Conservatives assail debate moderator Candy Crowley

Journalist Candy Crowley prepares to moderate the second presidential debate with President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, October 16, 2012. / EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

Moderator Candy Crowley is facing criticism over her performance in the second presidential debate, with conservatives alleging that she sided with President Obama and one group even calling on her to be fired. 

"Crowley's behavior goes beyond despicable as it was a blatant attempt to influence the presidential election," Americans for Limited Government said in a statement Wednesday. "If CNN wants to maintain any shred of credibility as a 'news' organization, they should fire Crowley immediately for her gross violation of whatever remains of journalistic standards."

Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck tweeted during the debate that "Candy loves to police Romney! As soon as he begins to win she shuts him down." Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote, "There goes Candy holding Romney's feet to the fire while, letting Obama unchain his muse." Another conservative, John Nolte, wrote, "Crowley is the one losing this debate. She's been absolutely disgraceful and biased from choice of questions to time." Rush Limbaugh complained Wednesday that Crowley had committed "an act of journalistic terror."

It wasn't just the commentators. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Crowley overstepped her bounds in trying to fact check the candidates. "When you have two candidates disagreeing, it's not the role of the moderator to say, 'Mr. President, you're right' or 'Gov. Romney, you're right,'" he told Crowley on CNN Wednesday.

The attacks on Crowley are different than the criticism of moderator Jim Lehrer after the first presidential debate. Lehrer was deemed too deferential, while Crowley is being criticized for inserting herself into the conversation with questionable facts. But the overarching dynamic is the same: In this polarized political age, a debate moderator has little chance to escape a harsh critique. Even Martha Raddatz, who kept tight control on last week's vice presidential debate and challenged both candidates, was deemed by conservatives to have sided with Joe Biden.

Play Video

Second presidential debate: Libya

To be sure, debate moderators should not be insulated from criticism. The questions during Tuesday night's town hall debate, which were chosen by Crowley, more often than not played into the president's hands - perhaps reflecting the fact that the town hall was held in a blue state. And Crowley's decision to side with the president over whether he had deemed the Libya attack an act of terror, when the reality was not so clear cut, was a misstep.

But the moderator's impact on the debate is ultimately relatively small: It is the candidates, after all, who do most of the talking. The moderator, meanwhile, has to try to keep the conversation moving while giving the candidates equal time, correcting false claims and steering answers back toward the question. For partisans looking to explain away a poor performance by their candidate, she or he makes an easy target precisely because it's almost impossible to pull all that off perfectly. It should come as no surprise that many Democrats suggested that Mr. Obama lost the first debate in part because Lehrer let Romney roll over him, while many Republicans suggested Romney lost the second one because Crowley handed it to the president. That's a lot easier than just admitting your guy screwed up.

Moderator-bashing has taken on the nasty tone that partisans increasingly bring to just about every interaction they have with the news media. In the Republican primary debates, Newt Gingrich used attacks on debate moderators to score political points.

"It's such a hyper-politicized environment that people are looking to jump on any slight perception of favoritism one way or the other," said Alan Schroeder, a professor at Northeastern University and an expert on presidential debates. "This is unusually intense criticism for the moderators, and people are misplacing their focus here."

"This is not about the moderators," he said. "The moderators do the best they can under extremely difficult circumstances."

Crowley's decision to insert herself into the town hall format, which she made clear before the debate, prompted the campaigns to complain she was overstepping her bounds. While moderators have become more proactive in recent campaign cycles, in the past they tended to be more willing to simply play traffic cop, said Schroeder.

And Crowley's willingness to fact check on the fly reflects an increasing move in the news media to challenge erroneous claims. It's a development that has been welcomed by many but also comes with risks, both because the journalist may not have their facts right and because challenging a candidate can contribute to perceptions that the journalist is biased.

Crowley isn't offering apologies. Though she initially seemed to backtrack on her Libya fact check, suggesting that Romney was "right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word," she later maintained that she had not in fact done so. She said on "The View" Wednesday morning that her fact check was simply an attempt to move the conversation forward, and suggested that criticism of her performance was inevitable. 

