The Presidential Debates Have Devolved Into Liberal Controlled And Hyped Media Events

Loading

We had our debate last night, and as was expected, Crowley made her partisan views and bias a significant factor in the debate: if you deny this obvious fact, you suffer from willful ignorance or you are so lost in your bias your sanity might be in question.

Crowley let it be known, before the debate, she planned to inject her influence into the debate; after all, she has a superior intellect and is a member of the elite cadre of media engaged in the reelection of Obama. How could anyone expect or ask that she be a neutral moderator, with such superior talent, she needs to be an active participant and personality within the debate. Who knew the debate, between men vying for the most powerful position in the world, required the participation of an obvious shill for Obama to clap for Obama and allow him extra time to make crucial points because they are “important.”

When the “approved questions by undecided voters, who show up decided, and then ask questions like “how are you different from Bush” the debate has ceased to be a debate and has become a Liberal media event. Forget the fact that Michelle Obama is allowed to break the rules and lead the questioners and Crowley in applause, the debate has lost its validity. The moderators have reduced the debates from important historical meetings that allow the public to view the candidates under stress competing against each other, to the level of another Liberal hosted talk show on the alphabet networks. Allowing Obama to interrupt with impunity and talk over Romney was only one of many examples of the debate taking on the appearance of a Liberal media event; this ruins the spirit of a legitimate debate. We deserve better.

The question of President Obama’s reluctance to use the word terror in reference to Islamic Fundamentalists is well known and has brought into question the dubious nature of his loyalties. In the Rose Garden speech on September 12, 20120, Obama used the word terror once near the conclusion of his speech:

“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.”

To those of us who study the often convoluted and purposely vague speeches of politicians and Obama in particular, such a generic statement regarding terror toward the end of a speech seems to reply to terror in general; but Crowley felt the obligation, as an Obama Bootlicker, to interject herself and correct Romney, based solely on her personal assumption and interpretation of this vague reference to terror. Whether the president meant to apply the term terror to Benghazi will be a matter of conjecture, but at best the president is guilty of being vague and indirect in designating Benghazi an act of terror, if indeed, he meant Benghazi to be considered an act of terror. Yet, Crowley, with her superior intellect, has said, “yes” that is what he was saying, and the Liberal world is commending her for her rudeness and pretension.

A computer with a timer could be used more effectively and without the shameless bias that America is expected to accept as “normal;” unless, the computer is programmed with this same devious propensity of Liberals towards cheating.

If the tables were reversed and the deck was stacked against a Democrat, the hue and cry of unfairness would be unceasing; yet, the hypocrisy to even admit the obvious bias of a moderator helping a debater who wanders off course or needs help with extra time is insignificant.

The debates are nothing more than a spectacle, designed for Romney to be handicapped and to allow Obama a chance to reassert himself in the race. Still the question remains and begs to be asked: if Liberals are content to cheat and be comfortable with the mantle of corruption associated with cheating, where may we assume they draw the line. In other words, if cheating is second nature to the Liberal, how far are they prepared to go in this corruption of cheating. Do they provide Obama with the question crib sheets so that he is more well prepared?

Yes, he showed remarkable improvement from the last debate are we to assume he gained a mastery of these specific topics in a few days, when he sounded like a blithering dolt during the last debate. The Liberals are asking us to believe in their sense of honesty and integrity, but like the drunk whore in church, the hypocrisy is more than obvious as is their tendency to use whatever means necessary to gain the upper hand.

Like a trained seal, the neutral moderator is clapping for her hero
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
167 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Mata,
The president STILL has not called Ft Hood a terrorist attack— in spite of having targeted and killed the inspirational figure for the shooter in Yemen. This admin has been loath to use the words “terrorism” or jihad or radical Islamist etc…or call “anything” a terrorist attack and it’s been that way from the beginning. I mean..this has been an issue and a point of contention since the very beginning of this administration has it not? Van Jones? Re-writing FBI and counter terrorism manuals? The underwear bomber 2009…Nepalitano…”the system worked”???

This is not something I’m stepping lightly on. YES…its damn important the “words” the president uses and the context of it and what they do with the information they receive. And the history of this admin has been to play down such events, and try and redefine them “away” from the idea that these acts were Islamic terrorist acts against the United States. So, no, Mata. I’m not going to let this go. Because I’m reading the presidents words and speech in the context of him being president for the last 4 years. Not as if he started yesterday.

