The Candy Crowley Kerfuffle
WASHINGTON – Make sure you tip toe around our elite establishment candidates, Ms. Crowley. They’ve agreed to certain rules, as has “the commission,” so you don’t want to go rogue and actually follow up on their canned answers, because Mr. Cool and Mr. Ice might get thrown off their game.
The agreement for Tuesday’s town hall has now been leaked [h/t Mediaite].
2012 Debates Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns
If the caterwauling around Crowley’s refusal to play a potted plant when moderating for the D & R king frat boys doesn’t perfectly encapsulate our elite political system nothing does. That it’s being reported by uber insider Mark Halperin is the perfect delivery system for what’s stirring behind the scenes.
While an early October memorandum of understanding between the Obama and Romney campaigns and the bipartisan commission sponsoring the debates suggests CNN’s Candy Crowley would play a limited role in the Tuesday-night session, Crowley, who is not a party to that agreement, has done a series of interviews on her network in which she has suggested she will assume a broader set of responsibilities. As Crowley put it last week, “Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’” – Mark Halperin
God forbid the two men vying for the presidency have an unscripted moment in the debate.
You can understand their concern. Obama was made a fool by the format Jim Lehrer stuck to in the first debate, which was to be invisible. Lehrer took so much grief he had to do a media tour, appearing on “Morning Joe” and with Hannity of Fox News Channel, to try to resurrect his reputation. At that same debate Mitt Romney benefited from his prep work and the fact he was willing to Etch-a-Sketch Governor Mitt back on to the scene.
Now both candidates want to make sure there is nothing that might further expose either of them.
Hiding is the goal.
Does anyone believe either Gary Johnson, Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson would put up such a hissy fit if they were given the chance to appear in front of the American people? Not to worry. They might rough up the two elite fraternity club politicians and their entrenched corporate parties, so even having them appear alongside Obama and Romney is too scary to risk.
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney want to be leader of the free world, taking on all manner of challenges. Yet, they balk at taking follow-up questions from an unbiased, respected and veteran journalist like Candy Crowley.
This reveals the rot in our political system better than anything, which begins with the press’s role in what’s left of our democratic republic. The American people should care about this and see it for what it is. An effort to hide presidential candidates from full view of their plans for this country, while making sure only the elite establishment candidates are allowed to address the American public.
To date, neither Barack Obama or Mitt Romney have outlined their plans for our future. It’s been about attack ads, SUPER Pacs and character assassination on both sides, as if this game matters more than what Obama or Romney will do on the environment, are asked what our drone policy is costing this country, as well as what they’re going to do to actually bring good union wage jobs back to the middle class.
The election is becoming a sham, because the American public are being shown two candidates who are being allowed to hide behind rules and agreements that don’t serve the public’s right to know.
Candy Crowley is unfazed, which is as it should be.
Crowley seems unfazed by the behind the scenes maneuvering. Even after concerns were raised in the wake of the Malveaux interview, Crowley made additional comments that make clear she does not feel bound by any agreement between the Commission and the Obama and Romney camps. On October 11, on the day of the vice presidential candidates debate, she told Wolf Blitzer, ”I’m always interested in the questions because you don’t want to — in a debate, you don’t want to go over plowed ground. Now, this is the vice presidential candidates as opposed to the presidential candidates. So, is there room there to come back to a presidential candidate and say, well, your vice presidential candidate said this? I’m always kind of looking for the next question…. So there’s opportunity for follow-up to kind of get them to drill down on the subjects that these folks want to learn about in the town hall.”
So, teams Obama and Romney have no choice but to get ready to blame the messenger, while preparing for what may come tomorrow.
Battle lines are drawn and the enemy of the candidates is Candy Crowley, representing the Fourth Estate, the only friend left of the American people in a country where most of the press has picked sides.
Taylor Marsh, a veteran political analyst and former Huffington Post contributor, is the author of The Hillary Effect, available at Barnes and Noble and on Amazon. Her new-media blog www.taylormarsh.com covers national politics, women and power.
Paul Szep editorial cartoon used by permission.
Share This
Related Posts
-
John McCain Defends President’s Speech After Gun Vote
Posted on Apr 19, 2013
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Invasion of Our Nation Goes Unpunished (Al-Iraq News, Iraq)
Posted on Apr 15, 2013
-
The Medal of Honor for a Soldier Who ‘Didn’t Fire a Gun…’ – Part II
Posted on Apr 13, 2013
I still think we should have an unscripted debate with two moderator/questioner/ball***** from left and right, asking their questions with followups allowed.
The time should also be expanded, with pee breaks, so more ground can be covered. These guys have it too easy, except that they have been campaigning forever, compared to the Lincoln Douglas debates for example.
