The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
Print Email
Text Size

Political Hay

Obama’s Candy

By on 10.17.12 @ 6:10AM

With a little help from the moderator, the president returns to his “energetic” pandering and deceptions.

“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Obama craved more credit from the moderator, Candy Crowley, for her correction to Mitt Romney that the president had in fact used the word “terror” a day after the killing of his ambassador in Libya. “He did, in fact, sir,” Crowley said to Romney.

Obama savored his “victory” in that round, but it was a hollow and disturbing one. Either he already knew it was an act of premeditated terrorism — in which case he proceeded to lie for two weeks about that on The View, David Letterman, and at the UN — or that generalized Rose Garden reference to an “act of terror” simply meant a spontaneous act of terror by demonstrators worked up about a YouTube video, in which case he was demanding credit from Crowley for nothing more than incompetence and cluelessness.

A master of detail for most of the debate, Romney slipped up on that one by forgetting the Rose Garden reference. That was his one unforced error. But that minor moment of memory loss isn’t nearly as disturbing as a president who works harder at debate prep than embassy security and who blames a national humiliation on a “spontaneous demonstration” that didn’t even occur.

At the very least, his administration’s utterly fictitious account of what happened in Libya stands as a symbol of this administration’s colossal incompetence. At worst, it reveals staggering political deception, a willingness to lie about national security for the sake of winning an election.

A serious and vigilant media would have spent the post-debate analysis discussing that grave matter rather than purring over Obama’s cheaply made points. Who cares if Obama prepared better for this debate? He is still dissembling on an issue central to his duties.

He worked hard to play the Alpha Male at the debate, though he couldn’t quite pull the role off, retreating to his seat once when Romney got too close. Hillary Clinton does not wear the pants in his administration, he insisted. “She works for me,” he declared petulantly. Perhaps Hillary should sue him under the Lilly Ledbetter Act. She is making unequal pay and taking unequal blame for equal incompetence.

Pandering to single women remains Obama’s chief strategy, judging by this debate. His vision of America is that of the “Life of Julia,” a cradle-to-grave existence of radical individualism bankrolled by a paternalistic federal government. How that form of patriarchy represents an advance for “liberated” women is a matter he never bothers to explain. “Women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family,” he proudly announced, with his administration as the substitute husband, to whom they can turn for “free contraceptives,” food stamps, and college grants. His grandmother hailed from a heartier generation of women, he inadvertently acknowledged (a generation “that didn’t complain,” he said), while suggesting that the Sandra Flukes stand taller and stronger than them. Obama’s “empowerment” of women consists of turning them into wards of the state.

The triviality of Obama’s campaign is stunning: to hear him talk in the debate one would think the greatest crisis facing America is the loss of government subsidies to Big Bird and abortionists at Planned Parenthood. Equally terrifying, according to Obama, is the prospect of women paying for their own birth control pills. This is a “pocket book issue” for them, he said in one of his more ludicrous demagogic stretches of the night.

Nobody bothered to mention that stupid federal regulations like the Lilly Ledbetter Act — which is nothing more than a PC decree that businesses pay women more money than men for less work — are a drag on the economy and guarantee fewer jobs for both men and women. Obama’s answer to the anemic recovery is more of the same and maybe a wind farm job for “Jeremy,” the first questioner, in a generation or so.

About the Author

George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (94) |

drudge ette obama| 10.17.12 @ 6:45AM

Obama's Big Bird reference fell like a lead dropping from the Birg Bird - which is saying a lot. I wished that he would have talked more about contraception because it is so stupid an issue in these times and he sounds like he thinks people must be controlled in their reproductive behaviour, like the squirrels which the government is now considering feeding contraceptives to stop their excessive breeding - oh, the sounds like Planned Parenthood, doesn't it?

TLP| 10.17.12 @ 1:56PM

I accidentally landed on one of the Channels that was playing The Candy Crowley Show, and there was vtwin's "Nigga" (that's what vtwin calls him on this site) defending Windmills and Energy from the Sun, as "Energy Sources of the Future".

As I recall............These are Energy Sources of the Past. But then, Everyday is Opposite Day, with the Left.

They want to take us back to The Middle Ages where The King owned enerything, and the people merely lived to Serve His Wishes.

They want to Strip us of our Liberties and our Freedoms in order to Create a More Perfect Union of Slave and Master - circa 1917.

