Tag Archives: Jim Lehrer

‘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?

A million muppets to participate in ‘Puppet Power’ march

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

For those Million Worker Marchers now receiving their Barack Obama entitlements, marching for jobs is no longer necessary. But for the “million” black men who marched for “atonement, unity and brotherhood” in 1995 and the “million” moms who demonstrated for stricter gun laws, some stiff competition is heading their way.

In fact, when the curtain on a “puppet power” rally on Washington’s National Mall rises on November 3rd, it promises to stand head-and-shoulders above its predecessors, especially since legions of 8-foot Big Birds are expected to join the demonstration.

The idea for the “Million Muppet/Puppet Power” march was birthed when Mitt Romney dared to suggest that reining in the nation’s indebtedness should take priority over Placido Flamingo and Curly Bear.

During the first Presidential Debate in Denver, the Republican presidential candidate submitted to America that subsidizing Big Bird with $445 million in federal budget disbursements that public television received in 2012 is not worth borrowing money from Communist China.

While Mitt Romney’s iconoclastic views were shocking, he did balance his statements by professing a personal affection for Big Bird.  Romney then intimated to Jim Lehrer and Barack Obama that he would allow neither sentimentality nor a love of the Sesame Street theme song to stand in the way of ending government subsidies to a children’s program PBS has sponsored for close to half a century.

Meanwhile, on the night of the debate, as fate would have it, two 40-something Big Bird activists – one an animation executive from California and the other a student from Boise, Idaho – crossed paths in cyberspace.  In response to Willard Romney’s blatant disrespect for educational television programming for children, the duo quickly teamed up like Bert and Ernie and established a website called “Million Muppet March” to voice opposition to Mitt Romney’s PBS-cutting proposals.

The men chose not to make the Muppet March what Michael Bellavia, president of the animation studio Animax Entertainment, called just “a virtual show of support.”  The LA animation executive shared that “because it seemed like there was already a growing interest in it,” he and Chris Mecham, his Big Bird cohort from Boise, decided: Why not take the opportunity and make it an “active, participatory event?”

On his Facebook page, Chris Mecham identifies his political view as “social liberalism” and says he is a writer interested in healthcare policy and currently studying political science at Boise State University.

Chris shared that on the night of the debate, while Romney was “still talking [he] was thinking of ways [he] could express [his] frustration at [Romney’s Big Bird] argument. Before the debates were over [Chris] had put up the Million Muppet March Facebook page.”

Mr. Bellavia and Mr. Mecham, who had a post on his Facebook profile page he later took down calling Romney a “c*&ksucker” [sic] – which in certain circles would definitely be considered an expression of love – both agree that the while the event may not draw in “a million Muppet-loving people,” the puppet-minded civic crusaders “hope to create … a ‘love fest’ featuring skits and musical performances with Muppets.”

Sorry people, but that scary scenario sounds a lot more like what goes on at a reefer-smoking Million Marijuana March.  The only thing worse would be Abdullah the Puppet being designated to march side-by-side with Miss Piggy in the puppet parade.

Nevertheless, the organizers of the event do feel like the November 3rd rally may “get close to the biggest ever assemblage of puppets in one place…and probably the most ever puppets marching on Washington.”  Not quite – let’s not forget Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009, where an estimated 1.5 million puppets braved the frigid weather to attend that historic event.

Regardless of who does or doesn’t choose to show up on the National Mall, there’s still a few glaring contradictions at play here.  For starters, why isn’t Chris ‘share the wealth’ Mecham equally frustrated over former Sesame Workshop 1% CEO Gary Knell receiving $988,456 in total compensation in 2010?  Or new Sesame CEO H. Melvin Ming, who before stepping into the CEO role in Knell’s place was the second-highest compensated employee that same year?

Then there’s the absurdity of big-government liberal types like Bellavia and Mecham marching on Big Bird’s behalf, asking for continued funding for educational programming for the children who, on a different day, other liberal groups would be demanding government funding to abort.

Maybe someone should tell marchers Mike and Chris that if ever there was a reason to descend on Washington D.C, it’s to protest the Obama administration’s cover-up of what really happened in Benghazi to Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other murdered Americans on September 11th 2012, not to demand continued funding for Oscar the Grouch.

So there you have it – liberal zombies marching for Muppets, which is proving to be just an organized group of dummies marching for dummies.

Mitt Pronounces Big Bird a Dead Canary

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Barely blinking once throughout the entire first presidential debate, moderator and timid minute-counter Jim Lehrer should have taken pointers from PBS colleague Count von Count from Sesame Street, because Mitt Romney ran roughshod over Jim and in the process flattened Big Bird, too.  Mitt informed a stunned Lehrer: “I’m sorry, Jim — I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS.  I’m going to stop other things.  I like PBS.  I love Big Bird.  I actually like you, too.  But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.”

That’s right — Mitt Romney actually had the audacity to suggest that in addition to Sesame Street, fiscal sanity may require eliminating federal funding for vital PBS shows such as Beeswax, Islam: Empire of Faith, Who’s Dancin’ Now?, and Nerds 2.0.1.

In response to the controversy surrounding Seamus’ dad dissing Big Bird, Sean Higgins from the Washington Examiner quelled national anxiety when he reported that “Sesame Street generated $134 million in revenue last year; will be unharmed if it loses the $1.5 million currently provided by the federal government.”

Sesame Workshop’s Sherrie Westin even chimed in, admitting that “quite frankly, you can debate whether or not there should be funding of public broadcasting. But when they always try to [trot] out Big Bird, and say we’re going to kill Big Bird — that is actually misleading, because Sesame Street will be here.”

Nonetheless, bird-loving Barack is sure that Big Bird has provided the “wedge issue” he’s been waiting for.  So much so that in an attempt to regain momentum, the president is attempting to pluck out Mitt Romney’s post-debate plumage in hopes of lining his own political nest with Big Bird’s feathers.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki supports the effort.  Ms. Psaki maintains that “[t]here’s been a strong grassroots outcry over the attacks” — not on Bengazi, but on Big Bird.

Listening to Jen, one would think that “mothers across the country” couldn’t care less about issues that negatively impact their children’s futures and are more concerned that Big Bird be able to continue living in the large nest behind the 123 Sesame Street brownstone at taxpayers’ expense.

With advisers like Jen Psaki, the president may decide it’s good politics to roller-skate into the next debate in a giant Big Bird costume to drive home the point that, contrary to recent foreign policy blunders, he’s neither a “chicken” nor a “bird on the run,” and that PBS funding is one of his top priorities.

After all, how dare Mitt Romney suggest that funding Sesame Street might not be worth the United States being indefinitely indebted to Communist China?  In fact, a good foreign policy argument might include Barack Obama pointing out that Mitt Romney is so anti-Big Bird that he didn’t even realize that in 1983, the oversized canary traveled extensively in the People’s Republic of China in search of Feng Huang, the Phoenix bird.

Adding to the outcry and despite her husband regularly stomping all over the endangered American bald eagle, Michelle Obama did not control herself when she recently took “a rare dig at Romney” for bullying Big Bird.  After all, not only do the first lady and Big Bird have a longstanding relationship, but the Sesame Street star believes that he and Michelle may even share a familial connection.

In 2009, when Mrs. Obama preached planting and eating fresh veggies to the kiddies on Sesame Street, Aloysius Snuffleupagus’s flightless best friend walked in for a guest appearance.  The huge, yellow, unicycle-riding mutant bird, who under different circumstances would pounce on the seeds the first lady was sowing, suggested that based on their mutual tall stature, he and Michelle may have originated from the same genetic pool.

Family is family, which may be why, while campaigning at Loudoun County Fairgrounds in Virginia, Michelle Obama directly addressed Big Bird supporters, saying, “[W]e believe in keeping our priorities straight.”  Ahem.  Then, verbally dyslexic Michelle Obama also attempted to convince the crowd that “We all know good and well that cutting Sesame Street is no way to balance the budget [and] that shortchanging our kids is not how we tackle our deficit.”

Sorry, but hearing a partial-birth abortion/free-contraceptives/government-funded abortion activist like Michelle Obama preach about “keeping our priorities straight” and “shortchanging our kids” seems, at best, a tad insincere.

Nonetheless, in some circles, if Sesame Street toddlers do manage to make it out of the womb alive, watching the Cookie Monster eat cookies while trying to gag down oven-fried asparagus spears must be well worth becoming further obligated to the largest foreign owner of our national debt.

In the end, all the attention Michelle and Barack are giving Big Bird may have symbolic meaning far beyond the PBS funding controversy.  In the past, mine workers would take caged canaries down into the dark tunnels with them to detect deadly gas.  If methane or carbon monoxide leaked into the mineshaft, the canary would stop singing, keel over in the cage, and, in the process, save lives by warning miners to rush to the surface.

Mitt Romney’s suggestion to kill federal funding for the big canary on Sesame Street may be the first step toward bringing the American economy out of the depths of despair for a long-overdue breath of fresh air.

%d bloggers like this: