General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCandy Crowley
How do folks feel about her moderating the next debate? I'll never forget how she practically sneered when she would talk about Al Gore. I'd be curious to see what people think? I personally don't like her one bit.
samplegirl
(11,477 posts)I could not stand her bias rightwing nuttery during the Bush years.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)FarPoint
(12,368 posts)They are twins!
City Lights
(25,171 posts)IMO, she is a GOP shill. Doesn't even try and hide her bias. She has no business moderating a presidential debate.
Response to City Lights (Reply #3)
Post removed
siligut
(12,272 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,928 posts)Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)I used to call her pig face before she had all the plastic surgery and make over.
Mutiny In Heaven
(550 posts)Not exactly GOP staples...
She also rebutted Little Bow-Creep and his crusade to discredit Martha Radditz:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-daily-caller-playing-the-refs-138059.html
My abiding hope is that she shills because, ya know, it's what happens in the mainstream media, rather than because she's a genuine RepubliNut. Maybe she'll see this as her chance to do a clean, impartial job.
I'm not saying that I'm a fan and I don't think the doubts expressed in this thread are unreasonable, just that (perhaps naively) I'm going to assume that she'll take the role seriously and not indulge in partisan chicanery.
Either way, she seems to telegraph how she intends to moderate here:
And if Obama or Romney is flatout lying?
Look, these are two grown men, Crowley says. And if there are two grown men who should know whats going on or what should go on in this country its them. So, Im not sure either one of them needs me to defend them or go after the other guy or whatever.
Crowley says such TV debates, like interviews on her Sunday morning show, tend to be organic, and you cant predict or anticipate all that will happen especially when it comes to live TV.
Am I going to catch everything they say that is wrong? she asks rhetorically. No. Should I? Actually, I think, President Obama can figure out when Mitt Romneys wrong, and Mitt Romney can figure out when Obamas wrong.
But, she adds, That doesnt mean I shouldnt. Im just telling you its an organic thing. Thats the way it works on the Sunday show. ... You plan one thing, and something else happens. So, theres not a lot of promising you can do about whats going to happen until you see what happens.
If - and it remains a big if - I hope that means that President Obama will get the opportunity to be as eloquently forceful as the situation requires. Personally, I would like, if a candidate tells a blatant whopper, the moderator to have facts at their disposal for clarification purposes; for instance, Romney (or, in the interests of fairness, Obama) says something blatantly false and the President rebuts it - THEN the moderator should consider it part of the job to bring out the facts. Not just leave it so it looks like a game of "he said, she said" because the audience by default assumes both are merely peddling their agenda without regard for the truth.
However, if a candidate fails to call their opponent on falsehoods, I don't think the onus should flip to the moderator to mop up for them.
Zorro
(15,740 posts)lynintenn
(646 posts)Mutiny In Heaven
(550 posts)Trust me, you can be a fat vegetarian. Past experience.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)In other words, sticks of butter rolled in sugar. See how many she scarfs down!
JI7
(89,249 posts)because you know those little people in Iowa don't know what Green TEA is. it just shows how elitist and out of touch he is.
upi402
(16,854 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)
Traitor to the 4th Estate and thereby the Republic it needs to serve.
I used to like her because she broke the 'news-babe' mold. But she's a whore and a traitor. (I'm being too reserved?)
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)vaberella
(24,634 posts)She puts FOX news to shame.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Rethuglican't shill.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)"too nice" to her.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Was that necessary?
I don't like Candy Crowley either, but that kind of name calling is best left to the republicans.
Fla Dem
(23,668 posts)of this nature is uncalled for.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)No I'm not holding high hopes that Candy the Hutt will be fair to Obama.
Warpy
(111,261 posts)Sometimes it's necessary to identify Republican denizens of the barnyard or kennel.
Zorro
(15,740 posts)That's my moniker for her.
asjr
(10,479 posts)thought Bush was going to lose. If she does moderate the next debate I will not be able to watch. How she has maintained her job at CNN is beyond my comprehension. She just may know where all the CNN bodies are buried.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)UTUSN
(70,695 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)goclark
(30,404 posts)Does our PRESIDENT have to bow down to CandyBarf or can he
raise his eyebrow to give us a hint that CandyBarf is not playing
fair?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)They're going to skyrocket in value when that fraud takes the stage.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)lynintenn
(646 posts)This debate is so important and the fact that she is the moderator really makes it scary. I think the perception of the debaters performance has a lot to do with the moderator. Remember the negative reaction Jim Lehrer received for letting Romney take over. Romney looked like a petulant child to me but others on the right perceived this as a strength for him. The ability to take charge. I think there will be some yelling at the moderator on TV during this debate. She is a self pronounced republican just like Wolfe Blitzer. Isn't this a conflict. CNN is unwatchable these day and I was once a regular viewer. Erin Burnett makes my skin crawl.
senseandsensibility
(17,037 posts)no network, even cable, would allow her to moderate a debate. That's how right even our middle of the road politics are skewed in this country. But, assuming that she was selected, I'm not sure that many Obama supporters would be that pleased. Yes, she would demand answers of Romney. But she would probably question Obama from the left, something he rarely has to face. It would be a whole different ballgame.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Want to talk hard hitting questions based on fact for both sides?
