HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Moderator Role Under Scru...

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:49 PM

Moderator Role Under Scrutiny – Before the Debate

Source: Time

In a rare example of political unity, both the Romney and the Obama campaigns have expressed concern to the Commission on Presidential Debates about how the moderator of the Tuesday town hall has publicly described her role, TIME has learned.

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?’”

In the view of both campaigns and the Commission, those and other recent comments by Crowley conflict with the language the two campaigns agreed to which delineates a more limited role for the moderator of the town hall debate. The questioning of the two candidates is supposed to be driven by the audience members themselves — likely voters selected by the Gallup Organization. Crowley’s assignment differs from those of the three other debate moderators, who in the more standard format are supposed to lead the questioning and follow up when appropriate. The town hall debate is planned for Tuesday at 9pm ET at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY.

According to the town hall format language in the agreement, after each audience question and both two-minute responses from the candidates, Obama and Romney are expected to have an additional discussion facilitated by Crowley. Yet her participation is meant to be otherwise limited. As stated by the commission: “In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic….The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.” The memorandum, which has been obtained by TIME, was signed by lawyers for the two campaigns on October 3, the day of the first presidential debate in Denver.

-snip-


Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/moderator-role-under-scrutiny-before-the-debate/

50 replies, 7444 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply Moderator Role Under Scrutiny – Before the Debate (Original post)
highplainsdem Oct 2012 OP
progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #1
beac Oct 2012 #2
flamingdem Oct 2012 #3
mimi85 Oct 2012 #8
flamingdem Oct 2012 #12
Cha Oct 2012 #28
flamingdem Oct 2012 #40
Cha Oct 2012 #43
ProfessionalLeftist Oct 2012 #6
freshwest Oct 2012 #4
Rhiannon12866 Oct 2012 #9
elleng Oct 2012 #5
mimi85 Oct 2012 #7
Rhiannon12866 Oct 2012 #10
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #11
underthematrix Oct 2012 #14
DebJ Oct 2012 #19
Angry Dragon Oct 2012 #13
bigdarryl Oct 2012 #16
Lugnut Oct 2012 #17
highplainsdem Oct 2012 #21
Luminous Animal Oct 2012 #49
Angry Dragon Oct 2012 #50
begin_within Oct 2012 #15
Grateful for Hope Oct 2012 #18
Baitball Blogger Oct 2012 #27
DallasNE Oct 2012 #20
AndyTiedye Oct 2012 #23
Volaris Oct 2012 #30
Ineeda Oct 2012 #37
LiberalLovinLug Oct 2012 #41
Mike Daniels Oct 2012 #38
Proletariatprincess Oct 2012 #22
AndyTiedye Oct 2012 #25
Proletariatprincess Oct 2012 #48
grasswire Oct 2012 #24
Baitball Blogger Oct 2012 #26
defacto7 Oct 2012 #29
bucolic_frolic Oct 2012 #31
DFW Oct 2012 #32
gkhouston Oct 2012 #33
Native Oct 2012 #34
L0oniX Oct 2012 #35
Mike Daniels Oct 2012 #39
glinda Oct 2012 #36
mimi85 Oct 2012 #42
Digit Oct 2012 #44
tabasco Oct 2012 #45
underpants Oct 2012 #46
woo me with science Oct 2012 #47

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:50 PM

1. Hmm.. but I DO want her to cut romney off when he goes all crackhead in the debate.. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:52 PM

2. GOP shill that she is, she is MUCH more likely to interrupt Obama.

Wouldn't shed a tear to see her pre-debate posturing cost her the gig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:55 PM

3. She was doing exactly this today - cutting off the Dem

and letting the Repuke go on endlessly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:00 AM

8. You answered my ? from below.

Wow, you guys are quick! Gotta get my brain (and fingers) working a bit faster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:06 AM

12. anxious and obsessing on Du is more like it!

I better take a break this isn't going to be over for a while

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:16 AM

28. That's exactly what I'm doing flamingdem..

"anxious and obsessing on DU". I find it cathartic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #28)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:27 PM

40. I started the day by saying no du!

A half hour later...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #40)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 05:15 PM

43. That might be me tomorrow..

yeah, right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:58 PM

6. I suspect that's what she will do. . .

... let Mitt go a Gish Galloping to his heart's content, while interrupting Obama with time limits. I honestly can't stand the woman and I KNOW she will not be fair and will find some way to be obnoxious and partisan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:55 PM

4. I don't want to hear a word from that GOP shill. She shouldn't be there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:01 AM

9. She reported on the Kerry campaign in 2004

And I cringed whenever she was on. I'd love to see her replaced by Rachel Maddow or Melissa Harris-Perry, like that would ever happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:56 PM

5. Rules say moderator may 'facilitate a discussion.'

'The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.'

