If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   CNN boss sends email to staff, reminding them to cover for disgraced Candy Crowley   (dustinstockton.com) divider line 59
    More: Followup, Candy Crowley, CNN, garbage bins, Michelle Obama, Rose Garden, political corruption, Dan Rather  
•       •       •

3552 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Oct 2012 at 9:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-19 07:56:41 AM  
11 votes:
TFA says "even the liberal shills at the Washington Post..." and then proceeds to link to an op-ed from Jennifer farking Rubin criticizing Crowley.

Subby, your blog sucks mass quantities of dead pigeon cock.
2012-10-19 09:20:44 AM  
6 votes:

Speaker2Animals: You know how the losing side knows the lost? They go after the moderator.

Yeah, the blog sucks.


Republican wins, Democrat loses:
-Dems: Wow. Our guy got beat. Better make sure that doesn't happen again.
-Reps: HAHAHAHA! Our guy won! Dems suck.

Tie:
-Dems: A tie. How droll.
-Reps: HAHAHAHA! Our guy won! Dems suck.

Democrat wins, Republican loses:
-Dems: We win this round, so let's build on success for the next one.
Reps: HAHAHAHA! Our guy won! Dems suck. Also, the moderator was totally in the bag. And the audience. And - my gosh! - all that yelling and machismo; I bet the women were turned off. Also, did you see that time our guy nailed the other guy with this one sentence?! Our guy TOTALLY won, and anyone who says otherwise is a liberal just like the moderator that totally skewed the debate (I bet she did the job numbers too, that biatch) in the other guy's favor. Also, our guy won. And Dems suck.
2012-10-19 08:02:13 AM  
4 votes:
You know how the losing side knows the lost? They go after the moderator.

Yeah, the blog sucks.
2012-10-19 09:23:55 AM  
3 votes:
fark you, blogmitter. fark you Modmins for approving this dreck, fark you Drew for letting yourself become that which you used to rail against
2012-10-19 08:36:11 AM  
3 votes:

SlothB77: It is inconceivable that someone at CNN would send an email out telling everyone to cover for Obama to help him get elected. Would never happen.


So, now this is an email from CNN telling them to cover for Obama? Please, do go on.
2012-10-19 08:29:17 AM  
3 votes:

FlashHarry: romney lied, and she called him on it. that makes her "disgraced?"


Just keep in mind this guy thinks Jennifer farking Rubin is a liberal shill. He clearly has, at best, a tenuous connection with reality like most of the other conservative bloggers who have to invent their bullshiat out of whole cloth because the real world doesn't match what their defective brains tell them.
2012-10-19 08:19:55 AM  
3 votes:
Frankly, I wish the moderators would call B.S. on candidates more often. I was fine with it, and would have been fine with it if she had done it on Obama too.

What, we want another Jim Lehrer, allowing both candidates to run roughshod over the whole thing?

I'd also like to see a moderator say, "you still didn't answer the question that was asked of you." The problem with it would be that candidates would use "not answering the question" to get three times more talking time.
2012-10-19 11:28:32 AM  
2 votes:
What was everyone supposed to do when the President of the United States issues a command, "Get the transcript." Are there rules in the debate about that, too? Were they supposed to ignore him?

Lou BrownI think it's possible for the moderator to move things along without interjecting herself in the debate.

It obviously is impossible at times to "move ROMNEY along", as we have seen at two debates. He interrupts, he talks first, lets the other respond and then just simply HAS to respond to the other's response. The moderators object, he doesn't give a fark. He continues. He does it with contrived stammering, trying to appear sincere and fooling only the already foolish, and he just talks over the moderator and repeatedly gets his way because he is Chief Executive Officer of everyone, everywhere. There is no "moving along" when Mitt debates.

Rather than answer Mitt's question (a debate no-no) and after having stated several times that those were not his words in the Rose Garden, President Obama simply wanted to shut the Romneytron up with the facts: the transcript. There could be no arguing with that.

And if the professional and skilled moderator happened to have that transcript in her head, wtf is the difference between her "interjecting" with the information the POTUS demanded, and waiting for someone to print a copy of it to present to Romneytron?

I suppose ideally some people would have like to continue watching Romneytron get flushed and excited with anticipation of sabotaging the POTUS with his pathetic line of QUESTIONing during a debate, his insistence that things happened the way he wanted them to, rather than the way they factually did. I suppose that would have been a fairer outcome. Gotcha.
2012-10-19 10:42:59 AM  
2 votes:

Lou Brown: And I believe that it is impossible for a moderator to fact check in real-time in a totally consistent manner. As a result, the moderator would unwittingly end up showing favoritism to one candidate, and that does not serve the audience, either.


I would point out that she wasn't fact-checking anyone, until Mitt tried to set up Obama on some hyper-technical issue about what someone said on a given day, especially when there was a record of that. Romney had really stopped debating at that point and was simply trying to mince Obama's words.

In order to get the debate back on track, Crawley finally stepped in and corrected Mitt so that this non-issue side show would be put to rest and an actual debate on issues could continue.
2012-10-19 10:03:09 AM  
2 votes:

Lou Brown: If you fact check one candidate's statement, to be fair you have to try to do it every time for both candidates- you can't pick and choose


She did it for the purposes of stopping a particularly egregious lie that was holding up the debate. When one candidate is gumming up the works by repeatedly lying about a particular thing, it's perfectly acceptable for the moderator to shut him up and move him on, and if she knows the facts as was the case here, why not use them to do that?

The moderator's job is to keep things moving along and that's what she did here, it just so happened that the best way to do that was to cut through Romney's bullshiat with facts to shut him the hell up.

The republicans like to whine about that because they're crybaby little biatches with no sense of personal responsibility, but Romney could easily avoid that scenario by - and this is going to be a novel idea for him and his supporters - just sticking to the facts. Or at least doing what most politicians do and sticking to things that are at least technically true even if they're misleading or intentionally ignore other truths that offer important context.

That's the most galling thing about all this republican butthurt for me. You don't want the moderator pointing out to 65 million people that you're a shiat-eating liar? You can pretty easily avoid that outcome by not being a shiat-eating liar.

/ but, again, if there's one thing you can count on from the party of personal responsibility it's that nothing is ever their fault
2012-10-19 09:45:11 AM  
2 votes:

Whodat: That being said, if you let one candidate speak for a longer period of time you are not being fair to the other candidate.


A big part of that was Romney breaking debate format and asking several questions directly to Obama.
2012-10-19 09:26:33 AM  
2 votes:
I wish I could derive satisfaction from watching these morans flail about screaming, but I really can't anymore. All I can hope for is that they are given a small enough piece of the political pie that they can't cause trouble, but big enough that they feel like they are part of the process. Because when people that shout, "WORST PRESIDENT EVER HE IS DESTROYING AMERICA WE CAN'T LET THIS HAPPEN" start feeling left out, things are bound to get ugly.
2012-10-19 09:17:02 AM  
2 votes:
Whine more about the moderator.

If Romney can't deal with a moderator, how can he deal with Ahmadinejad?
2012-10-19 09:15:19 AM  
2 votes:
If a debate moderator really wanted to be taken seriously by the candidates, they should demand one of these for each microphone:

nickshell1983.files.wordpress.com

"Don't look at me like that. I said you would have two minutes, and you did. Next question..."
2012-10-19 09:14:00 AM  
2 votes:

Earguy: What, we want another Jim Lehrer, allowing both candidates to run roughshod over the whole thing?


Well, the republicans do, yes. Because their guy is a domineering dickcheese with no sense of proper decorum who can easily take advantage of that sort of environment by exploiting the fact that apparently Obama's mother raised him right.

Plus, the moderators started butting in every time someone lies Romney would never get a chance to speak.

This entire debate season basically comes down to republicans being pissed off that only the first moderator allowed their guy to undertake his "blizzard of lies" strategy without any challenge.
2012-10-19 08:33:41 AM  
2 votes:

Vodka Zombie: dr_blasto: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374] 
Lulz at Greg Campbell.

Some people should just NOT grow beards.

Aside from that, I think Crowley did a pretty good job. Romney walked all over her like a typical rich bastard simply assuming the rules of the little people do not apply to him, and there's no way to stop an out-of-control moron once the engineer falls asleep at the switch.

But, all-in-all, she hardly has anything to be disgraced about.


Romney expected that he would be allowed to get the last word in. She told him no, and Romney cannot abide being told "no" as he's always been the guy in charge.

And, for Greggy here, the whole cigar/pistol/suspenders and messed up bed with the stupid look on his face is just great.
2012-10-19 08:30:54 AM  
2 votes:
Wiat, Candy did a bad job? When did this come about?

Ok, subby, listen. Just because Fox news makes it their talking point and buzzword for the day doesn't make it true. In fact, quite the opposite. When Fox begins a smear campaign it's because they want to change the public opinion.

Here';s how it works:
Fox News: Candy did a horrible job (rinse, repeat on every oped show, saying it at least 3 times an hour)
The Public: Candy did a bad job? Huh, Candy did a bad job!
Fox News: Look at all these people saying Candy did a bad job, if the public thinks it's true, it must be true.
Other networks: People are saying Candy did a bad job? We should investigate.
Public at large: /facepalm

Sure, she was no Raddatz, but she did well. Better than Jim Lehrer, but that's unfair as a houseplant could have done better than Jim Lehrer and his constant assertation there may be something different about the candidates and they should tell us.
2012-10-19 08:23:23 AM  
2 votes:
romney lied, and she called him on it. that makes her "disgraced?"
2012-10-19 08:04:35 AM  
2 votes:
I left two comments there. How much we want to bet they won't be published?
2012-10-19 08:39:22 PM  
1 votes:
Admins: Stop greenlighting your own blogs. We already know Fark's editorial stances.
2012-10-19 02:40:20 PM  
1 votes:

Savage Belief: Xetal: The poutrage is going to be pretty epic on November 7th.

I'm hoping for the roles to be reversed and the Republicans will be screeching about "hanging chad" and filing lawsuits.


Please remember, Bush v. Gore was initiated by Bush's team to have the SCOTUS shiat all over FL's SC which, oddly, is really anti-state's rights.
2012-10-19 11:55:55 AM  
1 votes:

Lou Brown: I simply disagree with that. A moderator can move the debate along without explicitly stating which candidate is correct on a particular issue.


When that candidate is Mitt Romney and he has established a consistent pattern of disregarding rules that are inconvenient for him, sometimes additional intervention is necessary. In this case it was presenting him with irrefutable evidence that he couldn't stammer and lie to obfuscate. Was there another way to move the debate along and preserve the integrity of the discussion? If she had swept it under the rug she would have fallen victim to the same accusation levied at Lehrer; an ineffective moderator who allows candidates to run roughshod over the rules and lie at will without consequence.

I think given the circumstances she did a fine job handling this fairly brazen move by Romney in disregarding the rules and decorum of the debate. He didn't just disrespect the President after all, he also disrespected the moderator.
2012-10-19 11:51:03 AM  
1 votes:

Lou Brown: I simply disagree with that. A moderator can move the debate along without explicitly stating which candidate is correct on a particular issue.


The point is: Romney was trying to fabricate a stance, and build upon it. She was right to correct him as the basis for his entire next point was a fallacy.
2012-10-19 11:36:35 AM  
1 votes:

Elandriel: The only way to shut him up, as I recall she had already tried to move it along, was to say "He did in fact say that" because Obama wasn't going to answer the direct question, nor should he have.


Also of note: Obama, after Crowley corrected Romney, tried to capitalize on the moment but Crowley had none of it and changed the topic.
2012-10-19 11:35:32 AM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: That's what Crowley did. If the moderator needs to fact-check to keep the debate on track, absolutely they should do so.


But only as a last resort, for example when struggling to regain control of the debate from a self-absorbed, entitled jack4ss who disrespects the moderator, refuses to yield the floor and ignores the rules. Even rich entitled jack4sses. The circumstances meet the metric.
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-19 11:02:20 AM  
1 votes:
2012-10-19 11:01:24 AM  
1 votes:
(Some Guy) is so done as a wrapper, man.
2012-10-19 10:58:06 AM  
1 votes:

Trivia Jockey: Lou Brown:


Let me ask you this...are you suggesting that Romney was only beaten in this debate because of the moderator?


It was unfair, because both the moderator and his opponent came with a knowledge of the facts in play.
2012-10-19 10:54:29 AM  
1 votes:
Lou Brown:


Let me ask you this...are you suggesting that Romney was only beaten in this debate because of the moderator?
2012-10-19 10:53:24 AM  
1 votes:

Lou Brown: How do you decide which statements to fact check in a debate?


Easy...the ones where the candidates are no longer debating, and just trying to play "gotcha!" with some choice of words on an irrelevant issue.

She wasn't doing this to "fact check" Romney, she was trying to put the issue to rest so, you know, actual debating of the issues could continue.
2012-10-19 10:44:04 AM  
1 votes:

dr_blasto: keylock71: Heh... Pictures of doughy white guys trying to show how bad-ass they are by posing with their firearms crack me up.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 470x616]

What the fark is this crazy shiat? Is that a cell phone holder on his mismatched helmet? There's no phone in it, did he eat it?


Looks like he just went to his local Army/Navy Surplus and bought a bunch of shiat he thought "looked cool".


2.bp.blogspot.com

What is that? A Nerf Shotgun?
2012-10-19 10:42:08 AM  
1 votes:

Trivia Jockey: Lou Brown: It's the participant's responsibility to challenge the lies. Not the moderator's.

