Obama Camp Wants to Talk Social Issues at VP Debate -- Will Moderator Oblige?
Don't misunderstand me, there's no question that abortion and other social issues are perfectly valid topics of discussion at a vice presidential debate. But over and over and over again, during the GOP primary debates, we watched the media obsess over divisive social issues that rank somewhere around zero on the list of voter priorities in this election.
But because most of the corrupt media completely agrees with the far-left on issues ranging from same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and that only Neanderthals could possibly oppose free contraception for all -- the media then turns these debate moments into The Post-Debate Narrative. Purely by coincidence, no doubt, this tactic fits perfectly into the Obama campaign strategy of divide and conquer, especially when it comes to the women's vote.
Which brings me to today.
After foolishly running on Big Bird for five days, the Obama campaign made a wicked left-turn this morning with a hastily arranged conference call. You can read about it here. The call was all about pushing the media to move The Narrative off of Big Bird and onto abortion. This tells us two things…
1. The Obama campaign is seeing in its internal polls what public polls are telling us about Romney closing the gender gap.
2. By pressing this issue the day before the debate, it's obvious the Obama campaign really, really, really wants to have a debate tomorrow that covers social issues.
How effective could this be for Team Obama if debate moderator, ABC News' Martha Raddatz, complies?
Let's jump into the wayback machine to January of this year when another ABC News' employee -- former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos -- in obvious coordination with the Obama campaign, asked a non-sequitur question that launched a thousand divisive distraction-narratives the media still uses to this day:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
MITT ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising. States have right to ban contraception? I can't imagine a state banning contraception. I can't imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so and if I were a governor of a state --
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Supreme Court had to rule on this back in 1965 because a state did.
ROMNEY: -- or a legislature of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you're asking -- given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so, and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm asking you, do you believe that states have a right or not to ban contraception?
ROMNEY: George, I don't know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No states wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.
At the time and at our own peril, we all laughed at Stephanopoulos, who would later claim he asked the question in order to win a bet with Diane Sawyer. But in the wake of Sandra Fluke and Obama forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control, we now know that the asking of this question was setting the cornerstone of a much, much bigger agenda -- and one beneficial to Obama: REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAT YOUR BIRTH CONTROL!!!
It's nonsense, but it can be effective nonsense that at the very least gives the media the reason they so desperately desire to avoid talk about the economy and Libya.
We're on the edge of a fiscal cliff, the deficit has saddled future generations with a mortgage-sized debt, poverty and gas prices are exploding, and the White House engaged in an obvious cover up of what happened in Libya.
If Raddatz wants to touch on social issues no one cares about and no president can do much about, that's fine. But everyone watching knows the difference between the pressing issues our time and issues used solely as partisan weaponry to benefit a failed president's reelection.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC