Oct 17, 2012 Political
There was a town hall format presidential debate last night and Mitt Romney had his hands full because he had to debate Obama and the moderator, Candy Crowley. Crowley did not stick to the debate format that was agreed upon by the candidates but that should not be a surprise because she said she was not going to do so. There is a reason that Crowley did not follow the agreed upon rules and that is so she could help Obama out during the debate.
That might come back to bite them both in the rear. More on that later.
Obama came out more feisty and ready to swing in this debate. The left knew he would after his dismal first debate performance and the left also knew he would need cover. The cover started when Crowley had the questions submitted prior to the debate so she could screen them. She then picked questions that would play to the topics believed to be Obama’s strong points. She claims that the questions were not provided to either candidate early but some of the responses gave me the impression that Obama was aware of what was going on.
In any event, Obama hid behind Crowley’s skirt during the debate and let’s face it that is a big place to hide. The Chinese army could hide behind that skirt. Ironically, but not surprisingly, that was not the first time that day Obama had hidden behind the protection of a woman’s skirt. Earlier in the day, Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the complete foreign policy failure in Libya thus providing Obama cover.
He took responsibility during the debate but let’s face it, Hillary manned up before Obama did.
Now back to the act that might bite them both. During the debate the topic of Libya came up and Obama addressed it. Romney made the claim that it took Obama 14 days to call it an act of terror. Obama claimed that he called it an act of terror the very next day in the Rose Garden. Romney asked him two or three times if that is what he was claiming and Obama told him to proceed (as if he realized he was lying and wanted to move on) and then Crowley did the unthinkable. She injected herself into the debate and said that Obama had, in fact, called the Libya attack and act of terror the day after it happened. This seemed to stop Romney in his tracks because he was stunned at the revelation. He was rebuffed by the moderator.
Obama told people to look at the transcript.
Well, I and tens of thousands of other people have done just that. Barack Obama DID NOT call the Libya attack an act of terror in the Rose Garden the next day. He mentioned terror attacks in general as part of his remarks but only as they related to 9/11 and the general attacks on our people. He DID NOT call the Libya attacks acts of terror as he claimed during the debate and as his debate partner “confirmed” for him. They both lied and they did so in a concerted effort to thwart Romney.
This will come back on both of them. You see, Obama was drowning in his Libya lie and Crowley threw him an anchor. The Libya issue will now have new life and be the talk of everyone with fewer than three weeks left until the election. Obama will be shown to have lied. The meme will continue over and over that he lied AND that Crowley helped him.
Liberal journalists have already fact checked and reported that Obama did not call it an act of terror and Crowley admitted after the debate that Romney was correct.
If anyone out there had any lingering doubts that the media were biased and wanted to help Obama win Crowley took those doubts away. She ruined her credibility, the credibility of CNN and the credibility of the liberal media in general because she prostituted herself out for Obama (and he walked across the stage like a pimp so it worked out well for her).
Crowley made it clear before the debate that she did not intend to follow the format rules and she kept her word in that area. She injected herself into the debate as a fact checker only to have her fact checking shown as totally untrue. Suppose she had done this to both candidates?
Suppose she had injected herself in the debate when Romney claimed that Obama had cut federal leases for oil drilling in half. Maybe when Obama was saying that was untrue Crowley could have said no, Mr. Obama, he is correct you did do that (fact checkers have shown that Obama cut them about 60% for off shore and 33% on land). Perhaps when the question about equal pay for women came up and Obama talked about how he was all in favor and worked for that Crowley could have pointed out that Obama has historically paid female staffers less money than male staffers.
And perhaps when Barack Obama was defending Planned Parenthood and claiming that defunding it would mean a lot of women would not get mammograms Crowley could have injected her fact checking self into the debate to inform Mr. Obama that Planned Parenthood DOES NOT provide mammograms.
I mean, if her job was to fact check the debate one would expect that she would do so for both sides. But then again, she was only there to help Obama.
And she did so by lying for him.
Ladies and gentlemen who won that debate last night depends on whom one supports. Obama supporters think he won, Romney supporters think he won and about 33% think it was a tie. Undecideds in focus groups moved toward Romney so it looks like it was a good night for him.
