Friday, 19 October 2012 13:06

Going Behind Enemy Lines: You’re Eventually Going to Get Whacked

"I am very happy with Candy Crowley as the moderator—and with the debate format." (Leftist Alan Combs, about three hours before the second debate; Combs is author of the book, "How Liberals Saved America"; his statement just about says it all)

If you go behind enemy lines enough times, you’re going to get nailed. Mitt Romney got smacked several times in the second of the 2012 presidential debates, because he was behind enemy lines. Get caught there and you’re not apt to get any breaks.

I believe Mitt Romney is a good person. He is a great parent. He is an excellent husband. He is a fine businessman. He is a super debater. But he is a horrible politician. You don’t voluntarily go onto your opponent’s home field—behind enemy lines, as it were, onto a format your opponent chooses with a moderator that strongly agrees with him politically—without demanding that you get to fight a battle on your home field with your chosen moderator. Or at least you demand a second moderator who agrees more with your views. But that’s exactly what Mittens did. 

 

The Romney Campaign has allowed its candidate to go into three debates—each having a left-wing moderator, each in a format thought to favor his opponent. And that mistake has shown up in a glaring manner of bad shakes for Romney. By our count Romney has lost over 12 minutes in talking time to Obama, and the moderator interruptions now stand at about 5 to one against him.

However, in a quite dazzling style—with elegant character and grace—Romney has managed to win one debate by a large degree and the other one by a decent margin. Oh, the leftist media already had their lines ready—if their candidate merely showed up. He did.

Left-wing CNN moderator Candy Crowley dove in the tank with Obama and swam around with him—as if they were fish of the same stripe seeking to mate. Perhaps they did.

In the first presidential debate, Jim Lehrer, noted beforehand at this bailiwick as a life-long leftist, interrupted Mittens 18 times and BO only five. Not only that—but he subject-prompted (a sophomoric trick college freshman learn) BO three solid times when he was stumbling, stammering, and lost. Lehrer saved Obama from falling to the mat—sullied, bloodied, and exposed as a bumbling boob.

Crowley interrupted Obama six times, but when it came to Mitt Romney, she wore the interruption gavel out 30 times. Five of those were when Romney was about to make his point.

Here are some examples, compiled by Candy Goldstein with notes by TRF:

1. Just as Romney was about to bomb Obama with statistics showing how he would deal with deductions in his tax plan, Crowley jumped in to save Obama by knocking the value of statistics. She then changed the subject and claimed Romney’s numbers couldn’t possibly add up:

"Governor, let's—before we get into a vast array of who says what study says what, if it shouldn't add up. If somehow when you get in there, there isn't enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don't add up, would you be willing to look again …" 

(Note: Let me reiterate that economists Harvey Rosen of Princeton and Marty Feldstein of Harvard have both carried out thorough studies on Romney’s tax plan which conclude that it is feasible and would not require taxes on the middle class, as the Obamaites claim. Obama lies. Crowley obfuscates. TRF)

The truth about Harvey Rosen’s study here: http://www.newsmax.com/US/rosen-romney-tax-plan/2012/10/12/id/459797

The truth about Marty Feldstein’s study here: http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wsj08282012.pdf

2. The worst was an unprecedented incident when Crowley interrupted Romney to back up Obama’s new Rose Garden claim that the had called the the Benghazi murders a terror attack on Sept. 12, and said, speaking to Romney:

"He did in fact, sir. So let me—let me call it an act of terror..." 

Prompted by Obama himself to say it a little louder, Crowley did just that: "He—he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take—it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that." 

(Note: Truth is, Obama has never admitted that the attack was a terror attack—he went before the UN and declared in a speech six times that the attack was brought about by an anti-Muslim tape that caused riots which in turn elevated into an attack on the embassy. TRF)

3. After the question about whether the energy department should be involved in getting gas prices down (Secretary Chu Chu said that was not the goal of the department), Obama got two chances to respond—but did not come close to answering the question. When Romney asked for his second chance, Crowley shut him down saying, "... it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to." She never did.

(Chu Chu is the one I personally heard three springs ago on NPR say that he would like to see gas prices at $7.00 or $8.00 per gallon, to get those rich people living in large houses with two SUVs parked out front to change their 

life-styles. TRF)

4. After Obama lied about the auto industry, Romney jumped ready to respond, but Crowley blocked him. After he protested, she said, "there'll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to... We have all these folks here. I will let you absolutely let you ... you certainly will have lots of time here coming up." She never offered Romney the chance to respond.

5. When the question came up about assault weapons, Romney moved to the Fast and Furious Scandal. Crowley quickly shut him off and moved the discussion toward an attack on Romney’s own assault weapon position:

"Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts; obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?’

(Note: You may as well say that the only guns available in America merely look like AK-47 Assault weapons, because the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Hughes Amendment in 1986 have all placed severe restrictions on automatic guns, regarding how they can be bought and sold in America. Purchasing one requires submitting fingerprints and photographs to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, going through an FBI criminal background check, and paying a $200 tax, among only a few of the requirements. Only automatic weapons manufactured and registered with the federal government before 1986 can be bought, owned, and sold. So, what the hell are they talking about, further restricting fully automatic weapons? Leftist misdirection! TRF)

6. Crowley cut Romney off as he was about to make his point regarding Obama’s pension plan having investments in China. She actually implied that the audience wanted him to hurry up and finish. So she finished for him, by stopping him, and saying this:

"Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you. Make it short." Unheard of!

Then Crowley hit him with this: "If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you." She never asked Obama to sit down.

And how about those audience questions? The people who supposedly wrote them could barely read them. They sounded eerily like questions you would receive from a Talking Head at ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, or NPR.

Romney did a helluva of job on this one, but I’ll guarantee it was a set up question: "How do you compare yourself with George Bush, how will you be different from him?" What else?

Bob Schieffer will moderate the next and final debate on Monday, October 22, 2012. Schieffer is an older, smarter, and more experienced leftist than Candy Crowley and Martha Raddatz. He will be more subtle; he will be smoother; he will be more patient. But he will act without trepidation to trap Mitt Romney. 

So, expect Romney to find himself behind the eight-ball quite often, with he himself to blame for submitting to this type of skullduggery.

The problem with allowing leftists to get by with these sophomoric tricks is that this is the most important election in our lifetime—perhaps ever—and Romney will return to his mansions if he loses. Life won’t change very much for him. The rest of the nation—those who love freedom—will be the ones who suffer. Sadly so. Sadly so.

Yours for our freedom: Tilly Rae Frederick

Final Note: What Romney should do in the next debate—and he should do it quickly at the beginning of the debate—is to make a statement that would head Schieffer off at the pass, at least slow him down a bit—maybe.

Something like this: A lot of my supporters have been questioning me about allowing four liberal journalists (or four journalists from the MSM) to moderate these debates. I want to speak to them now (my supporters), by saying I did it because I respected and trusted their integrity to moderate fairly—and expected they would handle themselves accordingly. So far, my expectations have not been met, and I apologize to my supporters for being so naive.

 

Share on Myspace