Follow up: was there collusion between Obama and Crowley?
I admit at the outset I don’t know the answer. But I wonder why no one in the MSM is asking the questions.
I take that back; I don’t wonder. I don’t think they want to know.
But if I were a reporter instead of someone working at my computer in a kitchen somewhere in New England, dressed in blogger PJs (actually, it’s usually sweatpants), there are some questions I’d be asking.
First though, let’s watch the video of the debate. The controversial exchange begins at around 1:12:17 with a question by Crowley (which is interesting in and of itself in terms of whether there might have been collusion between Crowley and Obama):
And here are my questions, for Crowley or others:
(1) What was the content of the papers Crowley was holding?
(2) Do moderators ordinarily have transcripts of the candidates’ speeches on hand to refer to? If not, what made Obama think Crowley (or someone else) had access to the transcript when he summarily ordered her (or someone else) to “get” it?
(3) Whom was Obama addressing in his order to “get the transcript”? It’s impossible to tell from the angle in the video, because we can’t see who he’s looking at, and he doesn’t address anyone by name. Most people have assumed it was Crowley, and some have assumed the papers she’s holding contained the transcript, but we really don’t know the answer to either question (although by her response, it certainly seems that Crowley thought he was addressing her). If C-SPAN or any other news outlet has videos that show different angles, and could clarify any of these questions re the intended target of Obama’s order to get the transcript, it would be very helpful.
(4) I haven’t studied Crowley’s body language throughout the entire debate. But I looked at quite a bit of it, and I noticed that she does have a couple of papers on the table in front of her from the start, papers she sometimes touches and shuffles and looks at but rarely refers to or raises. And yet when the crucial part of discussion in question is about to begin, Crowley starts to fiddle with her papers a great deal more (around 1:12:55), and continues to do so throughout the heated exchange that follows, in a way that seems quite different from before (and prior to Obama’s words “get the transcript”). It’s hard not to suspect that she’s anticipating something, or is for some reason particularly nervous. At the pivotal moment when Obama says “get the transcript” (1:14:21) Crowley instantaneously replies “He did in fact sir” and at the same time stands and waves a paper in her right hand.
Is that the only time she does anything of the sort during the debate? It’s the only time I noticed it, but a closer and more careful perusal of the video would reveal whether this was true. If so, this singular and unusual body language from Crowley during the debate at that particular juncture would seem significant. Also, at least to the best of my knowledge, this is the only time Crowley attempts to “fact-check” in real time (something I don’t think has ever been done by a moderator in a presidential debate). Why did she decide to do this?
(5) Assuming the answer to question #1 is “not a transcript”—when Crowley said to Romney “he [Obama] did in fact, sir,” what was she referring to? What exactly did she think Obama had “in fact” said during the Rose Garden speech? Was she aware of his actual words? Had she memorized his Rose Garden speech? Did she not know that merely using the phrase “acts of terror” the way Obama did was not calling Benghazi a terrorist attack, and that it was at best ambiguous? And if she knew that, why state it as though it were otherwise? And if she didn’t know what Obama actually said, why would she think she could guess and speak as the voice of authority, as though she had actually looked it up on a transcript? Why did she wave the paper around at that point? Did she want people to believe she’d looked it up when she hadn’t?
(6) Or if the answer to question #1 was that the paper was in fact a transcript, why would she have had this transcript with her? And did she even have time to look it up? How was she able to answer so quickly? If it was a transcript, why didn’t she find a quote and read it?
(7) Are there other camera angles (perhaps at C-SPAN) that could be studied for more information about Crowley and the papers? Any close-ups of what was written on them, for example?
[ADDENDUM: It turns out that Jack Cashill is asking some of the same questions (hat tip: commenter “Curtis.”]
The item of most import, I believe, is Obama’s remark to get the transcripts for the obvious reason that he could not have possible have known or predicted that such particular transcripts would be available and in Crowley’s possession.
Obama knew and planned to use his “attacks of terror” phrase. All it would take is a very general alert by an Obama aide to Crowley of that quote and she would initiate her own strategy. So a detailed plan was not necessary and in fact does not show.
