Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Crowley shuts down "Fast & Furious" -- on command from Obama (Second Debate: Video and transcript) ^ | 17 OCT 2012 | Crowley & Obama vs Romney

ROMNEY: The — the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to — to gun violence in some respects is what — what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to drug lords. They used those weapons against — against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a — this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can’t imagine. But it’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration. Which I think the American people would like to understand fully, it’s been investigated to a degree, but — but the administration has carried out executive privilege to prevent all of the information from coming out.
I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.

OBAMA: Candy? (save me)
CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.

Romney stops speaking and turns away in disgust, and Øbozo grins like a possum -- because his obedient, overfed, trained attack spaniel has leaped to his rescue -- at his command.

Bias? What bias...?

A Sour Taste of Candy

American Spectator ^ | 10.17.12 | Robert Stacy McCain

The Fat Lady Sings!

Crowley sparks controversy as presidential debate moderator.

If Tuesday night's presidential debate proved nothing else, it demonstrated one thing: CNN's Candy Crowley is definitely not an "uncommitted voter." The moderator's handling of the town-hall debate at Hofstra University was heavy-handed and one-sided throughout, not merely giving more time to President Obama, but repeatedly cutting off Mitt Romney when the Republican attempted to counter accusations from the president.
In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday night's debate, the liberals on MSNBC gave enthusiastic praise to both Obama's performance and Crowley's handling of the debate. Rachel Maddow said the president had given the best debate showing of his entire political career, Ed Schultz said Obama was "stellar" and Chris Matthews was so ecstatic that, as I said on Twitter, he was "wetting his pants in joy, gibbering like a meth freak on laughing gas."Yet Crowley's intervention on the Libya question, which seemed an effort to help Obama, may have actually worsened the president's larger problem. Crowley herself admitted in a CNN post-debate interview that Romney "was right in the main" in his criticism of Obama's handling of the Benghazi attack.
Meanwhile, on Fox News, Charles Krauthammer said that Crowley's "incorrect and unfair" intervention had "contaminated" the debate. By highlighting the Libyan issue and adding a new element of controversy, however, Crowley inadvertently ensured that the administration's failure in Benghazi will be the focus of post-debate news coverage -- which is unlikely to improve Obama's re-election chances.
The facts of the Libyan debacle simply are not in the president's favor, and the final debate -- Monday at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida -- is specifically devoted to foreign policy. The venerable Bob Schieffer of CBS News will host that debate, and is unlikely to repeat Crowley's mistakes...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Limbaugh: 'If There Were Any Journalistic Standards,' Crowley Blew Up Career 'Like a Suicide Bomber'

News Busters ^ | October 17, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

video at link:....

"She committed an act of journalistic terror or malpractice last night. If there were any journalistic standards, what she did last night would have been the equivalent of blowing up her career like a suicide bomber."

So said conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh Wednesday regarding Candy Crowley's shameful behavior during the previous night's presidential debate (video follows courtesy Daily Rushbo with transcript and absolutely no need for additional commentary):

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Study: Negro-Americans Feel Less Empowered Under Obama Than They Once Did!

U.S. News & World Report ^ | October 17, 2012 | Elizabeth Flock

Four years after Barack Obama was elected president, this is not exactly a "post-racial" America.

The study found that while the election of Obama initially boosted feelings of political empowerment among black Americans, those sentiments significantly faded in the years that followed.

"First we saw the 'empowerment effect,' the boost that happens when a member of your group gets elected to an important political position," says study author James L. Gibson, a professor of government and African-American studies at Washington University. Gibson's findings are based on national surveys conducted between 2005 and 2011.
In 2009, the year after Obama was elected, 71 percent of blacks reported feeling as free to speak one's mind as they used to.
"But then perceptions of political freedom deteriorated among conservative and religious blacks," says Gibson. By 2011, the percentage of blacks who felt as free to speak their mind had dropped to 56 percent, back to pre-Obama levels. (White Americans also reported feeling less free to speak one's mind under Obama, but the decline was far less than among blacks).

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Restaurants to mitigate health care costs by cutting hours!

Nation's Restaurant News ^ | October 17, 2012 | Erin Dostal

Operators evaluate money-saving options before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) takes effect.

In light of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, restaurant companies and franchisees are looking into ways to lower costs to save money, including cutting employee hours.
“What we’re seeing is that this health care law puts unique challenges on chain restaurants,” said Rob Green, executive director of the National Council of Chain Restaurants. “The law will have cost implications on a lot of different business sectors, but restaurants and retail are in the bull’s eye.”
Specifically, two parts of the PPACA may raise costs for restaurant chains: The definition of full-time employees as those who work 30 or more hours per week, rather than the traditional 37-40 hours per week, and the fact that the law applies to any business with more than 50 employees — a number some say will discourage franchise growth.
“These are going to be costs, and companies have to figure out how to manage them…the options are limited,” Green said. Many restaurant companies don’t know exactly how the health care law will impact them, he added, so this early analysis may be crucial.
Orlando-based Darden Restaurants Inc., which operates more than 2,000 restaurants under the Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn Steakhouse and other brands, is currently testing limiting some employees to 29.5-hour work weeks in some markets. “This is just a test,” said Rich Jeffers, the casual-dining company’s director of media relations and communications. “This is something we’re trying at some locations…we’re trying to figure out the optimal mix [of employees] for our restaurants.”
Currently, about 75 percent of Darden’s employees are part time and 25 percent are full time, he said. “We’re looking at it now instead of waiting until the eleventh hour,” he noted, adding that Darden had not made any decisions based on the analysis.
Although Darden’s test is, in fact, “just a test,” it shows that restaurant companies are attempting to prepare themselves for added health care costs.
Jimmy John Liautaud, chief executive officer of Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches, spoke Monday on Your World w/ Cavuto on the Fox News Channel about possible ramifications of the health care law.
During the interview with talk show host Neil Cavuto, Liautaud said his company will be forced to cut employee hours as a result of the PPACA. However, Jimmy John’s has not yet reduced hours or raised prices, he said.
“We’re not doing it now,” he said. “But we have to bring [employees] down to 28 hours. There’s no other way we can survive it, because we think it will cost us 50 cents a sandwich.”
Liautaud added, “It’s very expensive just to pay the penalty as well. We have to manage around it.” The penalty for not offering health insurance to employees, he said, is $2,000 per employee. That means if a company has 40 or 50 employees at a specific restaurant location, not offering health care could cost up to $100,000.
At the end of fiscal year 2011, Jimmy John’s owned 1,329 units and franchised 1,303 of them, according to Nation’s Restaurant News’ Top 200 census. Liautaud declined an interview with NRN.
The law may also adversely impact franchisees who want to grow their businesses beyond the 50-employee threshold, said Matthew Haller, vice president of public affairs at the International Franchise Association. “It puts people who want to grow at a disadvantage,” he said. “The costs are very real and very scary.”
Haller added that automating processes to reduce the number of employees at restaurants, as well as limiting hours, are two options franchisees may be exploring.
“I’m not of the opinion that everyone needs to be below 30 hours, because I think it could potentially badly impact the guest experience,” said David Barr, a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchisee who owns 22 locations. He thinks most franchisees aren’t looking at the law closely enough, he added.
One aspect of the law that Barr believes franchisees need to pay more attention to is the “measurement period,” or the time during which employee hours will be measured to determine their status as full time or part time. Barr’s 12-month measurement period begins in January 2013, meaning that he has to start analyzing employee statuses now, he said.
Barr is currently looking at employees who work between 30-33 hours per week and will likely be reducing their hours to below the 30-hour threshold, he said. However, those who work closer to 40 hours per week are likely doing so because they’re great at their jobs, he said. Those employees in particular are the ones Barr hopes to keep for the long haul, and so he will likely not cut back their hours, he noted.
“The law is very specific,” he said. “My recommendation is that people start looking at it now, because it’s going to be too late to get started in January 2014.”

The Obvious Choice

Posted on October 17, 2012 by // Hillbuzz

Like I said last night, the commercials will come out after the debate, and you will see even more Romney ads on the airwaves since we have less than 3 weeks to go. The first two came out right after the debate, the third one was just released in the past hour. My favorite is the second ad.

Which commercial do you like the best?
© 2012, TheTamminator. All rights reserved.

Read more

Read more

Presidential debate: Libya questioner says Obama didn’t answer!

Kerry Ladka stood before President Obama at last night’s town hall-style debate and asked the question that would touch off an onstage verbal brawl and, later, an intense national discussion. 

Here’s how it went:
Q: It’s Kerry, Kerry Ladka.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great to see you here.
Q: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
Was Ladka satisfied with how the president responded? Simply no. “I really didn’t think he totally answered the question satisfactorily as far as I was concerned,” Ladka tells the Erik Wemple Blog.
Jeez, what about the president’s response could possibly have disappointed Ladka? Was it the fact that he started out with a canned talking point, inserted, perhaps, in the hope that the audience will forget the question? Here’s the first part of Obama’s response:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.
Or was it the next part of the president’s response, when he goes bureaucratic, explaining his three-pronged set of instructions to his staff? And since no response in a presidential debate is complete without an attack on your opponent, Obama was careful to then point out that Romney had politicized the tragedy in Benghazi.
Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.
That was all by the way of not answering the question Ladka had placed before him. The president’s clear intent to sidestep Ladka’s inquiry might have prompted activist moderator Candy Crowley to say, Hey, how ‘bout an answer, Mr. President?
President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. “After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.
As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.
Obama’s retail politics left an impression on Ladka:”I appreciate his private answer more than his public answer,” he says. Spoken like a very genuine undecided voter, Ladka says he wasn’t impressed with Romney’s response to the Libya matter, either.
“I like Obama very much but I am very impressed with Romney’s business background,” says Ladka, who’s not saying in which direction he's leaning. Didn’t someone out there say these debates make no difference?
More on Libya from The Washington Post:

Romney defeats both Obama and Crowley at Town Hall

Coach is Right ^ | 10/17/2012 | Doug Book

No one told Mitt Romney that he would be the lone Republican taking part in a three way debate on Tuesday night but, not altogether unpredictably, that’s the way it turned out.

According to debate moderator and part-time participant Candy Crowley, it was “instinct” which forced her to intercede on Obama’s behalf during the somewhat rancorous discussion of the Benghazi murder of Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans. When Romney stated quite correctly that it took the Obama Administration 14 days to call the Benghazi killings a terror attack, Obama protested and Crowley immediately came to his rescue, saying to Romney “he did, in fact, Sir (call it an act of terror,)” referring to a statement given by the president the day after the killings.(1)
What Obama really said was “No acts of terror will...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Candy Crowley’s Debate Moderation Exemplifies Why Americans Do Not Trust Their Media ^ | 8:42 am, October 17th, 2012 | Noah Rothman

On Monday, I wrote that it would be wrong to prejudge CNN host Candy Crowley before she turned in her performance as a debate moderator. Just the week prior, ABC reporter Martha Raddatz was preemptively criticized for inviting President Barack Obama to attend her wedding in the 1990s, but she ended up being a straight moderator who advanced the vice presidential debate admirably. I wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt to Crowley, to not preemptively criticize her before she was worthy of criticism. Well, the verdict is in and criticism is entirely warranted.
My singular take away moment of last night’s debate was one that elevated Crowley from moderator to debate participant. Crowley shot from the hip and echoed a talking point from the Obama campaign regarding their handling of the Libya attack to criticize Mitt Romney mid-debate. What’s more? She was wrong. Crowley did her profession a disservice last night and confirmed many American’s deepest suspicions about the media in the process.

RELATED: Candy Crowley: Romney ‘Right’ That Obama Didn’t Call Libya Terror, But Thought ‘He Picked The Wrong Word’

During the debate, when President Obama was challenged – as his administration has been for weeks – about the White House’s handling of the attacks in Libya, he bristled with indignation over the suggestion that he was taking this attack with anything but the utmost seriousness.
Romney responded by criticizing the president for his administration’s efforts to create the public impression that the attacks in Libya arose from a series of demonstrations against an offensive YouTube video. He accused the president and his administration of refusing to call the attack in Libya an act of terrorism for nearly two weeks. Obama objected and told him to look at the transcript. Crowley, rather than moderate the exchange, jumped into the fray and said that Obama had, in fact, called the incident terrorism.
*******************VIDEO AT WEBSITE LINK************************

Candy Crowley Admonishes Romney

The timeline of events regarding Libya is clear. After weeks of the president’s surrogates, and the president himself on programs like Late Night with David Letterman and at the United Nations, saying the Libya attack resulted from a spontaneous demonstration, the story began to unravel. Drip by drip, it became clear that security at the consulate was lax, the station had come under attack before and there was never any demonstration outside the Benghazi consulate.
Knowing they were caught in a distortion of the truth, the Obama campaign began pointing to the president’s Rose Garden address on the day after the 9/11/12 attacks to show that his administration had always referred unambiguously to Libya as an act of terrorism.
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” said Obama in the Rose Garden on September 12, after two paragraphs of recounting how Americans responded to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Obama campaign, knowing that they had advanced a false narrative for weeks and were being called on it, found the word “terror” in his initial response and relied on that speech to show that the president had known the Libya attack was terror all along.
This is wildly offensive to everyone who followed the story closely, but the president seemed to think that he could perhaps get away with it if he had the assistance of complicit journalists who would not fact check that hard. He could not have known the kind of gift he would receive from Candy Crowley — amid a presidential debate, no less.
Following the debate, Crowley appeared on her network where she shrugged and half-heartedly admitted that Romney was correct – that the Obama administration never described the Libya attack as a terrorist act and that they spent the better part of a month trying to convince the nation that what happened in Benghazi was anything but a premeditated assault. But, her instincts in the moment led her to chastise Romney because she felt “he used the wrong word.”
*******************************VIDEO AT WEBSITE LINK******************************

Candy Crowley: Romney ‘Right’

It was a shameful display and an indictment of so much of what is wrong with the media today. Broadly, it is also the reason why so few Americans trust the fourth estate –reporting means never having to say you’re sorry. Sometimes engaging in inaccurate opinion journalism does require a correction and Crowley was wrong and I believe she should make it far clearer than her equivocating mea culpa last night.

Crowley Backtracks on Her Backtrack

Newsbusters ^

Candy Crowley Backtracks on Her Backtrack By Tom Blumer Created 10/17/2012 - 1:21pm
Just before 1 p.m. ET, Rush Limbaugh said the following about CNN's Candy Crowley and her performance as "moderator" last night in the second presidential debate: "In the real world, she would have committed career suicide last night."
Well, Rush, don't discount her ability to self-immolate just yet. The Washington Post reports that Crowley is backtracking on her backtrack (HT PJ Tatler):
Candy Crowley: I didn’t backtrack on Libya in debate
CNN’s Candy Crowley denied Wednesday morning that she had moved away from her own comments on Libya when she moderation the previous night’s debate.
... On ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said that Crowley had already taken back the first part of that statement. “The moderator said that she — that he was right in the main on this, that she wasn’t correct in pointing out that he made reference to this being a specific terrorist attack,” he said.
What Crowley said on CNN after the debate: Romney “was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word.” But on the same network Wednesday morning, she said she was in no way taking back her original interjection.
“Listen, what I said on that stage is the same thing I said to you actually last night,” she told Soledad O’Brian. “[W]e got hung up on this ‘yes he said,’ ‘no I didn’t,’ ‘I said terror,’ ‘you didn’t say terror.’ … So I said, [President Obama] did say ‘acts of terror, call it an act of terror, but Governor Romney, you are perfectly right that it took weeks for them to get past the tape.’”
Asked if that was a backtrack, Crowley said, “No. The question was — we got so stuck on that ‘act of terror.’ Now, did the President say this was an act of terror? The president did not say — he said ‘these acts of terror,’ but he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi, so I don’t think that’s a leap.” (The exact phrase Obama used: “no acts of terror.”)
Here is what Obama said in the Rose Garden on September 12:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
She still doesn't get the basics right. She thinks it's "these acts of terror," when he said "no acts of terror."
As I wrote at my home blog this morning:
He did not — did not — did freaking not — call Benghazi an “act of terror.” Additionally, moments later, he deliberately avoided calling the attack terrorism, only saying that “We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.” That’s “terrible,” not “terrorist.”
Candy Crowley's ad hoc "fact check" was wrong.
And of course, all of this begs the question of why Obama would have allowed his apparatchiks to run around for at least seven more days telling everyone they could that Benghazi resulted from a "spontaneous" protest (when there really was no protest) about a video which virtually no one had ever seen or heard of.
What do you have to say about that, Ms. Crowley?