As Mao took his people FORWARD, back to an Agrarian Peasant way of life? Our Leader wishes to take us FORWARD, back to the days of Sailing Ships and Community Gardens. Wind and Water Powered Grain Mills, like the ones used by Ancient Rome.

FORWARD, back to Standing in Long Lines for a chance to buy something to eat, at the Government Store, with its Empty Shelves.

If he ever gets his Dreams from his Muslim Marxist Whore Chasing Father? He will open our Gates to the Visigoths, and the World will move FORWARD, once again, Back to The Dark Ages.

Period.

It's not even debatable.

Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 10.17.12 @ 4:30PM

If the GOP ticket wins but Ryan dies in office, then Romney becomes president?

Appleby| 10.17.12 @ 6:48AM

The problem with Obama's talking points (besides the fact that we've heard them so often we can sing the chorus along with him) is that his "facts" are so easily checked. In the focus group afterwards, the moderator asked how many had a family member who had been unemployed in the last year, or had himself been unemployed, and 2/3 of the group raised hands. People who have been unemployed (and I am one, and my sister is another) know what things have been like since he has been in charge.

drudge ette obama| 10.17.12 @ 6:51AM

You are right, jobs was the main issue and Romney won it on that. You know Romney will work on the issue - you know Obama won't; instead, he will keep on with his agenda....

benny havens| 10.17.12 @ 7:20AM

When Obama said that gas was $1.87 a gallon when he took office because we were on the brink of collapse, then the price per gallon today should be $.47.

Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 10:28AM

I found that odd as well. Using Obama's logic gas was cheaper because the economy was about to collapse. Now that the economy is crawling along it is more expensive? Just before that he stated price is based on the global market. Which is it, Mr. President, based on the global market or our economy?

PolishKnight| 10.17.12 @ 12:54PM

Or another way of putting it: his logic is pregnant with the presumption that a good economy means more expensive gasoline so he's promising 'good times' in the future that even if the economy improves, we'll be paying more. Great...

drudge ette obama| 10.17.12 @ 6:48AM

When Obama mentioned (with trepidation as if he didn't want to go down that road but he had opened his mouth) that woman were the majority breadwinners, my first thought was about the decline of men in this country and their important role. Men, like Obama, have been nuetralized into the metrosexuals. What we see with Mitt Romney and Obama is a man and boy a worker versus a taker/freeloader, an accomplished person versus an affirmative action whiner.

PolishKnight| 10.17.12 @ 12:56PM

What a joke. Nearly all women "head of households" still require assistance from either men or the government in the form of welfare, "child" support, or the man living up to the breadwinner role and this is even with affirmative action and quotas.

John786| 10.17.12 @ 7:01AM

"binders full of women". Pure comic gold that will last well after Halloween.

Truth to Power| 10.17.12 @ 9:03AM

And those (wives) you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. (Qur'an 4:34, Arberry)

This is what you were looking for John.

John786| 10.17.12 @ 9:45AM

The exegesis, of religious text, is a very subtle matter. Its best left to the experts. The Quranic reference to - beat- refers to a symbolic showing of displeasure before the disliked final act of divorce. And should not be confused with literally beating someone. The Quranic doctrine as is the universal doctrine is to save a marriage. Physically beating someone would not help is preserving marriage/ relationships.

C. Vernon Crisler | 10.17.12 @ 9:55AM

So take Romney literally, but take the Koran symbolically. I see.

Boar Hunter| 10.17.12 @ 10:54AM

First, being of divine origin, shouldn't this Qur'an of yours be capable of conveying "Allah's" instructions so even a man of simple intellect could follow them?

Your claim that the text requires "experts" to provide the "exegesis" is simply your way of saying you need someone smart enough to concoct a suitable lie about it's clear instructions.

To begin with, the verse does not refer to an openly rebellious wife, rather the simple "fear" by the husband that she may become rebellious. I find this part most troubling, as the standard is all in the mind of the husband and requires no actual offense by the wife.

Second, the verse calls for ALL three of the following actions to be taken which are to (1) admonish (2) banish them to their couches and (3) beat them.

It would seem to me that admonishing my wife would serve nicely in the "symbolic showing of displeasure" category and the only way I would ever be able to "banish" my wife to her couch would be to beat her, which I would never do.

Claiming that the direction to "beat" your wife is merely symbolic is absurd. That sir is simply willful ignorance.

If you have to lie (and it is a lie when you knowingly do it) about what your Qur'an instructs, maybe it's time you opened your eyes to the evil of this book and turned your heart over to the one true God and his one son Jesus who is the only way to salvation.

My God is a God of love and truth. He would never lie to me or require me to lie on his behalf.

Al Adab| 10.17.12 @ 11:07AM

Just as we read the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek so should we read the Koran in Arabic. The opriginal language is always best. Many concepts and nuances do not translate clearly especially true about English for some reason.

Boar Hunter| 10.17.12 @ 11:19AM

Pretty please. As I do value your opinion, may I have your insight on beating your wife as directed by "(Qur'an 4:34, Arberry)"?

Boar Hunter| 10.17.12 @ 11:41AM

"Its best left to the experts."

Pickthall: "and scourge them"
Yusuf Ali: "(And last) beat them (lightly)"
Al-Hilali/Khan: "(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)"
Shakir: "and beat them"
Sher Ali: "and chastise them"
Khalifa: "then you may (as a last alternative) beat them"
Arberry: "and beat them"
Rodwell: "and scourge them"
Sale: "and chastise them"
Asad: "then beat them"
Dawood: "and beat them."

Here's Aisha Bewley's version of Quran 4:34:

"Men have charge of women because Allah has preferred the one above the other and because they spend their wealth on them. Right-acting women are obedient, safeguarding their husbands’ interests in their absence as Allah has guarded them. If there are women whose disobedience you fear, you may admonish them, refuse to sleep with them, and then beat them. But if they obey you, do not look for a way to punish them. Allah is All-High, Most Great."

Boar Hunter| 10.17.12 @ 11:47AM

As a side note:

Chastise | ch asˈtīz|
verb [ trans. ]
rebuke or reprimand severely : he chastised his colleagues for their laziness.
• dated punish, esp. by beating.

Scourge |skərj|
noun
1 historical a whip used as an instrument of punishment.
2 a person or thing that causes great trouble or suffering : the scourge of mass unemployment.
verb [ trans. ]
1 historical whip (someone) as a punishment.
2 cause great suffering to : political methods used to scourge and oppress

Truth to Power| 10.17.12 @ 12:30PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H754R9tX2UY

Here is a fellow that understands that subtle beating stuff really well.

If you don't like that guy, how about this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n46VlDTBaOA

Thank God for MEMRI, otherwise we would only have liars like John666 to listen to.

spike59| 10.18.12 @ 5:59AM

Physically beating someone would not help is preserving marriage/ relationships.
=================================
but killing one's own daughter for being with an 'unacceptable' suitor is just 'hunky-dory?'

C. Vernon Crisler | 10.17.12 @ 9:54AM

Everyone of course realizes that Romney was referring to dossiers on women, not to literal women. Only a wooden literalist would make any hay of Romney's comments.

Boar Hunter| 10.17.12 @ 11:00AM

Funny, isn't it?

For liberals;

Many wives by Mormons (which would be an anomaly today) = bad.
Many wives by Muslims (still practiced) = fine and dandy.

Al Adab| 10.17.12 @ 4:12PM

Of course, moral relativism and situational ethics.

Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 10:57AM

Yea, that line was almost as funny as this one.
"one of the commitments I made when I was president. That's creating tens of thousands of jobs all across the country."

That was Obama replying about creating jobs using the past tense. Even he knows he is going to lose this election.

Stan Redmond| 10.17.12 @ 12:50PM

57 states, inhilator, Tonsiles and feet being removed, corpsemen, ability to see KIA, police acted stupidly, energy prives necassarily skyrocket.

Comedy gold...

CJW| 10.17.12 @ 1:43PM

John
Almost as funny as shooting a 14 year old girl in the head.
Only a muslim would interpret that the way you did. Not used to women working in responsible jobs, are you?

John786| 10.17.12 @ 7:10AM

"binders full of women"- is that a Mormon thing. This is so funny I'm going to die of a heart attack.

Roscoe| 10.17.12 @ 7:24AM

If only we could be so lucky.

KennesawJack| 10.17.12 @ 8:39AM

That was just another liberal empty promise, wasn't it?

Stan Redmond| 10.17.12 @ 12:50PM

57 states, inhilator, Tonsiles and feet being removed, corpsemen, ability to see KIA, police acted stupidly, energy prives necassarily skyrocket.

Comedy gold...

spike59| 10.18.12 @ 6:01AM

"binders full of women"- is that a Mormon thing.
=================================
dunno...you tell me, are morgues full of women who dared to speak up for themselves and make their own choices-is that a Muslim thing? sure seems to be; however, nobody is laughing

supremecourtlegislator| 10.17.12 @ 7:16AM

There was a man with such an air
That they said he was an empty chair.
Empty head, empty heart,
And the scariest part--
They weren't empty and what was there.

Who is he who can tell all these lies
Who flip-flops right before our eyes?
To himself he repeats,
"I'm the prince of deceits.
President is my disguise."

Boar Hunter| 10.17.12 @ 11:01AM

A worthy golf clap to you sir!

Roscoe| 10.17.12 @ 7:32AM

Mr. Neumayr, even here, you are propagating the myth sir. In your second par. you write that Obama referred to "..an "act of terror"...". No, he did not, and by you indicating it above, I think you muddy the issue even further. What he said that day was "No acts of terror..", so you see, his reference was even more general than you make it sound by your words above. I think it's an important distinction to get right in the retelling.

Joellen| 10.17.12 @ 7:44AM

RIGHT ON ROSCOE - keep the narrative right. You see, everytime they utter a lie - be in their face and correct them, and if you can, do it in a crowd. Embarrass (if that's even possible in this day) them with the truth.

Anthony| 10.17.12 @ 8:07AM

No matter, despite Crowley's girth, Obozo still could not hide from the American people. He's still the same empty suit.
What a mench we have as president; he started the day hiding behind Madam Hillary's pant suit with her having to take the heat for Lybia.
He ended the day pretending to be Harry Truman, but making sure Crowley did her best pulling guard routine, in order to protect our affirmative action, light in the loafers president, from being tackled.
The campaign had better be over soon, Obozo is running out of women to hide behind.

Von Mises Jr| 10.17.12 @ 8:30AM

To top it off, Barry blamed the girl (Hillary) while he tells us the Republicans have a "War on Women."
The buck stops with Obama whom admitted he was clueless. But the girl he is hiding behind in Hillary is among the most incompetent women in American politics with the Cattle Futures $100K return on a $1K investment, Travel gate, File gate, Rose Law Firm Billing Records, HillaryCare, covering Bubba's bimbo eruptions blaming a right-wing conspiracy and now four dead Americans blood on her hands.

And Bubba Crowley got it all wrong on the Rose Garden comment proving she is also a moron. She was rude and obnoxious to boot.

No wonder with girls like that, Obama is alleged to be light in the loafers.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.17.12 @ 8:36AM

My thoughts exactly. Fortunately for his narrow behind, between Candy Crowley and Hillary, there has been ample cover and concealment for him to duck behind.

KennesawJack| 10.17.12 @ 8:42AM

I'm still waiting for the definitive answer as to why most lefty women are so damned homely. I just had this visual of Crowley, Behar, and Mitchell. Whoops! There went breakfast!

Von Mises Jr| 10.17.12 @ 9:39AM

Perhaps they are the only women who will endure liberal a$$hole men treating women like yesterday's lunch.
Conservative women shun these ignorant and obnoxious leftist guys. What is to like? Who wants to buddy up with a lazy mooch?

KennesawJack| 10.17.12 @ 1:48PM

aaaaaaaaaaah!

KennesawJack| 10.17.12 @ 1:52PM

Above was in response to Cobalt. I'm getting spammed a lot today, guys. What's up with that?

Al Adab| 10.17.12 @ 4:15PM

Jack, Jr.:
The lowing herd perhaps?

Cobalt| 10.17.12 @ 9:48AM

.....and Rachel Maddow.

TinaB| 10.17.12 @ 9:59AM

Don't forget Babs.

KennesawJack| 10.17.12 @ 1:50PM

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Von Mises Jr| 10.17.12 @ 3:10PM

At least Rachael Mad Cow had this right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....e=youtu.be

Warrior| 10.17.12 @ 10:30AM

Please don't forget Madeline "Notso" Albright, Jonathan Reno, Debbie Doberman Schultz, Marxine Waters, etc. and so forth.

Boar Hunter| 10.17.12 @ 11:08AM

Debbie "Doberman" Schultz!

He shoot's, he scores! The crowd go's wild!!!

High fives to you sir! I also think we need to augment the use of Rachel Madcow with Candy Cowly as they are both part of the herd of mindless mooing drones.

Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 12:07PM

I believe that particular herd is afflicted with Mad Cows disease.

spike59| 10.18.12 @ 6:03AM

coulda been a three pointer with 'Derpie Doberman Schultz'...

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.17.12 @ 2:17PM

Janet Napolitano...

Michael S| 10.22.12 @ 6:29PM

Don't you mean Janet Incompetano?

CJW| 10.17.12 @ 2:56PM

You mean Madeline Halfbright?
Debbie Doberman Schulz, now that is funny.

Derek Leaberry| 10.17.12 @ 8:08AM

A large chunk of the undecideds are the vapid dingbats who leave college filled with a feminist contempt for the patriarchy but poorly educated in anything important. Obama knows these sorry excuses for modern womanhood and wants their votes.

Mike G| 10.17.12 @ 8:12AM

"At worst, it reveals staggering political deception, a willingness to lie about national security for the sake of winning an election."

If you think the lies are bad, just wait. The "wag the dog" option is still on the table and gaining traction.

KennesawJack| 10.17.12 @ 8:44AM

Mike, I'm afraid you're right on this but I don't think it will work this time. The left will go balistic if he initiates military action of any kind, anywhere. Conservatives wouldn't vote for this bastard if he nuked Tehran tomorrow. So, won't help him a bit.

TLP| 10.17.12 @ 8:49AM

I accidentally landed on one of the Channels that was playing The Candy Crowley Show, and there was vtwin's "Nigga" (that's what vtwin calls him on this site) defending Windmills and Energy from the Sun, as "Energy Sources of the Future".

As I recall............These are Energy Sources of the Past. But then, Everyday is Opposite Day, with the Left.

They want to take us back to The Middle Ages where The King owned enerything, and the people merely lived to Serve His Wishes.

They want to Strip us of our Liberties and our Freedoms in order to Create a More Perfect Union of Slave and Master - circa 1917.

As Mao took his people FORWARD, back to an Agrarian Peasant way of life? Our Leader wishes to take us FORWARD, back to the days of Sailing Ships and Community Gardens. Wind and Water Powered Grain Mills, like the ones used by Ancient Rome.

FORWARD, back to Standing in Long Lines for a chance to buy something to eat, at the Government Store, with its Empty Shelves.

If he ever gets his Dreams from his Muslim Marxist Whore Chasing Father? He will open our Gates to the Visigoths, and the World will move FORWARD, once again, Back to The Dark Ages.

Period.

It's not even debatable.

BackToBasics| 10.17.12 @ 9:19AM

That Crowley saying Obam's 9-12 statement that, "Acts of terror will not shake our nation's resolve," was a definitive statement about the terrorism in Bhengazi is TOO convenient. How would she know about that weak and misdirected one-liner burried deep in his speech and turn around to use it as a club against Romney, if she wasn't tipped-off and prepared ahead of time for it?

This was a setup against Romney since democrats knew Republicans had been mentioning this correctly prior to the debate. Crowley was in on the setup. Only later she goes on CNN to partially admit she made a mistake and Romney was correct.

Secondly, Clinton taking the fall about lax Bhengazi security today so that Obam could take the high-ground to "rescue" Clinton now also looks like a setup to make Obam look good.

gene| 10.17.12 @ 9:20AM

This woman has done a great service to Romney. Thee topic of discussion at the last debate? Foreign Affairs.
President Obama will not have her huge derriere to hide behind and when he chokes his way through that topic, Fast and Furious will be right there behind it. Hundreds of Mexican Citizens dead from automatic weapons that his DOJ sold to Mexican Drug Cartels. The last debate will be historical.

Who Knows?| 10.17.12 @ 9:32AM

Who knows?

Could be.

I don’t know what it is,

But it is

Going to be

GREAT!

Leathersmith| 10.17.12 @ 9:35AM

Best line of the debate: Obama to Romney-
"Yours is bigger than mine."
Okay, maybe the subject was their respective portfolios, but oh how I wish this snippet would be looped and made into a TV ad.

junkyard infidel| 10.17.12 @ 11:52AM

yes...and when bath house barry made that statement, his eyes went directly to romney's crotch ! if you missed it, watch that segment again ! wtf ?

sam1953| 10.17.12 @ 2:51PM

Funny

Al Adab| 10.17.12 @ 9:36AM

Obama attempting to be as boorish as Biden. What a picture. This is the first time in his life he has been forced to defend himself. Instead of running against Bush he has to run against himself. Mentally he cannot do it. He expects all to simply defer to his superiority and the voters aren't buying it this time. What is dangerous is how someone with that mental state might react to rejection.

Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 10:33AM

Al, we saw glimpses of that last night. I was busy in the kitchen and came in to see Obama sitting in his chair all bug eyed with barely concealed anger. Mitt was getting to him and it was all the man-child could do to supress his rage. Lets hope Mitt keeps at him at the next debate and we see Obama totally lose it.

Al Adab| 10.17.12 @ 11:09AM

Let us hope so. I was busy with the Tigers - Yankees game myself. Is Americas' favorite pastime baseball or politics?

Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 12:10PM

Good question. Personally neither are my favorite pasttimes but this is a clean family discussion so far.

TLP| 10.17.12 @ 1:58PM

Penis.

Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 2:12PM

And there goes the party!

Al Adab| 10.17.12 @ 3:25PM

DS:

Not sure what TLP is thinking, but both the others go better with Scotch.

Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 4:15PM

Al, agreed. As well as the activity I was thinking of (before or after, not during). Not sure how what Tim was thinking would go with Scotch (I don't even want to know how) but whaterver floats his boat.

Boar Hunter| 10.17.12 @ 11:14AM

I wonder who's idea it was to have Obama lean toward Romney with that look of incredulousness on his face as depicted on DRUDGE.

They must have figured it was a natural position for Obama as he is always bending over in front of other men and hearing the truth always seems to render him amazed.

Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 2:13PM

I think it might have been the bending over in front of other men in those Chicago bathhouses that gave him that look first.

djn1313| 10.17.12 @ 10:14AM

obama resorted to his teletubbie teleprompter to help him with his LIES

Who Knows?| 10.17.12 @ 10:17AM

Oh, how easy it is to be conned.

After many years since stopping the Rush habit, on August 30th I gave him a listen. Haven’t missed much since.

It’s been edifying to hear him both go with the flow AND try to buck it. From dealing with a Tom Brokaw saying Martians need to invade to give Romney a win, to now, when he actually believes not only that he will win, but that it might be a blowout.

Also, reading the articles and comments on this site have contributed to a feeling that Mitt WILL win.

And yet---Intrade is down to 36% for Romney, and my financial advisor’s economic model STILL predicts Obama, but down to a 136 electoral vote margin.

For you sport’s fans out there, I have a story. In the 2006 Super Bowl, the refs gave the Steelers the victory over the Seahawks. The referee admitted, in 2010---

“Leavy didn’t specify which calls he botched, but several seemed to go against the Seahawks, including a goal-line play just before halftime where Seattle’s defense appeared to have Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger stopped short, but it was ruled a touchdown. A first-quarter touchdown pass from Matt Hasselbeck to Darrell Jackson where the Seattle receiver was called for pass interference also was questioned.

However, Leavy apparently was referring to offensive tackle Sean Locklear’s holding call in the fourth quarter as the Seahawks were going in for the go-ahead score, down 14-10.”

Who Knows?| 10.17.12 @ 10:17AM

Obama is the Steelers, and we all know who the refs are.

Obama can’t lose.

spike59| 10.18.12 @ 6:05AM

you mean the 'Intrade' that predicted the SCOTUS was going to overturn ObaMaoScare...THAT 'Intrade?'

djn1313| 10.17.12 @ 10:21AM

If Americans don't know by now that the only job that is important to obama is his own. Without taxpayers' money he would not have accumulated $13mil in personal wealth while in office, have free money to throw lavish WH parties, have free money to golf every other day, free money to send his family all over the world on expensive vacations, or free money so that moochelle can have 100 servants and a million dollar wardrobe.
If he is re-elected it will show just how stupid this country has become.

JP| 10.17.12 @ 11:02AM

It is my impression that voters (even the "squishy middle voters) no longer buy into Obama's song and dance. The President really never caught his stride. How could he? Even with assists the President fell flat on his face for a simple reason: he's the incumbent and not the challgenger. He must defend the indefensible.

HyacinthClare| 10.17.12 @ 1:32PM

Excellent article. BUT... PLEASE, says the old English teacher... paragraph six, next to the last sentence: "...while suggesting that Sandra Flukes stand taller and stronger than THEY," not "them".

Derek Leaberry| 10.17.12 @ 1:48PM

Mitt Romney should be blamed for acceding to the non-Town Hall non-debate. There's nothing in the Constitution that forces debates and the first in the republic's history was in 1960, nearly 175 years ratification of the Constitution. If Romney wanted debates, he should have ignored the Presidential Debate Commission and had his staff negotiate with the Obama Campaign.

As an aside, does anyone think that Candy Crowley would have been more comfortable presiding over the "debate" by snacking on a bag of Pepperidge Farms Chesapeake Chunk Chocolate Chip cookies while the idiot's in the audience asked their questions?

Oldefarte| 10.17.12 @ 1:48PM

This POTUS and his administration are all GD LIARS, and anyone graduating the fifth grade should realize same. They simply do not tell the truth, about anything and about most everything. They lie! Why, for political expediency, that why! Either you believe them or your smart enough to understand their corruption. I hope and pray that its the latter come 11/6/12!!!!!!!!

theyjustcantstop| 10.17.12 @ 3:07PM

this is why candy was there,in my mind,starting probably 3 days ago,the liberal groups,especially the womens,starting raising holy hell about candy not being able to insert herself into the debate,claiming sexism one of the top3 ism's in the the liberal toolbox,i think this was a conserted effort with the whitehouse behind it.
liberals got their way and loosened candy's restrictions.
now,why did she happen to have a transcript,and how did o'bama know she had it,remember o'bama,candy get the transcript.
now not being a over the top black helicoptor guy,but someone who has paid attention to what,and how o'bama does things,did o'bama just before the debate say candy throw this on your desk i may need it later,our was there some comunication between candy,and an o'bama person,who gave her the transcript,or maybe a dozen transcripts, to do a little prep work on before the debate.
the applause,and whooping comming from right side,as your watching at home did as much damage as the under handed crowly move.

Nick| 10.17.12 @ 3:24PM

ATTENTION ALL STINKING LIBERALS WHO INFEST THESE THREADS

Here is the video and transcript of the Appeaser-in-Chief's statement of September 12th, 2012, in the Rose Garden.

Now, stinking libs, here is your task:
Give me a quotation from the transcript, or, a time-stamp from the video, where O'Bama says the atrocity in Benghazi was the result of a terrorist attack.

All he keeps saying is "the attackers," or " these brutal acts," or "this attack," or "this type of senseless violence." He never mentions the word "terror" until the third from last paragraph, and, only once.

I love this stupid comment: "Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on."

O'BAMA LIED LAST NIGHT. Period.

Mark Alesse| 10.17.12 @ 3:55PM

The Dems are so strikingly stupid.

Mark Alesse| 10.17.12 @ 3:54PM

"FIRST…KILL THE MODERATORS"

OK…that wasn't exactly what Shakespeare said, but he would have if he'd seen the last two debates. What on earth makes anyone think that a "journalist" has to moderate the debates? They are always biased for the Democrat, and are almost always not very smart. What's to like about that?

They should never be allowed to interject or pose questions that are statements in disguise. Let the candidates say whatever they want to say. It is their reputations that's on the line. If they dodge the question, so be it. That'll be apparent to the viewers without a "moderator" trying to make them toe the line.

Every question should be a variation on this: "Please tell us what you don't like about your opponent's position on … " (name the issue); "and what would you do that is different?" We don't need any input from the moderator at all, and we'd be better off without it.

Appleby| 10.17.12 @ 4:47PM

If you read the context in which that oft-half-quoted "First Thing We Do..." clip from Shakespeare, you'll discover the origins of Chicago Politics.

hughglass| 10.17.12 @ 10:06PM

Typical of a rotten lib xitch, she lied to protect the first imbecile in front of 50,000,000 people and retracted it in front of 50people on CNN.

BobbyBee| 10.17.12 @ 11:14PM

That Candy was pig food.

More Articles by George Neumayr

More Articles From Political Hay

Holder’s Holdout

May 16, 2013 | Kaylin Bugos

From Bimbos to Benghazi

May 9, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Downsize the Liberals

May 1, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

The Reactionary Republicans

April 30, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Richard Falk and the New American Tories

April 25, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/17/obamas-candy

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|82 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|111 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|48 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|89 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|48 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|13 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

What Does Consequence-Free Sex Cost Us?

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

IRS Sued for Wrongly Seizing 60 Million Medical Records

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Pick Obama's Brain

Paul Kengor | 5.16.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Pray and Grow Rich

Christopher Orlet | 5.16.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.