Totally agree. I suspect if you tried to ask anyone working in the MSM why these questions aren’t being asked, they’d get very impatient and exasperated with you. And that would speak volumes. Just imagine the brouhaha in the MSM if the moderator had backed up the Republican candidate in the same way!
I am not one to stand up for Obama, but
1) Absent being a message to swing into action (like “Wind the frog”) the most obvious meaning of “Get the transcript” is a call to the listening audience to go back and look at what Obama actually said on 9/12.
2) Even if what Crowley was waving was the transcript, there was no time between “get the transcript” and “he did in fact, sir” for her to even glance at, much less read, any part of it.
3) The most likely explanation was that Crowley had looked into this beforehand, was confident in her mind that Obama had said it was a terror attack, and couldn’t resist the opportunity to interject herself in Obama’s behalf.
4) Probably any partisan Democrat would have had the same urge. If you are unable to resist that urge, you shouldn’t be moderating a presidential debate.
I was disappointed that this morning the subject was brought up on BillBennet’s show (guest hosted) and was dismissed outright by Mark Davis (the guest host).
However, in watching the video above, nothing seems out of place. Obama says “get the transcript”. I originally assumed upon hearing this that he meant that in a general manner, not directly to anyone. Similar to “check the audio”.
Candy Crowley doesn’t appear to “wave papers” as I’ve heard described, and I don’t see Obama pointing at her to do so as I’ve also heard described. He does point and ask her to repeat her declaration of his correctness.
I still believe that the only guilty looking thing here is that she jumps to his defense.
Glen H and I did not collaborate on our replies.
To expand on what Ed and Glenn said (and paraphrase James Taranto at WSJ’s Best of The Web) ..
Crowley beat Axelrod about the head and shoulders on this topic a couple of weeks prior to the debate. Taranto’s supposition is that after the interview somebody from the WH (maybe Axelrod) showed her where O made his passive reference to ‘acts of terror’ in the Rose Garden speech on 9/12. So the existence of the phrase would have been fairly fresh in Crowley’s mind.
The only real collusion between the two, as Ed pointed out, is that O knew Crowley would likely bail him out if called upon to do so.
Was their gambling going on in the back room of Rick’s Café Américain?
My take on this incident is this (assuming that some kind of conspiracy was in play):
1. Obama and his team planned a trap.
2. Someone on the campaign staff gave Crowley a copy of Obama’s Rose Garden speech before the debate, possibly shortly before the debate started but enough time before it that she could read it.
3 Then, after reading it and the exchange occurred, Obama said “Get the transcript”…and she blurted out “He did, sir”.
4. Then, realizing she had made a mistake, she tried to regain “neutrality” by saying that Romney was right about Obama laying blame on the video tape sometime later. Unfortunately, she was so flustered, she didn’t get that part out right in any intelligible way.
5. Then as soon as she could, she moved the debate to the next question….because of her embarrassment.
Even if this is what happened, she acted VERY inappropriately as a moderator.
I expect Romney will do everything in his power to nail Obama on this in Monday’s debate. Don’t forget…Romney is very articulate, smart, and competent. And he’s proving over and over, he does indeed have a killer’s instinct.
Der Hahn: you may be correct. But the questions need to be asked and answered.
Ed Bonderenka: Crowley does “wave papers” (that is, picks up the paper, holds it in her hand, and moves it around in the air a bit; something I don’t believe she does at any other point in the video). She does this immediately after Obama says “get the transcript,” and simultaneously to her beginning her “fact-check” remark. You can catch all of this beginning at about 1:13:58.
“get the transcript”
The only transcript Obama wants made public.
GlenH and Ed Boderenka: one other thing. The words “get the transcript” are a very very odd way to speak generally to an audience if you’re trying to get them to fact-check something. It would be much more natural to say something like, “If you go back and check the transcript of my speech you’ll see that I said…” . The word “get” implies someone actually obtaining something on the spot. It’s spoken as a command, an order, and a rather impolite one at that. He also says it in a tone that implies immediately. It is not the way a person would ordinarily say to look something up later on.
