Im tired of Candy Crowley getting props on the debate. She fucked up big IMO.

[GusFring]

She did the false equivalency and it turns out she was dead wrong too. The administration blamed the video, because the video did apparently play a role in the attacks and intel backs it up. She should apologize to Obama and his administration. Typical CNN hacks.

[msanthrope]

1. Your concern is noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns, and enjoy your stay. nt

[Marr]

2. I agree. She could've left it at "he did call it a terrorist act", but instead chose to make up

a little addition to say that Romney was somehow right, too. He wasn't, at all.

[Spazito]

3. No, she didn't "fuck up"...

Romney's lie dealt specifically with what the President did or did not say in the Rose Garden the day after the attack. Romney tried to say the President was lying when he said he called it a terrorist attack at that time, that the President didn't say it was a terrorist attack until 14 days later.

Crowley was actually in attendance, as a member of the press, for that Rose Garden appearance and stated the fact that the President DID state the attack was "an act of terror" at that time.

You, not Candy Crowley, have the facts wrong as do the repubs.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

4. 8 days ago = Ancient History.

Forward.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. I'll pass it on to her.

She'll follow it up by tomorrow morning at the latest.

[HopeHoops]

6. You're going to have to flesh that out a bit more. DU is a little weary of trolls. Prove you aren't.

Seriously. I don't tend to go against low-post count members (we are were at one point), but this one smells of troll. If you aren't, now's your opportunity to back up your claims. I'm a lot more lenient than others, but that's why I'm making this statement. Expound upon your statements, please.

[GusFring]

12. Sorry I don't have 40k post. I have no desire to reach that milestone. Crowley sux and always has.

I saw a clip of her on the view and she did the same crap. She tried too hard to make Romney seem like he was right. When it turns out he was wrong, and so was she.

[HopeHoops]

14. Thanks. We all started at post #1 at some point. We've just been getting invaded lately...

... gee - think there could be some major event that might be coming up? Hmm.

[Nine]

16. Posters have to prove they AREN'T trolls?

What a nice sentiment.

[HopeHoops]

19. That wasn't my intent. I was trying to avoid a hidden thread for that supposition.

Face it. We have a lot of new members and many of them are trolls. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and my post basically meant "elaborate so you won't get hidden". We were all new members at some point. New members are certainly welcome with open arms, but the troll police aren't all as open-minded as I try to be. I'd rather have more members. But it is a fact that all political blogs get invaded as major political events come closer and low post counts are one of the triggers. Some people just don't post that often. No problem with that. I think you took my post in the opposite way from what I intended - probably my fault for choice of language.

[Romulox]

18. What an awful post. You certainly DO NOT speak for me!

[HopeHoops]

20. See my reply #19. I obviously worded the "prove" part wrong. I was just looking out for the poster.

I want new members to feel welcome and getting threads locked when you're a newbie or infrequent poster isn't going to help with that.

I'd change the language of the reply title, but it would pretty much render all that's followed in this subthread incomprehensible (in terms of context).

[Romulox]

21. Your post was accusatory and aggressive. "Prove you aren't" and "this one smells of troll"

I'm willing to move on, but let's not pretend you weren't being aggressive.

[Wednesdays]

23. Personally, I support HopeHoops' handling of this.

[HopeHoops]

25. Thank you. But I did chose my words wrong. I can see the confusion.

[etherealtruth]

7. What in the world are you talking about?

Seriously ....?

[SunsetDreams]

8. umm...nt

[Bjorn Against]

9. You have to choose your battles, no need to go after someone who helped us more than she hurt

Maybe it was a false equivalence but nobody was talking about her equivalence, all they were talking about was Romney's lie. Let's focus our energies on the so-called journalists who are harming us rather than the one who actually tried to do her job.

[etherealtruth]

11. +1

[tallahasseedem]

10. Nope...she did us a service by fact checking Mitt.

I have never liked her, but I will absolutely give her props on the debate.

[budkin]

13. Wrong

That is what you are.

[jsmirman]

15. Indeed

like temporary loss of brain wrong

[Romulox]

17. It was supposed to be a *FOREIGN POLICY* debate. She let it become a domestic one.

She didn't do her job.

[efhmc]

22. I think she was wrong to introduce herself into th debate.

It was great to have Romnesia made to face the truth but wrong of her as the moderator to do it.

[Spazito]

24. I wish moderators would do it more not less...

if a candidate is flat out lying and the moderator knows it, stating the facts would enhance the debates and would encourage substance instead of 'yes you did, no you didn't' sidetracking that currently takes the place of substance.

If the candidates know they will be called out if they are flat out lying then they are more likely to stop doing it, imo.

[efhmc]

26. Then it becomes something different than a debate. It becomes a three person

interview. Since my guy is on the right side of facts, it would be to our advantage to us. However, it would not be a debate.

[Spazito]

28. I disagree, it would enhance the neutrality of the moderator and keep the discussion...

on substance, on policy, on differences instead of what is now lacking, for the most part, any substantive discussion.

It would make outright lying a risk which, in the current debate practices, is not, imo.

The only way it would become a three person interview is if the moderator interjected their perspective on the substantive issue which either sided with one of the candidates' position or put forward one different than any of the candidates.

[Lightbulb_on]

27. She should let the candidates say their piece...

If she was going to "fact check" then she should have been very specific.

"The president referred to acts of terror in his speech at the Rose Garden. There is dispute been the factions as to whether or not he labelled the attack in Libya itself as an act of terror"

Leave it at that. All true statements... He did say those words and there is dispute.

Interjecting as she did gave an appearance of bias that wasn't needed.

[Spazito]

30. The ridiculous parsing of whether "an act of terror" means a 'terrorist attack'...

is a pathetic attempt by the right to mitigate Romney's humiliating lie. Stating the facts is NOT a show of bias, is not an appearance of bias, it is stating a fact. Ms. Crowley was actually in attendance at the Rose Garden event and knew what the President said, to let Romney lie as he did, knowing he was lying and letting it pass would be an act of bias, imo.

[reformist2]

29. Mitt kept repeating a lie. Candy shut him down once and forever.

And she actually corrected him quite timidly. But it was enough. It's amazing how little effort it takes for impartial observers to totally deflate the GOP hot air machine.

[randome]

31. Why does everyone expect perfection from the talking heads?

She did some good things, she did some not-so-good things. What's the big deal?

[OldDem2012]

32. Yeah, right. You'll find a large can of "Take-a-Hike" in aisle 2. nt.