Not when you get journalists to be the moderators. If you want a moderator who's literally only going to ask questions, then don't get news people to do it.


She also was arguably moderating the debate in that exchange. Romney was stuck in a glitch and kept saying things like "Are you sure about that, Mr. President?" So she told him off, and kept the debate moving along.
2012-10-19 10:40:25 AM  
1 votes:

Lou Brown: Yes, facts are impartial. But I don't think it's possible for a moderator to correct the candidates on their facts in a totally consistent and impartial basis. If Candidate A and Candidate B both lie twice, but the moderator only interjects with facts to challenge those lies in 3 of those cases for whatever reason (not being able to get a word in or not knowing the facts in regard to the lie), then the moderator wasn't being impartial.


So you didn't see Crowley correct Romney and then immediately say that Romney was correct on the other point he was making?
2012-10-19 10:34:04 AM  
1 votes:
When you're whining about a moderator, you're doing so because your guy lost the debate.

Most libs agreed that Obama lost the first debate. We didn't accuse Leher of being partisan, or taking Romney's side, or ambusing Obama.
2012-10-19 10:32:01 AM  
1 votes:

Lou Brown: Above all else, a moderator has to be totally consistent and impartial


Impartiality has nothing to do with this. The only reason Barack Obama didn't get slapped down like Romney is because at no point in the debate did he piss the moderator off by dragging it to a halt with a ceaseless string of lies.

The moderator doesn't serve the candidates, the moderator serves the debate audience. There is no reason that a moderator should not inject facts into the debate when one or both participants refuse to. And if the moderator injects something that isn't a fact, then they're a shiat moderator. One of the many reasons someone could be a shiat moderator. It would not be functionally different if she'd been wrong than Jim Lehrer's refusal to control the time clocks. Shiatty moderators happen and can happen for multiple reasons. The outcome, though, is the same regardless of why they're a shiatty moderator.

Again, the moderator is there to serve the audience, not the candidates. The moderator should be under no obligation to allow either candidate to lie to that audience without correction.
2012-10-19 10:14:26 AM  
1 votes:

born_yesterday: Vegan Meat Popsicle: That's the most galling thing about all this republican butthurt for me. You don't want the moderator pointing out to 65 million people that you're a shiat-eating liar? You can pretty easily avoid that outcome by not being a shiat-eating liar.

That's how deep in the bag the MSM is for these assholes--they EXPECT to be able to lie to people without being called on it.


Indeed. Fox/News Corp. once went to court to defend their right to lie to the public on the air in news programming.

And won.
2012-10-19 10:14:05 AM  
1 votes:
What concerns me about this story, and the recent blowback from Ryan's pot-washing photo op, is that for the repubs it's not enough to prove their opponents wrong; their opponents must be destroyed, humiliated, disgraced, fired. The right wing will not rest now until Candy Crowley loses her job for the sin of "partisanship," just like it won't rest until the St. Vincent De Paul Society soup kitchen is put out of business for not playing along with a repub fantasy. If Romney wins, to many repubs it will mean "payback time." Scores will be settled, liberals and Democrats will be punished. This is a party that was willing to throw the economy under the bus to achieve political points, that is actively seeking to disenfranchise political opponents. If they are willing to go this far to regain political power, how far will they go to keep it? The Democrats may find themselves in a position similar to the Mensheviks in post-Czarist Russia, following the rules of polite political discourse while its opponents ruthlessly use any and all means of taking and keeping power.
2012-10-19 10:10:42 AM  
1 votes:
I watched the debate...

the moment that seems to have hurt the GOPers feelings was a complete non-story.

Mitt had it wrong, he seemed unsure, and seemed to be looking for help...Crowley spoke up and inserted an absolute fact, not an opinion...a fact. That was it.

That's what the GOPers are mad about....really speaks to their weak position.

Facts are a problem for the GOP.

/Mitt didn't go after the right part of that story, that's Mitt's problem.
//blaming others for their own failing is a big reason why the GOP is in decline. They never correct themselves, they just push out a shiatstorm, have a pity party and move on. No introspection allowed.
2012-10-19 09:55:27 AM  
1 votes:

vernonFL: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374]

"Just the Derp, Ma'am"


Has his mom ever let him leave the basement? That's a pasty dude
2012-10-19 09:51:52 AM  
1 votes:

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: farkplug: Romney persists in asking Obama questions during the debate, breaking the rules. Obama doesn't fall for the bait, but instead says, "Get the transcript." WHAT THE FARK WAS SHE SUPPOSED TO DO? Ignore the President of the United States? He's still the POTUS, even in a debate, and what he asked for was not the least bit unreasonable.

