! Immaturity for sure, but I suspect something more pathological, though it may be a product of a dull mind and a poor education.

My friend has a great bumper sticker on her car:

 

[Synthaholic]

Politicians are like magicians.

Misdirection.

Why should the GOP be interested in penalizing candidates that can't afford to get camera time for attending non GOP sanctioned debates?

Simple...they don't want those candidates to get camera time and distract from their chosen candidate.

Romney was their pick, and we didn't want him.

"Anyone but Romney" was the order of the day.

Can't allow that to happen again...

Romney is a RINO. Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.

McCain is a RINO. Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.

Bush The Lesser is a RINO. Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.

Dole is a RINO. Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.

Bush The Greater is a RINO. Yet, he was the choice of Republican voters.


See a pattern?

Now, Reagan packaged himself as a True Conservative, but governed as a RINO.

An actual conservative could never get elected, because in reality, Americans reject conservative ideology put into practice. It sounds good at first, until they see the devils in the details. Then they realize that, yes, they want government regulating food safety, and worker safety, and financial shenanigans, and clean air, and foreign imports, etc.

 

[Synthaholic]

To my knowledge none. Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating. It would do them more harm that good.

Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators

Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?

The GOP would have to take complete leave of their senses, which of course they do at times, to push for a Fox commentator as a moderator. To have a moderator that attacks Democrat candidates 5 nights a week and then moderates a presidential debate would be a gift to Democrats.

Presidential debates are a time when the party reaches out to independents and the opposition to gather support not to pander to the base. That's what you do in primary debates.

Excellent post!

 

[Synthaholic]

Politicians are like magicians.

Misdirection.

Why should the GOP be interested in penalizing candidates that can't afford to get camera time for attending non GOP sanctioned debates?

Simple...they don't want those candidates to get camera time and distract from their chosen candidate.

Romney was their pick, and we didn't want him.

"Anyone but Romney" was the order of the day.

Can't allow that to happen again...

Again, relate it to the damn topic or create another thread. THIS thread is about NBC and CNN airing pro Hillary content to cheer lead for their next candidate and the RNC’s response (cutting them out of the content that they provide).

Have you seen these shows, which haven't been produced yet?

What's the basis of your assumption that it will help Clinton? Or that it will be a positive portrayal?

I don't think Hillary wants to remind everyone of the warts. Yet, any bio-pic will bring them all out in the open again.

 

[FA_Q2]

Politicians are like magicians.

Misdirection.

Why should the GOP be interested in penalizing candidates that can't afford to get camera time for attending non GOP sanctioned debates?

Simple...they don't want those candidates to get camera time and distract from their chosen candidate.

Romney was their pick, and we didn't want him.

"Anyone but Romney" was the order of the day.

Can't allow that to happen again...

Again, relate it to the damn topic or create another thread. THIS thread is about NBC and CNN airing pro Hillary content to cheer lead for their next candidate and the RNC’s response (cutting them out of the content that they provide).

Have you seen these shows, which haven't been produced yet?

What's the basis of your assumption that it will help Clinton? Or that it will be a positive portrayal?

I don't think Hillary wants to remind everyone of the warts. Yet, any bio-pic will bring them all out in the open again.

That would be a logical attack on the OP’s supposition. That was all I am asking for rather than brining up random tangential issues that are not related to the OP’s topic. Take it for what it is worth but what I posted is essentially the charge that the OP's source laid.

 

[Synthaholic]

I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.


and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates? no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?


you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in 'the' bubble occupiers of each, right?

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?

Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruff, Jim Lehrer, Martha Raddatz, Peter Jennings, Ann Compton, Charles Gibson, Bernard Shaw, Sander Vanocur, Hal Bruno, Marvin Kalb, Norma Quarles, Howard K. Smith, Edwin Newman, Frank Reynolds, Pauline Frederick, Max Frankel, Richard Valeriani, Henry L. Trewitt, Robert Maynard, Jack Nelson, Marilyn Berger, Walter Mears, James Gannon, Frank McGee, etc.


Moderators are bolded. The others were panelists, who asked questions. I wish they would go back to that format.

Past panelists were Brit Hume and Morton Kondrake, so RW-ers haven't been excluded. Barbara Walters was a moderator in 1976, and one other time, I think. Back then she wasn't partisan like she is now. As she has gotten older, she has gotten more Liberal. Helen Thomas was a panelist in the 1970s, for Reuters, and also wasn't a partisan (she never became one, and is only smeared by the wingnuts for her pro-Palestinian views). Carole Simpson, of ABC News, was a moderator, and although she wasn't a partisan, you'll claim she was because she's Black.

But this list includes reporters from the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Baltimore Sun, AP, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, and more.

So, which are Leftwing partisans?

 

[Synthaholic]

So, you think that Obama does not know that Charleston, SC is not on the Gulf of Mexico? I want to make sure that I know exactly what has your panties in a wad.

I just wonder if the Stuttering Clusterfukk knows which of the 57 States border the Gulf.

Well, as long as the Right continues to pay attention to these important issues, we can sort of let the little things takes care of themselves, like jobs, deficits, etc....

It's amazing that they harp on a few slips of the tongue from Obama after defending the Texas Gaffe Machine for eight years.

 

[Synthaholic]

I was wondering what you were going to say, can you link me please to the gop telling the debate organizers they don't want fox btw thx.


and as to the rest? please you really need to get over yourselves, so basically fox is not worthy, becasue why again? they attack the candidates? no really? did you just actually post that?............is that your excuse as to why it passed with nary a word when obama hill and edwards boycotted a fox debate?


you know your value judgements on broadcasting as to who does and says what to whom? don't mean shit to anyone but those in the, as in 'the' bubble occupiers of each, right?

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

first- I don't know of even anyone here who puts fox on par with msnbc or msnbc with abc or cbs et al.


second- most Americans know or feel that the nets and cnn and pbs are slanted left, its a wash.

Now, if your contention is, that fox is MORE slanted there by yours less so, and are not qualified to moderate a debate, well, it must be nice to always shoot from the moral high ground, where in you own some special dispensation from the normal run of humanity, where in you get to sit in judgment and decide who's worthy or not, becasue you know, you're 'better' and get to accord 'reputation' as to who's fair enough or not.

Ergo- the franchise on fairness is yours....



You guys, man oh man, talk about arrogance.

This is the Echo Chamber speaking through Trajan.

Brought to you by Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Synthaholic]

What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

Like oh, gwenn ifill? and no, bob never made derogatory comments ala bush et al....my god dude, check yourself into rehab, seriously.


I am still waiting on that information Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll and have to select someone, for gods sake

Why do you think Ifill is biased? Because she's Black.

That's your bias.

What did Schieffer ever say about Bush? Or are you counting the reporting of events?

 

[Synthaholic]

What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.

The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.

That's it.

 

[mamooth]

Given what ratings-losers the primary debates are, I'm sure NBC -- the last major network that's still almost neutral instead of solidly conservative -- will be crushed to have an excuse to air popular programming instead and make a lot of money. As for CNN, no one watches them anyways, not since they've started trying so hard to be FOX-lite. You'd think the GOP would be more sympathetic to the Conservative News Network.

Just how crazy does one have to be to think CNN or ABC is liberal? If someone is that irrevocably brainwashed, just smile and nod and back away. You can't reason with people who have deliberately rejected reason.

And conservatives, stop crying already because Crowley wouldn't let Romney lie. Pointing out lies makes someone honest, not biased. Romney lied about what Obama supposedly didn't say, and Crowley correctly called him on it. It seems to be official Republican policy that any Republican is entitled to lie with impunity, and that calling them on it is "bias".

 

[Synthaholic]

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.

I disagree.

Her relationship with BFF Poor Sarah Palin demonstrates that. Her husband and fellow Scientologist nutball, Washington lawyer John Coale, is an adviser to Sarah Palin.


Cheerleading:

Greta Van Susteren: Sarah Palin will drive critics crazy

Greta Van Susteren ‘Delighted’ Sarah Palin Is Returning to Fox News Channel



And this:






HuffPo's Rachel Weiner has already reported on Greta Van Susteren's defensive response to a Politico story today, which cited an anonymous source saying that one of the reasons that Sarah Palin has been caught up in a "series of public relations gaffes" is because she is "taking advice from Greta and her husband."


In her Fox News blog, Van Susteren vehemently denied offering Palin any advice, and called the authors to task for not checking on this allegation. Let me give Van Susteren her due. This is a serious charge of direct professional misconduct, and there should have been more than a throwaway line from an unnamed source to back it up. The allegation begs further questioning.


But what Van Susteren does acknowledge in her "brief" on the subject is equally troubling:

1. She acknowledges that her husband, John Coale, has been advising Palin, that they are in weekly contact, and that he played a central role in the formation of her national political action committee, SarahPAC--all while she has been covering Palin for Fox News.