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:58 PM

7. I'm not sure about Candy Crowley

anyone have any idea about her political leanings? Can't remember where I read it, but it seemed to me that she skews more GOP.

Side note: article written by Mark "Dick" Halperin which got him "suspended" from MSNBC for awhile. He always looks constipated to me, like "Posh" Beckham - anyone EVER see her smile?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #7)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:04 AM

10. She reported on the Kerry campaign in 2004

And her "reports" made me cringe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #7)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:04 AM

11. She seems pro-Republican to me. Always has. Kind of a Reagan fan in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:17 AM

14. Actually, Candy Crowley always seemed pro-Hillary

to me which is fine but I don't think she ever moved the Obama-Hillary, like both PBO and Sec. Clinton seemed to have done. She was one of the reasons I stopped watching CNN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #7)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:55 AM

19. She endlessly promoted the "Dean Scream" as a real thing,

rather than a mic/recording/editing issue, forever and ever and ever.
I can't stand the sight of her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:08 AM

13. The debates should be given back to the League of Women Voters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:38 AM

16. Yep I was thinking the same thing

These so called debates have been horrible since the Lead of woman voters stopped sponsoring them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:53 AM

17. +1,000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:01 AM

21. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #13)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 03:28 PM

49. The League of Women Voters doesn't want them. They fired the debates the debates did not fire them.


The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
—League President Nancy M. Neuman, LWV October 03, 1988


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters#Debates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #49)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 03:34 PM

50. So it is time for the people to take the debates back

The political parties do not own this country but the people do

The rules need to set by the people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:28 AM

15. What do they even need her for anyway?

The questions are asked by the audience.
They can give each candidate 2 minutes to reply, then a 1-minute rebuttal.
I would have the microphones automatically turn off at the end of each period.
Then the next question is asked by a new audience member.
Seems like the moderator could only serve to mess it all up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:55 AM

18. Really surprised that the repugs are objecting

since Crowley is such a rw tool. This is, however, good news as she will need to agree to their terms in order to be able to moderate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grateful for Hope (Reply #18)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:46 AM

27. That really makes no sense, does it.

Why wouldn't Mitt trust her?

Or, maybe he realizes that eventually, she would have to ask him a challenging question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:56 AM

20. Reading Between The Lines

I think Crowley is looking for gotcha questions in follow-up. She already has control over who in the audience gets to ask the pre-submitted question and the order the questions get asked. That is a broad role and she knows the question ahead of time and can research for possible follow-up questions which both camps are concerned about. Here is the exact language from the Time link.

"Crowley’s behind-the-scenes role will be quite influential. She will cull the questions submitted by the voters invited to attend the debate, and then decide which ones will be asked and in what order."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:27 AM

23. That Sounds Like a Complete Set-Up

"Crowley’s behind-the-scenes role will be quite influential. She will cull the questions submitted by the voters invited to attend the debate, and then decide which ones will be asked and in what order."


We have been counting on the free-flow of a "town hall" debate to favor Obama. I think we will be sorely disappointed.

This is no "town hall" debate, it will be just as structured as the last one, but with CC calling repig shills in the audience to ask the questions instead of her asking them. She then gets to hamstring Obama with time limits and "facilitating" while letting Robme ramble and prevaricate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:38 AM

30. Yeah, no shit. If any of these so-called "Town Hall" settings were legit...

instead of the farcical sham they actually are, I PROMISE the first question out of the audience to both candidates would be:

"How is Marijuana a gateway drug to MORE dangerous substances, when Marijuana is listed as a Schedule I narcotic, and motherfucking COCAINE AND METHAMPHETAMINES are listed as Schedule II????"

But oh no, this "town hall" will be all about "Mr. President, what do you think gives you the right to tell the rest of us that we should help care for sick people?" (his answer should be "Because I'm the President of a fucking "Christian Nation", THAT'S WHY, jerk-off.",
and "Mr. Romney, why do you believe that The President is a failure?", and "To both candidates, How will we EVER become Hydrocarbon-and-Energy independent unless we drill for oil and gas offshore, in ANWAR, and open all Federal Land to oil and gas mega-corporations?"

It's a good thing I'm NOT Obama. I would spend half the damn night telling people "You're an un-thoughtful idiot, with zero critical-thinking and problem-solving skills, and therefore too dumb to see that the reason yourself and the rest of the Middle Class is broke and bankrupt, is because you morans keep voting to enable the Willard's of the world. There is only so much I and my fellow Democrats can do to lessen the impact of your decision to be self-destructive, and I don't know how much energy we have left, and at some point, you all are going to HAVE TO start being a willing and proactive participant in your own Salvation."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #30)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:41 PM

37. It's delusional

to imagine that the marijuana question would be among the first twenty questions. Questions about war, jobs, poverty, healthcare, choice, infrastructure, (real) energy independence, climate change, etc. etc. all would come well before that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ineeda (Reply #37)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:39 PM

41. Do you realize how many times the marijuana legalization question...

..has been number one or close to it?