Crowley did “both” things. In speaking/clarifying…she got tongue tied and misstated Romney’s position when she repeated it. She also said…”it did” under her breath after Romney said just the opposite of what she said. I don’t think “she” ever clearly even made Romney’s point ..though you are right Romney was able to. But, if you take those things all together and line them up and look at what she agreed or declared facts…it doesn’t even make sense:

1- Obama said Benghazi was a terrorist act.
2- It took Obama admin a couple weeks or so to admit that it was a video, thingie, protest.
3- Obama admin claimed for weeks it was a protest gone out of control and it took weeks for them to admit there was no protest and it was a terrorist attack.

Clear as mud.

Again, my main point here is simply that this is exactly why moderators should stay out of it and let the chips fall where they may for the candidates. Save it for the round table and fact checking after. In trying to “help”..she only succeeded in helping to further cloud the real issue/point of contention that was being made in order to move on.

Dc, the person who “misstated” the position was Romney himself. That’s where he got himself into a no win corner. What he said was:

You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

I think what he meant, and did not articulate correctly, was that Obama’s Rose Garden speech blamed the video and a protest, and wasn’t planned.

I said to Kevin before that being “planned” makes a big difference from a spontaneous event because it brings into question whether there was intel and security needs that were ignored (as we now know there was). Hard to plan against “spontaneous” events, save for the fact they should be expecting them every Sept 11th.

But it didn’t come out that way by Romney. Instead he confused a couple of things.

1: It would be an act of terror whether it was planned or not planned. The Cairo assault on the US embassy, and others, was just as much a terrorist act (by US code definitions and my personal opinion) as the Benghazi consulate was. Plus Obama did call both the 2001 and 2012 Sept 11th “attacks” acts of terror.

2: It was not in the Rose Garden speech that the admin blamed the film/protests for the Benghazi attack in particular. It was in later subsequent statements, and by several of his admin members.

Obama’s Rose Garden speech was deliberately vague. He was addressing multiple happenings that day, not only Benghazi – violent attacks on US embassies all over the region, some peaceful protests in front of US embassies all over the region, deaths of Americans in Benghazi, an offensive film and content attributed to an American, and the anniversary and events happening on Sept 11th. What Obama’s deliberately vague speech did not do was cite a specific cause for Benghazi, but disjointedly touched on all and stated the perps would be brought to justice.

You can effectively argue that Crowley should not have pointed out that both were in error, and say she should have just cut them off and moved on. Me? I don’t care either way. Both were wrong in the way Romney framed the issue. But you cannot state that she only sided with Obama and his version of events.

I saw the half truths both were working on. Romney set his own trap by losing sight of the real argument… was it planned (and intel/security ignored?) or a spontaneous event? And why did it take so long for the WH to admit it was planned and intel/security *were* ignored. What Romney should have *not* done was attributed it just to the Rose Garden speech, nor stated that Obama didn’t view the attack as an act of terrorism. Turned into a red herring and major misspeak of his own doing.

The mother of one of Benghazi’s slain diplomats is not impressed that her son’s death has been termed not “optimal,” she counters that her son is very dead. Obama’s command of the English language is questioned by the British press, the rest of us are questioning the legitimacy of Harvard’s Law School.

The CIA confirms, it knew within 24 hours the attack was by militants.

@MataHarley: “act”, “attack”, etc. may be relevant to someone’s argument, but not mine.

I am focused on the fact that Obama is now claiming that he declared Benghazi to be terrorism on 9/12 even though he subsequently refused to do so when specifically asked by Joy Behar on 9/25.

Whatever Obama meant by his words on 9/12, they must be logically consistent with what he said on 9/25, right? And 9/25 is a very direct and simple exchange to understand.

So, Obama is either being disingenuous (playing dishonest games with “act of terror” vs. “act of terrorism”), or he first considered it terrorism on 9/12 and he later was not sure on 9/25. Which is it?

EDITED: “Barbara Walters” to “Joy Behar”

The State Department granted a student visa to the latest terrorist who planned to detonate a bomb in NYC.

Let’s talk terror, Obama won’t mention it unless it is in a vague reference in a speech every year or so, it is going to happen, but don’t worry, Napolitano sats the system is working and Obama tell us al Qaeda is on the run. Yea right, all of you who believe that should be required to clean up the gore and try to sort out the body parts after the next “successful” terrorist attack.

@Skookum, I’ve repeatedly said that the intel intercepts had confirmed that the Benghazi attack was preplanned by Ansar al-Sharia within hours, but that they only decided to go ahead with it after they saw the Cairo protest. This is the WH’s major problem…. they did know early on, but only chose to run with half of the intel story.

I said before, there might be some merit that they didn’t want to announce to the public that it was planned without further evidence. But by the same token, they shouldn’t have attributed the Cairo film protest without further evidence either. They would have been better off in the wake of it all if they said they didn’t know, and the investigation was ongoing… which, BTW Kevin, is what Obama attempted to do on Sept 25th on The View. Prior to that he made it plain in multiple statements that these acts of terror will not go without repercussion. Panetta, Hillary, Olson, Jay Carney all pointed out they view it as an act of terrorism.

They are, as a cooperative, inept idiots. That’s not in question. But Romney and the GOP are running off in unrelated and silly rabbit holes here. Utterly ridiculous to see people argue about whether the word terror was included with attack, that the WH doesn’t consider it terrorism, or that Crowley was in on some sort of debate fix.

The argument is, and should stick to, planned and ignored intel and security, or spontaneous. We know, and so did the WH, that it was the former. But it’s documented common knowledge that everyone, including the admin, views it as terrorism.

Now… a pile of work in front of me. Said my piece, and I’m quite sure everyone will weigh in to again try to make the ridiculous justifiable. Have at it. However just remember that when you lose the genuine talking point issue, you lose the debate.

Jesus H. Christ, the parsing here by some, trying to divert the attention from what Obama said in the Rose Garden, to what language Romney used during the debate is worthy of the CNN spin room. It doesn’t matter what Romney said. It matters what the President of the United States said in the hours following the Benghazi terrorist attack. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Obama is STILL president and still holds the authority to speak for the Office of President, not Romney.

So while we are presented with “Obama meant this”, is there any doubt in anyone’s mind exactly what Romney was talking about? Does it have to be explained to anyone possessing an I.Q. above room temperature? Do we not have past history, on the part of this administration, of reluctance to call terrorism “terrorism?” We have been introduced to such new catch phrases as “work place violence” for no other reason than to not call an incident exactly what it is. In the entire investigation of Nidal Hassan’s henious terrorist attack on fellow Fort Hood soldiers, you will not find the words “terrorism, jihad, jihadism, Islamist, etc.”. Instead, you will be treated to “work place violence.”

Can anyone forget the 13 deaths of our soldiers on their home soil by a radical jihadist who shouted “Allah Akbar” as he was killing them? And what did the President say about this jihadist who was clearly murdering fellow soldiers in the name of his religion?

“We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see him pay for his crimes.”

Gunman? Really? Nidal Hassan was described by Obama in a way no different than he would describe any gangbanger who kills rival gang members in his home town of Chicago. “Gunmen” don’t shout “Allah Akbar” as they are killing others. Jihadist do. But we are so politically correct, supported by some here, that we can’t call acts of WAR what they actually are. How many of those families members, standing there at Fort Hood that day, do you think views Hassan as nothing more than an average “criminal gunman?”

@MataHarley:

I think that as the Benghazi story continues to unravel we are going to see more and more of the ugly truths that lie at the center of the matter.

Things like this for instance:

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10

You’ll notice in that article that some of the missing SA-7’s seem to have been spotted.

SKOOKUM
at fox, TODAY they put their hands on CHRIS STEVEN MESSAGES AND CABLE, UP TO THE DAY HE WAS MURDER ALONG WITH THE SEALS, BY THE TERRORISTS.
HE WAS ASKING DESPERATELY FOR HELP BY SAYING THE GREAT DANGERS COMING CLOSER AS HE
WAS DESCRIBING IT,
HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN THIS CALL FOR HELP CAN BE?

I already agreed that Romney stepped on it himself and opened the door. That doesn’t change Crowley’s (a moderators) contribution to the confusion .

Crowley did NOT point out that both were in ERROR. She claimed they were both “RIGHT”….a distinction with a difference. And when she tried to repeat what she was acknowledging as “right” for Romney, she ended up misstating it. The fact that she said…”it did” was suggesting what Romney clarified ..was also right as well. (that’s 3 “different”things). What Obama said. What she misstated. And what Romney said.

The fact that Obama’s speech was “vague” and never directly attributed anything to Bengahzi would be all the more reason for Crowley NOT to step in and state something as a matter of “fact” that clearly would be a debateable point. No?

When Romney asked the president if he said BENGHAZI was an act of terror….and Obama suggested he did… Candy didn’t say…that’s an error. She said “that’s right”.

Once again we condemn a terrorist attack “in the strongest terms” (that always sends them scurrying like rats to the bunkers).