Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Statement Analysis: Candy Crowley

Question:  Was the moderator of the United States Presidential debate truthful?  Was she honest?  Was she deceptive?  Was she fair?

We measure words, lines per hours, numbers of lines, number of words, and so forth, in getting to the truth.

Question for Analyst:

Was the moderator in favor of one candidate over the other?

We, as Americans, expect fairness and a level playing field.  We expect this at the highest level:

A United States Presidential Debate.

Was the moderator, before the nation's watching eyes, fair to both candidates?

Let's look at two indicators before we get to the Statement Analysis of the moderator's words.

1.  Time
2.  Interruptions

1.  Time allotted is, in all debates, used to limit each contestant in order to create a level playing field.  It would be unjust, for example, to ask each candidate a question, but allow one to have more time to answer it than the other.

Candy Crowley, the moderator allowed the following:

According to CNN's timekeeping, Obama got 44:04 minutes of speaking time, while Romney got 40:50.

This indicates that she gave just under 10% more time to President Obama.  

2.  Interruptions

This second category in debates speaks to showing public respect for both contestants. Interruptions are, perhaps, the single most unjust allowance in debates.  It permits showboating, grandstanding, and self interest, rather than allow candidates to complete sentences and thoughts.  They must be interrupted only when the time has expired.  If contestants will not adhere to the time rule, they should have their microphones shut off at a certain point. 

In the first Presidential Debate, Jim Lehrer,  interrupted Mitt Romney 15 times and Barack Obama  5 times.  Americans deserve better.

Candy Crowley, in the Second Presidential Debate, interrupted:

Gov. Romney 28 times
President Obama 9 times

3. Respect 

Titles are important indicators of respect.   Note in her statements when she used presidential and gubernatorial titles and when she did not. 

This indicator is used after the measuring of the first two to see if there is a pattern of partiality within the moderator of a debate.   When did she use "Mr. Romney" and when did she use "Governor Romney" becomes something to note. 

"If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.” She never asked Obama to sit down.  This was an insult intended for the audience to observe.  (see below) 

Note that in the insult, she used, "I"; she is the one to have him sit down. This indicates perceived authority on her part.  The pronouns are vital. 

                                                        Statement Analysis

Context:   After the question asking whether gas prices as they stand now are the new normal,  President Obama got 2 chances to respond. When Romney asked for his second chance, Crowley shut him off by saying, “ … in the follow up, it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to."

In statement analysis, we highlight the emphasis, "I promise you" as sensitive, and something that indicates possible deception.  In the case of the gas prices, she did not keep her promise and did not allow Gov. Romney to respond.  The need for emphasis is a sensitivity indicator.  With "I promise you", her deception is indicated. 

When Gov. Romney was trying to make a point of President Obama’s pension investing in China, Crowley cut him off with:  
“Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you.  Make it short.
Note the sensitivity associated with repetition.  
Note "you" as pronoun used. 
Note the sensitivity of a question within an open statement that is not to be answered by the audience (the person spoken to) is often an indication that the subject is speaking to herself. 
It is an indication that the subject (Crowley) was acutely aware of the presence of the audience, instead of her role as moderator.  

Crowley  interrupted Gov. Romney’s claim about Obama’s refusal to call the Benghazi murders a terror attack:
“It - it - it - he did in fact, sir. So let me - let me call it an act of terror..."
Note stuttering by a non-stutterer as sensitive. Note the change of pronoun from "it" to "he".  Pronouns are instinctive.  What was she going to say, that caused the stuttering?  In the self censor, she did not reveal what she was going to say.  
Note the pronoun "me" continue to show her self awareness in the debate. 
Prompted by President Obama to say it a little louder, Crowley obliged:
He - he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take - it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
Note the sensitivity in repetition.  Note the qualifier "or" which lacks commitment and allows for a change alter.  
This should lead the analyst to wonder, "Who was Ms. Crowley debating? Wasn't she only the moderator and not the debater?"

Crowley refused to allow Gov. Romney to respond to President Obama about what people believe to be a lie about the auto industry.   First she called him Mr. Romney instead of governor, then protested, “there'll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to... We have all these folks.  I will let you absolutely... OK. Will - will - you certainly will have lots of time here coming up.”  Gov. Romeny did not get the chance to respond.

Note particularly the change from "I" to "we" back to "I" by the subject. 
Note that "there'll be" is passive. Not that she would make time, as moderator. The passivity is used to remove or conceal responsibility. 
The entrance of the pronoun "we" in her language should cause the analyst to wonder who she believes "we" to be. In addressing Gov. Romney, she uses the pronoun "I" in authority, and "you" towards him.  

