START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Candy Crowley Injects Herself Into the Presidential Debate


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Candy Crowley, debates, fact checking, elections, candidates, americans, media, news )

Carrie
- 683 days ago - thedailybeast.com
Democrats loved her. Republicans assailed her 'agenda.' The morning after Candy Crowley injected herself forcefully into the debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, she talks to Lauren Ashburn about the big night.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Sue Matheson (70)
Wednesday October 17, 2012, 1:52 pm
thanks
 

Florence Eaise (132)
Wednesday October 17, 2012, 4:31 pm
Ihink she did a great job i just wish she reigned Romney in a bit more that man is a nut lol
 

Carol H. (229)
Wednesday October 17, 2012, 5:08 pm
she was a good moderator.
 

Jennifer C. (172)
Wednesday October 17, 2012, 7:53 pm
Thanks.
 

Suzanne L. (152)
Wednesday October 17, 2012, 9:12 pm
I had heard before the debate that many others who were approached to moderate turned it down. I think Candy Crowley had a lot of huzpah but frankly, I think she could have been tougher. I think the mikes should be shut off if a candidate keeps going on and on over their allotted time. I think she was correct in inserting the fact checking at the point she did. These debates are for the purpose of helping people choose a candidate and if one of them lies it should be pointed out to viewers.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 2:21 am
She overstepped her bounds as moderator. This does not speak well for her.
 

Carrie B. (309)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 2:25 am
Sorry Heidi, but I think Candy did an excellent job. Fact checking the candidates is essential. Romney was dishonest and that was pointed out.
 

Paula M. (39)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 10:27 am
If you are going to "fact check" candidates during a debate you have to be absolutely accurate in your fact-check. The interpretation of President Obama's Rose Garden speech offered by Crowley as "fact" can be most charitably characterized as debatable and is more accurately characterized as absolutely wrong. By injecting a false "fact" into the debate under the guise of impartial moderation Crowley demonstrated herself utterly unsuited to the responsibilities she had been given.
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 11:32 am
A truly Hilarious site -- pun on Hilary's name intended, those are the funniest {in my opinion}.
More keep being added.
I also like Hamlet, "Get thee to a Binder".....

"Tell me how am I supposed to choose
With all these Binders, full of Women....."

Eytan Oren’s original song Binders Full Of Women

on
http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/


I don't know how long Amazon will let these reviews stay up, but they are absolutely hilarious.

http://www.amazon.com/Avery-Durable-Binder-EZ-Turn-17032/product-reviews/B001B0CTMU/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/top-10-bindersfullofwomen-responses.html#ixzz29g1Mveki
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 12:10 pm
From Michelle Goldberg:
"I have no idea if Romney’s poor showing will change the momentum of the campaign the way Obama’s did. Nevertheless, the night scarcely could have gone better for the president.

The hectoring, hyped-up alpha male attitude that served Romney so well in the first debate seemed, in the context of a town hall, bullying and slightly unhinged.
His whining about not getting enough time was a reminder of his petulant, entitled side.

Obama’s confidence, his evident connection with the audience, seems to have badly rattled his opponent, leading to errors that were entirely unforced.

The question about Libya, for example, should have offered Romney a chance to put Obama on the defensive. Instead, he clung to the mendacious conservative claim that the administration refused to call the attack in Benghazi an act of terror, even as Crowley corrected him in real time.

He ended up looking both uninformed and petty.

Then, in response to the night’s final question—an absurd softball about the ways in which he’s most misunderstood—he said he cared about “100 percent” of Americans, giving Obama an opening to bring up the infamous 47 percent video, which, until then, had gone unmentioned. For the president, it was the perfect note to end on.

At least some people on the right must realize this, even if they’re not admitting it publicly.

Online on Tuesday night, some were channeling their rage toward Katherine Fenton, who asked the question about equal pay for men and women. Michelle Malkin referred to her as a “#ladyparts tool,” while Fox’s Greg Gutfeld compared her with Sandra Fluke."
=======================================
SEVERAL commentators have said, that when you start BLAMING THE UMPIRE, that is a SURE sign that YOUR SIDE HAS LOST.

Very DIRTY of the Repukes, also, to BLAME THE {FEMALE} QUESTIONER.
This CLEARLY signals, that, Hey, under a Repukelican Administration, YOU{WOMEN} WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ASK UNSCRIPTED QUESTIONS YOUR REPUKE RULERS DON'T FEEL LIKE ANSWERING.
Shades of "The Handmaid's Tale"!

I especially like:
"The hectoring, hyped-up alpha male attitude that served Romney so well in the first debate seemed, in the context of a town hall, bullying and slightly unhinged.
His whining about not getting enough time was a reminder of his petulant, entitled side."
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 12:14 pm
From Michelle Goldberg:
"I have no idea if Romney’s poor showing will change the momentum of the campaign the way Obama’s did. Nevertheless, the night scarcely could have gone better for the president.

The hectoring, hyped-up alpha male attitude that served Romney so well in the first debate seemed, in the context of a town hall, bullying and slightly unhinged.
His whining about not getting enough time was a reminder of his petulant, entitled side.

Obama’s confidence, his evident connection with the audience, seems to have badly rattled his opponent, leading to errors that were entirely unforced.

The question about Libya, for example, should have offered Romney a chance to put Obama on the defensive. Instead, he clung to the mendacious conservative claim that the administration refused to call the attack in Benghazi an act of terror, even as Crowley corrected him in real time.

He ended up looking both uninformed and petty.

Then, in response to the night’s final question—an absurd softball about the ways in which he’s most misunderstood—he said he cared about “100 percent” of Americans, giving Obama an opening to bring up the infamous 47 percent video, which, until then, had gone unmentioned. For the president, it was the perfect note to end on.

At least some people on the right must realize this, even if they’re not admitting it publicly.

Online on Tuesday night, some were channeling their rage toward Katherine Fenton, who asked the question about equal pay for men and women. Michelle Malkin referred to her as a “#ladyparts tool,” while Fox’s Greg Gutfeld compared her with Sandra Fluke."
=======================================
SEVERAL commentators have said, that when you start BLAMING THE UMPIRE, that is a SURE sign that YOUR SIDE HAS LOST.

Very DIRTY of the Repukes, also, to BLAME THE {FEMALE} QUESTIONER.
This CLEARLY signals, that, Hey, under a Repukelican Administration, YOU{WOMEN} WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ASK UNSCRIPTED QUESTIONS YOUR REPUKE RULERS DON'T FEEL LIKE ANSWERING.
Shades of "The Handmaid's Tale"!

I especially like:
"The hectoring, hyped-up alpha male attitude that served Romney so well in the first debate seemed, in the context of a town hall, bullying and slightly unhinged.
His whining about not getting enough time was a reminder of his petulant, entitled side."
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 12:15 pm
for some reason, I am not able to post here!
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 12:30 pm
From Michelle Goldberg:
"I have no idea if Romney’s poor showing will change the momentum of the campaign the way Obama’s did. Nevertheless, the night scarcely could have gone better for the president.

The hectoring, hyped-up alpha male attitude that served Romney so well in the first debate seemed, in the context of a town hall, bullying and slightly unhinged.
His whining about not getting enough time was a reminder of his petulant, entitled side.

Obama’s confidence, his evident connection with the audience, seems to have badly rattled his opponent, leading to errors that were entirely unforced.

The question about Libya, for example, should have offered Romney a chance to put Obama on the defensive. Instead, he clung to the mendacious conservative claim that the administration refused to call the attack in Benghazi an act of terror, even as Crowley corrected him in real time.

He ended up looking both uninformed and petty.

Then, in response to the night’s final question—an absurd softball about the ways in which he’s most misunderstood—he said he cared about “100 percent” of Americans, giving Obama an opening to bring up the infamous 47 percent video, which, until then, had gone unmentioned. For the president, it was the perfect note to end on.

At least some people on the right must realize this, even if they’re not admitting it publicly.

