Comments on: Sharyl Attkisson reveals CBS complicity in Obama Benghazi 2012 debate coverup—but of course, we already knew that

By: stan

stan — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:23:05 +0000

Every time the GOP treats the MSM as if they are impartial journalists they do further damage to the party. Why would anyone want to enhance the credibility of people bent on your destruction?

Eventually the party has to have the guts to take the temporary fallout from declaring the MSM an enemy in order to move forward.

By: southpaw

southpaw — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:42:41 +0000

Paul in Brookline, Paul in Boston — agree with both of you.
Romney was brilliant in the first debate, then second guessed himself in the second and paid the price. The Marques of Queensbury instincts (I can picture Neo is rolling her eyes if she’s reading) are his undoing. While people like us appreciate and long for a statesman and scholar to inspire us, most Americans have the attention spans of butterflies.

Romney’s a civil man, who was dealing with an uncivilized and ruthless bunch of thugs.

It will take an incredibly refined, eloquent, and paradoxically ruthless, calculating person to defeat the MSM complex in 2016. Romney just isn’t wired that way – neither are most of the “nice losers” (Thomas Sowell’s words) who the Republicans “love to nominate” (Sowell again).
The Republicans need a guy who’s as comfortable and natural on the John Stewart show as he is with a room full of millionaires.
Crowley is a scumbag, and makes my skin crawl when I watch her disingenuous neutrality as a “pundit”, but Romney himself had a chance to shut them both down and decided to be a nice guy instead.
I don’t believe there are a lot of nice guys who win in politics.

A struggle for the most powerful office on earth is not for the timid or the reluctant – Romney underestimated his opponent’s capacity for playing dirty, and over estimated the power and influence that integrity and politeness would have on the American people. That debate is a classic example of good vs. asshole. Asshole won handily – learn from it, or fail.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:00:31 +0000

Daniel in Brookline:

The post should be coming tomorrow.

By: Daniel in Brookline

Daniel in Brookline — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:56:42 +0000

Cornhead: I agree. And make no mistake about it, Gov. Romney did far, far better than I would ever have done.

Nonetheless, I believe my point stands. We were watching a job interview for the biggest and most powerful job in the world. Romney should have been ready for ANYTHING.

(No doubt he thought he was. President Obama showed one of his few proven talents that night, one in which he can think outside of the box and take on the pros — lying and dirty fighting. It’s how he got started in Illinois politics, and he’s clearly never forgotten it.)

One can only hope that, for future debates, Republican candidates will indeed be ready for ANYTHING, up to and including the President canceling the debate mid-sentence so as to declare war against a nonexistent enemy. It should go without saying that a debater must also be ready for outright lying, on any subject.

Parker: agreed. The GOP should agree only to debates in which there are two moderators, one chosen by each candidate — say, one for the first half and one for the second half. Alternatively, we can fall back on the Lincoln-Douglas debate format — that would be fun!

Most certainly, we should never again fall for the absurd claim of “Yes, I’m a known leftist journalist who writes leftist drivel for a leftist rag, but that doesn’t mean I won’t be objective as a debate moderator”.

Neo: I’m flattered! Many thanks.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:30:11 +0000

If there is aircraft, shoot it down.

By: parker

parker — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 04:45:12 +0000

The gop needs to insist that there be no ‘moderators’ beyond a stopwatch minder. No one in the msm can be trusted to moderate. All questions must come from the audience who are vetted from their party affiliation according to their registration.

By: kcom

kcom — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 04:27:22 +0000

And why they should be very, very careful about who they agree to moderate debates.

By: Lizzy

Lizzy — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 03:01:49 +0000

I think Romney was also surprised by the trap that had been laid by Obama and Crowley. I, too, wish he had been quick enough to respond, but I imagine he, like the rest of us, was so floored he lost the opportunity while processing it. Who would ever debate-prep such a scenario? Gotcha questions, yes. A planned and coordinated ambush between the moderator and your opponent?

This is why the GOP has got to recognize that the MSM is the enemy, and an active wing of the Democrat party,

By: parker

parker — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 02:25:55 +0000

MSM cover ups and colludes to protect the left, its like there are lions, tigers, and bears oh my. Of course the msm provides support and cover for the left.

By: kcom

kcom — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 02:23:41 +0000

Since George Stephanopoulos had obviously colluded with the Obama administration earlier that year when he launched into his out-of-left-field obsession with questioning the Republican candidates about birth control (thus laying the groundwork for a coming Democratic meme) it’s not much of a surprise that Candy Crowley was similarly in the tank. You could see it just by the way she talked that she was put up to it. Whether she was manipulated or did it willingly I’m not sure but either way it speaks poorly of her suitability for the role of a neutral questioner.