"People are going to look at this through the prism they look at this through," Crowley said. "I get that."

Due Diligence: Did Obama initially deem Libya attacks a terrorist act?

[looneytoonsindville]

Since Candy Crowley stepped out of her moderator role at the second presidential debate and joined the Obama team, the US electorate has been misled BY THE DEBATE MODERATOR!

I believe it is essential that, in order to maintain the integrity of the Debate Commission, the record be corrected during the preliminary remarks during Monday's debate.

Tens of millions of Americans now believe that President Obama called the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi a "Terrorist Attack" during his Rose Garden speech on September 12. I watched that speech live and HE DID NOT! In the Rose Garden speech, every time Obama referred to the Benghazi attack, he called it an "attack" or an "attack in Benghazi". When he spoke of the attackers, he called them "killers who attacked people" not "terrorists". Viewing the YouTube record of the Rose Garden speech on Benghazi, at 4:18 Obama spoke generally about American values, not about the Benghazi attack when he said the words "... acts of terror ...". Candy Crowley should be publicly reprimanded by the Commission for her misconduct.

Finally, I would ask you to consider this question: How was it that the President knew that Candy Crowley had a transcript of his Rose Garden speech on Benghazi with her at the podium? If she were, in fact, acting as an impartial moderator, then there is no way that the President should have known that. This was collusion, pure and simple. A form of Chicago political shenanigans.

[sickoftheslant]

Ooook, um I'm not sure what you was watching, but that's exactly what President Obama called it!! Maybe your Fox newstation didn't play that part of it, what a surprise that would be. If it would've been the other way around and Candy Crowley "FACT CHECKED" the President then that would've been alright and she would've been #1 then, huh. Seriously you people with all your hate make me sick!!

[c00lmom]

What a setback for the Womens' Movement. If women are to get equal pay, we need to show that we are as competent and as professional as men. Look at the difference in the way Jim Lehrer performed as moderator, even in light of the fact that one of the first things out of Romney's mouth was that if elected he would "stop the subsidy to PBS." Very disappointing Candy Crowley.

[shaleileigh]

Candy Crowley is a cheap political hack pseudo-journalist that has no business in an important forum such as the Presidential debates. The one thing they ask her not to do and she does it and sure enough makes a fool out of herself and hurts the political system we have created with a very cheap and unfair political stance for Obama.

Candy just some advice...get out of journalism and lose weight in that order, the first puts us all in danger.

[IVoteMyConscience]

"My priority is jobs," Romney has said. If you'd like to see Romney's record on jobs, it's on video here:

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZMndjLIQUFw"

In America, "47% of the people believe they are victims," Mitt Romney said. "That 47% believe they are entitled [emphasis Romney's] to health care, food, and housing. That 47% don't pay income taxes. I don't care about that 47%."

Hmmm.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."—the US Constitution

Did Romney really hold our Constitution and the American people in contempt when he thought he was speaking secretly behind closed doors to potential billionaire donors to his campaign? Could any Presidential candidate say such a thing? You can find out here:

"http://www.motherjones.com/transition/inter.php?dest=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser"

So who told the truth in this second 2012 Presidential debate? Who lied?

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXpKq4UYtXw&feature=related"

Who stood firm on his platform for election? Who switched his positions?

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jebDlVA"

Although Romney handlers claim debates are no place for "fact-checking," there is no question that Americans deserve to hear the truth—not lies—from their Presidential Candidates. So Milt Shook has compiled a list with citations here:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2012/10/second-debate-romney-lies-debunked.html

And who told the truth in the first 2012 Presidential debate? Who lied?

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TWHLgMCDuOs"

Although Romney handlers have claimed he will not be limited by "fact-checking," there is still no question that Americans deserve to hear the truth—not lies—from their Presidential Candidates. So Milt Shook has compiled a list with citations here:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2012/10/a-small-sampling-of-romney-lies-at-last-nights-debate.html

If you're a moderate voter, Shook compares Obama and Romney with citations here:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2012/10/if-youre-a-moderate-voter-thinking-of-voting-gop-read-this-first-please.html

If you'd like to see Obama's record as President, Shook has compiled a list with citations here:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

And if you'd like to see whom among the American people Obama has really represented during his Administration, Shook reveals that in detail here:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/08/more-politics-101-obama-is-smarter-than-us.html

Please—educate yourself. Don't be bought by simple-minded hype.

Make an informed decision about what's best for you and for America.

[YOURCONSCIENCEISSEARED]

"In America, "47% of the people believe they are victims," Mitt Romney said. "That 47% believe they are entitled [emphasis Romney's] to health care, food, and housing. That 47% don't pay income taxes. I don't care about that 47%."

Hmmm.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."—the US Constitution"

First off, if you want anyone to ever take the words you spew the least bit credible, you should at least have you facts right. The quote you took was not from the US Constitution, it was from a the Declaration of Independence. That being said, the Declaration of Independence is a completely different document. I suggest your ignorant mind should read both of them sometime and learn what's on the inside before you ever bring them up in your own little fantasy world.

Second, I find it funny that you would even cling to the "US Constitution", when you yourself, like many liberals, believe it to hold very little value.

Lastly, if you're going to hold Mitt Romney, a governor, to his words on the "47%" comment. Then you need to also hold Barack Obama, the President, to his words.

"You know, a year from now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress but there is still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition." - Obama

Is the economy better today then when he took office? Hell no. We're slowing down year by year. Oh well, he didn't know what he was getting into the day he decided to run for office. Poor guy.

"The problem is that the way Bush has done it in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents. No. 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man woman and child. That's irresponsible, that's unpatriotic," - Obama

Obama calling out on Bush, saying that it was irresponsible and even unpatriotic of him to add four trillion dollars to the debt in 8 years of presidency, just so he can later go an add 5 trillion in less than 4 years. So now by his own estimates, instead of each American owing the Government $30,000, we now owe probably from $50,000-$60,000. But that's okay, he probably didn't mean that.

"Today I am pledging to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office," - Obama

If I were to wake up tomorrow and the deficit was cut in half, I definitely would be leaning more on Obama in this election. The problem is that he is nothing more than a politician that will say anything to the American people just to gain there support. The foolish Americans that can't think for themselves, I should say.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, if Obama knew beyond a shadow of doubt that what happened in Benghazi was a terror attack, why didn't he say so? Instead, he left his everything up in the air and let his entire cabinet go and say it was all spontaneous and that it was due to the video.

You Obama supporters are so one-sided it's pathetic.

P.S.
Created this account just to reply to your ignorant comment.

[zanydr]

nobody followed the rules in this debate, including the candy cowley. the problem is or was it was her job to moderate not join the debate and add her 2 cents which were incorrect and then she corrected. there was no clapping allowed except for the flotus. no back and forth etc so what. if you have a brain figure it out for yourself. do your own homework. make an informed decision. dont be taught what to think think for yourself

[iwatchit]

Moderator In Chief

The criticisms that the moderators in the presidential debates are not doing their jobs in an appropriate manner are absolutely correct; however the criticisms are also absolutely wrong. Now don't be confused; this is not a logic problem, a final exam question on a philosophy final or some thorny conundrum intended to challenge your intellect. It is a critique of those who have the presumption to speak on behalf of the public's interests. This is an assay on the quality and grade of those who are without any basis for representing the public and without any measureable insight into what would benefit the public. Their views are that the moderator is there to be uninvolved and merely ask the questions, monitor the equality of time between the candidates and provide some limited supervision that the candidates follow the rules. This may be what the candidates and the parties view as the role that they want for the moderator, but it isn't what is good for the public. This limited, lame and lackluster perspective doesn't even attempt to see the value, the potential and the opportunity that a moderator who served the public interests could provide.

