Comments

The full Crowley — 24 Comments

1. Chris Wallace is the new Megyn Kelly. He needs to be run out of Fox. He was totally out of control; biased hack.

2. The moderator for the next debate was a Biden intern!

   How does the RNC agree to have partisans as moderators? Everyone knew Wallace has a bad case TDS.

3. “…almost impossible…”
   Another conclusion that is “almost impossible” to escape?
   https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/09/24/secret_report_how_cias_brennan_overruled_dissenting_analysts_who_thought_russia_favored_hillary_125315.html

   (Actually, NOT “almost”….)

   They keep on saying (as does Victor Hanson Davis) that hubris has payback “built-in”. (And the Obama Administration showed no lack of hubris.)

   Alas, the only question (like that regarding the Durham Report) is, When?

4. I just rewatched the video of the 2012 debate. What an angry, petty, malevolent little man Obama is. I was going to say that even though it would have been a relief to be rid of him in 2012, at least we’re done with him now that his two awful terms are over. But of course we haven’t been done with him at all, not for the last four years, and we won’t be done with him for the next four, either, if the puppet known as Joe Biden should happen to fraud himself into office.

5. Within the last few weeks, Fox News, drifting ever more leftwards, silenced Newt Gingrich over his discussion of Soros-funded radical DAs, inflicted the ghastly Chris Wallace on the nation as the inept and biased moderator of last week’s debate, and permitted a petulant John Roberts to complain about the well-merited criticism he had received for his hectoring of the patient and highly competent Kayleigh McEnany. No-one should doubt that the management of Fox (and the board of directors) are having a profound and very negative effect on the quality of the programming.

6. How does the RNC agree to have partisans as moderators?

   The ‘Republicans’ on the Commission on Presidential Debates include John Danforth (capon, age 84, out of office for 25 years) and Olympia Snowe (people pleasing political temporizer, age 72, out of office for 7 years). The real question is why successive Republican candidates have agreed to this sham bipartisanship. The only answer I can think of was provided by Ron Nessen many years ago on the subject of Jack Nelson of the Los Angeles Times, that they had considered vetoing him as a panelist but figured it would work to their benefit if he was too blatantly biased.

   Gerald Ford challenged Jimmy Carter to debates in 1976 as a Hail Mary when Carter was 28% points ahead. Part of a campaign strategy that almost worked for Ford. Since then, it’s decayed into witless theater, like so much else in our public life. Part of the reason it’s witless theater is that the questions are posed by our odious press corps.

7. I am sure that Crowley helped Obama but after the complete demolishing of him in the first debate, I think Romney took his foot off the gas. I felt the first debate exposed Obama for the lightweight he really is and Romney knew the optics might not play well in our new blacklisting society. That was worst debate performance by any Presidential candidate in history. He was like the emperor with no clothes.

8. It doesn’t really matter if the Crowley exchange was pre-arranged. The key issue is that wimpy Romney refused to defend himself. I respect Trump because he refuses to let his enemies walk all over him. In fact, he has taught the Republicans how to exercise power. If they had won, can you imagine either Romney or McCain at the end of their first terms naming a Supreme Court Justice to an empty seat?

9. Romney is/was a closet Democrat; look at his record and his pronouncements since President Trump announced his candidacy. In my opinion, Romney was “chosen” to give the impression that Americans really had a worthwhile choice between candidates who represented differing visions for the country. That impression, in my opinion, was pure illusion. Once people fully understand that both political parties are really two sides of the same coin; i.e., they ALL coordinate their efforts in the furtherance of the corporate interests who own and control nearly all of government, through their agents in and working for government (and the media), it becomes easier to understand how and why these debates, and nearly all of Romney’s campaign, were directed to further distract us and give us the impression that we had a choice, and that that choice would matter. We don’t really have a choice; no Presidential candidate, especially after President Trump, will ever be “blessed” by the corporate masters who continue to funnel more and more of Americans’ wealth into their pockets, while giving us the pretense of a voice in the decisions about who really runs the government. It’s a sad story, and cognitive dissonance and constant propaganda continue to fool Americans into believing they have a voice. They don’t.

10. Me am confused.

    Hanson writes that in President Obama’s remarks after the Benghazi attack, Obama said ““No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

    Then quotes Romney in the debate saying “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration—is that what you’re saying? I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

    How is referring to “acts of terror” while responding to the Benghazi attack NOT calling it an ‘act of terror?” Yes, Obama’s administration did lie to the public about “spontaneous demonstrations” but he did, in fact, use the phrase “acts of terror” in reference to Benghazi in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

    I mean, we’re not even talking about semantics here, where Romney says “You didn’t call it a terrorist attack” and Obama saying “I called it an act of terror.” This is straight up pretending that “acts of terror” is radically different than “act of terror.”