Obama needed a knockout, not just a win, and he did not get it.
Romney gave a strong performance even though he had to fight a handicap match with Obama and Crowley tagging in and out all night.
Get used to saying it.
President Mitt Romney.
And just as importantly get used to saying this:
FORMER president Barack Obama…
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 21, 2009 Political
Obama said that illegals would not get health care. He might be right because the amnesty bill that the Democrats are working on would grant legal status after 24 hours even if the background checks were not completed (none will be). It will also grant amnesty to gang members and all they have to do is say they don’t want to be in a gang any more.
This video is from sometime ago, perhaps around May. I never noticed it and I imagine others failed to see it because it is on CNN and no one watches that show except a few people who would be happy with the amnesty.
Watch the video here and voice your opinion in the comments.
I can think of two commenters who will think this is wonderful.
And these people wonder why there are costumes like this.
May 15, 2009 Political
One would think the guy who claimed to invent the Internet would be able to use it to verify something before making a statement that is completely inaccurate. Politico reports that Gore was interviewed on CNN where he was critical of former VP Dick Cheney’s criticisms of Barack Obama. Gore stated that he waited two years before he was critical of George Bush:
“I waited two years after I left office to make statements that were critical,” Gore said during an interview on CNN, pointing out that his critiques were focused on “policy.”
George Bush took office in January 2001 so Gore would have had to remain silent until January 2003. A quick search of Google using the term “Gore criticizes Bush” yields a ton of results. A few of them are before January 2003 which means that Gore was either mistaken or untruthful. Regardless of which, he was careless because this information can be found very easily.
“But instead of embracing the bipartisan national consensus to improve our environment, the Bush administration has chosen to serve the special interests instead of the public interests and to subsidize the obsolete, failed approaches of the past instead of the exciting new solutions of the future.” The Berkeley Daily Planet 23 April 2002
Ten days after criticizing President Bush’s handling of Iraq, Al Gore offered a scathing assessment today of Mr. Bush’s stewardship of the American economy. Mr. Gore said Mr. Bush’s policies had created a “crisis of confidence in U.S. economic leadership throughout the world.” The New York Times 3 October 2002
Gore called for increasing the international security force in Afghanistan and broadening its mandate beyond Kabul, the capital, to the whole country. He urged Bush to pay greater attention to the views of NATO allies, and criticized him for pursuing a more unilateral foreign policy than President Clinton. CNN 13 February 2002
The second quote indicates that Gore criticized Bush ten days prior to this criticism. To be fair, the third quote is from an article in which Gore almost completely agrees with Bush’s positions on the war on terror and he praises Bush for some of the things he accomplished.
The fact remains, Al Gore was critical of George Bush earlier than the two years he claimed in the CNN interview. In his rush to smear Cheney and defend Obama, Gore made himself look like a fool. Not that the MSM would follow up on that and not that Gore needed this to look like a fool.
Perhaps it is Al Gore who has a fever…
Nov 29, 2007 Political
Not to long ago the Democratic candidates all decided to cancel a debate sponsored by Fox. They made their claim that Fox was biased to the right and that they would not conduct a fair and open debate. The Democrats were more comfortable with the 70% left leaning “unbiased” MSM so that is the route they went. Republicans have not canceled any debates based upon distrust of a network though it appears they should have.
CNN hosted last night’s debate and I wrote a post informing that the gay general who asked the question about gays in the military was affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign and had endorsed her. Now it seems that this guy was not the only “undecided” voter who already supported a Democratic candidate. At least three other people who asked questions have endorsed a Democrat. Two of them for Edwards and one for Obama. The abortion girl Journey even posted a video about her response to the answers to her question while she was wearing her John Edwards T Shirt. The mom with the lead paint toy question is a union manager for a union that has endorsed Edwards and her video is displayed on the union’s website.
So somebody tell me again why the Democrats were worried about Fox but not concerned about CNN. Oh, because CNN seems to be in the tank for the left. There is no way that someone at CNN could not have known about these people. Perhaps they figured they would not get caught.