Online on Tuesday night, some were channeling their rage toward Katherine Fenton, who asked the question about equal pay for men and women. Michelle Malkin referred to her as a “#ladyparts tool,” while Fox’s Greg Gutfeld compared her with Sandra Fluke."
=======================================
SEVERAL commentators have said, that when you start BLAMING THE UMPIRE, that is a SURE sign that YOUR SIDE HAS LOST.

Very DIRTY of the Repukes, also, to BLAME THE {FEMALE} QUESTIONER.
This CLEARLY signals, that, Hey, under a Repukelican Administration, YOU{WOMEN} WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ASK UNSCRIPTED QUESTIONS YOUR REPUKE RULERS DON'T FEEL LIKE ANSWERING.
Shades of "The Handmaid's Tale"!

I especially like:
"The hectoring, hyped-up alpha male attitude that served Romney so well in the first debate seemed, in the context of a town hall, bullying and slightly unhinged.
His whining about not getting enough time was a reminder of his petulant, entitled side."
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 12:36 pm
Oh, gosh, I am so sorry!
These things just WEREN'T coming up, it was so frustrating!!!
Sorry, sorry, sorry!!!
I thot there was some Care2 glitch, I kept coming back here!!!
 

Kathy B. (98)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 12:38 pm
The right's spin on President Obama's Rose Garden speech the day after the Benghazi attack is pathetic at best. The fact that the speech was about the attack leaves no doubt about the topic.

Perhaps the right would have been happier had he used stronger words an gotten everyone riled up and living in fear?

There is no doubt if you listen to his actual words that he is indeed calling it an act of terror.

I'm amazed the right isn't dizzy they've put so much spin on this.
 

Kamila A. (141)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 1:08 pm
Ms. Crawley was on target. Romney's bullying was embarrassing and she could have been nasty in order to stop him. I think Romney put his own foot in his mouth, and too bad for him that he couldn't get away with yet another lie. Lies are lies, do you get it Republicans? Lies don't work, they are LIES and liars have no right to demand respect. Romney deserves no respect whatsoever. He is a flip flopper and his etch-a-sketch sketchy ways are UNACCEPTABLE to the American people. Goodbye Romney, goodbye defunct GOP, go away and let the president implement what he intended in the first term.
 

Nancy M. (201)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 1:47 pm
If I didn't know anything adn was told she had an agenda, I would have thought she supported Romney.
 

Thomas P. (468)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 2:07 pm
Thanks Carrie. Heidi.....she overstepped her bounds, really? How? By simply pointing out the truth (without being zealous)? She's a journalist, by trade. She's SUPPOSED to point out the truth, regardless of whether she is moderating a debate or not. Or would you just have her listen to candidates lie without pointing out the truth? That would mean those of us that didn't know Gov Romney was wrong would be led to believe that he was telling the truth. That type of Kool-Aid pedaling appears as a staple on Fox News....she's an unbiased journalist.
 

Paula M. (39)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 2:30 pm
She was a moderator, Thomas P. Her job was to allow the candidates to lay out their statements to the American people. When she put on her "fact-check" hat she took of her "moderator" hat and became an interested party in the debate - unless she was willing to devote time to fact-checking every statement of both candidates.

Even if she could justify stepping into the debate like that she at least had an obligation to be accurate in what she asserted as fact. In fact, the interpretation she proposed was inconsistent with the context of the President's speech and the later statements of his administration:

http://www.care2.com/news/member/605579978/3471807

 

Lily T. (8)
Thursday October 18, 2012, 9:47 pm
It is accurate Paula. How can you not understand this simple statement?

And here is the transcript from Obama's Rose Garden remarks on September 12, the day after the attack:

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe," he said. "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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Obama repeated the "acts of terror" line during a campaign event in Las Vegas on September 13:

"No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

I certainly see act of terror in reference to the attack on the Libyan Embassy mentioned twice within two days of the attack. In addition, would it be wiser to be Mitt, go out half cocked with no facts and make statements which he has no direct knowledge about? It is much wiser to gauge your words carefully UNTIL YOU KNOW THE FACTS.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Carrie B.

Carrie B.
Carrie's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 404
Stories submitted: 3485
Front Page stories: 3222




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.