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Neither party would want her asking the questions.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)They'd have to have janitors standing by with mops.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Specifically, what efforts have been done to rebuild and allow former residents to return.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Good stuff.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)They're determined to silence rational voices.
NHDEMFORLIFE
(489 posts)She always has been, always will be. I remember well her from her days as a "reporter," using that word very loosely, as CNN tends to do.
JanetLovesObama
(548 posts)Candy Crowley. Besides being a right wing lunatic she just looks dirty. She's gained back all that weight she was bragging about losing and her hair is always stringy and greasy looking. She makes my skin crawl.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)woolldog
(8,791 posts)She's very focused on the process of politics (ie horserace reporting) and not on substance/policy discussion. That goes for most of CNN
Basically the opposite of a real journalist like Martha Raddatz.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)...let's just say there are some people in the media that are there as part of an agenda.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It's considered to be illegal for the CIA to do psyops on the American public but you know their track record of being a good law abiding agency.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)his suspicions have more validity than mine which are based only on the disgust I have with both Brokaw and Crowley. Fairness is not what we are going to see at this next debate
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)begin_within
(21,551 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I recall her in all seriousness and with a straight face telling the story about how John Kerry asked for a green tea in a Howard Johnson's or some such type restaurant. She thought that was just so outlandish as if Sen. Kerry had ordered beluga caviar on melba toast with a glass of vintage Veuve Clicquot at the local Bob's Big Boy. She either didn't have any idea that green tea was a fairly common thing you can buy almost anywhere or she was just so determined to support the narrative that Bush was a man of the common people while Kerry was an out of touch elitist. Yet, as far as I know she has never suggested that Mitt Romney is an out of touch elitist. I don't think she is very smart and I don't think she is capable of minimally acceptable objective observation of the world around her.
Baitball Blogger
(46,709 posts)I hope the MSM points out her lack of objectivity.
ananda
(28,860 posts)I haven't watched her for several years.
woofless
(2,670 posts)I am hoping that the Town Hall format, in which the attendees ask the questions, will limit her input. If she were the one asking the questions, I doubt whether I would watch. (Love the mute button.)
mnhtnbb
(31,388 posts)AllenVanAllen
(3,134 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2012, 08:24 PM - Edit history (1)
If she turns out to be anywhere near as fair as Martha Raddatz I'd be very surprised, but I really doubt it. She's part of the reason I haven't watched CNN (Fox News-Lite) for years. She was a terrible pick.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)She uses right-wing talking points as the basis for questioning democrats ...and lets republicans spew shit with no push back
ancianita
(36,055 posts)She's a smarmy Rethuglican shill and should be put in her place if she tries to screw Obama during the debate!
tavernier
(12,388 posts)Let's not take the chance of Obama running screaming out of the country because of that kind of a threat.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Candy is not going to be a fair moderator - she'll be looking for every way possible to give rMoney the advantage.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Because in many ways, Obama's policies haven't changed much from Bush's.
Let Thom Hartmann moderate.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)mitchtv
(17,718 posts)mikki35
(111 posts)I'm glancing through all these nearly uniform condemnations of Candy Crowley as a self-avowed Republican, 'shilling for McCain', etc, etc, (I don't watch CNN anymore and didn't have a big opinion one way or the other, but I do remember her from years ago, and she wasn't shilling for anybody then) and I had to wonder...what's the take from Fox on this? Are they happy? Are they excited? And THIS is what I found (I should get a medal for willingly pointing my computer that direction....ewwwww):
"What the hell was the Presidential Commission on Debates thinking?"
"Seriously who approved this because they should be fired. Now."
"Candy Crowley and Bob Schieffer are haggard old media whores, truly sad-sack shills for institutional liberalism."
"Candy Crowley? Are you kidding me. She loves bashing Republicans almost as much as stuffing M&Ms in her mouth!"
"Crowley, Schieffer/CBS, Lehrer/PBS are on record numerous times during the GOP primary and even more recently making points about right wing extremism.
"Romney and his VP better grow a pair and say NO! and HELL NO!! to Crowley, at least get Blitzer."
"CNNs Candy Ryan-Ticket-Death-Wish Crowley is the token female this year."
There wasn't a single solitary favorable comment anywhere to be found 'over yonder.'
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)she will IMHO look for her Katie Couric moment.
Couric buried Palin during that infamous interview
and was a superstar for Obama supporters.
Crowley will have to be cagey in order to do any
damage, but given the opportunity she will take it.
I wish these debates were moderated by academics
or some other qualified professionals.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)she doesn't attempt to fellate Rmoney onstage during the debate.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)And a repuke. And she's smarmy and stupid. That's how I feel.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)budkin
(6,703 posts)He better bring some ham sandwiches if she gets out of line.
Mike Nelson
(9,955 posts)She's a stealth anti-Democrat.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)She's too vain to endure that much criticism.
Therefore, she won't be completely in the bag for Mitt.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)She cannot (and doesn't even try to) hide her political "preferences". She is so NOT an impartial reporter and will most likely not be an impartial moderator, either.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)and when I hear her name, the first thing I think about is her snarky comments about Gore when he was running for President in 2000. Really poor judgment on her part.
Sam
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)just1voice
(1,362 posts)She's a vile human being and venal -- "Capable of betraying honor, duty, or scruples for a price".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/venal
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)so she must be "fair and balanced"
in the FN sense of the term (though on CNN)