2. She acknowledges that her husband met Palin through Van Susteren's media contacts with the governor. In short, he used his wife's journalistic access to Palin to gain his own political access.
​

There are some serious journalistic conflicts of interest taking place here, and Van Susteren is either being duplicitous or disingenuous to characterize them as "silly."

 

[Synthaholic]

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.

Now, see, I disagree again. Tim Russert was allergic to tough questions, and was the poster child for 'go along to get along' media.

He got along with everyone because they all knew they had nothing to fear from him - just softball lob after lob. (Andrea Mitchell has taken up his flag)

And his son Luke - The Dauphin Of MSNBC - learned well from dear old dad.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.

The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.

That's it.

I agree that it's not a moderator's job to play "gotcha". Even though many try to play that game. I do believe it is a moderator's job to ask tough questions though as opposed to soft ball questions (i.e. holding ones chestnuts to the fire).

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.

Now, see, I disagree again. Tim Russert was allergic to tough questions, and was the poster child for 'go along to get along' media.

He got along with everyone because they all knew they had nothing to fear from him - just softball lob after lob. (Andrea Mitchell has taken up his flag)

And his son Luke - The Dauphin Of MSNBC - learned well from dear old dad.

I admired Tim Russet's even handedness towards people on the left and right. I didn't care that he was a democrat because he was a professional. Anybody who thinks Russert was allergic to tough questions is far too liberal to understand journalistic professionalism. Of course, the far left isn't exactly known for journalistic professionalism to begin with.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

Like oh, gwenn ifill? and no, bob never made derogatory comments ala bush et al....my god dude, check yourself into rehab, seriously.


I am still waiting on that information Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll and have to select someone, for gods sake

Why do you think Ifill is biased? Because she's Black.

That's your bias.

What did Schieffer ever say about Bush? Or are you counting the reporting of events?

Nobody said Ifill was biased because she's black. People say she was biased because she was writing a book about Obama while being a moderator. In other words, Ifill had a chance to make more money if Obama became president than if he didn't become president. More people would want to read a book about somebody who became president than read a book about somebody who didn't become president. I don't know how much clearer this point can be made. Any fair minded person would consider Ifill's position as being questionable at best. The fact that you have to play the silly race card is sad and a tad pathetic.
Oh yea, you said something about scientology, Sarah Palin and Bush. This echo chamber is just boring so I'll go ahead and skip the usual liberal rambling nonsense. Didn't really make much sense anyway.

 

[American_Jihad]

Hillary Clinton TV projects earn criticism from liberals​

CNN and NBC’s plans for series have sparked accusations of bias from Republicans, and now New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and the progressive Media Matters group are crying foul, too.

By Leslie Larson

Read more: Hillary Clinton TV projects earn criticism from liberals - NY Daily News

 

[Synthaholic]

Synthoholic saw fit to neg me yesterday for this post.

Yes - for this:

An example, one of many thousands, of how the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM helps dimocrap scum.....

 

[Synthaholic]

Yeah, what could be more fair than Candy Crowley interjecting herself into the debate and openly lying on behalf of Obama?

No bias there....

She wasn't lying.

IF thats true ( see below) , so what?

and-



CANDY CROWLEY: Well, you know, I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand or, whatever the whole quote was.

And I think actually, you know because, right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was a, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t.

So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. And I, you know, they’re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of is is, but, I, uh, you know, in the end, I think John [King]’s probably right. I think this has a lot more to with jobs and the debt crisis and all of that kind of stuff.

I just think that probably it was one of those moments and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting. It’s just that was the natural thing coming out of me going, ‘Actually he did, you know, call it an act of terror.’ Uh, when, you know, half the crowd clapped for that and the other half clapped for ‘But they kept telling us this was a tape, this was caused by a tape’ so, you know, in the main, the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that, um, but I just think he picked the wrong kind of way to go about talking about it if that makes sense.


Read more: Video: Candy Crowley Admits Romney Was Correct About Libya Attack But Simply Couldn?t Stop Herself | NewsBusters


how about the cbs kroft 60 minutes interview sept 12 where in cbs withheld via editing, obama refusing to use the word term terrorism after being pressed several times on that very point? CBS home of the 'even handed' who deserve their lock on debate moderation.... unreal..

So....you are basically complaining that Crowley had more credibility with the American public than Romney.