Tag Archives: NOW

‘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?

No uncredentialed children on the Democratic convention floor

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Liberal women are funny.  Not in a weird way; in a funny ha-ha way.  Why? Because the Democratic National Committee is sponsoring a convention in Charlotte, N.C. and the same females who applaud the Democrat stand on abortion are now up in arms because organizers are banning children from the pro-choice festivities.

The Charlotte Observer reports that “children will not be allowed access on the floor of the Democratic National Convention,” and that “daycare will not be provided for delegates who bring their kids.”

Do liberal women need to be reminded that the Democratic Party isn’t exactly a child-friendly entity? This is a group of people whose greatest success over the last three decades is managing to promote and assist in the destruction in 60 million tiny human beings.

Hearing pro-choice women’s rights activist Gloria Steinem and a handful of abortion-loving NOW chapters accuse the DNC of “discrimination against mothers with young children” is downright confusing.

Gloria Steinem is the woman who coined the term “reproductive freedom.” Now she’s saying that “Women are the key to a Democratic victory, and sometimes, children are the key to women.” In order to maintain her “reproductive freedom” credibility, Ms. Steinem was careful to insert the word “sometimes.”

Nevertheless, the question that needs to be answered at this late date is: Why is Gloria Steinem suggesting that something besides free contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion is the key to wooing women and ensuring a Democrat victory?

Whatever the answer, Gloria believes “It’s both right and smart for the Democratic Convention to behave as if children exist.”  Lest we forget, this is the woman that insisted that the right to abortion is a bigger health issue than breast cancer. Now she’s asking for an arena full of liberals to “behave as if children exist?”

Delegate Susie Shannon, who likely supports the Democrat pro-choice platform, feels the “DNC is putting her in a tough position because she is bringing her 4-year-old along.”

Shannon said “The Democratic Party shouldn’t put you in a position where you have to choose between your child and participating in a political convention.”  Why not?  Hasn’t the Democratic Party, above all, earned the right to exercise choice?  Think of it this way, the Democrats are aborting children from the convention.

Furthermore, it could be that the DNC, in conjunction with Planned Parenthood, may think that refusing to supply childcare and making delegates “choose between [a] child and participating in a political convention,” might contribute to an uptick in business for the abortion provider prior to September 2016.

A Democrat Convention spokeswoman reminded perturbed delegates that there is a “list of private child care providers on an official vendor directory,” and that “facilities are being provided for nursing mothers.” For those upset about the “anti-mom” amenities, apparently nursing mothers’ accommodations aren’t woman-friendly enough.

Reminiscent of back-alley abortion rhetoric, Zoe Nicholson, president of the Pacific Shore NOW chapter, called for the DNC to end the “outdated practice” of not providing for unaborted youngsters.  That’s a stretch – demanding of a political party whose policy is to dispose of inconvenient babies that they accommodate uninvited children.

Zoe accused Democrats of discrimination, saying, “We believe this practice of discrimination needs to end in 2012.  This is the year for the Democratic leadership to demonstrate comprehensive support of women, ending this outdated practice and to state publicly that it supports true family values.”

Sorry Zoe, but asking the Democratic Party to support family values is like asking a vegan to dig into a juicy steak.

Maybe Steinem and NOW should consider the possibility that having little kiddies merrily running around or tiny cherubs wailing for a bottle, all burping, smiling and waving to convention goers, might make some of the women uneasy.

Let’s face it, listening to NARAL president Nancy Keenan militantly extol the virtues of abortion on demand while infants nap curled up in their mother’s arms would introduce an awkward dynamic into an otherwise festive atmosphere.

It’s bad enough that when Roe v. Wade is celebrated, it may be hard to distract delegates 38-years-old or younger that those born after 1973 stood a chance of missing out on an opportunity in 2012 to nominate a man who would have heartily supported a mother’s decision to abort them.

With that in mind, in lieu of welcoming in the children, a more appropriate idea might be to accommodate the needs of female convention goers by parking a pink Planned Parenthood mobile clinic on the curb outside the Time Warner Cable Arena.

 

Proud to share blog space with the wonderful Ethel Fenig

Faux Feminists Declare War on Women

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Presently, in an effort secure the female vote, the very women who pride themselves on preventing gender discrimination are the ones suggesting that a woman’s purpose, life experience, and ability to relate to others hinges solely on whether or not she chooses to work outside the home.  Moreover, according to some, the status of a woman in society is further measured by her husband’s ability to provide for his family.  Therefore, according to that way of thinking, as a husband’s salary increases a stay-at-home wife’s worth diminishes.

One can only suppose that initially, comingling class warfare with gender politics by making 1% of America’s women the object of derision seemed like genius on the left.  If successful, that scheme, together with the concocted Republican war on women, had the potential to secure Barack Obama 99% of the female voting bloc.

However, despite the brilliance of the plan, obstacles are arising because distributing free morning-after pills to promiscuous college students is one thing but Americans, as a whole, do not take kindly to attacking women for being dedicated to hearth and home.

The person currently at the center of a national backlash is Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal obsessed with using the word “faux.” While pointing out that it might have been a faux pas on her part to suggest that financially supportive Republican men “do not support women,” Hilary managed to squeeze in the word “faux” more than once.

It was on Anderson Cooper 360 that Rosen pointed out that affluent stay-at-home mom Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.” Lest we forget, these are the people who define feticide as “privacy.” So, defining the word “work” may not be part of the liberal skill set.

Nevertheless, Hilary’s “never worked a day” comment has been widely condemned all cross the political spectrum. If dividing women into subsets was the original goal of those on the left, prior to attacking Ann Romney for putting her children first maybe Democrats should have taken into consideration the fact that, whether a woman is a mother or not, every person does have a mother.

The White House must have realized that a liberal suggesting that a woman choosing to sacrifice a salaried career to stay home and raise small children isn’t a valid description of a “worker” could threaten the original plan to secure the Friends-of-Fluke vote in November. With that in mind, Barack Obama, the king of “ill-advised comments,” denounced Hilary’s remarks as “ill-advised.”

After being all but thrown under the Planned Parenthood shuttle bus by fellow Democrats for verbalizing what most liberals, both male and female, really think, Hilary Rosen played down the controversy by describing the uproar as — you guessed it — “faux anger.”

Scrambling to make light of the insulting situation, Rosen, who Jay Carney finally admitted visited the White House three dozen times, offered a half-hearted apology by saying “Let’s put the faux ‘war against stay at home moms’ to rest once and for all.”

How ironic. In an effort to secure the female vote for Barack Obama, a liberal careerist may have unintentionally overplayed the divisive Democrat hand. Rather than guarantee votes for Obama, the combo of class/gender warfare appears to have set back the left’s “divide and conquer” effort, and from the looks of things it may have even managed to re-galvanize varied groups the left had successfully pitted against each other in the past.

Still, damage control has not curtailed other candid liberal women from speaking out. Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), disregarded Hilary Rosen being censured for her comments and poured salt on a wound the Democrats have been trying to heal for days.

And even though every Democrat from DNC pit bull Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Michelle “Every woman deserves to be respected” Obama have voiced “faux” dissatisfaction with Hilary Rosen making her stay-at-home-moms observation, arbiter of the right to choose and “equality for all women.”  Terry O’Neill, felt it was necessary to underscore Hilary Rosen’s original premise on the misogynist Ed Schultz’ MSNBC  The Ed Show.  Speaking on behalf of women, Terry O’Neill attacked Mrs. Romney for not having to work at a “salaried” job.

The NOW president suggested that because Mitt Romney was successful in business and because his wife chose to “work” inside rather than outside the home, neither Mitt nor Ann have the “kind of life experience” or the “imagination” to relate to what American families go through. Therefore, it’s apparently the opinion of some liberal women that the Romneys are a “faux” American family.

