December 7, 2012 by Hugh Hewitt Radio Show Filed under Radio Show
12071201 Hugh Hewitt: Hour 1 – Hugh interviews CNN’s Candy Crowley, her first time back since her, now infamous, debate interjection.
Kudos to Hugh for “going there” with the tough questions in the Candy Crowley interview. Hugh, as usual, did so tactfully, respectfully, yet directly. Great job!
WHAT “tough questions”?
ALSO, while we’re on the subject of Candy Crowley…
WHY do you think your audience wants to hear what Candy Crowley has to say (especially NOW)?
What does she care that he asks “tough” questions – she accomplished her mission and it gives her pleasure to see how it pisses off the conservatives. Waste of time and effort – but then all of conservative talk radio and analysis in print as well is a waste of time and effort.
How about, “Candy Crowley, have you considered that perhaps your behavior as debate moderator was simply improper, regardless of how many times you’ve changed your story on what exact details about the issue you knew and when you knew them? Maybe you should have just moderated, and not gotten involved in the debate yourself?”
“… by trying to act as a fact-checker?”
Here are the questions I would like to see Crowley answer:
Do you think it is ever proper for a moderator to act as fact checker?
Do you think it ever appropriate for a moderator to take sides?
When you interjected yourself into the debate you were simply wrong on the
facts. Here is what the President said:
“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.”
This sentence can not be reasonably interpreted to mean “the Benghazi attack
was an act of terror”.
I understand you have to treat your progressive guests with kid gloves or they
will not return. In the next interview press here on her stuttering,
stammering evasive non-answers. She won’t return after that, but it is a
small loss. She’s worn out her welcome and I don’t care if she returns.
What was accomplished by that interview?
The single biggest problem with any of these scenarios is some assumption that Candy Crowley would answer truthfully.
Why would I ever presume a progressive to answer anything truthfully? I expect them to do what Crowley did – stutter, stammer, equivocate, be non-committal and not admit that the sky was blue.
Actually, my husband and I were shocked during the debate at her non-moderator actions, and thought the kid gloves you used were baby gloves. She needed to be reminded of the EXACT text the President said, and then pointedly asked, “How can you justify taking sides with the president on the question of his sidestepping the topic of the act of terrorism at Benghazi?” Of course, she would never tell the truth, so you needed to tell her that no matter her sense of her actions, that it was actually an egregious interposition of herself into the debate, and that a moderator should NEVER act as a fact checker, and then go to the next question, not letting her reply. Her actions likely affected the election, no matter her view or statement on the matter.
As a podcast listener, I’m always a day or 2 behind…but these are the questions that I would have liked to have heard asked.
Candy, you had the Obama’s quote from his statement regarding terrorism immediately ready to read. Did Obama know you had that quote ready to read?
How did he know? Did he ask you to have it ready?
Did Mitt know you had the quote ready?
Did you have any other quotes ready that you didn’t read?
Did Obama know you had any other quotes ready?
Did Mitt know you had any other quotes ready?
Did the Obama campaign ask you to have that quote or any other quotes ready to read? If so, did you have them ready?
If they did, did you inform the Romney campaign of the request?
Did the Romney campaign ask you to have any quotes ready?
This seems like a rather obvious line of questioning, but hearing Candy’s responses to them may have been very illuminating.
Especially if she answered them truthfully, which I would not have counted on.
I am glad you had her on. I understand you had to ask the questions the way you did; there is nothing to gain by “hammering” her for details.
Please keep her on. She has a radio voice, has a power slot and more centrist than others.
Again, I think she was scamming and was given the talking points before the debate; even Obama was shocked his people were able to con the nets and Candy into interjecting into the debate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.