That doesn’t mean there was collusion, of course. But it’s all very odd, I must say.
Pingback:LiberalLogic101.com -(Updated with debate video exchange) « Notion Tidbits
Neo, that was precisely my reaction too. It wasn’t said as a conditional, as an assertion that if one did refer to the transcript, then one would find something.
It was said as an imperative that one could actually follow.
Syntactically it put me in mind of the title of OJ Simpson’s “book,” If I Did It.
Or was it just papers that had nothing to do with the point at hand, but she forgot she was in a debate, and pulled somethig she does in meetings and things to silence others.
ie. someone in a meeting questions her, she grabs some papers, pretends they say what she will claim, and then unloads what she wants, pretending to have proof i her hand.
(Tin hatters do the same thing with the idea of the secret paper that fills them in so they fill you in)
very few people in a meeting would turn around and have the power to say, great, can i see those papers and that proof? she would then switch to being offended as to be called a liar.
this is a great sociopaths ploy, theater, surface image, no substance, plays on your goodness to not do what should be done, and is a win unless you do.
in fact, she may have copied it from some old movies where the ploy was used, or Colombo…
the insult is that they think we are cargo cult, so their theatrical kabuki dances are all that way. lies, false fronts, theatrics, force the other to make a challenge, etc.
maybe she got the idea from a joke
One beautiful Sunday morning, a priest announced to his congregation: “My good people, I have here in my hands three sermons…a $100 sermon that lasts five minutes, a $50 sermon that lasts fifteen minutes, and a $10 sermon that lasts a full hour.
“Now, we’ll take the collection and see which one I’ll deliver.”
or from magicians?
the misdirection here is called a pass..
in magic the papers were the pass that distracted the people and caused them to lose focus on what to pay attention to.
From FOE-FARRELL. By Arthur Thomas Quiller-Couch. 1918.
[i like the dedication:
TO ANYONE WHO SUPPOSES THAT HE HAS A WORSE ENEMY THAN HIMSELF.]
if ya grew up in the 30s, you might remember people at podiums with papers in their hands claimign them to be this or that as a vehicle for their discourse.
but i will say that she probably got it from reading the trials of the mccarthy era and the communist history…
Speech of Joseph McCarthy, Wheeling, West Virginia, February 9, 1950
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6456/
I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. . . .
remember, we never got to see that list either. 🙂
‘Eye Candy’ Lies, and Candy Swears to It
By Jeannie DeAngelis
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/eye_candy_lies_and_candy_swears_to_it.html
The guidelines in the memorandum of understanding that was agreed upon by the debate commission, as well as both campaigns, stated:
The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.
Those restrictions did not sit well with feminist groups, who’ve managed to make even a presidential debate about women’s issues.
So, on behalf of the sisterhood, Candy Crowley took to the town hall podium and proceeded to defy the rules and run the debate her own way. The result was dreadful — not only for Candy’s reputation as a journalist, but also for a weak incumbent who looked like he needed a woman to protect him from being verbally spanked. Moreover, her performance did nothing to convince the debate commission that female moderators should be granted more freedom in the future.
Too many ‘coincidences’. Of course they were acting in collusion. Of course they would deny any such allegations. The denial starting with, “how dare you!” “and well, that’s just crazy” and “that just shows how unbalanced anyone making such an allegation must be”.
A line from the movie “Clear and Present Danger” comes to mind; “that´s as far as it will go. The old Potomac two-step, Jack.” The President
Neo: I think the weirder phrasing is “Proceed Mr. Governor, proceed” or however he phrased it.
But I buy what you say about “Get the transcript!”.
I think the artful dodger is right that she was waving papers, but not the transcripts so that she would have an air of authority. I think she did it out of ego and as a habit of her role as a moderator on her television show. As far as the president, I think he said get the transcript knowing that no one would actually read the transcript. I found it be quite general, and it was a bluff, and it is something someone who isn’t lying would say. Once he had support, he took advantage of it. The other piece is that everyone knew that this question was going to come up. If not at the second debate, it would come up at this debate. Certainly, Candy knew, and if I had to quess, I would say that she skimmed the transcript at some point prior to the debate.
