True to her predictions, moderator Candy Crowley was an active, aggressive and prominent presence in Tuesday night’s second presidential debate.

The longtime CNN reporter and host pressed, poked and prodded President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney when necessary, and occasionally played fact-checker and referee between the two men, during a town-hall debate at Hofstra University in New York.

Despite a format that was supposed to put the spotlight on undecided voters, Crowley’s influence was substantial. She wound up asking 10 questions, one fewer than the voters chosen by the Gallup Organization as the primary questioners of the candidates.

Crowley also exerted an unseen influence over the debate. Under the rules, she was part of a team that selected the questions, as well as the order in which they were asked, by a cross section of Americans.

Once the debate began, she also was empowered, at her discretion, to extend the time for discussion of any question. In the end, Obama spoke for more than three minutes longer than the former Massachusetts governor during a debate that ran a bit over its scheduled 90 minutes.

Thanks to the format, the tenor of the debate was more conversational — and occasionally more confrontational — than the first presidential debate two weeks ago. At various times, a candidate rose from his stool and appealed directly to Crowley for time to address a statement by his opponent. At one point, Crowley ordered Romney to sit down.

Crowley’s mission was beset by a small and fleeting controversy in the days leading up to the debate. The Obama and Romney campaigns had reservations about her role; they wanted no after-the-fact questions at all — a demand that essentially would have reduced her job to keeping time and holding the microphone for audience members.

But Crowley and the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates said they weren’t bound by a memorandum of understanding between the campaigns. They stuck to a broader agreement with the campaigns from July that said Crowley’s role was to “facilitate discussion,” a catchall phrase that Crowley said included the right to pose questions after an audience member weighed in.

The only restriction, which Crowley did observe, was that she couldn’t introduce a new topic in her follow-ups or offer her own opinions on the proceedings.

As Crowley told CNN this month: “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 and Z?’ ”

And that is generally what Crowley did, never wandering too far from the question at hand.

Her attempts to pin down both candidates on specific policies, though, were often rebuffed. When she asked Obama early on whether $4 for a gallon of gas is “the new normal,” the president didn’t answer, instead attacking Romney about his support of the coal industry.

Similarly, when she followed up a voter’s question about immigration by asking Romney about his support for “self-deportation” of undocumented immigrants, Romney ignored her and launched into a critique of the president’s inability to pass comprehensive immigration legislation during his first year in office.

She also corrected Romney for saying that Obama had failed to characterize the killing of the American ambassador to Libya last month as an act of terrorism. “He did say that,” she said. Her response drew scattered applause from the audience and a retort from Obama: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

Obama and Romney were so aggressive with each other that Crowley at moments struggled to separate them verbally. In that sense, she was similar to ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who kept last week’s vice-presidential debate largely within the rules.

Crowley seems unlikely to take the public drubbing that befell PBS’ Jim Lehrer, who was widely criticized for his open-ended questions and for permitting Obama and Romney to exceed time limits in their first presidential debate.

For the record, Crowley was the fourth woman to moderate a presidential debate. The first was National Public Radio’s Pauline Frederick, who moderated the second debate between President Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1976. Barbara Walters of ABC News moderated the third Carter-Ford debate that year, as well as the 1984 debate between President Ronald Reagan and challenger Walter Mondale.

Carole Simpson, then of ABC News, was the moderator for a town-hall debate involving President George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992.

Join the Conversation

49 Comments

  1. “At one point, Crowley ordered Romney to sit down”.
    Good boy good boy Mitt now stay……… no, no Mitt….. stay good boy here’s a small treat (a million dollars) for being a good boy, yes you are.
     LMFGDAO!!!
    Tie him to the top of the station wagon and send him back to the RNC until he is ready for prime time.

  2. What the heck?!!!!  I thought Ms. Crowley utterly and completely failed to control the debate.  Romney continually ran over his allotted time and interrupted the President too many times to count.  She should have stopped Romney in his tracks but let it go on to the point of showing bias in his favor.  In my opinion she is the worst moderator I’ve seen in these debates by any measure, hands down.

    1. One should not watch the debates with one eye closed. Obama had nearly 45 minutes and Romney had just over 40 minutes. And Obama cut off and talked over both Romney and Crowley on several occasions. Granted, Obama showed up for this debate, but he neither acted Presidential, nor did he manage to say anything that will change anyone’s mind in his direction.

      1.  Substitute the name of any/every former Dem. president, and Parsons would fault him for one thing or another. Mitt is certainly smart and articulate, but few would change their minds of listening to him last night. Am sure Parsons is shocked to read that.

  3. IMHO, I would rather have a Ms. Crowley doing a Presidential debate any day over Mr. Lehrer…..she did her best to keep them on topic and to keep things moving……she did speak a little too much and her obvious gaff regarding her speaking about the Rose Garden issue was her obvious Joe Biden moment…..both men spoke over each other and Ms. Crowley too much, and the President’s complaining of the time seems, as in Joe Biden’s case, futile because Mr. Obama had more speaking time than Mr. Romney did…..the style of standing face to face and arguing seems to reflect what we see happening on the major news shows daily as most news talks and interviews end up going down the same path……

  4. Crowley was OK up until she decided to incorrectly refute the assertion that Obama had not called Benghazi a terror attack. He didn’t. As a matter of fact, he sent his UN ambassador out 4 days later to tell everyone that Benghazi was a response to a Youtube video.  Then Obama himself went to the UN and condemned not the terrorist attack against our country, but a Youtube video.  

    To those who don’t follow the news and undecided voters, this would have clearly made it look as if Romney did not know the facts, when his point was correct. This is a major faux pas for a moderator. Rule # 1 of being a moderator is to not become part of the story. She failed big time. I don’t think this will have too much impact, because most of the undecided voters are more concerned with the economy, but at least this will focus attention on the fact that the Obama administration tried to conceal this terrorist attack from the American people for political purposes.

    1. She’s only part of the story because people like you are screaming and crying about how unfair and cruel she was. 

      1. I didn’t call her unfair and cruel. Those are your words. She became part of the story because she was wrong and everyone knows she was wrong.

        1. She became part of the story because conservatives enjoy pretending they’re being victimized. Whether it is an imagined bias from a debate moderator or something like the “war on Christmas”.

          1. Victimized? You mean like the 99%? Or how about the “war on women”? 47%? Tax cuts for the rich?

            Liberals are always victims, because they never learned how to take responsibility for themselves or their actions.

          2. HAHA, I notice you don’t have a real response so you’re just changing the subject. Liberals aren’t the ones crying that the moderators are so mean to them, boohoo :'(

          3. Sooooo since you ignored my comment above, I take it you don’t have integrity and you are in fact unable to take responsibility when you’re wrong. 

          4. She became part of the story because:

            A) the moderator of a debate has no business helping one side or the other

            B) she was wrong

            You have trouble acknowledging facts.

          5. She didn’t take the side of Romney or Obama, she took the side of the factual truth. Romney said specifically that Obama didn’t call it an act of terror. 

            Romney — “It took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an ‘act of terror'”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHfNEoO7cO0

            So no, YOU are wrong. You refuse to admit to facts. YOU have no integrity and are unable to admit when you’re wrong. So much for that “personal responsibility.” 

          6. ROFL!!! 

            So your video link is to Candy Crowley telling Mitt that the President said that it was an “act of terror”?

            Hilarious!!  

            Again, Obama didn’t explicitly state that the Libya attack was an “act of terror”.  He referred to them in a nebulous way.  Again, I’ll post the transcript so that the full context can be seen.

            “As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

            No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

            I’m starting to feel badly for you, because it’s clear that you need help with comprehension skills.

          7. You can launch all the personal attacks you want, I don’t care. It doesn’t make you a bigger man and it certainly doesn’t make you right.

