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.