Forum Thread

How did Crowley do as moderator?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 23 of 23 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Candy,Candy,Candy,-Shame on you. You are supposed to be in the middle as a moderator, but the nation knows who you are voting for this november. You should have finished what you started because through my eyes, you were wrong with your facts as well. Obama did never ,in the Rose Garden, refer to this particular event in Lybia as a terrorist attack, he was stating in general that this country would not tolerate terror attacks, but the next 2 weeks all of his top advisors kept blaming the video. I guess it could be percieved in different ways, but it is still your job to stay neutral, and if you are going to be a fact checker, be sure you are accurate.Mitt Romney should have come back in your face, but he held his tongue and carried on. Cudos to him-not so good for you. The time I felt was divided fairly equal, however after the dabate it was shwon on fox news that Obama did get more time than Romney. The rest of the debate, I thought you did o.k.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I totally agree with you. She stepped over the line. We have a divided government and a divided country, now we can't even get a non-bias moderator. She should apologize to the Romney Campaign and the american people on every news station.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Just what did Romney say, except that "know how how to do that; I know how to create jobs: I know...." We are supposed to take his word on it, with absolutely nothing, no record, and no policies to back it up.
    HE KNOWS: maybe Joseph Smioth or God told him: otherwise, he doesn't know, and expects Congress to help him come up with a solution. That is clearly an urging on for a majority victory.
    PreThe President didn't say I know : he'd said we tried a number of things, saved the auto industry, and allied trades, and saved millions of jobs, thereby, and bailed out what needed to be bailed out so companies could make payrolls and so on. BUT he also put regulations in place, regulations which are sorely needed for banks, who take advantage of the mandage they get from the Federal bank, and serve themselves, first, foremost, and last, and never mind anything else. Then there was the real estate debacle: and looksee, gambling against it, and making millions from gambling, were speculators. They sure have bookies, it seems, on Wall Street.
    Then there was the play for the infrastructure: the US is a huge country, reliant on its infrastructrure. We know China is very active, and has spent and invested an awful lot of money on infrastructire, because, as much as we much be reliant/ and potentially totally failed by technlology in the logistics, it is the infrastructure that must be in place.
    So Obama is saying things: Romney is saying "I know, trust me, trust me,.[.becauuse I know those 47 poercent don't count.--my words added to a quote]. He may just find out that 47 percent mostly voting against him.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Crowley should most definitely fact check, when she's able. It is far preferable to two grown men standing there saying, "Did not!... Did so!" over and over. Reporters are supposed to report FACTS, and she did. Unfortunately our society has blurred the line between facts and opinion. Just because someone wishes to believe that Obama didn't call this an act of terror doesn't make it so. Thank God for Candy Crowley having the courage to speak truth to power and to take the backlash. CNN should actively support her in this case, but CNN has become a ratings hound, more interested in ratings (and money) than in telling truth to the public. If all the public hears is what it wishes to hear, our democracy is lost.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I thought Candy Crowley was very good, especially regarding the Benghazi interchange:
    Since the Benghazi US Embassy terrorist attack, I’m wondering how the US State Department has increased the security at our embassies. There are about 270 US Embassies throughout the world. That probably includes 30 or more embassies in the Middle East and Africa where terrorists are most likely to strike. Did they add more security? If so, how many and how much does this cost to secure these places 24/7/365?
    Note: It takes 61,320 man-hours (24 X 7 X 365) to add just one extra security person, around the clock per year, at just one embassy.
    How many troops would you have sent in, to better secure all the embassies 24/7, if you were President? 5? 10? 20? Where would they be housed? The logistics and costs of adding even a few security personnel 24/7 are terrifically difficult and expensive.
    In my opinion, it was probably a good thing they didn't have more security personnel in Libya. They may have all been killed. A better solution may be to have a plan to get the embassy personnel out of the area (or into a safe room), if they feel threatened. In Libya, it was apparent that the terrorists had too much firepower for even an increased security team. They might have all been slaughtered! And who's to say Al Qaeda wouldn't have sent in 200 terrorists with grenade launchers, if the security had been increased. This was a surprise hideous attack, just like 9/11. Even the Pentagon was not secure from that terrorist attack.
    Isn't the host country supposed to provide some security for foreign embassies? I've been to DC and all the foreign embassies look very vulnerable there. I'll bet it wouldn't take long for US troops to secure a foreign embassy in DC. In my opinion, our US embassies should have a safe room that can be secured and livable for a minimum of 3-5 days against a terrorist attack. That would give the US, or host country, time to deploy troops to secure the area and rescue the embassy personnel and their security team. We can’t expect a small security team to be able to protect an embassy against a well-planned and heavily armed surprise terrorist attack like that in Benghazi.
    I’m wondering how Mitt Romney would have directed the State Department to increase the security in these areas? How would he have acted as President, after the Benghazi attack? Would he have sent in military troops?
    President Obama was heavily criticized for not jumping to judgment, and calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack, before he had a complete report from the State Department personnel including the ambassadors in the area. What was the rush for judgment? So what if it took two weeks to finally determine who instigated the attack. So what that the State department was wrong in their initial reports that the cause of the attacks was a video as was widely reported by the media. Al Qaeda tricked the media and used them to report the video as the cause of the attacks. Now that we know that this was an Al Qaeda planned attack, what do we do now? I’m wondering what Mitt Romney would do at this point? Start another war like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan? That cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Or do we take the time to investigate the attacks and track down those that actually instigated and carried out the attacks, like we did with Osama Bin Laden. The terrorists disappeared throughout Libya and beyond within hours after the Benghazi attack. Numerous other attacks occurred at other embassies throughout the region that appeared to be unorganized spontaneous attacks, intentionally inflamed by Al Qaeda by blaming the video.
    Let the intelligence community do their work to determine the main instigators of these attacks and bring them to justice. Those involved will usually reveal themselves by bragging to others that they were the ones who killed the Americans in Benghazi.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I think Ms. Crowley did fine. She did the right thing by correcting Romney as he was making an ass of himself and It seemed to me she was helping him out by trying to shut him up. He was continuing on with something that just wasn't true and was looking like a fool, at leat to me, as I saw live feed from the Rose Garden that morning when he was with Hillary Clinton and he said it was an act of terror. I guess Mitt Romney gets his news from his staff and they are getting it from Fox news or Rush Limbaugh. Romney really did not know that the President said it was an act of terror that morning in the Rose Garden. Usually he just lies, but this time, it was authentic, he just didn't know the facts. I'm sorry he's such an idiot, how on God's green earth can people vote for him.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote: I think she did fairly well. Romney walked all over her early but she seemed to recover. I think she did over step a little when she fact checked the Rose Garden Speech, but Romney seemed to be looking at her for confirmation and it may have just been a gut response. She had to interrupt Romney quite often because he kept going WAY off topic, like off-shore accounts when the topic was immigration reform and many, many more. Maybe not as good as Raddatz but way better than Lehrer.

    Thoughts?
    In my view, I think that she did an outstanding job. It was apparent that Romney came there with the strong intent on doing what he did in the last debate, to run rampant over the President with total disrespect. It was good to see a moderator who was there to hear the facts, and not allow Romney to continue his lies and bullying and to try to run the debate!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    LookingForward Wrote:
    Zach F Wrote: I think she did fairly well. Romney walked all over her early but she seemed to recover. I think she did over step a little when she fact checked the Rose Garden Speech, but Romney seemed to be looking at her for confirmation and it may have just been a gut response. She had to interrupt Romney quite often because he kept going WAY off topic, like off-shore accounts when the topic was immigration reform and many, many more. Maybe not as good as Raddatz but way better than Lehrer.<br /> <br /> Thoughts?
    In my view, I think that she did an outstanding job. It was apparent that Romney came there with the strong intent on doing what he did in the last debate, to run rampant over the President with total disrespect. It was good to see a moderator who was there to hear the facts, and not allow Romney to continue his lies and bullying and to try to run the debate!


    I have to agree! I've never been a fan of Crowley, in fact I always felt she leaned way to the right in her politics so I must admit I was amazed to hear her stand up against the loud mouth, bully Romney. I've never thought too much of anyone on CNN, for that matter. They seem to try to be middle of the road but in doing so let people like Romney and his crowd get away with murder instead of calling their lies out for what they are. MSMBS take a much more balanced stand in my opinion and while the Right always call them biased in truth they are certainly a lot more balanced than CNN and especially FIX News!