If the left ever hopes to successfully separate Americans into categorical groups that despise one another again, people like Hilary Rosen, Terry ‘NOW’ O’Neill and Maxine Waters (D-CA) — who referred to the presumptive Republican nominee as “Mitt Rot-ney” — had best zip it. However, because they all lack the necessary decorum to do so, it’s highly unlikely they will.

Instead, based on what Democrats esteem, it appears that in 2012 the left is planning to elevate Barack Obama by advancing the notion that living on food stamps, making bi-annual visits to Planned Parenthood, and introducing yourself to people on the welfare line demonstrates the type of valor and visionary status both Mitt and Ann Romney lack.

If liberals are planning to gather unto themselves the votes of women by demeaning stay-at-home mothers and suggesting that raising children limits “life experience” and “imagination,” divide-and-conquer Democrats may be making a huge political mistake.

Try as they might to advance the cause, undisciplined mouthpieces like NOW’s Terry O’Neill and frequent White House visitor Hilary Rosen only underscore the notion that the same Democrats who base the value of human life on a woman’s choice also base a woman’s worth on the size of her paycheck which, quite frankly, sends a message to America that is contrary to the one Democrats originally intended.  And that message is that it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have declared war on women.

 

The Truth about Trig, Tripp and Tim Tebow

Without a doubt, on Super Bowl Sunday, the liberal left will anoint football great Tim Tebow the second most despised person in America, exceeded only by Sarah Palin.  The Heisman trophy winner, together with the ex-governor of Alaska will bear the guilt for putting a human face on millions of aborted babies — none of whom the choice lobby care to acknowledge.

Just a few weeks ago, Down’s syndrome child Trig Palin a chubby, joyful toddler showed up alongside nephew Tripp on the InTouch Weekly cover. Like Trig, Tripp was spared from a biohazard bag when born to his teenage, unwed mother Bristol.  Adding insult to injury, the Sarah Palin story included the distasteful title, “We’re glad we chose life!”

Now, right in the middle of the Super Bowl, while Americans eating nachos and sipping beer anticipate raunchy Go Daddy commercials, pesky Tim Tebow and his obnoxious mother show up and spoil the party with an “anti-abortion commercial.”

First Sarah brings Trig and her pregnant, unwed daughter to the RNC convention.  Then, wild-eyed, religious fanatic Tim Tebow, together with Focus on the Family plan to ruin the fun by recounting the miraculous story of Tim’s birth.  If abortion activists fail to get the ad pulled from the Super Bowl ad line up, Pro-choice America may be forced to admit people actually do “Celebrate Family and Life” and Trig, Tripp and Tim prove it.

Given the option to choose death after being told her baby might be imperfect, Pam Tebow like Sarah, laid aside self-interest and chose to relinquish the role of God– both women chose life.  The result of that decision was a healthy newborn that grew into “one of the greatest college football players who ever lived.”  America doesn’t want to face a reality like that, especially when air time would better serve an ad for Victoria’s Secret.

Jembu Green, president of the NY-based Women’s Media Center feels, “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together.”   Is it Jembu Green’s contention that dead fetuses somehow make a national sports event a unifying experience?

Tim’s nationally televised homage to his mother for letting him live must be stopped!  Why? Because Erin Matson, the Action VP for the National Organization for Women is offended. Matson expressed her opinion about the controversial ad by saying, “It is hate masquerading as love.  It sends a message that abortion is always a mistake.”  And who would know better than an abortion advocate like Ms. Matson about “love” and “masquerades”?  Isn’t Erin a representative of a group that promotes murder as choice?

Rest assured America, the only thing worse for pro-choicers than watching a pro-life ad on Super Bowl Sunday would be spotting Sarah Palin, Trig and Tripp in the crowd smiling and having a spectacular time.

%d bloggers like this: