Tag Archives: Candy Crowley

A Bright Future of Quilting with Nancy Pelosi

628x471Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Nancy Pelosi should go back to her plastic surgeon and ask him to loosen the skin ponytail on the top of her head, because it’s impacting her already-compromised ability to think straight.

Recently, Mrs. Pelosi was shilling for the left on Obama debate-savior Candy Crowley’s “State of the Union” show on CNN. Ms. ‘I saved Obama’ Crowley felt moved to read a letter to Pelosi signed by James Hoffa Jr., of Teamster hoodlum fame. The letter from Mr. Hoffa the Younger, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, rightly describes Obamacare’s impact as a way to “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week.”

This is the same Jimmy Hoffa Jr. who, before the Affordable Care Act became law, ardently lobbied on its behalf. Jimmy may still not know where his father is buried, but what he has figured out is this:

The law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

Duh! Clearly, somewhere along the line Jimmy Jr. pulled his head out of the wet cement.

Nonetheless, Nancy Pelosi appeared indifferent to Crowley’s contention that that level of criticism from Hoffa and letter co-signers Joseph Hansen, International President of the UFCW, and D. Taylor, President of UNITE-HERE, is “pretty tough” coming from a “loyal Democratic constituency.”

Mrs. Pelosi, who, by the way, is worth $58 million, didn’t disagree with Hoffa et al. Nor did she say that the 40-hour work week will be preserved. Instead, Nancy quickly touched upon the president’s limitations and mentioned that other options are being worked on.

Then, the House Minority Leader with the $10K Tahitian pearls and badly-Botoxed brow seemed to imply that losing a full-time job presents an opportunity for people with no money, no health insurance, and no future to “pursue …happiness [and] follow… passion.”

In other words, in lieu of working to support their families, destitute Americans, many currently in danger of foreclosure, now have a unique opportunity to break out that dusty piccolo, search the attic for that old easel and watercolors, or fulfill a lifelong dream of learning to quilt.

“Overwhelmingly, for the American people, this is liberation,” said Nancy, with her usual brilliant insight, “It’s about wellness, it’s about prevention, and it’s about a healthy America.”

Liberation from what — employment? Liberation from financial stability and a secure future? What in the world is this woman talking about?

Wellness? Where is “wellness,” exactly, if millions of Americans are unemployed, stressed out, and on the verge of despair?

As for prevention, the only thing being prevented here is large swathes of people being gainfully employed in full-time jobs. What’s not being prevented is loss of healthcare benefits, doctor shortages, hospitals and healthcare businesses shutting down, and pharmaceutical companies no longer having the funding to research new drugs.

And in Nancy Pelosi’s feeble mind, that equation adds up to a “healthy America?”

Although Nancy wouldn’t need an Obamacare referral because, being a political elitist, she’s exempt from the liberation, wellness, prevention, and health the rest of the nation is about to be punished with, she really does still need to pay her doctor a visit.

And when she gets there, Nancy should beseech the physician, for the wellbeing of the rest of America, to loosen that skin ponytail hiding under her perfectly coifed hair in hopes of restoring some blood circulation to that addled brain.

 

There’s No ‘Excuse’ for the Gang of Eight

Bipartisan Group Of Senators Announce Major Agreement On Immigration ReformOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

Following the Boston Marathon bombing, Candy Crowley of CNN’s State of the Union Sunday show hosted one quarter of the Gang of Eight: Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and the always charming and alluring Democrat from New York, Charles ‘Chucky’ Schumer.  Other gang members like Bob ‘Dominican Republic’ Menendez (D-NJ) were missing from the panel.

During the immigration segment, Crowley asked how Tamerlan Tsarnaev being a permanent resident and Dzhokhar a naturalized citizen impacted the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform bill, saying,  “Do you see anything in the legal immigration system that you now want to go back and say we need to fix this or that and include it in our bill, Senator Graham, you first?”

Sharing a split screen with Schumer, Graham responded by saying he wants to know how, after Tamerlan was “identified as a potential terrorist,” the FBI “dropped the ball.”  Then Graham came up with a brilliant suggestion for something that the House and Senate should have done a decade ago but didn’t when he said, “I think now is the time to bring all the 11 million out of the shadows and find out who they are.”

No offense to Mr. Graham, but it’s hard to imagine that almost 12 years after 9/11 a United States senator would suggest that now is the time to find out more about the millions of people living here illegally.

It gets better.  After admitting that he didn’t know who they are or where they’re hiding out, Sen. Graham then suggested that he does know “Most of them are here to work, but…”

But, like the two Chechens who just blew up 180 people in Boston, killing three and dismembering at least 14, Lindsey believes that “[we] may find some terrorists in our midst who have been hiding in the shadows.”

This might be a dumb question but, despite being offered amnesty, is it possible that illegals with nefarious intentions might want to maintain anonymity?

Moving right along, Lindsey Graham then said something about 9/11 he must have thought we didn’t know: “The 19 hijackers were all students who overstayed their visas and the system didn’t capture that.” By proudly stating that eight senators finally figured out how to track individuals who shouldn’t be here, the senator might not have realized it but, he was also confessing that for eleven years the Senate did nothing about those they knew were plotting against us.

Senator Graham’s final contribution was to slowly point out that “What happened in Boston and international terrorism … should urge us to act quicker, not slower.”

Next up was the shameless opportunist from New York, Senator Charles Schumer. Schumer said, “I agree with Lindsey.” Sorry, but anyone agreeing with Lindsey Graham or Chuck Schumer, even if it’s Lindsey and Chuck doing the agreeing, is downright scary.   What’s even scarier is Chuck Schumer smiling and nodding his head in agreement with Republican Gang of Eight member Marco Rubio.  That right there is a sure sign that Mr. Rubio is wading into dangerous territory.

As if anyone could stop him, Schumer, a man notorious for never shutting up, requested permission to “say a couple of things.” Chuck insisted that the Gang of Eight bill, which is being criticized for many things, one of which is failing to recognize illegal LGBT families whose heart’s desire is to come out as both gay and illegal, “toughens things up.”

Schumer also pledged that, unless their last name is Tsarnaev, “Illegal immigrants with serious criminal backgrounds or those who pose a threat to national security will not be able to attain [legal] status.” Split-screen Schumer then said, “And in fact asylum, which the Tsarnaev family came here on, was greatly toughened up a few years after. They might not have gotten asylum under the present law.” Chucky apparently felt that saying “Might not have” was comforting to the Boston bombing victims as well as a reassurance to the general public.

Then, as if it were possible, Schumer made a statement more stunning than Amnesty Grahamnesty, admitting that after 9/11, Ft. Hood and Boston, and after 40 attempted-but-failed terrorist attacks, it’s high time America got serious about finding out who’s here.

Hard-left liberal Chucky, without one flicker of embarrassment, actually said “There are some… hard right, some otherwise, who oppose our immigration bill from the get- go, and they’re using [Boston] as an excuse.”

After two immigrants blew up 180 people at a marathon, Senator Schumer is accusing quick-fix immigration opponents of using tragedy as an “excuse?”  And über-journalist CNN Candy and obviously not “on the hard right” Lindsey sat idly by and let ‘log in his eye’ Schumer accuse political opponents of making “excuses?”

Isn’t Chucky a representative of a political party that is using bereaved family members of the Newtown shooting as an excuse to try to weaken the Second Amendment? Wasn’t it Chuck Schumer who suggested in December on Face the Nation that what happened in Newtown was a “tipping point” and that because children were involved, gun-control advocates may be able to “get something done?”

Excuse-maker Schumer warned:  “[w]e’re not going to let them use what happened in Boston as an excuse because our law toughens things up.” What that means is that Chuck isn’t going to allow anyone other than the master of excuse exploitation, Barack Obama, use catastrophe as a pretext to push unpopular policy.

By utilizing weak excuses to accomplish a punch list of progressive political goals, lefty politicians are now accusing others of using “excuses,” and they do it while Schumer and his excuse-making liberal cohorts whittle away at our Constitutional liberties.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon the American people to impede Democrats and “some otherwise” (like the RINO sharing the split screen with Chuck Schumer) from bamboozling us into allowing their quest for power to destroy this nation.

The Obama-Crowley Transcript Charade

Many people are asking the question:  Did something seem rotten in Hempstead? In preparation for the second debate, moderator par excellence Candy Crowley was the one who picked the debate questions, including the hot-button query on the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, Libya.

That Libya question was presented to Barack Obama by Kerry Ladka in the following way:

 LADKA: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

Predictably, President Obama gave a non-answer:

 PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.

In his reply Obama focused on goading Romney by accusing him of “trying to make political points” by attempting to “turn national security into a political issue.”  Obama went on to say that the next day in the Rose Garden he called the Benghazi attack “an act of terror,” which he knew would get Romney’s attention.

When Mitt Romney challenged the President’s claim to have admitted that it was an “act of terror” the next day, a relaxed Obama smiled haughtily, balanced himself on his stool and said, “Please proceed…please proceed Governor” as if to say “Go ahead and make a fool of yourself.”

Obama then signaled to Crowley to “Get the transcript.”  Wonder of wonders, Candy just happened to have Obama’s Rose Garden comments right in her hand. Crowley, who obviously didn’t read the transcript, proceeded to agree with Obama by informing Romney that the President did indeed say that it was an “act of terrorism.”   A smirking Obama then delighted the audience when he smarmily yelled out, “Could you say that a little louder” honey, I mean Candy?

Was Mitt set up?  It appears that Obama purposely instigated the Benghazi controversy.  If not, then why would tag team Obama/Crowley just so happen to have the Rose Garden transcript handy?  Obama called for a reading from the record and was supported by the supposedly neutral debate moderator with an interpretational stretch that endeavored to make Mitt Romney look clueless and as if he was trying to score political points.

By the next day, besides admitting she was wrong on the facts, Candy Crowley also revealed that she was wearing a Peter Popoff-style earpiece, which she claimed “played no part in the Benghazi/terror exchange.”

The question is, did Candy Crowley have any other transcripts in her debate brush-up pile?  And if not, why not?

There is no way to know for sure whether the Obama/Crowley crew attempted, albeit poorly, to purposely ensnare Mitt Romney, but based on what happened at Hofstra University, an orchestrated liberal assault is certainly something that doesn’t seem out of the question.

 

‘Eye Candy’ Lies, and Candy Swears to It

Originally posted at American Thinker

In the run-up to the second debate, feminists have been moaning about how Candy Crowley, unlike Jim Lehrer, was reduced to a “Vanna White … holding a microphone.”  Advocating for equal debate clout, Crowley has been speaking out on her own behalf and told Mark Halperin of TIME magazine that during the debate, “[o]nce the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?'”

In other words, Candy made it known prior to the event that she had no intention of keeping to the rules and that she in no way would she remain a “voiceless moderator,” fielding questions from the undecided audience and keeping close watch on the clock.  Going rogue, Ms. Crowley succeeded in her objective and in the process managed to weaken the credibility of women as debate moderators.

The guidelines in the memorandum of understanding that was agreed upon by the debate commission, as well as both campaigns, stated:

The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.

Those restrictions did not sit well with feminist groups, who’ve managed to make even a presidential debate about women’s issues.

So, on behalf of the sisterhood, Candy Crowley took to the town hall podium and proceeded to defy the rules and run the debate her own way.  The result was dreadful — not only for Candy’s reputation as a journalist, but also for a weak incumbent who looked like he needed a woman to protect him from being verbally spanked.  Moreover, her performance did nothing to convince the debate commission that female moderators should be granted more freedom in the future.

The reason why?  Candy Crowley cut off Mitt Romney 28 times, including when he was making a point about Barack Obama’s gunrunning debacle, “Fast and Furious.”  According to CNN’s own count, Candy allowed Obama to speak for a total of 44 minutes and 4 seconds and ordered Romney back to his stool by cutting him off and bringing his time down to 40 minutes and 50 seconds.

The CNN anchor showed obvious deference to the president.  Every time he spoke, her eyes widened in admiration and she exhibited an odd mix of what looked like coaxing and agreeing.  While claiming to be an unbiased moderator, Candy Crowley adjudicated on the president’s behalf when he stretched the truth on the subject of Libya.

Most would agree that Candy’s foot-in-mouth moment came when Mitt Romney accused Obama of not calling the attack in Benghazi an act of terror for two weeks and flying to Las Vegas and Colorado for a fundraiser the day after four Americans died. Crowley, like a mother hen protecting her chick, interrupted Romney and said: “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir.  So let me — let me call it an act of terror.”

In response, lily-livered Obama smirked, hid behind mama’s apron strings, and then asked her to restate the falsehood on his behalf, saying, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”  Candy gladly complied.  Stuttering, stammering, and tripping over herself to rush to Junior’s defense, Candy added: “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.”

If hard-hitting girl power representative Candy Crowley was really looking to bolster female credibility, she should have gone according to the original script and asked Obama, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”  If Crowley were really mixing it up with the boys, she could have demanded an answer from Barack Obama as to why it took fourteen days to acknowledge an al-Qaeda terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in the streets of Benghazi.

After the fact, Candy Crowley is now being forced to admit that Romney, who insisted that Obama did not call the incident a terrorist attack for weeks, was right — “in the main” — on Benghazi.

Rather than conceding that Obama picked the wrong way to go about handling the murder of an American ambassador, Ms. Crowley instead chooses to say that Romney “picked the wrong way to go about talking about it.”  Attempting to explain her unmitigated favoritism, Candy underscored that her second “two week” point favored Romney and generated applause much like her first point, which generated applause from one half of the audience led by an unrestrained Michelle Obama.

Prior to the Hofstra debate, America was forced to endure listening to Crowley whine about a woman’s rightful role as a debate moderator.  Then, during the actual debate, the nation witnessed the hot mess Candy made while shilling for Obama.

Suffice it to say that Candy proved that the “memorandum of understanding” was correct in its attempt to limit her role, because by the end of the debate, every headline should have read: “Eye Candy” Lies, and Candy Swears to It.

So, after all the fuss, Candy Crowley’s behavior and inappropriate intrusion did nothing to advance the feminist cause.  But wait, there’s still time!  How about if Crowley’s cheerleaders — NOW, The New Agenda, and former news anchor Carol Simpson — recommend that for the upcoming foreign policy debate, Lara Logan replace Robert Schieffer?

%d bloggers like this: