Obstructing Dialogue: The Problem With Having a Partisan Moderator

Bravo to Mitt Romney! Not only did he squeeze out a narrow victory, but he did so as he fought off not only President Obama’s lies and accusations, but as he fought off Obama’s sidekick, Candy Crowley. It was shameful.

It was an uphill battle for Romney last night who had the deck stacked against him. Viewers tuned in to watch the Town Hall debate, hoping to see citizens ask questions that are indicative of the kinds of questions average voters might have. Instead, we were treated to questions pre-screened by a liberal moderator that did all that she could to obstruct the debate and help Obama out.

Crowley chimed in to reinterpret questions posed by the undecided voters. Part of the appeal of the Town Hall debate is that after months of hearing the same talking points of pundits and reporters, we hear from real voters and the candidates are able to address those concerns. With Crowley interjecting herself into that situation at every turn, it became another Q&A with Candy Crowley.

The most outrageous portion of the night was the showdown between Obama and Crowley against Romney. Apparently, having had enough of trying to pretend to be objective, Crowley jumped into the fray to support her comrade by backing up Obama’s false contentions. During a question about Libya, Romney called Obama out for pushing the “YouTube video” story for weeks as the cause of the attack on our embassy in Benghazi. Romney cited Obama’s uninspired Rose Garden speech as an illustration of his changing narrative regarding the cover-up of the Benghazi attack. He claimed that even on September 12th, as Obama prepared to hop a plane to Vegas, Obama refused to call the attack an act of terror, but instead offered up the YouTube video excuse. As Romney circled in for the kill, Crowley jumped in to claim that in the transcript, Obama called it an “act of terror.” Romney was forced to retreat while still claiming that for weeks, Obama pushed the YouTube video story as the cause of the attack.

First of all, Crowley was the moderator, not a fact-checker. Second, if she was a fact-checker, she did a poor job as she seemed to only focus on Romney while allowing Obama to spew forth all kinds of nonsense.

And most importantly, she was wrong! President Obama denounced generic “acts of terror,” but did not label this attack as such. He stated, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” While I’ll admit that this is a somewhat ambiguous phrase, the fact is that it is far from being a fact that Obama claimed the Benghazi attack was an act of terror. Thus, Crowley had absolutely no business interjecting her perception as fact, especially when she had no business interjecting at all!

Almost immediately after the debate, the partisan hack walked back her comments and claimed that Romney was right, but still refused to admit that she was wrong. She stated, “He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word.”

Ms. Crowley has made a big deal about being the first woman in twenty years to moderate a debate. While that’s great, I humbly submit that it would have been far more impressive to be remembered as a good moderator rather than simply a female moderator. She missed her chance.

This entry was posted in Election 2012, Liberal Nonsense, Mainstream Media, News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Obstructing Dialogue: The Problem With Having a Partisan Moderator

  1. marct says:

    i just wonder why our side doesn’t “insist” on some right of center moderators. no one from our side, bingo no debate. rush would make a far better questioner than anyone on the left, because his questions are about making america better.

  2. Debra Meek says:

    Crowley, had to feel threatened to jump in for Obama so many times. Was she unbiased as a moderator. heck NO!!! It was like a free for all at times. She needed to moderate not put her two cents in and she was not even right at what she was saying. she then had to say she was wrong. We need some moderators that have integrity. I thought Mitt Romney did a great Job last night.

  3. B.J.Holmes says:

    It is instinctive that the Mainstream Media follow the liberal “line” and it’s not done deliberately. She and Obama should have worn boxing gloves to complete the expected result of constant dishonesty. Dishonesty is the first requirement for Democraps. All viewers are quite used to it.

  4. Debbie S says:

    What is even more bothersome to me is that it was apparent that the Obama campaign had obviously given her the transcript ahead of time as President Obama knew that she had it and knew what she was going to say. To me it was so obviously planned because the president ecourage Romney to go ahead with his speaking point, but as soon as he did the president asked Candy to read the transcript and even asked her to read it louder. How could it be anything other than planned? How could President Obama possibly know that Candy actually had the transcript and how could he possibly know that she would only read the portion of it that would benefit the president?

  5. Robert Boggs says:

    She should not be able to moderat in the future.

  6. Paul Wilkes says:

    I don’t understand why all four of the debates have left leaning moderators. Doesn’t the GOP have any clout?

    • ron says:

      yep…………..why are there LIB moderators in ALL debates? Know we KNOW the libs own the media BUT what about FOX NEWS?
      I guess FOX is banned?
      So much for fairness, honesty and freedom of speech! Thanks DEMOTARDS

  7. joycers says:

    She was definitely in Obama’s court, even siding with him on something that was wrong. She should never be allowed to play host to a Presidential Debate. Perhaps Obama can hire her for the next 19 days. Shame on her!

    • ron says:

      her 15 minutes of blame and fame came and went. it’s the DEMOCRAPTIC way.
      her media associates will bolster her efforts for the cause whether right or wrong.
      they will also “flavor” it to their liking…… cause it will stick with the uneducated drones of the party.

  8. Paul Phillips says:

    If she had that particular transcript with no collusion with the Obama camp, she must have also had transcripts of every speech and talk Obama and Romney had ever made, which would have been obvious by the huge pile of paper. Such didn’t seem to be the case. When Obama told her to “read the transcript” she didn’t have to hunt for it. The only conclusion I could make is this was pre-arrainged and is an outrage. What to me is perhaps a bigger outrage is that the wise and astute media didn’t seem to notice it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>