    Here’s the link to President Obama’s speech:

    https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

    It’s true there’s a part of the speech where Obama says “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

    But it’s also true that Obama’s reference to “acts of terror” comes in the midst of him clearing linking and comparing the Benghazi attack to 9/11.

    I think you can reasonably argue that speech was written so they could keep pushing the “spontaneous demonstration” lie at other times and other venues but I think it’s hard to deny that Obama in that specific speech was equating the Benghazi attack with terrorism. And I think the way Romney pussed out when Crowley contradicted him demonstrates that Romney, at the very least, didn’t understand all the ins and outs of the argument he was trying to make.

    Mike

11. MBunge:

    You apparently didn’t read the link to the first post of mine, nor to the third one. Here is the first again. And here is the third.

    In both of them you can read the transcript of Obama’s Rose Garden speech. Every time he referred to Bengazi or the attackers – and he did so many times – he said nothing about terrorists. He had many opportunities in that speech to tie the word “terrorism” or “terrorists” to the Beghazi attack but he did not do so. I discuss this in that third post. He never says “terrorist attack” or calls the attackers “terrorists.” The only mention of terrorism by Obama in that entire speech was a generic one that took place in the speech after he discussed 9/11.

    Go read it.

    But in addition, his spokespeople went on TV over and over or the next 2 weeks saying the attack was a reaction to some video. It was not, and he knew it. He didn’t label it a terrorist attack till 2 weeks after that Rose Garden speech.

    From that third link:

    You can see that in his speech Obama characterizes the Benghazi violence and/or its perpetrators ten separate times, in an address that is only about 800 words long in its entirety. Each time, he might have chosen to have said “terrorist attacks” or “terrorists” or “terrorism,” but each time he chose not to do so. Instead, he used the words “attack” or “attackers” seven times, the word “act” twice, and the word “violence” once. He’s not shy about employing adjectives to modify those words, either: he calls them “senseless,” “brutal,” “terrible,” outrageous,” and “shocking.”

    Note, however, that the word “terrorist” is never used as an adjective to modify Obama’s descriptions of what happened in Benghazi, nor is it used as a noun to describe the perpetrators. There is no question that the omission was intentional on Obama’s part, because if Obama had wanted to call it a terrorist attack it would have been natural to actually, like, you know, do so.

    The only mention of terrorist acts by Obama comes, as I wrote yesterday, in his generic statement of resolve after mentioning both the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (9/11 being an unequivocal act of terrorism, and both wars being part of what used to be called the “War on Terror”).

12. Obama knew nothing about international diplomacy and much about community organizing with Machine Democrat money, and a lot about exuding confidence when the Machine had his back on a Lifetime Guarantee. Mitch Romney knew a good bit about politics, optics, international business, vulture capitalism, and a little about diplomacy, but only in the protected settings of white gentility, the Old Boy’s club. He was completely lost in this confrontation, staged or not – it was too much like a street fight and he is timid when it comes to thinking for himself, out in nature, as it were. Now he is up to his old shtick in his old haunts, a Lymphocyte Republican, a White Privilege blood cell out to get invading viruses like Donald Trump.

13. Joe Van Steenbergen on October 5, 2020 at 8:23 pm said:
    —
    pretty much the same thing David Foster did earlier:
    https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/10/03/caring-about-truth-caring-about-liberty/#comment-2518261

    In the Holy Roman Empire (‘neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire’, Bismarck summarized it), there was a small group of men called the Electors. They, and only they, were allowed to vote on who would become the next Emperor. In the US, we now have a group of people who consider themselves the Electors (a term I am using in a way that has nothing to do with the Electoral College)…while they may not get to make the final decision as to who becomes President, they believe they are entitled to vet who may and may not become a candidate. Others need not apply. Who are these people?…national journalists, Ivy League academics, senior government officials, and a few other categories.

    The rage at Trump is largely about the fact that not only did he not have the approval of the Electors, he didn’t and doesn’t even particularly seek it.

    If they succeed in destroying Trump, there may never again be a US president who achieves office without the approval of the Electors.

    Looks to me that they are both on to something here.

14. The Full Crowley is part and parcel with the ethos of deception of the Left & Democrat leaders.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1312007370898276352.html
    Doc Zero

    The question with the many, many people in media like Acosta is: Are they shamelessly lying because they know damn well Trump has said it before, or have they actually convinced themselves to forget he said it, because they’re so utterly invested in this narrative?

    I’m genuinely curious about this. I could believe either explanation. A LOT of DNC Media reporters feel perfectly justified in lying and concealing facts to achieve their sacred political objectives – especially regarding Trump, who they think is not entitled to fair treatment.

    But the “Trump never denounces white supremacy” narrative was so all-encompassing among journalists – including those who personally knew better, like Acosta – that it looked like mass hysteria. Hysterics can easily convince themselves to forget things.
    …
    For decades now, the media has been putting together hive-think Narratives and bending all coverage to suit them, downplaying or embargoing stories that don’t fit the Narrative while absurdly overplaying, or even inventing, stories that do. Narrative first, reporting second.
    …
    It would be interesting to know how much bad reporting is pure cynical lying, and how much is the media’s narrow politicized worldview blinding it to any information that would challenge the Narratives it has chosen to believe in.

15. They are not thinking anything. They are Obeying their Orders.

16. There is simply no doubt that the media is the propaganda arm (e.g. or as the Soviets would have said, the propaganda “organ”) of the demokrat party.

    They ask their demokrat pals questions like, “what is your favorite ice cream flavor,” (but only after making sure their candidate can answer that) and they ask a Trump, “will you state, here and now, that you do not think Hitler should have exterminated more people.”

    One can ask questions to learn, to get informed, or one can ask questions based upon the presumption that the individual being questioned is Stalin and Pol Pot all rolled into one; in a manner that a prosecutor would question a defendant who the prosecutor is convinced is a murderous villain.

    The dumb ass, stupid republicans really have got to learn to play hardball in all manner of politics; and this includes choosing debate moderators that are truly independent.

17. The Obama admin arrested a video maker they knew to be innocent in order to buttress their claims that “it was a video”.
    Sort of a backwards validation. See, we proved our fake accusation by faking it that this guy did it.

18. “The real question is why successive Republican candidates have agreed to this sham” (biased debate moderators).

    I’ve always understood that there is a “bipartisan” committee to choose moderators and the “Republicans” on the committee are squishes.

    Is that wrong?

19. Daytime news programming at Fox is taking a more pronounced leftward tilt IMO. I sometimes tune in for The Five, and Bret Baier’s 6 pm news, and Dana Perino. But Chris Wallace and John Roberts have lost me. Fair and balanced they are not.

20. Somebody has to put an end to the charade of the two-on-one debate we endure three times (four if you count the VP debate) every election cycle, and the only thing that surprises me about Trump is that he hasn’t done so.

    Personally, I think it’s an outrage that there is any committee for choosing moderators. That should be strictly between the two campaigns and no one else. If they can’t agree, then there are no debates. Simple. The committee needs to be shuttered, yesterday. Does anyone have the power to do that? Who established the stupid thing in the first place?

21. and here i thought to see a rousing discussion of Aleister Crowley

22. Somebody has to put an end to the charade of the two-on-one debate we endure three times (four if you count the VP debate) every election cycle, and the only thing that surprises me about Trump is that he hasn’t done so.

    kolnai: I also recall the “balanced” debate over Obamacare when Obama, a Democrat and a Republican went at it on the air.

    Obviously two-on-one, though no one mentioned it.

23. “and here i thought to see a rousing discussion of Aleister Crowley” – Artfldgr

    LOL
    “He married Rose Edith Kelly and in 1904 they honeymooned in Cairo, Egypt, where Crowley claimed to have been contacted by a supernatural entity named Aiwass, who provided him with The Book of the Law, a sacred text that served as the basis for Thelema. Announcing the start of the Æon of Horus, The Book declared that its followers should “Do what thou wilt” and seek to align themselves with their True Will through the practice of magick.” – Wikipedia

    Sounds like Democrats to me.

24. “…supernatural…”
    Meet the preternatural:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbiVzBtHCP8
    H/T Blazingcatfur blog
    (Gotta admit, though, she plays masked marauder far more convincingly than she plays mayor of Chicago….)

    In any event, while “trick or treating” (masks or no masks) may or may not officially happen this year, one might make the claim that not only is it a “go” but even that’s it’s starting a bit early:
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-authorizes-declassification-of-all-russia-collusion-hillary-clinton-email-probe-documents

    Meanwhile those who will be sorely missing the candy corn (no, existential despair doesn’t get much worse than this) can still play “connect the dots” if only as a low-calorie distraction:
    https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/10/06/michelle-obama-tries-to-convince-americans-they-really-arent-seeing-the-violent-riots-theyre-seeing/

    …as the former First Lady continues to demonstrate just why she has such a devoted following:

    File under: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2KP9fYZUWA&list=PL0IHBN-zGFan5GastwzaI3cA0DaTGvMap&index=5

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>