CWALAC Home
- Visit CWA
- Visit CWPAC
About CWALAC
Take Legislative Action
Legislation
- Elected Officials
- Current Legislation
- Elections
- Media Contacts
News and Information:
- LAC News
- Alerts Archive
- Talking Points
CWA
CWPAC
Project 535
Get Involved
Communicate with Congress
Concerned Women Blog
 
Look Who Showed Up in Second Presidential Debate


Print this
article
The Planned Parenthood President

One thing was clear after the presidential debate last night: President Obama will fight for Planned Parenthood. There can be no question that abortion is his number one issue. Why else would he insist on the promotion of Planned Parenthood so much when the questions had nothing to do with that? Five times he specifically mentioned the organization in questions about pay equity for women, about the difference between Gov. Romney and President Bush and even in the question, "What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012?"

Of course, Planned Parenthood fits there. It was clear he came prepared with his talking points and riling up his extremely liberal base was at the top of his list.

Two Against One

Moderator Candy Crowley did everything she could to assist the president on his quest. Her liberal bent was so evident it could be seen from, well, China (just to stay with the debate theme).

The unofficial minute breakdown immediately following the debate had the President at 43:57 and Romney at 40:58. But Romney had to fight for all his minutes. It seemed all the President had to do was to call "Candy" from the background, and she would do as he pleased. She either give him more time or cut off Gov. Romney.

Crowley selected the questions, and the fix was in. Obama could not have selected better. Take the question on Romney and President Bush, for example:
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, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?

Give me a break. Romney handled it extremely well, but can we at least try to appear credible. She confirmed all the concerns with her selection by those who doubted she could be impartial, given her history, where well placed. No other moment brought that to light more than when she took sides on the Libya debacle.

The Obama administration has lied to the American people, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Period. That is a fact. Yet, she made Romney look like the one lying on the debate. She tried to save it, but the damaged had been done. Her instincts took over, and she came to Obama's rescue.

Bottom line is that the moderator role was miles away from the fair job done by Martha Raddatz in the vice-presidential debate.

Leading from Behind on Libya

Now that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come out to accept the responsibility of the Libya debacle (click here to read more about that), the President has decided to come out and say "No, the buck stopped with me."

He was very forceful in his rhetoric. Problem is that it doesn't match up with the facts. He said he called the attack a terrorist attack the day after the tragedy, yet he and his administration spent almost a week saying it was all because of a YouTube movie. It doesn't add up.

Romney was not as strong on this issue as he should have been. It felt like he was leaving others to continue the scrutiny and as a result he felt into the trap of his two opponents: President Obama and Candy Crowley, disguised as an impartial moderator.

The Diamond in the Rough

It came in an unusual place in a question about gun violence. After talking about things like education and other of the more usual things candidates talk about when discussing this issue, Gov. Romney shined as he said:
But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the -- the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that's not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that's a great idea.
Because if there's a two parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will -- will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity, and bring them in the American system.

The answer was so good, President Obama had to try to ride that wave when he came back up for a rebuttal:
I think that one area we agree on is the important of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these kinds of violent acts.

So maybe that's where the next debate should start. Families matter. I'm sure that will give the President ample chance to make his pro-abortion, Planned Parenthood speech once again.


Send this article to a friend:
  


Top of Page


 

 
 

 

Concerned Women for America
Legislative Action Committee
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806
 
    ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....