Too much Candy!

Too much candy can rot your teeth.  It also can ruin a country.

In a recent appearance on “The View,”  Barack Obama, jokingly told the truth when he said, “I’m just supposed to be ‘eye candy’ here for you guys.”

In Tuesday night’s presidential debate, moderator Candy Crowley did everything possible, short of wearing an Obama button, to help the president win a second term against his more qualified but less sexy opponent.

Americans have become fat and lazy (Crowley included) both physically and politically.  It is a sad fact that far too many of us select a president the way a seven-year-old selects her Barbie doll, on appearance.

In 2008, the majority was wooed by a youthful, good-looking, energetic, slick-talking newcomer who spoke in broad generalities.  I received a letter from a female friend who (obviously) does not read my columns, in which she included a picture of herself proudly wearing an Obama T-shirt.  When I asked her why she voted for Obama she said, “I’m for ‘hope and change.’”   When I asked her what kind of change, she responded, “I don’t know.  I’m not political.”  Oooh!

To say that CNN’s Candy Crowley is a left-leaning partisan is like saying vampires are meat eaters.  I had high hopes that Ms. Crowley would bend over backwards to appear nonpartisan and distinguish herself as the first woman to moderate a presidential debate. That was not the case!  She gave the president more time, jumped in on at least two occasions to help the president and many of the questions she — and only she — selected were right out of Obama’s stump speeches.  She also cleverly avoided most questions on the issues that Romney has been trying to drive home.

Here is just a sample of the questions she selected that were offered by the “undecided” voters on the stage:

Katherine Fenton:  “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?”  (She, of course, was not talking about equal pay for equal work but the feminist notion of “pay equity,” a term Crowley later drove home.)

Susan Katz:  “Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter, because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration.  Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush?”

Lorraine Osorio:  “Mr. Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?”

The very issue that had dominated the news for the last several weeks,  the attempt by the Obama Administration to cover up the terrorist attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, in order to drive home the idea that the president has made the world a safer place, was handled by allowing this question from Kerry Ladka:  “Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?”

This allowed Obama to pull out an effective weapon from the Clinton play book and get indigent.  “And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.”

When the president needed more help, Crowley (wrongly) stepped in and defended his weak claim that, the very next day, he had, indeed, labeled this attack an “act of terror.”

There was not one question on the coverup of the gunrunning operation in Mexico known as “Fast and Furious.”  Instead, we had this from Nina Gonzalez:  “President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. (Automatic weapons were and still are illegal) What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?”

When Romney used the opportunity to bring up Fast and Furious, which was legitimately about automatic weapons, Obama appealed to Crowley so she cut him off:  “Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons (a broad term used by liberals that covers semiautomatic hunting rifles) that once were banned and are no longer banned . . .”

Too much candy deadens the taste buds and spoils the appetite for healthy food.  Too much Candy in this debate, kept the important issues off the table and made serious voters sick to their stomachs.

3 thoughts on “Too much Candy!

  1. The fat lady apparently picked the questions submitted by people too stupid to have figured out long ago that Obaminable is a monster Hell-bent on destroying America…and, so far, succeeding. She helped the Unpresident lie about what happened in Libya. The controlled media had declared the Great Pretender the winner even before the debate began; but the polls tell a different story: Obaminable’s favorable ratings are still slipping. It and its cronies are quite likely to resort to massive vote fraud to win, if they can get away with it, and a false flag terrorist event is possible.
    Regarding the next and final debate, Obaminable may well be so discouraged that it will revert to the somnabulate state of the first debate. More likely, however, is the possibility that, like a cowardly but cornered vicious beast, Obaminable will tell even more lies than before, and make even more savage personal attacks on Rummy. But this is likely to backfire. Something like half of the American sheeple are actually beginning to wake up, and, once they pass a certain point, there will be no turning back.


  2. A great article with more of Jane’s touch of humor in the title – Too Much Candy. Loved it. And thanks for spelling out some of the questions Crawley selected. I did not waste my time, nor challenge my internal sensitivities (Obama makes me sick) by watching that contrived fiasco. With questions intentionally designed to avoid Obama’s failures and not allow Romney to offer his positive solutions for our nation’s turnaround, why bother? Fortunately I have Jane Chastain to sort it out and confirm the summary I had expected. I appreciated her “Barbie Doll selection” analysis and agree 100%. Thanks Jane, I can’t seem to get enough of you – keep up the great work.


  3. Jane, I am personally glad you didn’t “Candy-coat” your assessment of the debate. I am counting on the heat generated to melt away the slick surfaces of anti-constitutional and anti-moral policies and rhetoric and expose the truth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s