Thursday, October 18, 2012

CNN's Candy Memo




Res Ipsa Loquitor

CNN’s explanation of “why Obama got more time speak” is an admission that Crowley intentionally gave


If authentic, CNN’s memo explaining why Candy Crowley permitted President Obama to speak four minutes more than Mitt Romney during Tuesday’s presidential debate is devastating to that network:
Obama extra time because she thought he hadn’t said enough. It’s also an admission that it doesn’t know whether, objectively, Romney said more than Obama in the same amount of time. CNN hadn’t done a word count when it made the claim, and Crowley certainly hadn’t performed one when she gave Obama more time than Romney.

Crowley was, however, watching the time, as she told the candidates several times. As the CNN memo confirms, she wanted to give Obama more time than Romney.

This is just one reason why Crowley should not be permitted to moderate another high-stakes debate. Indeed, assuming the authenticity of the CNN memo, no one from that outfit should be permitted to do so.  [Powerline Full]


Look, this was predictable, and in fact predicted.  The nets are in the tank for democrats, and all of them ought be excluded.  Who should moderate?  Any high school debate teacher, picked at random,  would do a better job than any of that lot have done, ever!



10 comments:

Kristophr said...

Or just ask Toastmasters to provided a moderator.

Trusting newsies to run a debate is just stupid. They have never been unbiased. Never.

"Unbiased reporting" is a lie Hearst invented.

During the 19th Century they were more honest, and admitted it, often naming thewir paper after the party they support.

macweave said...

hook each candidates microphone to an electronic timer. At the end of their time it goes off and cannot be activated until it is again their time to speak. A visible to the candidate countdown clock with warning back ground would allow them to wind up their speech coherently.

Jess said...

No suits; no ties; only sweats and a microphone. The moderator is a big Marine with the instructions to not let them kill each other and eye gouging is a disqualifying offense, at which time he's to physically remove the offender.

Let the debate begin.

Anonymous said...

-------------------------
Jess - Your idea of a Marine moderator might actually work. The rules for a debate are simple. Give a gunny the rules, then let him enforce them.

IT would be worlds better than what the fourth estate/fifth column has provided.

Bullseye

-------------------------

Anonymous said...

Make it a requirement that Judge Judy moderate any more televised debates.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

All Excellent!

Anonymous said...

Make the candidates wear a shock collar. The buzzer buzzes and they keep talking or they interupt the other guy they get a jolt.
wildbill

DougM said...

I think the next debate moderator should be this guy.

rickn8or said...

wildbill beat me to it.

Helly said...

I like the microphones on a timer concept, MacWeave. And another thing: Why do we need moderators?

Just switch the mike feed from one candidate to the other on 2 minute intervals. Let them tell us what they think is important instead of some overfed lefty. If they want to use their time to detail a plan without being talked over, they can do that. If they feel it's better to get negative on the faults of the other guy, go for it.

Obviously the people who run these debates are dunces. Why should they have any say on what we get to hear? Let the candidates do that. It's fair, it's efficient, it's the American Way.

((Whoops, that last part explains why we have moderators.))

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.