What the public needs, what the public deserves and what the public should demand of "their" moderator is far more than these seekers who want to be the "servant of the people" will like or find comfortable. However, how comfortable do you think I care they are with the questions or the demands to which "my moderator" will hold them accountable?

The moderator should be prepared to not just ask the questions, but to assess and determine during the candidates response if they are even coming close to answering the question which more often than not they rarely do. In these circumstances the moderator should stop the candidates's rambling and direct them to answering the question asked. If the answer is not forthcoming the moderator should terminate the candidate's response period and move on the next item or candidate if they haven't had a chance to not answer the question also.

If the moderator determines that the answer was non-substantive, they would be expected to follow-up with a restatement of the question along the lines of "Could you perhaps provide something of substance that would inform the public as you prior answer did not? A simple no would be adequate if you can't." The mode of moderating provides the means for the public to receive information related to what they are interested in relative to the questions, rather than what the candidates are interested in telling the public.

So rather than constraining and limiting the role of the moderator, their role should be strengthened and broadened to allow them to make the debates more focused on increasing the information that the public would benefit from obtaining. We have allowed the debates to become just another reality show, a scripted show and tell, and an exercise in evasion and confusion. You would think that candidates for the presidency would themselves demand a higher standard, an opportunity to lead, and a venue for enlightening their path to the future; but oddly the contenders for the 'leader of the free world' position are willing to follow their uninspired advisors, their handlers and consultants on how not to be a leader.

Such debates might be more difficult to get the candidates to agree to, but then the moderator has been given an excellent solution to that problem by Clint Eastwood.

[Think3Times]

Moderators should be able to have BS buzzers and mute buttons for their microphones when they refuse to shut up on time, or don't address questions directly, or try to slyly wander off on a tangent.

I personally like the idea of those little dart guns that shoot the plastic suction cup arrows: the winner being the one that has the least amount of arrows stuck to their forehead when the debate is over.

[RollotheNorman]

It bears repeating, when you cast your pearls before (RepubliCON) swine, they will turn and trample you.

[GOP-R--Con-Men]

Republicans practice sedition/treason with their bogus voter I.D. laws. They block and refuse to pass legislation that helps struggling Americans. They have proven they will not use elected/public office to help ordinary struggling Americans. Therefore, voters must not vote for and reward republicans for sabotaging the economy and struggling Americans.

[RollotheNorman]

Well, I don't think it rises to the Constitutional definition of treason, but certainly it is an attempt at neo-Jim Crowism. Interestingly from states like PA, and OH that never had Jim Crow laws in the first place! Kinda demonstrates the corn pone character of the new RepubliCON party.

[LordD99]

I love how the leftwing-nut-dregs complain this is FOX News Hogwash, yet it's a CBS story with rational points on both sides, yet that's upsetting to them since all the extremist lefties get their tainted news from MSNBC and CNN, which is far left, just not the radical, hate-America, hate-religion, ****-on-our-soldiers, while-we-rub-our-fat-bellies destructionist Left that MSNBC is. And why change? They have their bleating sheep viewers.

Of course Candy Crowley had an agenda. A CNN news reader hadn't hosted a debate in twenty-four years, so it's not as if CNN was risking anything for the next presidential election, nor was Crowley, who was going to be one-and-done no matter how good or bad she was. CNN is in the tank ratings wise, way behind Fox and most painful to them, even behind MSNBC, so Crowley used the stage to try and raise her awareness, and the folks at CNN turned the other way.

No matter. Obama is the accidental president. His time appears to be thankfully ending after one term, at which point hopefully America can begin to recover by allowing businesses to recover and start hiring. Everything else is nonsense. Obama's answer has been an attempt to try and divide Americans at the poll through class warefare. It won't work.

[RollotheNorman]

Fox News is hogwash. No gentle way to break it to ya!

I wouldn't worry about Obama, he'll have 4 more. Is there a high building in your area you can plunge headlong off of? A grain elevator will work.

[TimeToEvolve]

Robbed Me directly called out Candy Crowley. Was she just supposed to ignore the arrogant bully? Instead she exposed just one of his 31 lies.