When discussing how he would deal with deductions, just as Gov. Romney was about to respond to President Obama with statistics, Crowley interrupted by denying the value of statistics:
And Governor, let's - before we get into a vast array of who says - what study says what, if it shouldn't add up. If somehow when you get in there, there isn't enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don't add up, would you be willing to look again …

Please note the pronouns here.  One might wonder if the subject believes that the word "we" (unity, plural, cooperation) is regarding herself and the President. 

Please note the moderator not only interrupted about statistics, but she changed the topic entirely. 

Analysis conclusion:  
Deception and Bias is indicated in Candy Crowley's moderation of the United States Presidential Debate highlighting that she was in favor of one candidate over the other.  


sidewalk super said...

Thank you for this.
This woman is yet another I will never again give any credence.
As for the current schoolyard bully president, he's coasting on the color of his skin and oft exhibited "the best defense is a good offense tactics.
And, if only he would direct all his anger and rabble rousing behavior where he should....toward the enemies of the United States.
But no, the community organizer only feels comfortable destroying from within....
He is wasting our time, our attention.
He is destroying the country he claims to lead.

Nic said...

Excellent post, Peter.

Statement analysis aside, imo, Candy Crowley is a joke. It was well known going into the debate that she was Obama's rah-rah girl.

Additionally, it's not the "moderator's" (note the small 'm') position to challenge *anyone*. It was her job to redirect to defend.

Not that she didn't know that. Hence the stuttering afterwards and going on an on about this and that to make excuses of overstepping her boundary. She's an opportunist and she did what the left-leaning media in Canada does. They manipulate and connive the public into thinking the way they want them to. She just couldn't mind her own business.

Note how the media still isn't talking/reporting about the issues. Instead they are throwing out red herrings, i.e., Big Bird and now "binders of women".

God help the USA.

Forever Curious said...

The sheer number of interruptions is irrelevant since in most/many cases the reason for the interruption is the candidate not adhering to pre-agreed on rules. If anything the number of interruptions reflects badly on the candidate, not the moderator.

Anonymous said...

I tend to agree Curious, but since I didn't watch the debate in the first place, and don't intend to watch the next one, there's little worthwhile input I could make. Furthermore, I've already made up my mind anyhow, not that my one little vote makes an iota of a difference, nor does anything I think or say matter.

Besides, I learned years ago when I was dating a senator, supporting and campagning with him, THEN he lost the reelection in spite of his many good works; STAY OUT OF IT. What's to be will be or already has been and you can't do a fricken thing about it other than get your bowels in an uproar.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Forever Curious. I watched the debate and I thought Romney was rude and disrespectful to the moderator.

Sus said...

Agreed, Forever Curious. It's like trying to charge the referee with the player's fouls.

Anonymous said...

Agreed Sus. BTW, it's good to see ya!

Apple said...

Are there really people this close to election that are "undecided voter"s??
Some of those questions sounded rehearsed.

Anonymous said...

Great post. I thought Candy was very rude to Romney. She kept interrupting him and hardly ever interrupted Obama. Then when she defended Obama's lie, that made me so mad. We all know she's a liberal, but could she not at least try to be unbiased for the debate? The questions she allowed were also liberal based in hopes of helping Obama: AK-47s? Women's pay? How is Romney different from Bush? Stupid questions when there are so many things going on right now.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic

There is what I find to be a very telling photo on Billie Jean Dunn's Facebook page.. The perfect representation of Billie's view of herself and Hailey.
What do you think?

Anonymous said...

I feel ripped off due to the moderators repeated interruptions and slanted mode of moderation. that was not a debate between two competing debaters. it was a full on tag team and an insult to all voters who expected professionalism.

Anonymous said...

Eyes for lies is the very liberally biased.

Anonymous said...

Romney wasn't rude at all. He stands up to bullies, and I like that. Obama apologizes to the bullies for American free speech. Now, the day after a major debate, the Feds have arrested a man for attempting to blow up the Federal Reserve Building using fake bombs. I betcha Obama will come out soon and refer to this as an "act of terror", and he will take credit for thwarting it. My, Oh My! Oh, and guess what else happened? The man accused of plotting with the Iranian military to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C. pleaded guilty - on all five counts. About a year ago, he pleaded not guilty. Does Obama really think this kind of news is going to get him more votes? I think the American people are smart enough to see through Obama's "tough on terror" last-minute sham.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I would have felt respect for President Obama if he had either put a stop to it during the debate, or when asked the next day, had said it was unjust and not helping him.

