Gay Patriot Header Image

Why didn’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:09 pm - March 12, 2013.
Filed under: Media Bias,Pelosi Watch

Earlier today, Yahoo! headlined a piece showing how in an interview with the Obama campaign’s CNN’s Candy Crowley, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pulled a comment by her Senate counterpart, Mitch McConnell out of context.  Mrs. Pelosi contended that the Kentucky Republican “was talking about stopping, obstructing initiatives to create jobs, stopping initiatives that would show bipartisanship on the part of the president.”

Factcheck.org reminds us that:

McConnell’s fuller comments — including the vow to work with Obama “if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues” and his statement that “I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change” — contradict Pelosi’s claim that McConnell was speaking in the context of opposing any bipartisan initiatives or that he was outlining a position that Republicans would not support the president no “matter what the subject was.” One can argue about whether that turned out to be a Republican strategy or not, but that’s not what McConnell said.

Emphasis added.  Surely, given how frequently Democrats cite this McConnell quotation (in attempt to buttress their talking point of Republican intransigence), a journalist would have checked the record and know that those Democrats had pulled it out of context.  So, I went to the transcript.

Here’s how Miss Crowley responded to the House Democratic Leader’s comment:

Well, it is — I guess, the reason I’m asking it is so many people have pointed to, you know, when Mitch McConnell said that his number one goal was to see that the president was a one-term president. The president has now committed to you and others that he wants to do what he can to help turn the House Democratic. Isn’t that kind of the same thing?

And Crowley does indeed seem aware of how frequently folks trot out the McConnell comment.  Not that she says, “many people have pointed to” it, yet seems oblivious that most of those “many people” have pulled it out of context.  She didn’t do his journalistic due diligence to see if the claim were accurate, taking a Democratic talking point at face value.

At least she did acknowledge the president’s focus on turning the House Democratic.

Earlier in their conversation, Pelosi claimed that “The president has always been very respectful of the views of the Republicans and the Congress, their leadership and their membership. He has always tried to accommodate them.”  Crowley did not ask Mrs. Pelosi to provide any evidence to justify her claim nor did she remind her of the president’s rhetoric accusing Republicans of “social Darwinism” and of playing politics with the sequester.

Nor did Crowley ask how the president could be so respectful of Republican when he meets so infrequently with GOP leaders.

Do wonder if Miss Crowley asks tougher followups when she’s interviewing Republicans.  And why she refused to challenge so many of Mrs. Pelosi’s claims, many of which can be contradicted by a few quick google searches.

Share

15 Comments

  1. The really funny part is just how insane and desperate Pelosi and her fellow Obama supporters are, given their past records.

    The incoming Senate majority leader made it clear Sunday that Democrats planned to use their new control of that chamber to block some key Bush policy initiatives, from early deployment of a missile-defense system to oil-drilling in the Alaska wilderness and increased use of nuclear power.

    And:

    As President Bush prepares for his second term, Democrats in Washington and around the country are organizing for a year of confrontation and resistance, saying they are determined to block Bush’s major initiatives and thereby deny him the mandate he has claimed from his reelection victory last November.

    But it gets even more hilariously hypocritical.

    “The president’s idea of bipartisanship is, ‘Here’s what I want to do, join me,’ ” said Rep. Robert Menendez (N.J.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “It isn’t about negotiating. It isn’t about compromise. It’s almost this belief that they have the monopoly on what’s best for the country.”…..

    Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa), one of the most combative Democrats in Congress, accused Bush of “throwing down the gauntlet” since winning reelection. “Usually when you win you try to be magnanimous,” he said. “But everything we’ve heard from the president is, ‘I’ve got a mandate,’ ‘I’ve got all this political capital,’ and ‘We’ll work with you as long as you agree with us.’ Well, wait a minute, you mean we have to agree to everything before they’ll work with us. That’s a non-starter.”

    Obama supporters are projecting. That’s pretty much all there is to it. They lie, they cheat, they project, they smear, and they will do anything to hold on to power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2013 @ 12:16 am - March 13, 2013

  2. Because she is a left-wing hack and a scrunt. Next question.

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2013 @ 7:41 am - March 13, 2013

  3. But her best performance was suring the Obama-Romney debate, when she defended Obama´s lie. Then, days later, she quietly walked it back.

    Comment by Roberto — March 13, 2013 @ 1:33 pm - March 13, 2013

  4. [...] Gay Patriot – Why didn’’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Mr. Rand Goes To Washington Edition | askmarion — March 13, 2013 @ 4:25 pm - March 13, 2013

  5. [...] Gay Patriot – Why didn’’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Mr. Rand Goes To Washington Edition » Virginia Right! — March 13, 2013 @ 4:30 pm - March 13, 2013

  6. [...] Gay Patriot – Why didn’?t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Mr. Rand Goes To Washington Edition | therightplanet.com — March 13, 2013 @ 6:00 pm - March 13, 2013

  7. [...] Gay Patriot – Why didn’?t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — March 13, 2013 @ 6:01 pm - March 13, 2013

  8. “Why didn’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? ”

    Because she’s a fat, lying bitch. And so is Candy.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. ;-)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 14, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - March 14, 2013

  9. [...] Gay Patriot – Why didn’’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher of Weasel’s submissions for 3/14/13 — March 14, 2013 @ 6:43 pm - March 14, 2013

  10. [...] Why didn’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels Ides* of March Nominations 2013 — March 14, 2013 @ 8:24 pm - March 14, 2013

  11. [...] Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Gay Patriot- Why didn’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Winners! Yea! | Independent Sentinel — March 15, 2013 @ 12:00 pm - March 15, 2013

  12. [...] Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Gay Patriot – Why didn’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results 03.15.13 | askmarion — March 15, 2013 @ 3:22 pm - March 15, 2013

  13. [...] Gay Patriot – Why didn’’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by Blog Snacks | — March 17, 2013 @ 11:54 pm - March 17, 2013

  14. [...] Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Gay Patriot- Why didn’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council winners for March 15, 2013 — March 18, 2013 @ 7:58 pm - March 18, 2013

  15. [...] Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes – Gay Patriot- Why didn’t Candy (Crowley) follow up with Nancy (Pelosi)? [...]

    Pingback by Mushroom Blog Risotto | — March 19, 2013 @ 8:56 pm - March 19, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.