The Democrats canceled the Fox debate because they wanted fair. How fair is it that the gay general got more time to speak than Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter? For that matter, he got longer than any candidate for a single response. They were limited to 90 seconds and 30 seconds for a follow up. The gay general got 2 minutes to talk about his lifestyle.
Michelle Malkin has quite a bit of detail.
The CNN/YouTube debate for the Republicans was held earlier this evening and I think it was a lively event. The problem with the event is that CNN allowed an activist who is a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual steering committee two minutes of talk time. It is absolutely true that CNN allowed a person affiliated with the campaign of a Democrat running for President to ask questions of the Republicans at the Republican debate. Not only was this gay retired Army general’s question one of the YouTube submissions selected but he was allowed to be in the audience and ask follow up questions. Before the LGBT community or the Democrats get their panties in a wad I want to make it clear that this person had a right to ask his question and he had a right to be at the event. However, CNN should have disclosed that this man was on a Hillary Clinton steering committee so that the public would know that he was not a Republican and that he was not unbiased.
I thought it was strange early on when someone asked a question and Anderson Cooper disclosed that the guy was in the audience and asked him if his question was answered. He gave a short answer and sat down. The only other person allowed to do that was the gay general. Now, it might be because he was the only other person to ask a question who attended the event. But it sure appears as if CNN had the first guy there so the second would not seem unusual. It also seemed strange to me that this guy asked why the candidates felt gays should not serve openly in the military and they gave their answers but when Cooper asked if he had been answered he said no and then went on a rant about his gayness and time in the service. It almost seems like it was set up that way.
As I stated, I have no problem with the question or the guy being there. I just feel that his affiliation should have been disclosed. This event makes it look like instead of planting the questions the Clinton campaign is now planting the people who ask them as well because the campaign had to know he was going to be there. CNN had to know who this guy was and it is no secret that he is connected to the Clinton campaign. The Gay general, Keith Kerr, is listed on her website as part of the steering committee and that they support her for president:
Members of LGBT AMERICANS FOR HILLARY [Keith Kerr is listed] have endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in their individual capacity. The names of past or present affiliations are included to assist in identifying the individuals listed and do not indicate any endorsement by that group or organization. HillaryClinton.com
There were well over 4000 questions submitted for the debate so it is unlikely that this guy was selected at random. His question was selected and he was present to show Republicans as people who hate gay people. I thought all the answers were pretty good. They told why they were opposed to gay people in the military. They did not say anything hateful but just that they felt it was not a good thing. The only one who tripped up on it is Romney who flipped from a previous position where he said he could not wait for the day when gays could serve openly in the military. This part of the debate is sure to rile up the gay brigade and have them out in hater mode tomorrow discussing how terrible the Republicans are. Don’t buy it, the answers were fine. People do not have to agree with that lifestyle and that does not make them hateful people. It just means they do not agree.
I wonder why it is that no Republican was at the Democratic YouTube debate to be selected for follow up. Can you imagine how Hillary would be in full conspiracy mode with the VRWC and black helicopters if a person on a Republican steering committee who had endorsed a Republican candidate was there and asked a question in an attempt to make the Democrats look bad? They would go nuts and Hillary, in particular, would be carping about the Republican attack machine. After all those years of being someone’s bitch in private tonight, this guy was Hillary’s bitch in public.
It does seem amazing that the Democrats did not have this happen to them but the Republicans did. Not too amazing because CNN (and they have some explaining to do) is the Clinton News Network but the Republicans allowed a Democratic operative, and a gay one at that, to come to their debate and ask a follow up question.
Who says Republicans are not inclusive?
Want to bet Hillary denies, claims ignorance or blames it on someone else? How about she says it is a coincidence?
UPDATE: Anderson Cooper says they did not know. I guess that means the gay general is unethical. But then again we knew that because if he served for 43 years he answered the “have you ever engaged in homosexual behavior” question and he had to put NO.
Tags: anderson cooper, army general, clinton campaign, cnn, Democrats, gayness, Hillary Clinton, lesbian gay, lgbt community, Military, President, republican debate, Republicans, trans gender, youtube