by Joel Engel @ » Impartial Moderators and Undecided Voters in the Land of Unicorns - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
Heading into last nights debate, I didnt believe Candy Crowley would be an honest broker or that the room would be filled with undecided voters. Both doubts were proved true at the same moment.
Of all the statements that Crowley decided to fact check, why that particular one about what Obama said or didnt say about terrorism the day after Benghazi? Why not, for example, his statements about gas and oil leases? Or his claim of five million jobs created? Why the terror claim?
For five weeks now, the story about what really happened on September 11 in Libya has leaked out in dribs and drabs, strongly suggesting a cover-up of scandalous proportions somewhere in the administrations pipeline.
No one with the least familiarity fails to remember that in the earliest days, right up through Obamas speech to the United Nations, a filmmaker in the U.S. was being blamed for inciting the violence. And no one who doesnt remember that should rightfully have reason to recollect the anodyne comments Obama made on September 12 in the Rose Garden right before jetting off to Vegas.
So why did Crowley recall seeing or hearing the word terror in the generic phrase acts of terror?
The obvious conclusionand, for me, the only logical oneis that she was tipped off ahead of time to Obamas argument, which he had prepared, when the issue came up. (But bad on Romney for not having a devastating two minutes rehearsed ahead of time. It was a sickening loss of opportunity.) Without paying particular attention to the context, she inserted herself into the debate to say, yes, the president did say it was an act of terror.
As for the people in the room, if they were truly undecided, why did they applaud when she corrected Romney?
That revealing moment instantly put the lie to the whole premise of the debate, both in terms of the impartial moderator and the undecided participants. Crowley and the majority of the audience were Obama partisans.
Why Romney and the Republican political leadership believed either premise enough to go along with this format and this moderator can best be explained by two words: stupid party.
Heading into last nights debate, I didnt believe Candy Crowley would be an honest broker or that the room would be filled with undecided voters. Both doubts were proved true at the same moment.
Of all the statements that Crowley decided to fact check, why that particular one about what Obama said or didnt say about terrorism the day after Benghazi? Why not, for example, his statements about gas and oil leases? Or his claim of five million jobs created? Why the terror claim?
For five weeks now, the story about what really happened on September 11 in Libya has leaked out in dribs and drabs, strongly suggesting a cover-up of scandalous proportions somewhere in the administrations pipeline.
No one with the least familiarity fails to remember that in the earliest days, right up through Obamas speech to the United Nations, a filmmaker in the U.S. was being blamed for inciting the violence. And no one who doesnt remember that should rightfully have reason to recollect the anodyne comments Obama made on September 12 in the Rose Garden right before jetting off to Vegas.
So why did Crowley recall seeing or hearing the word terror in the generic phrase acts of terror?
The obvious conclusionand, for me, the only logical oneis that she was tipped off ahead of time to Obamas argument, which he had prepared, when the issue came up. (But bad on Romney for not having a devastating two minutes rehearsed ahead of time. It was a sickening loss of opportunity.) Without paying particular attention to the context, she inserted herself into the debate to say, yes, the president did say it was an act of terror.
As for the people in the room, if they were truly undecided, why did they applaud when she corrected Romney?
That revealing moment instantly put the lie to the whole premise of the debate, both in terms of the impartial moderator and the undecided participants. Crowley and the majority of the audience were Obama partisans.
Why Romney and the Republican political leadership believed either premise enough to go along with this format and this moderator can best be explained by two words: stupid party.
