Tags: 
Categories: 
Frank Fahrenkopf, co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, admitted that the Commission made a huge mistake when it selected CNN’s Candy Crowley to moderate the second presidential debate. Crowley produced one of the pivotal moments of the campaign which she made a huge breach of debate protocol “correcting” Governor Romney regarding the ill-fated Benghazi attacks – a correction that was almost immediately disclosed as completely factually incorrect but derailed the debate nonetheless. That October 2012 debate slowed Romney’s momentum significantly and seemed to dramatically impact his strategy going forward. Fahrenkopf admitted to the mistaken selection in a lecture to conservatives at the Las Vegas Country Club this week.
Crowley stirred controversy by intervening in the town hall-style debate to support Obama’s contention that he had referred to the Sep. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after it had occurred. In fact, as Crowley herself later admitted, Obama had not done so, referring only to “acts of terror” in general. In a CBS interview taped the same day, Obama declined to refer to the attack as a terrorist act, and subsequently supported a false story about a protest over an anti-Islamic video that never took place.
After Crowley backed up the president, some members of the audience burst into applause, in violation of the rules. The effect was not lost on the audience, which scored the debate as an Obama win–nor was it lost on Romney, who was sufficiently chastened that he refused to bring up the Benghazi issue again in the third presidential debate, even though that debate was specifically focused on foreign policy and national security.
Though it was likely not the only factor, or even the major factor, in Romney’s defeat, Crowley’s error slowed the new momentum that Romney had enjoyed since defeating Obama soundly in the first presidential debate. Her intervention also reinforced the media lack of interest in pursuing the Benghazi issue with the president.
….
Pretty sure that is not why he lost but as long as Republicans keep blaming others and not taking responsibility it always bodes well for electing more Democrats in the future.
The margin was wide enough for me to agree with you that the debate was not dispositive. Nonetheless no excuse for that behavior.
“Republicans blaming others and not taking responsibility…”?!?
Give us a BREAK. Obama supporters continue to play the ‘Blame Bush’ game, going on eight years…
Obama won because of vote fraud in 19 States.
Geoff, do you find it just a little telling that when Obama lost the first debate Democrats and the liberal media placed the blame completely on Obama (as did he) while when Romney lost tbe last two debates it was because of something someone else did orskewed pollredults. For me that is one of the fundamental flaws if tbe Republucan Party and why they are in such chais right now. No abuty to admit they are ever wrong and therefore no ability to learn.
DeAnne, we obviously come at things from completely different directions. Obama thought he won the first debate and had to have his own people tell him that he lost. I think that the problem with Republicans is that the majority of those elected are really not that materially different from their Democratic counterparts. There are very few real “republicans” among the Republicans. Most are the same old big government, big spending oafs as the folks on the other side of the aisle. Until either the GOP completely reforms or a new party emerges that is more truly fiscally conservative and yet socially moderate the Democrats are going to have the run of the house.
Incredibly articulate, Ms. Todd. Mr. Romney wasn’t prepared for the debate if he could not rebut the President in that particular (as well as many others) exchange. Mr. Romney’s reaction is imprinted in my memory and one I use as representative of a Republican “caught in the headlights” when even spin can’t refute the facts.
I am inclined to agree with you. Lets hope there is room in the middle. I do believe the majority of Americans are already there and be majority of the elected officials say what they need to to get the party money which seems to come from the extremes on both sides. Wouldn’t it be great if we did not have to vote for a party but for a person?
That is what I do DeAnne, but I feel like I am in a small minority.
This just in:
The Selection of Mitt Romney as Republican Nominee for President a “Huge Mistake!”
THAT would be an interesting story….
Olde news. Santorum and Coulter…and pretty much all the other primary candidates… broke that story last spring. The Liberal Media didn’t even have to show their extreme bias on that topic.
What the Republican Party NEEDS to do is stop trying to pander to left-of centrists. Foisting Mitt Romney upon the conservatives, only to have him branded a ‘right-winger’ (and tax cheat and murderer) by the Left was an utter waste of effort.
The lefties will not vote Republican even if the D candidate is a yaller dog.
As has been said, we don’t NEED another liberal Party.
What we need is to ignore efforts to convince us to abandon our principles.
So was it “pandering to left-of-centrists” or the alleged “vote fraud” that contributed to Romney’s loss?
Not ‘alleged’ vote fraud. Vote totals in excess of registered voters is ACTUAL vote fraud.
As far as Romney, the point is that attempting pandering to the voters who will not even consider voting for any Republican is a failed strategy. Many the wag is saying that R’s should be ‘more like D’s'- but this election demonstrates the inutility of that notion.
Better to have a clearly distinct contrast to give an attractive alternative than a ‘Republican lite’ and therefore pointless candidate.
Why vote for ‘almost Obama’ when you have Obama?
Right-wing conspiracies ≠ voter fraud.
Prosecutions = voter fraud.
Snoopy, I know as a fact that there are several precincts in California in which turnout exceeded residents. There are several cases in Ohio where the DA has undertaken investigation. I simultaneously have no doubt that there is and was voter fraud and yet feel it is small enough that it rarely impacts major races. I think that there are instances on the more local level where it does directly impact outcome. While the cases I hear about, especially the ones that seem to be systematic come from Democratic fraud, I am sure that there are cases of Republican voter fraud that I don’t hear about. Generally we only hear about the really blatant cases of fraud and a lot of it is shrouded by the media that doesn’t want to open up that can of worms.
Accusation ≠ voter fraud.
Investigation ≠ voter fraud.
Investigation ≠ prosecution.
Perhaps we can revisit when there are prosecutions and official findings. Until then, voter fraud is supposition, conjecture and unsubstantiated allegations, wouldn’t you agree?
Just the facts, Ma’am. (couldn’t resist…it’s ‘Friday’)
Does “turnout exceeded residents” not indicate a record keeping issue with those precincts and not fraud by the voters? Or are you saying the precincts allowed/committed the fraud?
Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your
website and in accession capital to assert that I get actually enjoyed account
your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing to your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.
Its not my first time to go to see this site, i am browsing this web page dailly and take good data from here everyday.