And just been either ignored or scoffed at with a cynical answer? NORMLs website lists them.

http://blog.norml.org/2012/01/24/president-obamas-youtube-forum-deems-marijuana-legalization-questions-inappropriate/

This year's YouTube AMA forum had a submission by NORML which was one of the most popularly supported questions:
“With over 850,000 Americans arrested in 2010, for marijuana charges alone, and tens of billions of tax dollars being spent locking up non-violent marijuana users, isn’t it time we regulate and tax marijuana?”.

This question, no matter how many people want to hear an answer on,...was deemed "inappropriate".

Whether the President personally thinks the topic doesn't have merit, or probably more accurately his handlers don't think the anti-drug crowd backlash would be worth it politically, he should still answer a question respectfully and seriously. Its repercussions on peoples lives and as well the economy as a whole and federal $ spent on the War on Marijuana hardly deems it an inappropriate question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:01 PM

38. The town hall presidential debates are always like this.

The questions have always been submitted in advance and the moderator controls the order and flow.

Do you really want a true town hall where some randomly picked ditto-head FReeper sitting in the audience can hijack the entire event by asking Obama why he hasn't produced a real birth certificate after four years? I don't doubt for one minute the real possibility of such an event if the format were truly open.

The only possible benefit that snafu would have is finally forcing Romney to denouce the birthers but any sense of order would be lost at that point and I don't think it would be regained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:23 AM

22. Not to worry, my friends....

This is not a real debate anyway. There hasn't been a real presidential debate since the League of Women Voters got pushed out of the process. This is all show business. The questions are already screened and the moderator has been coached and knows her lines. The Media wants a horse race because it sells better than showing that Obama is a shoe in.
Anybody see John Oliver's piece about the political campaign "industry" on the Daily Show last week? Another truth borne in jest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proletariatprincess (Reply #22)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:28 AM

25. The MSM Wants to Help FIX the Horse Race

This isn't about ratings, it is about corporate agendas.

We have every reason to worry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyTiedye (Reply #25)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:39 PM

48. It isn't about ratings...

I think the FIX is already in and nothing will make any difference at this point anyway. Obama has already been selected, in my view. Romney is just the opposition out of Central Casting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:27 AM

24. too much power!!

what if she were to pick all questions that would hammer Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:44 AM

26. Crowley has got to go. She is too partisan to do this job right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:15 AM

29. Why the hell do we have to put up with the likes of her?

Jeees, Can't we have at least one fair setup? Someone needs to put their foot down and put her out of this debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 05:49 AM

31. CC has too much power here

Question selection should be divided amongst at least 3 journalists.

And 2 moderators, one primarily for time and discipline.

Jim Lehrer could have used a sidekick.

Romney will not respect time restraints. He will just run all over everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 06:22 AM

32. ROMNEY is objecting to Candy Crowley???

She is a Republican hack from way back, was practically cheerleading for Bush in the 2000 election "coverage."

I have always thought that the only reason Fox didn't pick her up years ago is because she is a long way from their standard blonde bimbo physical standard.

I can understand the Obama camp objecting to her. I would have flat out cancelled, knowing she would be the "moderator." But Romney's people objecting to her can only mean that she has become too egoistic and self-important for even their tastes, which is saying a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:14 AM

33. So, neither campaign agrees with the role Crowley is assuming for herself

and Crowley doesn't care for the limitations she was given. What about replacing her with someone willing to abide by the previously-agreed-upon terms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gkhouston (Reply #33)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:39 AM

34. What about replacing her with an egg timer? Sounds like that's all that's needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:49 AM

35. How was she selected or who did the selecting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #35)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:11 PM

39. I don't know the details but I think both parties have to agree on the selected moderators

It's why you won't see a FOX News or MSNBC host ever moderating a debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:40 PM

36. Here is a Petition to remove her. Kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glinda (Reply #36)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:57 PM

42. Done and tweeted. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glinda (Reply #36)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 06:28 PM

44. Done

Kicking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 07:01 PM

45. Crowley hosted a Virginia US Senate debate and fucked things up royally

Of course, that means a promotion from CNN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 08:15 PM

46. The Republicans are trying to brow-beat her

that is clear

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:25 PM

47. The faux objectivity of journalists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021533048

Much more disgusted by the fact that both parties will continue to push the fiction of the danger of Iran and the fabricated need to "tweak" Social Security, and will utterly ignore the metastasizing police state and the fact that warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention are now the law of the land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread