As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Romney Airs Grievance with Crowley

Mitt Romney Monday expressed clear frustration with Candy Crowley’s decision during the critical second presidential debate to insert herself into the proceedings and proclaim Obama correct on a point they were debating.

CNN’s Crowley, you’ll remember, said during the debate, which she moderated, that Obama was right  in his assertion that he had called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the day after it had occurred.

While technically true, it’s unlikely Obama meant that the Benghazi “act of terror” was a “terrorist attack,” given that the White House stressed for days the assault was in response to a video. Crowley helped confirm a misleading suggestion on the president’s part that he was immediately terming Benghazi “terrorism.”

Romney told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt:

Well, I don’t think it’s the role of the moderator in a debate to insert themselves into the debate and to declare a winner or a loser on a particular point. And I must admit that at that stage, I was getting a little upset at Candy, because in a prior setting where I was to have had the last word, she decided that Barack Obama was to get the last word despite the rules that we had.

So, she obviously thought it was her job to play a more active role in the debate than was agreed upon by the two candidates, and I thought her jumping into the interaction I was having with the president was also a mistake on her part, and one I would have preferred to carry out between the two of us, because I was prepared to go after him for misrepresenting to the American people that – the nature of the attack.

Here’s Crowley’s moment of temporary enlistment in the Obama campaign:

This is audio of Romney’s comments to Hewitt:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

37 Responses to Romney Airs Grievance with Crowley

    • like Judith implied I didnt know that some people able to get paid $5090 in a few weeks on the internet . look at this web-site>>> TEC80.COM

  1. Mitt looks better every day, even to those who did not vote for him. If the election were a ” do over “, the result would be interesting.

    H

    • No, the results would be the same. What makes you think that anybody who would vote D after the first four years would suddenly have a change of heart after the fifth? Sadly, it’s only the people who voted for Romney the first time that see our current situation as a bad thing. You will only start seeing regret over an Obama vote when there is a competent President that they can then take credit for (while having voted for Hillary).

  2. There’s no need to replay the moment when MsCrowley came to the President’s rescue when it is etched in the minds of all of us who watched the debate. Not only did she violate what must have been the agreed upon parameters, but MrObama knew, absolutely knew, and assumed that she had that information in front of her when he asked her to quote from his prior statement.
    It was a setup, meant to silence MrRomney’s attack on the President. It is MsCrowley’s shame is that she abandoned all pretense of being an independent moderator or journalist.

    At that point, MrRomney had two choices; to complain right then, or to keep silent. He chose to keep silent and lost respect, votes, and probably the election.

    • He learned a hard lesson. He tore O apart the first election.
      He should have put Crowley in her place, and continue with the debate. Yes the rat channels would haved whined about it. However a rule is a rule. The first debate O had a lost look on his face. If Romney woud have continued O would have been put back in his place. I have lost all respect for her. She is on my long list with other people.
      I wonder if Romney has a plans to run again. It seems he would have discussed this at an earlier time if not.

  3. Too bad he was so cowed by the sycophantic state-run media that he didn’t utter a word about her deception when it could have made a difference in the outcome of the election. Too little, too late for the latest loser RINO candidate.

    • Definitely a set-up! Obama was chomping at the bit – “Proceed, Governor’. The trap was set.
      Adding insult to injury was the FLINO who immediately started clapping and acting like an ACORN troll.

      Crowley shoud have been fired from CNN the next day; but we all know how those things roll.
      Romney’s fatal mistake was not rehabilitating himself at the third, and final, debate. I will never understand why he chose not to. It cost him the election.

  4. “Well, I don’t think it’s the role of the moderator…”

    You don’t think? No kidding, Mittens. How about if you had displayed some intestinal fortitude and objected strenuously, on the spot? But no, that might offend someone.

    You did not deserve to be president. You did not want it badly enough.

    • So Mitt, why didn’t you bring up Benghazi in the 3rd debate which was based on Foreign Policy?

      IF you were so sure of yourself why didn’t you bring it up.
      The reason…you aren’t a tiger.

      You backed down and so did your handlers.
      You are too nice of a guy.

    • yes, one of mine earlier today but eventually got posted and the day before I was shut out completely. didn’t even rise to “in moderation.”

        • I am becoming reluctant to post comments on this site because of the moderation issue.
          Sometimes they never show up, or are posted after the conversation has moved to another subject.
          It isn’t worth the time to wait and see how the conversation unfolds.
          Other sites as you all know post your comments almost immediately.
          Perhaps this site is under attack.

          • I have had only one problem with a post within the last 3 weeks or so. I guess it will be my turn next.
            I certainly don’t understand the in and outs of computer posting.

    • I went through a period, a few weeks ago as I remember, when I couldn’t get a comment posted. Went 3-4 days typing into the wind. Lately, it’s been great for me. No problems.

  5. The only purpose Mitt Romney’s airing of grievance serves at this point is as a warning to Reince Priebus for the 2016 debates. The debates are always stacked against the Republican candidate.

  6. Who knows for sure if he would have won the election if he had responded differently. He was a gentleman who would have been a far better president. We can speculate all we want about why he didn’t win. At the end of the day – I don’t think it would have mattered who was runing against Obama.

  7. And don’t forget the hand clapping by – of all people – the first lady. Who should have known the RULES. Two rules broken – with obvious planning ahead of time.

    • Sorry, these two points already raised in the comments above. But I think it needs repeating. It’s burned into my memory – should have been a scandal but nobody in the media even batted an eye.

      • That is one of the major problems of today. I would like all the advertizers to keep in mind the number of people who are not watching certain news channels.

    • Sorry to have not read these before I posted “disabled by being a gent” above. All of you have said it better than I.
      I think there is no way Romney could’ve won, factoring in the massive cheating – did I read that Philadelphia voted 110% for the o? – AND a Philadelphia voting place was the site of the NEW Black Panthers intimidating voters, which, I will remind you, Eric Holder decided not to prosecute (because the guys-dressed-in-black,-swinging-batons-to-keep-white-voters-away) COULDN’T have been intimidating voters, because only white thugs keep only black voters away, right?
      Beyond that, there is no substitute for the picture of MOOch staring at Romney after that debate.

      • Why didn’t anyone fire Eric Holder? This is a free country. We have the right to vote. Anyone threatening a US citizen to complete is voting right is wrong. I have said over and over O on down, there are many people ignoring our rights and this constitution.

  8. Technically, he didn’t specifically describe the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” in that Rose Garden speech. It was right after talking about the 9/11/2001 attack that he said “no acts of terror will” bring us down or something like that.

    It was a very indirect way of attaching the “terror” concept to the Benghazi incident — a way that might later allow him to argue either that he had or that he hadn’t called it terrorism, depending on which argument would serve him at the moment.

  9. You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to
    be actually something that I think I would never understand.

    It seems too complicated and extremely broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post,
    I will try to get the hang of it!