            Romney said it took weeks for Oba to call it an act of terror. Crowley corrected him and that’s what conservatives are screaming and crying about. You have zero integrity if you try and change the situation because it’s right there on video.

          8. I’m not changing anything.  Candy didn’t correct Romney, because Obama didn’t call it “an act of terror.”

            You’re quoting Crowley.   I’m quoting Obama.  I’ll let his words – posted twice above – speak for themselves.   He never calls it “an act of terror.” 

            Again, if he thought it was an act of terror, why did he and his administration push the video as the cause?  You’ve refused to answer that question – talk about a lack of integrity.

          9. I’m refusing to answer you’re question because you’re not operating in reality. I posted a link to the video and you’re literally denying the cut and dry truth.

            You say I’m quoting Crowley? No, this is Romney speaking: “It took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an ‘act of terror'”

            You’re literally trying to convince me that the grass isn’t green and it’s not going to work.

          10. Romney was correct, for crying out loud.  Doesn’t matter how many times you say otherwise.  Obama never called the attack in Libya “an act of terror.”

          11. “no acts of terror will ever shake the…..We will not waver in our commitment to see justice is done for this terrible act.”  What do you think he meant??????  What “acts of terror” was he talking about at this press conference ABOUT  this attack? 

          12. Was it an “act of terror” before it was a response to a YouTube video that had to be apologized for?   Didn’t think we had to apologize when it came to “acts of terror.”  

            Help me understand which one it was – because it certainly wasn’t both…and the Administration spent weeks focused on YouTube.

  5. Candy Crowley was not fair & unbiased.  She interjected herself incorrectly w/regard to the Libya question.  Afterwards, she also admitted that she was wrong about what she said albeit much like a correction in the newspaper, it gets little notice.  She threw Mr. Obama a lifeline & he grabbed it as well as more speaking time overall.

    1. She didn’t admit she was wrong. She said Mitt had the right sentiment, but that Obama did in fact say “terror” in his Rose Garden speech.

      How about having some honesty yourself before you start trying to criticize others?

      1. Read the transcript, wolf.  Did he say the word, “terror”?  Of course he did…but did he call the attack an “act of terror” or “act of terrorism”?   Not even close.

        If he was so convinced it was a terrorist act, why conduct the coordinated dog and pony show with the State Department and manifest that this was a spontaneous reaction to a video that no one saw?   Why trot Jay Carney (wow – if there ever as a name that fit someone) day after day to parrot the YouTube video line?

        And you’re accusing others of dishonesty?  Really? 

        Can you help me find that alternate universe you seem to enjoy so much?

        1. I did read the transcript. Obam said act of terror. What substantive difference does it make if he said act of terror instead of terrorist attack? Please tell me what different position we would be in if Obama had said terrorist attack. 

          1. The fact is:  he didn’t call the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 others an “act of terror.”   That’s the point.  Your response is a red herring – it doesn’t even come close to addressing the argument at hand.  Here are his words in context from the transcript of the speech.

            “As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

            No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

            Beyond that, you never answered my questions – why continually prop up the false narrative of the YouTube video being responsible for the violence?  And how do I find the portal to your alternate reality?

          2. Act of terror. Terrorism. Okay, if you see a huge difference, fine. I want to know how we would be in a better position today if he called it an act of terrorism?

          3. If he truly called it for what it was and focused on terrorism committed by radical Islamists, instead of he and his administration apologizing to the world for a false narrative to gain sympathy with said extremists, he would have come off as a strong leader of a strong nation who understands the true nature of evil of these people. 

            Instead, he (and thus America) come off as a nation of wusses who have to apologize for every little thing that could be used as an excuse by our enemies to whip up more and more violence.

          4. I don’t seem to recall him apologizing for ticking off the radical Islamists.  Do you?    I remember him telling them in no uncertain terms that he was taking the battle to them.  He also called it the “war on terror” as you mentioned.  What’s your point?

            I’ve answered your questions – why don’t you answer mine?

            A) Why did Obama and his administration continually prop up the false narrative of the YouTube video being responsible for the violence? 
            B) How do I find the portal to your alternate reality? – I’ll forgo this one if you’ll answer the first one.

            I suspect the reason for the evasion is that you know that the lies and deceit and coverup emanating from the administration about this are cause for significant repercussions.

          5. I’m not going to answer your questions because they’re both dishonest and just regurgitated talking points. 

            And you’re being inconsistent. Everyone is going on and on about the fact that he said “act of terror” and not “terrorist attack” — but then when I point out the hypocrisy (Bush’s “war on terror”), suddenly you’re changing the rubric! Suddenly it’s something else about Obama that is bugging you.

            So no, I’m not going to sit here all day pointing out your inconsistent criticisms. I’m not going to sit here all day while you throw crap at the wall and try to see what sticks.

          6. You don’t get it, do you? 

            Obama used the phrase, “Acts of terror” but did not mention that the attack in Libya was an actual “act of terror.”   He used it in an abstract way.   If he was so convinced it was an “act of terror,” why did he pretend that it wasn’t?

            You’re the inconsistent one here.

          7. I get it. What is the substantive difference between “act of terror” and “war on terror” — answer is: NONE beyond the fact that a liberal said one and a conservative said the other. So you’re jumping through hoops and creating weird and inconsistent rubrics in order to say they’re massively different. 

            Your little “I know you are but what am I?” thing isn’t going to work with me, sorry, sweetie. 

          8.  Glad to see it still Bush fault. I hadn’t heard that in a day or two. Can’t let the Dems. lose there reason for failure. For weeks Obama said it was because of the video and a mob action. NOT a planned attack. Obama did spend 70K to tell all the terrorist he was sorry about the video.

    2. Let’s compare not that I like this kind of thing but 4 Americans died in Libya, tragic we all agree.  Flashback to Shrub, Twig, Little Tree, or Bush…. your guy whatever his name was. He had plenty of info that OBL was determined to strike in America using passenger planes as weapons. You can look it up………… In one case close to 3,000 died and the other 4, about the same ratio of blame one can ascribe to this President for this economy. Your guys came into office in 2008 and the first thing they did was to state that they would not work with Obama and that their goal was to make him a one term President. Your side is just plain evil and I have come to accept that.

      1. John R: “Your side is just plain evil and I have come to accept that.”
        I rarely get into a back-&-forth w/the closed minded, but “my side,” as you put it, is simply about the truth.
        I did not support the war in Iraq. Was against it from before we went & still think it was a no win situation. No question that our military would “win,” but there was no exit strategy. For that matter that administration went against everything established under the so-called “Powell Doctrine.” I think that you’d find most veterans would rather not be political pawns for any “guy.”.
        In Afghanistan, over 70% of the casualties have occurred under President Obama (I presume “your guy.”) This is only to illustrate the futility & disrespect of your use of the #’s of deaths as a punch line or score card.
        Getting back to the main point of my OP, Candy Crowley was not fair & unbiased. She was wrong about the President’s comments immediately following 9.11.12, allowed Mr. Obama 9% more speaking time, & interrupted Romney 28 times as opposed to only eight for President Obama.  Furthermore, she asked her own questions repeatedly & interjected herself directly into the debate rather than moderate the same.
        My side?  It isn’t “evil,” John R, it is simply about the truth & putting logic over emotion.  Thanks.

  6. Way to go Candy, Romney is a bully and egomaniac you did well to keep this board room cretin at bay. Romney was rude, obnoxious and as always a boar when trying to defend a platform so twisted and far right it’s indefensible. I hope Mitt had his muckers on cuz he was filling the stage with BS making any exit attempt “extremely”  messy. 

  7. Jim Lehrer in the past boasted of not voting in presidential elections, lest somehow his presumably secret ballot would be revealed. He is also a very conservative ideologue who has no patience with any individual or group who dares to question the American political system. 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *