Outcry
The Hill explains how rules are just guidelines:
CNN’s Candy Crowley, the moderator of Tuesday night’s presidential debate, plans to disregard the rules the campaigns signed on to and wield more control in the conversation between President Obama and Mitt Romney.
Tuesday night’s debate at Hofstra University in New York, the second presidential showdown, will be a townhall organized around audience questions. The Obama and Romney campaigns agreed in advance on rules specific to the town-hall format that rule out “follow up questions” and “comment” by the moderator.
But Crowley never signed such an agreement, and told CNN in an interview on Tuesday that she plans on “facilitating a discussion” by asking follow-up questions and pressing when necessary for a response.
It’s too bad that not all of us are as fortunate as Crowley. Most mortals have to abide by agreements. But then we’re not her.
Meanwhile 3 of the 5 men who plotted the September 11, 2001 attackers were allowed not to attend their court hearings and to wear special clothing, including camouflage items as tokens of their status as warriors so long as the items were not a US military uniform. The AP reports:
lawyers for the men said the threat of forcible removal from their cells would be psychologically damaging for men who had been brutalized while held by the CIA in secret overseas prisons before being taken to Guantanamo in September 2006 …
Saudi defendant Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Pakistani national Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, a nephew of Mohammed, also chose to boycott the hearing. Neither provided any reason for their absence but a lawyer for al-Aziz Ali had said on Monday that his client’s father had recently died in Kuwait and he was grieving for him….
Mohammed and bin Attash had wanted to wear camouflage clothing in the courtroom at their May arraignment, apparently to portray themselves as soldiers, but the prison commander refused to allow it. The judge ruled they could wear some camouflage items as long as they were not U.S. military uniforms.
Back in the day the response might have been “you’ve got some nerve”. Today nobody dares say that to the killers of thousands. They have what is called moral ascendancy, also known as occupying the moral high ground, which is the condition of being better, more virtuous or being upon a higher plane than others.
There is no obvious way to challenge self-designated moral superiors except to tell them, rather rudely, to shut up.
But Mitt Romney is probably too polite to tell the Crowley that she ought to abide by the rules. That would be an offense in itself, especially coming from a Republican.
In the case of three men who killed thousands of people in New York the judge is probably reluctant to make them to toe the line to avoid raising charges of racism and Islamophobia. The judge doesn’t want another “video” on his hands. There’s no telling what consulate might be burned down next and it will be his fault. In an age where religion is supposedly in decline the power of “moral ascendancy” and fear of blasphemy is stronger than ever.
But it is only stronger for the Left and Islam. Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Mormons and Rotarians need not apply. No ordinary person can invoke moral ascendancy. That privilege belongs to gays, lesbians, Eric Hobsbawm and Jimmy Savile. What is it about them that gives them this power?
Jimmy Savile was a British Broadcasting star for many years who was later revealed to be a serial pedophile. He told his victims ‘Nobody would believe you anyway – I’m King Jimmy’.” Savile is now dead. But his former employer the BBC is being asked why, given the number of victims and the BBC people who now admit they knew, how it tolerated this person for so long.
Answer: he was a celebrity. As to Hobsbawm, an apologist for mass murderers, answer: he was on the Left. Therefore he ‘meant well’.
Damien Thompson thinks “moral ascendancy” isn’t quite the right word. The proper term is “entitlement”. What we are watching in Candy Crowly and among Jihadists is an exercise in aristocratic right. They have appointed themselves our overlords and are merely acting in the manner. This two-tier behavior was quite common in feudal times. Hanging was capital punishment for commoners and beheading for the aristocracy. One reason why the French invented the guillotine was to ensure, in accordance with egalite that everyone was decapitated equally in style. Thompson writes:
When the death of the historian Eric Hobsbawm was announced this week, BBC reports noted admiringly that his works were “shaped by his commitment to radical socialism”. The fact that this commitment extended to ideological support for Communist mass murder was obscured and excused. “He was too shrewd, too open-minded to pursue a narrow Marxist approach in his work or his politics,” explained a correspondent.
Yes, and Sir Jimmy Savile was too shrewd to exploit underage girls. Or so the BBC was still implying until an ITV documentary on Wednesday forced it to confront the testimony of Savile’s accusers….
It’s true that the word “entitlement” has been flung around a lot recently … but it could equally be applied to Britain’s public sector, of which the BBC forms a well-nourished part.
Anyone who has complained to the BBC about bias is used to the experience of being flicked away like dandruff on a Whitehall mandarin’s suit. … Did they feel that tabloid scrutiny was beneath the dignity of the institution?
The BBC should remember that, when the Catholic Church was unable to answer similar questions, it lost the support of many of its most devoted adherents. Bias is one thing, but you can’t swat away allegations of covering up apparent paedophilia, however strong your sense of entitlement.
Yes you can swat away allegations. You just fly to Lima and from that great distance you can cover up anything. Today’s institutions are so distant, so powerful they believe they need reckon with nothing. One thing they have going for them is crowd has accepted them as overlords.
Entitled institutions will remember nothing until they experience the consequences of that other vintage word: “outcry”. Outcry is a mob word. It comes from the clamor of a crowd which realizes its been swindled, lied to or betrayed. In the small cities of an older agrarian world, the word outcry was intimately connected with tar, feathers and fence rails. It is gone from public discourse. What remains of it is blunted by layers of lawyers, spin cycles and bureaucracy. The power of outcry has to be brought back somehow, without the unruly mob. But the question is how?
Belmont Commenters
How to Publish on Amazon’s Kindle for $2.99
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
She didn’t sign an agreement? Then why the Hell is she the moderator? If her employer made the agreement, how does she get to do otherwise?
I hope Romney’s people and the GOP are prepared to handle the aftermath if Crowley’s behavior becomes egregious. What they should do in any case is ram home the message that the media is blatantly biased. After all, a solid majority of Americans believe that to be the case. Make an example of Crowley in campaign ads.
I see that BOTH campaigns have objected to Crowley’s intentions:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/15/bipartisanship-both-sides-complain-about-next-debate-moderator/
Perhaps CNN will sew its little ones back on and have a talk with her? It’s still 3.5 hrs before the debate.
No, I think unruly mob would be just the ticket for our ‘betters’.
“How?” indeed Richard. Without the unruly crowd as in the ‘Occupy’ bunch. I’m thinking Tea Party. It can all happen at the ballot box. America just has to get off its collective duff and give a damn again. Not sure it happens without really tough times visiting.
“The power of outcry has to be brought back somehow, without the unruly mob.”
Why without the mob? Nothing is as terrifying as being at the mercy of an angry mob. Without the threat to life and limb, there just is no sufficient consequence for some people.
Look at the Mouthpiece Media. Money-losing operations. We’re talking large coin, here. Yet the owners are very happy to have these operations, because they are paying for power. Their Media get to lie and smear and press their favored agenda, however much it undermines our entire system of government and our culture. It’s a good deal for them, and we let them have that good deal. No financial penalty is sufficient to deter them from their power drug.
Tar and feathers and being ridden out of town on a rail might change their stinkin’ thinkin’. Be good for their power addiction. There must be consequences or laws become meaningless. Without laws, it is anarchy and chaos. No penalty of law will deter them. Only violence gets through their thick skulls. Some people only understand brute force.
“Townhall”?
From what “town” exactly? Bill Maher-ville? Matthews-bourg? San Maddow?
Funny, my first assumption was/is that Obama agreed on paper to the rules but agreed with Crowley behind the scenes to have her rig the show in his behalf.
Meanwhile, I noticed her quote on Drudge about not being “a fly on the wall.” You can say that again!
So, in essence, the debate is rigged because of Crowley’s “coup.”
I like to think that Romney and his people are adding that to their calculations. If he manages to shine in spite of the obstacles and ambushes, he will have backed Obama into a corner. Also, if Crowley is over-the-top, I hope the focus groups will be able to notice and voice their displeasure.
For refusing to abide by her employer’s agreement to the ground rules, she should be fired.
Dork- Or perhaps the RNC could sue the network for not abiding by their agreement. She is their employee. If she goes nuts, I think somewhere between $ 500 million to one billion might be a good starting place for damages.
Obama is tipped to win the second debate. A CNN pundit says,
But maybe that edge isn’t enough.
Ariana Huffingon thinks the debate should be made fair. Obama can bring his teleprompter, Axelrod and Air Force One. Here’s one suggestion she thinks highly of:
But how would that be different from their interaction without a debate. The debate is a throwback to that old institution, trial by combat, in which the opponents get on their respective steeds and whack at each other with flails, maces and battle-axes. People want to see the opponents grunting and flinching in the ring. That’s how they want to judge the man. But if there is no man, there is always Axelrod.
I wonder if either/both camps have the right to pull the plug, if it goes sideways.
This is really Vodkapundit advice, but Here is my prescription for tonight! Make, Drink, Repeat.
And the race is over anyway, given the endorsement that came out for Barack Obama last night.
roger simon (not the politico pimp) debunks the media myth that obama can relate to regular folks better than rommney.
Crowley must be tough when vetting the opposition. The hypocrisy reminds me of Biden exclaiming during the debate, that – “Hey, it used to be that in a crisis we all pulled together”. Ha!, indeed, there was a time when democrats did that. GWB didn’t get a lot of that though.
“Mohammed and bin Attash had wanted to wear camouflage clothing in the courtroom at their May arraignment, apparently to portray themselves as soldiers…”
Really? Why don’t they dress with the same clothing they wore on the battlefield? They can were burkhas and high heels. Or better yet, have one of the Obama drones circle above the exercise yard and lay a little Hellfire on them. It is better than they deserve.
“Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Mormons and Rotarians need not apply.”
Right, the Holy Koran? The profit of Islam? Why don’t they refer to Jesus as “Our Lord and Savior”? More hypocrisy.
“Hanging was capital punishment for commoners and beheading for the aristocracy. “
By god let’s bring back equality! Liberté, égalité, fraternité
The real bias is going to come from the audience plants all worked out in advance.
Girl with the green bow – “What is Romney going to do to keep me and my same sex partner from getting pregnant?”
If Crowley trips up Romney, everybody will yawn. If she trips up the president, she’ll be destroyed. Guess what the bias is towards?
I just had a Freudian keyboard moment by typing Rmoney. Who can take care of our money? Rmoney!
It all goes back to power. In feudal days it was the king and his court/nobles. Now it is the king, the beaurcrecy, the media, and the academy of varying sorts. It’s still nobles and peasants with their opinion worth more than ours no matter the topic and they can make up the rules as they go.
The American revolution and its Constitution was about getting rid of the old European feudal order and its abuses. It looks like we need another one.
“The power of outcry has to be brought back somehow, without the unruly mob. But the question is how?”
It was imagined that it would be the internet, and social media, which had the potential to make this happen. And to SOME extent, that has turned out to be the case. It is difficult to imagine the current administration remaining under such continued pressure over Benghazi without the outcry from the ‘blogsphere and internet media’s contribution.
However, the version of outcry which arises on the web lacks the visceral punch of a crowd of angry torch-bearing citizens rattling the gates.
Romney should demonstrate again that he is the take charge CEO by reading Crowley the Riot Act. That would force Obama to either support him or stand out as a duplicitous creep.
Why in hell is the so-called “moderator” a celebrity figure?
This is insanity.
…
In a repeat of Amy Goodman’s performance, they arrested the Green Party candidate outside the debate (somebody named “Jill” apparently)… A conceited show of civility in our system, compared to foes we defame through puppets and places with actual threats of violence to deal with.
In a way, Jill helps Americans break rules with small consequence. Thanks, Jill.
Spam filter made me double post. I guess this is a triple post now. Please delete #18. Thank you.
I forgot- “request deletion” doesn’t work in Safari… Please fix javascript bug. That is all.
TRYING TO POST THIS EARLIER, I GOT “PREVIEW FAILED” FROM BC. NOW I AM GETTING BC BUT IN A FORMAT I HAVE NOT SEEN HERE BEFORE WITH SIDEBARS ABOVE AND BELOW THE THREAD. IF THIS RESULTS IN DOUBLE POSTS, PLEASE REMOVE THE EXCESS.
I have to start off by saying that I am not watching the debate as we type. My wife and daughter are teaching a class tonight, so it is being taped to watch when they get home after it is over.
Now, Candy Crowley and rules, agreements, etc. Candy Crowley was selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates to be one of the moderators. Given that the Commission is run by Democrat party operatives; it can be no surprise that everyone selected by them is a card carrying member of the Journo-List 2.0 Leftist-State controlled media. As such it is clear that they have an understanding of what their mission is.
It is, first and foremost, to see that the Democrat wins. If it can be done with the surface appearance of impartiality, all the better. But the primary mission is to see that the Democrat wins, or at least does not lose.
In this cycle, that means that Buraq Hussein Obama and “Smoking Joe” Biden have to win. The Left understands this and has been criticizing Jim Lehrer for not somehow saving Obama in the first debate. Martha Raddatz, whose personal connections to the regime are plain, tried to interrupt Ryan as much as possible; but also had obvious instructions to allow Biden feed red meat to the Democrat base unchallenged.
Candy Crowley is a Leftist. She couldn’t be anything else and work at CNN. Like all Democrats, rules and laws do not apply to her. “Entitlement” as Wretchard says.
Add to that, if this is like all other Town Halls, the participants are mostly screened or sent by the DNC; and the only thing “undecided” about them is whether they prefer Stalin or Trotsky as a model for government. The questions were probably written by Axelrod [and were cc'ed to Obama a week ago], and in any case Crowley gets to pick, choose, and rephrase them at will.
She will do her best to fulfill her primary mission. She need not fear any bad consequences of being openly biased, if that is what it takes to drag Obama over the finish line. It is not like there is anything like a journalistic reputation for integrity at CNN. And indeed, if she is openly unfair to Romney she can have great expectations for her future career.
So if Romney makes a tie, it is a win. If he actually comes out ahead, it is a triumph. And a tie may well be enough, because the previous two debates tore the curtain away from the Wizard of Ah’s.
The matter of “outcry” is on point. There is no reason for those who swindle, abuse, and oppress us to refrain in the absence of consequences. Is the possibility of being sent to be the Openly Disloyal Opposition sufficient to deter mal-and-misfeasance? Having positions still of luxury and power does not strike me as enough of a reason for them to stop swindling, abusing, and oppressing us, in or out of government.
At some point, and bloody soon, it is imperative that the rule of law be clearly and unequivocally seen to function. Or it will become, as it already has amongst those in power, a mere fable. What the Nomenklatura do not seem to comprehend is once law is seen to be a fable; there is nothing to keep those not in power from ignoring the law too, in a condign fashion.
I will close with a tale within a tale. The larger story is cautionary as to what may be building now. Within there is another tale that illustrates what may happen if the rule of law is discarded. It is not my tale, but it is well worth reading.
http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/what-i-saw-at-the-coup/
Subotai Bahadur
@22 – “At some point, and bloody soon, it is imperative that the rule of law be clearly and unequivocally seen to function. Or it will become, as it already has amongst those in power, a mere fable. What the Nomenklatura do not seem to comprehend is once law is seen to be a fable; there is nothing to keep those not in power from ignoring the law too, in a condign fashion.”
You’ve forgotten that the Department of Homeland Security (what an awful name) has entered contracts to purchase 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition. Rather than enhanced, home land security has been gravely endangered.
First of all this is why you don’t give your kid a name like Candy because sure as God made little green apples she will grow up to be a 280lb pie wagon who basically ends her own career by practicing journalism without a sense of ethics.
Second the election is over baring a miracle Obama hangs on to his 47%, Romney gets the rest and America avoids at least temporarily getting sucked down the toilet bowl of history. Romney won the debate in the only way that matters by seeming competent and more or less honest.
Where’s the outcry? Sounds a little too close for comfort to Bob Dole’s “Where’s the outrage?”