So let's enjoy Selwyn's uniquely cerebral insights while he still has the strength to apply a constant 32 P.S.I. to his lower face.
Candy Crowley plays biggest loser with ObamaShe's a POS who's clearly FUBAR, and therefore undeserving of R.E.S.P.E.C.T. QED.
You might think that with all the recent focus on media bias in debate moderation, Candy Crowley would have minded her p's and q's in last night's presidential debate. But clearly, she doesn't even know the ABC's of her job.
Her most obvious transgression was chiming in and contradicting Mitt Romney's assertion that Barack Obama did not label the Benghazi attack an act of terror when he spoke in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.Of course, Obama did label the Benghazi attack an act of terror when he spoke in the Rose Garden, but that's not important, for two reasons. Number one, because who cares? But number two -- and a thick, steamy, corn- and peanut-speckled number two it is -- if the transgression of contradiction is allowed to go unpunished, then our entire system of argument by assertion could collapse, which would leave us with a lot of hours of cable news programming to fill up. Sure, there's When Animals Attack, but eventually you're going to run through the grizzlies, and pumas, and ocelots, and find yourself spending all your time trying to get a bonobo to attack by promising it a box of raisins and a Fleshlight.
Crowley's unwarranted meddling was significant.You know what you almost never see in this country? Warranted meddling. You know, like there's a knock at your door, and two cops are standing there, and they say, "We want to interfere with your love life, and rearrange all your furniture to make your apartment more feng shui." And you're all, "Have you got a warrant?" And they're all, "Yes we do," and you're like, "Okay, come on in."
The apparent lies surrounding the Libya tragedy are a huge scandal for Obama, and, with the mainstream media's failure to aggressively cover the story, the debate was a golden opportunity to get the truth out.If there's one fault I can find with our impulsive, content-hungry, profit-driven mass media, it's their tendency to shy away from huge scandals.
Enter Crowley's Passion.Well, why not? Every other celebrity's got their own crappy fragrance nowadays.
She snuck into the ring, without Obama even tagging her, and hit Romney from behind with a chair while the ref, Crowley's Brain, was looking the other way.Although a Romney supporter, even Connecticut Senatorial candidate Linda McMahon declared this a legal move.
And, as was established later, she was wrong.Not on the facts, but Frank Luntz's focus group agreed that given the importance and solemnity of the occasion, Crowley would have better served the viewer by getting Romney in a side-headlock and ramming him face-first into the turnbuckle.
Also striking, however, is that most of the questions asked clearly played into the liberal agenda. This isn't surprising since they were chosen by Crowley herself. And we should ask: why was one liberal in a nation of 308 million people empowered to unilaterally choose the questions for a presidential debate?I wouldn't call Candy Crowley a liberal, because I never see her at Poliburo meetings, but that could just be because I only go on Thirsty Thursdays. Also, since the current estimated population of the U.S. is 314 million, I wonder what Selwyn did with those other 6 million people (hint: check his crawlspace). Anyway, it does seem insanely biased that Crowley and Crowley alone had input into these questions...
CROWLEY: The Gallup organization chose 82 uncommitted voters from the New York area. Their questions will drive the night. My goal is to give the conversation direction and to ensure questions get answered.Okay, so the questions were supplied by Gallup, but admittedly chosen by Crowley, making it impossible for Romney to shine at this debate the way he did at the first, when the questions were selected by an entirely different, and far more democratic method:
The questions are known to me and my team only. Neither the commission, nor the candidates have seen them. I hope to get to as many questions as possible.
LEHRER: Thousands of people offered suggestions on segment subjects or questions via the Internet and other means, but I made the final selections. And for the record, they were not submitted for approval to the commission or the candidates.Okay, we could argue about why identical things are different, but we should hurry back to Selwyn, before his chin-finger gets tired.
In fact, it would have been laughable if not so tragic, as Crowley was clearly out of her depth and ended up deep-sixing the truth. She chose a question about the male-female wage gap, assuredly oblivious to the fact that women do not get paid less for the same work; they get paid less for lesser work.As we all learned in high school biology class, a man and a woman might perform identical jobs, but the quality of work will inevitably vary depending on the presence of a dick (in fact, six separate studies show a direct correlation between penis length and professional achievement, which is why America's Greatest Actor was either Roddy McDowell or Forrest Tucker). This is also why male employees are not permitted to wear pants, so that Quality Assurance personnel can more easily spot check productivity.
It isn't surprising that Crowley would advocate for the feminist agenda, however, since she no doubt owes her position to affirmative action.And Selwyn's writing would no doubt make 8% more sense if they hadn't snipped off his foreskin.