----

What a good journalist or moderator is supposed to do is let each side speak at length and treat both opinions as if they're equal, regardless of facts.


And what a good debater is supposed to do is NOT ask the other questions and NOT interrupt the moderator. If one should continue to press the other with a question, ignoring the moderator, the only recourse the other debater has is to ask for an impartial presentation of the facts, for he cannot answer the question.

Get your debating rules on.
2012-10-19 09:51:38 AM  
1 votes:

Mr_Fabulous: disgraced Candy Crowley

I find this sort of thing nothing short of hilarious. The floor-humping derp-mongoloids have their own reality



Especially when you read the actual email from the CNN guy. It says nothing of the sort that the blogger says it does.
2012-10-19 09:48:51 AM  
1 votes:

James!: Without Subby's who agree with Bofart's blog we'd never have the opportunity to laugh at him.


Or someone could submit it ironically with a headline making fun of Jennifer Rubin as a liberal shill.
2012-10-19 09:45:18 AM  
1 votes:
Yeah, she's disgraced. Never to be heard from again. Much like the sad, angry Mormon who believes in rewards extra-terrestrial. I had better hurry up and vote for that guy, or else. Or else, the black guy will get me.
2012-10-19 09:44:25 AM  
1 votes:
i2.kym-cdn.com
2012-10-19 09:44:21 AM  
1 votes:
More has been said in recent days about her awful job than what either candidate had to say.


I suggest you google "binder" and then tell me if you still believe this.
2012-10-19 09:41:58 AM  
1 votes:
Romney persists in asking Obama questions during the debate, breaking the rules. Obama doesn't fall for the bait, but instead says, "Get the transcript." WHAT THE FARK WAS SHE SUPPOSED TO DO? Ignore the President of the United States? He's still the POTUS, even in a debate, and what he asked for was not the least bit unreasonable.

The latest conspiracy I've heard from the right is that Candy and Obama somehow knew Romney would attack him on this point, and that is why she had the transcript on her desk, whereas she had it in her farking head, because she's a professional, and this only happened a few weeks ago.

What a bunch of delusional, shameless crybabies the right has become these days, my god.
2012-10-19 09:39:27 AM  
1 votes:
If I was a Romney supporter, I would be more pissed the my guy did not know exactly to the word what Obama said in his morning speech and walked right into an obvious trap. Proceed, governor.
2012-10-19 09:21:09 AM  
1 votes:

stoli n coke: dr_blasto: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374] 
Lulz at Greg Campbell.

It's funny when a 35-year old virgin tries to look like a badass.


Well his bio says he's married, but given his detachment from reality, his imaginary wife probably wouldn't give him any either.
2012-10-19 09:15:22 AM  
1 votes:
This butthurt goes up to eleven.
2012-10-19 09:14:23 AM  
1 votes:

dr_blasto: [dustinstockton.com image 250x374] 
Lulz at Greg Campbell.


It's funny when a 35-year old virgin tries to look like a badass.
2012-10-19 09:13:17 AM  
1 votes:
"The new butthurt is in early this year!"
"This blog has everything!"
2012-10-19 09:13:16 AM  
1 votes:
Courtesy of Breitbart.com, the email reads,

Oh look, someone found another way to sneak insane ramblings onto Fark. Congratulations. I hope you're happy with yourself.
2012-10-19 09:12:41 AM  
1 votes:

vernonFL: Your blog sucks


The sun is warm
2012-10-19 09:12:36 AM  
1 votes:
Welp polls are moving back in Obama's direction and the right is coming totally unhinged. "Moderator bad! Not optimal!" The desperation is almost palpable. God I love it.
2012-10-19 08:44:05 AM  
1 votes:
After all the water CNN has carried for Romney in order to try to make the race a ratings win it seems silly to make them out as Obama supporters now. Not as silly as calling them a news network, but still, pretty darn silly.
2012-10-19 08:34:16 AM  
1 votes:

SlothB77: It is inconceivable that someone at CNN would send an email out telling everyone to cover for Obama to help him get elected. Would never happen.


Sure.  If you find one you should send it to this blogger. 
2012-10-19 08:31:58 AM  
1 votes:
Yeah, that whole bit congratulating her on a good job and saying the right wing is having a good cry about the moderating aren't covering for disgrace.
 
You realize the president will have to deal with tougher situations than a debate moderated by Candy Crowley.  
2012-10-19 08:30:09 AM  
1 votes:
Again; Losers whine about the moderator

/and the worse they lose, the louder and more persistently they whine
2012-10-19 08:18:24 AM  
1 votes:
dustinstockton.com 
Lulz at Greg Campbell.
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report