Instead, when asked if it was unfair that Romney was interrupted so many times, he said, "I get interrupted all the time" using the present tense verb.

This means that he avoided the question of unfairness to Romney. The question is then deemed "sensitive" to President Obama.

deb said...

I'm looking for some SA on a republican- this sight might be rocking the "conservative bias"- [if its not right-winged- it's the ol'liberal bias complaint] thats so out of control.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


what republican statement do you wish to see analyzed?

We cover deception wherever it is. Look over archives. Currently, Democrats are in the White House and will get the most coverage just as Republicans get the most when they are in.

Herman Cain was extensively covered here. I believe he is conservative. Justice Clarence Thomas was covered. George W and his daughters, too. (if someone wants to speak publicly, their words are open for listening).

Liars are found in both camps and when statements hit the headlines, we get requests for analysis and oblige when possible in our limited time.

Lance Armstrong, I believe, is a Republican. He has gotten a wee bit of coverage here the last few years. Roger Clemens is a conservative.
Conservative religious leaders have had their share of analysis here, too.


rob said...

Next time, maybe Bill O'Reilly can moderate the debate. Wonder would Obama even show up for that.

Anonymous said...

Candy Crowley is a conservative Republican - but she is no party hack and she is an honest person - are you? You can find what the President said in the Rose Garden all over the net - are you saying she should have lied for Romney? I guess you are all so used to liars it doesnt bother you.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, Obama isn't the "one" who "got" bin laden. it was a collaborative effort on the part of many who are dedicated to protect our great country. there isn't just "one" person to assign thanks to. the fact that president accepted personal responsibility for the act during a time of war isn't lost on me, however, to then use it for political gain in his political speeches is rather arrogant.
does he believe that American's suffer memory deficiency?
the honor stands on it's own but apparently this is not good enough?
president Bush was not wrong in going after Saddam Hussein. the weapons of mass destruction were and still are the people who are willing to murder others by various means. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac who did indeed possess weapons. some were chemical and some are the ones he created during his tyranny. we enabled Iraq the opportunity to develop democracy. this example of compassion defines our mission in the middle east.

we do not want to be enemies with our neighbors. we respect our differences and promote peaceful resolve, however, if they are intent on doing us harm, their action will be met with opposition and they will be held accountable.

Anonymous said...

Candy Crowley is a conservative Republican??? WHO KNEW?? .. I am an independent(I watch CNN, Headline News, Fox and sometimes MSNBC) and I even know the statement you just made is a fabrication. Can you give one instance on when she is a conservative or has ever said anything conservative in economics or social issues?

And we got the "transcript" Pres Obama said...GO GET... I voted for him one time around, because of false leads from people like you, and I then found SA, and decided I would not be led blindly into hope or change, but would keep an open mind on anyone who is running this time.

I also, heard what she said, so why did she come out and say she was wrong yesterday for it?? And why did she say Mea Culpa? Liars are found in SA on both sides of the fence and even in my independent circle.

Maybe you should start expanding the news you watch and be more independent than to focus on others??

Anonymous said...

Obama got Bin Laden? Hmmm. Let's see. Did he get interrupted during a golf game or a fund raiser to authorize our military to go take him out? Or did he get interrupted during one of his many meetings to market welfare programs to non-citizens of this country at the tax payers expense? The path to finding Bin Laden began during the G. W. Bush Administration. If it hadn't been for Bush, Obama would never have been in a position to grant our military to take him out. Obama just happened to be in the right place at the right time, after someone else made the tough decisions, gathered the intelligence over a long period of time and did all the work. Obama has some nerve taking credit for something like this! Plus, it was just within the last couple years that Obama gave one of our drones to the Iranians. The news story was that it had crashed in Iran in a soft landing, so it was pretty much fully intact (after gliding to the ground). Obama refused to protect our national security by blowing up the drone, because he didn't want to do anything that would be perceived as an "act of war" on the Iranians. So now, the Iranians have our technology to share with the Chinese and the Russians, etc. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would think that the drone didn't crash at all. I would think that it was a staged crash so that Obama could use it as an excuse to get our military technology into the hands of his supporters - the Iranians, the Chinese, and the Russians. Obama is not one of us.

Anonymous said...

This discussion is rather humorous to me. For the longest time, I thought Peter was an Obama supporter, based on some of his prior statements.

Anonymous said...

I agree with your post, as much as it pains me to do so. My parents were very politically aware and always voted. They taught me to never waste my vote by not voting.
This year however, I'm feeling very disillusioned. I feel no matter for whom I vote, nothing will change. Anyone have any inspiring words to tell me I'm wrong?

