What struck me the most about the debate just concluded was
CNN's choice
of a moderator. Newt, I think, had it right as far as Candy
Crowley's substance
and judges issues from a Democratic Party perspective. But
this is no surprise,
CNN reflects more than anything the Clinton wing of the
Democratic Party.
But if there are "style points" for the debaters, what
about style points
for moderators ? I hate to say it but no-one else seems
willing to do so,
Crowley has all the charm of a battleaxe. Is there a
battleaxe
choose not to put up with it, regardless, it has always
been a hard-boiled
that, as far as I can tell, is endearing to no-one.
So it was, yet again, on Tuesday night. What was CNN
thinking ?
The former Speaker of the House, who sparred with W. Mitt
Romney during throughout the GOP’s primary weighed in with
Human Events about his impressions of the Oct.
16 debate between Romney and President Barack Obama.
“I think Obama won on style, Romney won on substance and
Candy Crowley lost on both,” said former Speaker of the
House Newt Gingrich, whose campaign was buoyed by his own
strong performances in similar debates.
The president had two strong suits in the debate against
Romney, he said.
“Obama was ready for him, plus Obama has this enthusiastic
willingness to lie,” he said.
The president scored points when he talked about gas
prices, Libya and Fast
and Furious, Gingrich said. “But, on every single one
of those, he was factually false.”
It was at the two debates during the Florida primary that
Romney was able to finally master Gingrich onstage and pull
over from the former speaker.
“This was comparable to his two debates in Florida, which
were the two best debates of the primary season for him,” he
said.
But, Romney did make missteps, he said. “He got into a
pattern of asking Obama questions, which is a very dangerous
debate style, because it puts your opponent in control of
what he wants to answer.”
Gingrich said he was surprised Crowley so actively injected
herself into the discussions and manipulated the topics
address.
“It was a big mistake,” he said. “I did not expect it. I
suspect she really regrets having done—and she was plain
wrong—she was not only wrong in the way she intervened, she
was factually wrong, and she has not had to admit it.”
Obama and Crowley had a simpatico that gave the appearance
of collusion, said the former college history professor, who
earned his PhD in Modern European history from new
Orleans-based Tulane University.
“At the one point, when they got to the Benghazi argument,
Obama says: ‘Read the transcript,’ and she looks like she
really is reading the transcript—and then, Obama says: ‘Say
it louder,’ if you look at that little segment, it’s kinda
like Obama is the play—and she is not responding well enough
for his taste.”
Another advantage for Obama was the questions Crowley
selected to use, he said.
“Several of the questions were clearly on the left,” he
said.
“This was the debate that I always warned against,” the
former speaker said. “What you have is basically two-on-one,
you have a left-wing moderator picking left-wing
questions—because remember: even if she had people asking
right-wing questions, why would she pick them?”
Still there was one questioner that Gingrich said came
close to pressing the president.
“There was the one person who said: I voted for you last
time, I am really disappointed, why would I do it again?” he
said. “That fella got as close to it, that guy was so
emotional in the way he said it.”
“Nothing changed in regards to the map, but Obama had a
marginally better night than Romney,” he said.
“It is pretty obvious, if Romney carries Ohio, Virginia and
Florida, it is clearly over,” he said.
After the first debate, Romney saw his biggest jump in New
Hampshire, combined with his positive momentum in Nevada and
Iowa, he presents Obama a very serious challenge when he
looks at the map, he said. “But, the geography doesn’t
really change over the years.”
The biggest problem for Obama is that as people look at the
debate today and tomorrow, the Obama’s falsehoods will
become more apparent and they will erode the goodwill people
might feel for him, he said.
“The more they look at it, the clearer it will be that
Obama was not being honest, and from that point it also sets
the stage for a much more critical look at the third
debate,” he said.