Thank you, thank you for showing everyone what a farce these RNC/DNC debates are. In a democracy all candidates should be heard by voters. This imperial attitude that all challengers are beneath the contempt of the major parties must change. I used to be the Director of Communications and Press Secretary for the DNC … I am voting for Rocky Anderson who also left the Democratic Party. Voters are fed up! They are tired of the corporate controlled political parties ruining our country. The label third party candidates as spoilers while they have spoiled our country, engaged us in wars for profit, squandered our wealth, ruined the education system, wreaked havoc with the environment and spent us into a hole too big to navigate. Candidates should not make up the rules of the game, and I sincerely hope Candy goes ROGUE.
However well intentioned, liberals and moderates who choose to vote 3rd party are helping the GOP/TP. This is a FACT. Think Ralph Nader in 2000 and subsequent 8 years of GWB. It may seem like rising above the fray and striking a blow against the establishment but unless one subscribes to the nonsensical belief that the two major parties are equally bad, it is worse than throwing your vote away. This hostage holding to the major parties could be avoided if we had ranked voting or a similar system, but of course we don’t.
Btw, I’m fine with Candy Crowley going rogue. More power to her.
Gary Johnson may help deliver New Mexico and Colorado to Obamama. This lone Demoncrat in Pasco county will vote for Obamama. Anywhere else it would be BTLS or Gary Johnson…
Now now, lets not blame the ref. A good player knows how to adjust to the officiating.
the rules are silly, the candidates should be put through the wringer in these debates and they should be able to directly ask each other anything. This isnt a talking points war… it is debate.
This is also true for conservatives. Just think back to 1992 and the chunk that Ross Perot took out of Bush’s reelection campaign, resulting in a double dose of Slick Willie.
It’s this kind of stuff that makes me doubt we’ll ever have a really viable third party option again. What would really make things interesting is if the Tea Party would separate itself from the Republicans and the Progressives would splinter off from the Democrats. I think that would allow for a better degree of diversity inside the confines of the two party system since that’s what most people seem dead set on wanting.
CMR, one of the best ways to break the 2 party strangle-hold involves going to an instant runoff voting or ranked voting format. IRV isn’t a perfect system but it’s more sensible than winner-takes-all and gives third and fourth parties a fair shot. One of the added benefits would be more interesting debates, i.e. more than 2 people.
Yup, CM, Like a fool, I voted for old Perot as a protest of the two others.
I would love to see some controversial questions asked of Obama, like, ” How do you justify the killing of innocent bystanders with drone strikes? And “Why do you deny many suspected terrorists the right to due process?” It’s not like the question will make him melt–surely he already has plenty of answers to that inquiry in his mind.
I’d also like to see Romney questioned more thoroughly about his justifications about why his role as a hedge fund manager, makes him a man of the people and has no implications that he might be out of touch when making a living out of dissolving faltering companies for profit–even when it means ending many jobs enjoyed by the people who have worked at them for decades–requiring them to endure the indignity of training the very people who going to take their old jobs? When these jobs are out-sourced to countries like China, laborers work twelve hours a day, seven days a week and,only for a wage of one dollar hour. Many are also required to live in company dorms so that they will be available for work immediately when called. They also may pay rent for rooms and the meager accommodation that they get.
Since Mr. Romney has earned much of his income by shutting down American businesses and necessitating that their jobs should be moved to China, It seems a little bit hypocritical that his plans to cut spending include automatic cuts to any program that relies on money from China! Contrary to what he has said, companies are compensated quite a bit for the neccessary costs of relocating, and,in addition, thrive on the slave labor of people who are not protected by labor laws. All of these facts should be examined in detail–especially when he feels that his business experience allows him to create jobs by making use of impossible math!
I also see the value of third parities, but since things are the way they are now, even if I degree with some aspects of both major parties candidates, I vote for “mainstream candidates”anyway, because one definitely does represents the lesser of two evil, and voting third party–no matter how justified–will presently change nothing. I also wonder about the Gore Bush election, and what would have happened if Ralph Nader hadn’t siphoned off so many of Gores votes. This also applies to both parries and like dduck claims, Ross Perot was a major force in determining that election and, didn’t his take of votes benefit Clinton? Correct me if I’m wrong, my memory is not always correct.
With all the flaws in the system, I am still glad that we have the kind of debates that now exist, rather than having none. Maybe eventually candidates will be required to be much more honest and specific! If we can ever repeal Citizens’s United!
I know the dream of a third party is in our hearts, but our constitution simply does not allow splitting of electoral votes by anything close to thirds. All a third party candidate would do is hand the Presidency to the majority party in the House….and leave people rioting in the streets.
Well petew, you have my vote for moderator!
I hope CC has the courage to shake things up a bit..