Anonymous said...

My thoughts on voting are as follows~ Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, its not! ~Dr. Suess (The Lorax)
This quote is so true, so please get out there and vote!!!!

Periwinkle Paisley said...

The blink count says that Obama is probably not going to win re-election and his own use of past tense "When I WAS President..." doesn't project confidence either.
People need to CALM DOWN, if you REALLY want to facilitate change in our government then stop worrying about who is president and LOOK at your congressmen and your senators and the way they vote on things you care about. THEY are the ones who vote yes or no on every law. The president can blather on all he wants and promise the moon but he can't do squat if the House and Senate are not behind him.

OT: Peter, can I just say that I hate having to prove that I am not a Robot. What that widget seems to prove is that my eyes are going and I probably need glasses. Just sayin'.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 10/18/12 11:19 a.m. - I'm actually glad that Obama gave the thumbs-up for the Seals to go in and kill OBL. I'm handling it just fine. I just don't like how he takes all the credit for something that was started a few years ago and required so much work and sacrifice by so many people long before his time. But that's Obama. "I, I, I, me, me, me". A total narcissist. There's no blind hatred within me for Obama. My eyes are wide open. You are likely speaking for yourself when you say that, and what you are doing is called projection. You are projecting something about yourself onto me - blindness and denial. I take the time to educate myself and to vet the truth. I do it with Romney, as well. You should do the same. I think you need to calm down and relax. Things are going to be sooooo much better under Romney after he wins the election by a landslide. And regarding your comment about smog, do you really think Obama has rid America of smog? Furthermore, I will not be at anyone's mercy for jobs. Why? Because I built my own company from the ground up! Yes! I built that! In vetting Romney, what I've found is that he does like clean air and clean environments. I think we can achieve a balance, if we all work together, and then everyone wins. We can have coal and clean air through emission controls. Americans are smart. Have faith!

Anonymous said...

Come on Peter, do you really think that Romney would "have put a stop to it" if he were president and the tables had been turned....please!!

I'm a Canadian but I watched the entire debate and then some with replays on CNN and I thought that Obama performed much better than Romney on the second debate.

This blog is becoming increasingly right wing conservative and some of your comments in previous posts makes it a "two minute Columbo" for even a Canadian to figure out your right wing bias.

I used to like when this blog was about the science of statement analysis and not so much of your pushing your conservative agenda. I know your defenders will jump all over me as they always do whenever someone dares disagree with your point of view. So have at it folks and don't forget to say some disparging remarks about Canada while you're at it.

Anonymous said...

My post at 8:14 am has a typo. sentence #4 is supposed to say ,
"the fact that president Obama" .

Anonymous said...

Loved the analysis. Thank you!

I also thought it was weird the way she just happened to have the transcript there and Obama knew it! Otherwise he wouldn't have said, "Get the transcript."

How did he know it was there? Did they speak about this before hand. PLus Obama looked like he knew it was coming. Watch again. he's perched on the edge of his chair barely able to contain himself he is so excited about what's coming next.

The only one who looked surprised and somewhat sucker punched was Mitt. The press and the Obama campaign have treated him terribly but he has held up well to it. Good for him.

You go Mitt!

Anonymous said...

You go President Obama !

Why was my previous post deleted?

Anonymous said...

To Canadian Anon @ 6:31 p.m., no disparaging remarks about canadians coming from me. I've known quite a few canadians, some clients, some friends. Nice people! I've been inside Canada once and loved it. Beautiful scenery.

Just hang tight. The Pres election will soon be over and eventually we'll move on to other pursuits, it just might take a while as some will be in a snit because the wrong one won, then more lies and deceptions will be revealed.

Meanwhile, the beat goes on.

Anonymous said...

What did your previous post say, Anon @ 9:29?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I feel ripped off due to the moderators repeated interruptions and slanted mode of moderation. that was not a debate between two competing debaters. it was a full on tag team and an insult to all voters who expected professionalism.
October 18, 2012 1:04 AM
That's exactly how I feel...ripped off by Crowley & her ultralib/socialist agenda.

Lara Martinez said...

I'd like to know why Candy and Obama referred to a "transcript" to prove Obama's point that he mentioned the word terror in a broad way in the Rose Garden.

Does Obama routinely give moderators transcripts of all his statements for fact checking purposes during debates?

And Candy seemed to immediately know which transcript to "check" before she inserted herself into the debate, cutting off Romney.

It's obvious that the Obama campaign met with Candy to stage this "fact check" if the topic that Obama never called it a terror attack was raised. That's really dishonest and Obama and CNN should be ashamed.