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

By 167 Comments 2,349 views

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

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has finished an historical novel that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The book Fifty-Thousand Years is awaiting me to finish a final proofread and it should be sent to the formatter in a matter of days. I am still working, so it is not easy to devote the time I need to finish the project. The cover is a beautiful wok of art. I would put it up here if I could figure out how to make it work.

167 Responses to “The Presidential Debates Have Devolved Into Liberal Controlled And Hyped Media Events”

  1. 151



    I am puzzled why there are those who feel the need for redundancy, repeating what I wrote in post #125, not just once, but twice. Now, I understand that there are some personal dynamics in the intent, but still, I am sure that others reading this thread don’t need to have Obama and Crowley’s words given to them more than once.

    The importance of not calling a spade a spade (a terrorist attack) is due to the very history of this administration you cited. “Work place violence”, etc. Not to mention that any mention of “terrorism, Islam, Muslim, etc” have been removed from the military training lexicons. We can’t be offending the radicals, you know.

    But even more important was the impression that Obama thought Crowley had the transcript at her disposal. I believe it was a slip on his part to say “get the transcript” and Crowley decided to inject her opinion into the debate. As moderator, she should have said “I don’t have the transcript in front of me; I am not here to comment on the transcript; I am simply the moderator” any number of comments other than the one she made.

    Crowley backed Obama in spite of her interview with David Axelrod where she took an entirely different position, yet there are those who would say “nothing to see here, move on.” Now we are learning that Crowley decided to give Obama more speaking time, although the debates are timed, due to the claim that Obama speaks more slowly than Romeny and CNN is going to do a word count to make sure both candidates were allowed to say the same amount of words. How absurd can a media outlet get?

    Obama has said “words matter.” Well, yes they do, and if he thought at the very beginning the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, he should have said so, unequivocally. But he didn’t, only making vague references to terror both on 9-11-01 and 9-11-12. And no amount of parsing what Obama said in the Rose Garden eliminates the fact that Susan Rice, with the full approval of the Oval Office, went on news talk shows and said Benghazi was, in fact, a result of a [non-existant] protest and an internet video, as did Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at the hanger receiving the bodies of our slain Americans.

    But other questions remain: Charlene Lamb testified that she was the one responsible for denying Ambassador Stevens the additional security he had requested, as well as the one who made the decision to not extend the tour, or replace, the American security that was present prior to August. Since when does someone who is that far down the food chain at State make such an important decision on the security teams of our FSO in volitile areas?

    Or can we ignore what Obama said in the Rose Garden?

    “I think both Secretary Clinton, and I, relied deeply on his [Ambassador Stevens] knowledge of the situation on the ground there.” Even if one thinks that does not indicate that Obama was in contact with Ambassador Stevens, it does give indication that Hillary Clinton was, and she reports directly to the President. What both Obama, and consequently Joe Biden, was trying to pass off on the American people was plausible deniability. And so the spin game began, starting with Obama and Clinton, themselves.

  2. 152



    Skook, the difference between Pakistan with Bush/Musharraf and Pakistan with Obama/Zardari is that Bush always did tacit clearance for US activity in their airspace and territory. Then Musharraf would give a public huff and puff just to appease those who don’t like Pakistan appearing as a US puppet. That behavior, beneficial to us, is what got Musharraf ousted, and a less friendly to US regime in.

    Obama campaigned on disrespect for Pakistan right out of the gate, saying he’d go in there for UBL… with or without Pakistan’s approval. Then he did so. There is no State Dept that can undo a POTUS/CiC that demonstrates this amount of disrespect for a Muslim ally’s sovereign territory.

    INRE the “Pacifist Partiers”… that’s sort of a laugh. Dems like to portray themselves as anti war, yet most of the US wars in the past century were started by “Pacifist” Democrat Presidents. Odd, don’t you think, that so many ignore history?

    “In Obama’s defense…”…. LOL Never thought I’d hear those words out of your mouth, Skook.

  3. 153


    Skookum, interesting how the press is no longer interested in photos of returning flag draped coffins. Remember when that was a big issue for the press? Or the “grim milestone” of 2,000 dead American military in Iraq which dominated the headlines for days, now gets relegated to page 3, left hand column, when that “grim milestone” was reached in Afghanistan, the “good” war?

    If there is any example of the disaster this administration’s foreign policy has become, it is the fact that it took three weeks for our State Department to secure Libyan visas for the FBI to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Is the leader of Libya no longer taking calls from Obama?

  4. 154


    The term/phrase “Pacifist Partiers” has a myriad group of covert messages. Partiers can only maintain their momentum of reckless abandonment for so long before they must sober up to go to work. The Pacifist Partiers carried on their drunken superficial orgy of hatred towards Bush and of contempt for war until a Democrat was elected who promised t o rain down holy Hell on UBL and company. The sanctimonious calls for peace in our time were quickly shelved for calls of kick the manure out of them Obama. Their fascination and heartfelt grief for our war dead was forgotten and the price of death became more of an obligation to be paid by those who felt a strong loyalty to America and it evolved until it was to be expected of them without complaint or remorse. How phony and superficial can a group of people become? They can become much more phony and superficial by trying to turn an example of supreme incompetence and negligence into a political advantage by lying and parsing words. Taking responsibility with caveats has become noble under the Obama Administration, but in Obama’s defense, his administration seems to be in such a rout and state of confusion, no one seems to be in charge or knowing what is happening on the other side of town.

    It is natural to surmise, if you can’t keep your administration functioning smoothly, how can you direct the most powerful country in the world with its massive State Department and all the foreign negotiations happening every day. Is it no wonder Obama feels lost and bewildered when the country he helped liberate turns on his diplomatic delegation. Is it no wonder he insists on moderators who can bail him out of tight situations or at least wash his back while they are bathing in the same fish tank.

  5. 155


    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.

  6. 158


    @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”

  7. 160


    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.

  8. 161



    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.

  9. 162



    @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.

  10. 163


    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?”

  11. 165



  12. 166


    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”.

Leave a Reply

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