As far as the larger picture, it hurt the president. It is something that reporters like, i.e. devoid of real importance and about themselves.
The questions were definitely biased in favor of the president; however, I thought that helped Romney since he needs to convince moderates. I liked the George Bush question. I once attended one of those townhall programs that CNN used to do in the ’90s. They ask what question you are going to ask and decide who gets to ask the question as well as what gets asked. I’m sure that the artful dodger would agree that it is very manipulative.
Two questions I would have liked for them to ask are:
When the banks were struggling in 2008, the government raised the capital requirements on the banks and politically discouraged them from from writing off, i.e. forclosing, the real estate loans, which forced the banks to find other loans to cancel or forclose, which ended up being small firms and manufacturing firms, so they could keep those non-performing loans on their books. Why do you feel the real estate loans are better investments for the banks and for the country as a whole?
Basil I had been implemented in the late 90s and early 2000s, and Basel II, the large European banking regulation was required to go into effect for all of the major banking institutions including the investment banks. Basel I encouraged banks to invest in particular type of investments, while Basel II encourage the banks to have a better process to measure the risk of their investment portfolios. Outside of just the sheer size or number of pages, what was the underlying structural issue that needed and was resolved with the financial regulation?
Those would not have made it through the censors.
Ed Boderenka: both phrases—and Obama’s affect—are very very strange.
As I wrote yesterday:
I think Obama’s manner is even stranger than his words. It’s a combination of hatred, triumph, coldness, and arrogance.
Neo: Yep. Exactly.
I also wonder why I’ve heard no one comment on the president’s lack of “uh”s. It’s like he was straining not to say “uh” at points he normally would.
I counted three “uh”s.
Ed Boderenka: the absence of “uh’s” and other verbal hesitations was striking. I noticed it immediately. I don’t quite get it, except to say it sounded as though almost all his responses were canned and prepared in advance. One can postulate he received the questions in advance (always a possibility), or more likely that he prepared a bunch of answers on predictable topics. Candidates always do the latter in preparation for debates, but this seemed more so—I didn’t sense any ad-libbing on his part.
The whole thing was just strange.
“The whole thing was just strange.”
A succinct summation. It was a strange ‘debate’. But it is no coincidence that so far the ‘moderators’ have given the democrat candidates more speaking time and interrupted the republican candidates more often. And, I have no doubts about Candy collaborating with Obama. This sort of thing doesn’t happen out of the blue.
“Please proceed, Governor.”
I’m no thespian but I did participate in four or five high school plays. When Obama made that odd statement it was clear – – even to me – – that he was working from a script of some sort; he was acting a role he’d rehearsed in advance.
But it was more than that: he recited this line — setting the trap that Neo mentions — but delivered the line badly because he couldn’t hide the thrill of seeing that Romney was unwittingly taking the bait! It was unnatural, almost wooden, no? With a hint if that Obama smirk lurking behind his eyes? And I think that Romney became wary at that point, realizing — too late?– that something was about to go badly wrong.
This — or a variation of it — was planned in advance.
Neo, the lack of uh’s is easily explained by what I posited as a possibility last week….. he was being fed all his line via an ear bud. This group of people are so beyond the pale, it seemed a real possibility to me after the first debate diaster
physicsguy says, “This group of people are so beyond the pale… ”
You are too kind. They inhabit a place where monsters roam freely and devour the unborn and the born alike. They are willing imbeciles who will gladly and with glee man the ovens; convinced in their certainty that they are the master race.
I understand the “trap” theory.
HOWEVER, since AT BEST for Obama it is debatable that he actually called the Benghazi attack a “terrorist attack” or an “act of terror,” he was being a FOOL to even attempt such a trap.
(By the way, I would not be surprised if he and his minions did plan this trap.)