Crowley debate bias for Obama

CURL: Crowley skews hard for Obama in disastrous presidential debate

Joseph Curl/October 17, 2012

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- Another debate, another debacle for America's media.

In the runup to the second presidential debate, CNN's Candy Crowley
declared that she would not just be a "fly on the wall" as she played
the tiny role of moderator, that she would step in whenever she chose
to say, "Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?"

And boy did she, cutting off Republican Mitt Romney repeatedly and often throwing the floor to President Obama with an open "let me give the president a chance here."

More, she alone decided the topics for the debate, picking questions from the 80 so-called "undecided" voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. Her selections were tailor-made for Mr. Obama -- Mitt Romney's tax plan, women's rights and contraception, outsourcing, immigration, the Libya debacle (which gave Mr. Obama to finally say that the buck stops with him, not, as Hillary Clinton said, with her).

She
even chose this question, directed to both men: "I do attribute much
of America's economic and international problems to the failings and
missteps of the Bush administration.
Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies
of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest
difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?"

Ms. Crowley, who called Mr. Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan
as running mate a "ticket death wish," asserted her unilateral power
at the outset, telling the audience before the cameras went on that she
planned to "give the debate direction and ensure the candidates give
answers to the questions."

After both candidates answered Question One, she blurted: "Let me get a more immediate answer" -- whatever that means. But when Mr. Romney sought to correct falsehoods told by the president, she cut him off: "We have all these folks here." In the end, Mr. Obama would get 9 percent more time.

Read more at the Washington Times