According to poll results tweeted by CNBC last night, 56 percent of viewers herald Paul Ryan as the winner of the first and only vice-presidential debate, and only 36 percent determined Biden the champ.  Yet, due to Vice President Biden’s rousing display of eccentric claims, this morning, mainstream media outlets are calling the debate a draw.

In truth, the winner of this debate depends on who you ask.

Women took note that in this debate a wide-range of issues important to us were brought to the table.  After last week’s presidential debate failed to focus on abortion or religious liberty, it was heartening to hear both Biden and Ryan respect the sanctity of life.  But it was Ryan who came across as steadfast on faith and the need to protect life, “Our faith informs us in everything we do.  My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life.  Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life?  It’s not
simply because of my Catholic faith.  That’s a factor, of course.  But it’s also because of reason and science. … I believe life begins at conception.”

But the major sticking point for women in this debate had more to do with style than actual substance.  Vice President Biden’s unprecedented strategy called for 82 interruptions, eye-rolling, and laughing during serious discussion of the War Against Terror.  Not the type of behavior voters found flattering to America’s second in command.

Women were unconvinced by Biden’s over-the-top antics.  All of the women on a CNN post-debate panel criticized Biden’s rude behavior and condescending tone.  Though Ryan remained composed, he was not short of quips and snarky remarks, going so far as to say, “I know you are under duress to make up for lost ground, but I think people would be better served if we don’t interrupt each other.”

Undecided voters, too, found Biden’s tone unprofessional.  Every undecided women participating in a CNN focus-group panel criticized Biden for his distasteful manner.  One undecided woman commented, “I thought Paul Ryan … was trying to educate us, teach us, until Joe Biden would bumble in and tried to distort things by overriding him, talking, and being a buffoon in general.”  Another undecided North Carolina voter, Nella Stevens, commented, “I’m not totally decided, but the vice presidential debate has swayed me toward Romney/Ryan.”  When Stevens was asked how she graded the candidates, she answered, “C– for Biden , if for no other reason than rudeness and aggression; B+ for Ryan for poise, articulate answers, calmness and overall good sportsmanship.”

Overall, many believe Ryan could have aggressively tackled Biden’s points with potency, but his restrained attitude showed a humility and respect not normally seen in politicians.  Ryan’s strategy was simple.  Knowing his off-the-cuff attitude, Ryan let the truth shine through facts and statistics and sit back and allowed Biden to self-destruct.  American women and undecided voters needed to see steady, consistent leadership.

Apparently, those who saw the debate via split screen opined that Ryan won, while those who watched the debate without a split screen labeled the debate a draw.

One of them is Reagan. The other one would like to be.

After the “shellacking,” what will President Obama have to say about the State of our Union?  He gives his annual report tonight.

President Reagan made Americans feel proud of our country.  President Obama makes Americans feel obliged to defend our country (from him).  In his inauguration speech, his stated vision was to “remake America.”  Since then, we’ve gotten a glimpse of what he wants to make us into — and Americans rejected his view of America this last election.

While his messaging since then gives the appearance that he gets what Americans want, his policies and agenda have yet to change.  People are more savvy now and won’t be fooled by a cloak of rhetoric that covers the old agenda of big-government-by-regulation, disrespecting American Exceptionalism, promoting sexual identity politics, or empty words about “reducing abortion.”

President Obama will face a new Congress and public, both who are extremely sensitive to Constitutional limits and fearful of government spending.  Americans are unified, and ready for politicians to cut spending, reduce government, and quit vilifying political opponents — three items, by the way, of which the opposite mark President Obama’s career and his last State of the Union, when he pushed ObamaCare and unfairly criticized the Supreme Court justices sitting in front of him.

President Obama has an advantage this year in that it is no secret what Americans want and what the majority in Congress recognize is their mandate.  But like Reagan, his audience will not trust without verifying.

President Obama will have to prove through his actions that he will reduce government spending, promote and defend America to the outside world, stop funding abortion, and respect the Constitution and our religious heritage.

Various papers and opinions that Elena Kagan wrote in the past are now surfacing and they shed light on her liberal social views.  That’s alarming to us at Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.

I’ve just released the following statement on those papers and opinions, and I thought you might like to read it:

“As we suspected, President Obama nominated a far left liberal who supports both abortion and ‘gay marriage.’ Besides her disdain for the military and choosing to adhere to her own views rather than the Constitution and what is best for the security of our country, Elena Kagan has also demonstrated her distain for the unborn, the most vulnerable in our society.

“We believe Americans want a justice who will uphold the rule of law regardless of their personal views or leanings, especially the basic freedom of the right to life and the value of traditional marriage. We urge the Senate to oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan.”

Do you ever wonder WHO those insane judges are that believe sexual predators are only sick and should thus not be given maximum sentences?  I think those judges are unfit to rule.  However, President Obama apparently wants to give one a promotion.

Michael Ross, in a documentary on serial killers, describes how he tied up 14-year-old Leslie Shelley, put her in the trunk of his car, and “took the other girl, April Bernaise [also 14] out and I raped her, and killed her, and I put her in the front seat.”  He said he killed eight girls, ages 14-25, and if he wasn’t caught, he’d still be killing.

It was of this man that Robert Chatigny, a U.S. District Judge in Connecticut, said: “[Michael Ross] never should have been convicted.  Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death.”  Then Chatigny fought to stop Mr. Ross’ execution — twice — and was both times overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Robert Chatigny is President Obama’s latest nominee to the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals, a lifetime appointment spot and can be a stepping stone to the Supreme Court (the 3^nd Circuit is where Justice Alito once sat).  If President Obama thinks his nominees are all fine and good, then why shouldn’t the American people?  Obviously for lots of reasons.

To even think of a judge sitting on one of the highest courts in the land who so clearly sides with a serial killer and rapist rather than with the women — or merely the facts of the case — is nauseating.

Chatigny was grilled by Republican Senators recently in his Judiciary Committee hearing.  Only one Democrat Senator showed up, and she asked no hard questions of the rapist defender.  Here’s a shocking video from the hearing, interspersed with an interview from Michael Ross himself on how he killed and raped his victims.

President Obama needs to withdraw Robert Chatigny’s nomination immediately.  I truly hope that the feminist groups join in CWA’s opposition to this nominee.  Anyone who claims to defend women has a responsibility to join us!  Contact your Senators and tell them to vote “NO” on Chatigny’s confirmation.

<Recent media reports have indicated that Elena Kagan, when she worked under President Bill Clinton (D), urged him to support the partial-birth abortion ban, a supposedly “pro-life” amendment.  To the contrary, the actual amendment was a fake, meant only to swindle Congress and the public into weakening a ban on partial-birth abortion.

It was all just a political stunt.  In a 1997 memo, Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, advised President Clinton to support then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle’s (D-South Dakota) compromise to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban for political reasons.  The ban on partial-birth abortion was strongly supported by Congress and the public, and Clinton risked having his veto overridden, a move that would hurt him politically.

Kagan and Reed could not have been clearer:

“We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on H.R. 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto,” they wrote.

Presented as a “compromise,” Daschle’s ban on aborting viable babies had a loophole so large than it wouldn’t ban anything.  In fact, the title of a Washington Times article said just that: “Daschle Bill May Not Ban Anything.”

Just like Obama’s health care bill, Daschle’s amendment was kept secret, but the Washington Times was able to get a copy.  It found that the bill would allow abortionists to decide whether or not they broke the law.  The abortionist would decide if the baby was viable and if the pregnancy would harm the woman.

Way to put the weasel in charge of watching the hen house Mr. Daschle!  Late-term abortions cost quite a hefty fee — at least $2,000 at some clinics.  Abortionists aren’t to going give up a profit for the life of the baby.

Infamous late-term abortionist Warren Hern told the Washington Times, “I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s life and could cause ‘grievous injury’ to her ‘physical health.’”

Even if the baby was viable and the mother was healthy, under the Daschle amendment, the abortionist could commit a partial-birth abortion and face no criminal penalty.  He could possibly be fined or have his license suspended.  However, he would not risk the kind of criminal penalty that would come from doing the same thing to a fully born human being — or animal.

Thankfully, the Daschle amendment was defeated.  And in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a true ban on partial-birth abortion.

Another example of Kagan giving bad — and unsuccessful — political and legal advice.

With a Supreme Court nominee coming any day now from President Obama, Concerned Women for America sent a letter today encouraging the President to pick a Justice who will uphold the Constitution and not lean on “empathy” or “feelings” when deciding the law.

“We pray you would choose a nominee that makes all Americans feel proud.  At a time when the political chasm between citizens seems to be expanding at an alarming rate, such an admirable move would certainly do a lot to bring us back together and rally for the common purpose of doing what is best for America,” reads the letter.

And we also released an executive memo outlining our concerns, and those of our members, with the top prospects for nominees.

We have serious concerns about all of these nominees and the ideology driving the search behind picking the proper candidate.  President Obama has given conservatives no reason to trust that he will do the right thing.  He has articulated a judicial philosophy that not only allows but expects a judge to decide cases based on what he “feels” is right, instead of the law.

The memo states that “this idea is so preposterous that even his own Supreme Court nominee, Justice Sotomayor, rejected it at her confirmation hearings.  ‘We apply law to facts.  We don’t apply feelings to facts,’ she said, distancing herself from the President’s ideology.”

See the memo here.  Read it yourselves, and feel free to distribute the link around.

Here are CWA, we are following the nomination process closely and will update you with all the latest news as it comes in.