Beating dead horse
This is so three days ago…but the debate on Monday night.
Traveling, I caught only the last half hour on Monday. The sparring candidates looked like they might come to blows. I found it depressing…two grown men, etc. (that has now spawned an alpha male trope [not accurate, more like fourth grade boys revving up for a playground fight]).
Returning home yesterday, I watched the whole debate on our DVR. The sparring didn’t loom so large when the previous 60 minutes were so vigorous and adversarial (Obama doing the Biden smile trick with his teeth ended up looking like the Cheshire Cat; while Romney posed as “father knows best”). But really, Romney is truly annoying, the superior air, the know-it-all facial expression. He avoided the Bush comparison question, though his frequent self-reference to being a problem-solver reminded me of Bush the “decider.” Those are just my fourth grade girl observations. What do you adults have to say?
One had the feeling that if one of the questioners had stood up to ask his or her question but then been stricken with a heart attack and gasped for help, the candidate whose turn it was to answer the question would have said first taken some time to get in a point he had not been able to make in the previous round, and then gone on to point out how the opposing party had bungled the handling of heart attacks in the past. Then he would have recited what we have already heard him say on the stump about health care. Then, if it had been Obama, he would have pointed out what a mess he inherited, and if it had been Romney he would have recited his five-point plan to restore the economy. As the questioner slumped to the floor dead, the two candidates would have haggled with Candy Crowley about who was getting more time.
I don’t understand why Romney keeps saying — and never gets called on it — that he has spent “my whole life in the private sector.” Governor of Massachusetts is a public sector job. My wife suggests that he considered Massachusetts a wholly owned subsidiary of Bain while he was governor. Is that it? And, by the way, how much federal (i.e., tax) money went into those private sector Olympics?
Oh, nuts to it. Most of the adults I know thew in the towel long ago.
What were you expecting? Not ‘desiring,’ not ‘wishing for,’ but expecting?
Is Romney really going to make it to the election without disclosing his personal wealth and tax returns? that is the greatest accomplishment of his campaign and an incredibly poor showing of the press.
While the format was far bettter than the other so called “debate” (not like the debating we had in the good ol’ parochial league!), the individuals could have been reading any qustion by anyone. I would love to have each one of them respond after the exhange with a thumbs up or down regarding the response…but I know that would be partisan and put them on the spot… Still often neither candidate truly answered the question and even Candy could not change that.
I’m not claiming “adult” status here, but I confess a certain enjoyment for the rituals and liturgies of public life—including political debates. And I find the “town hall” format to be one of the more interesting and engaging formats for debate. In addition to the candidates and the moderator(s), there are the citizen-questioners standing in for us who always seem to bring a certain unpredictability into the equation. And the candidates have the opportunity to exercise a more varied range of physical cues and expressions than when standing behind their podiums on an elevated stage. It’s interesting to see how they use (or don’t use) the space.
So we had Mitt Romney repeatedly (and effectively I thought) standing in front of his questioner and pounding away at the ways in which Pres. Obama has tried and failed over the past four years—not unlike a boxer who has his opponent backed into a corner, puts his head down and delivers a succession of powerful body blows.
And we had Barack Obama, with a small, bemused smile and a slight narrowing of his eyes sitting back and saying “Please proceed, governor”, when he knew Romney was about to fall into a trap of his own making.
As often happens, because the questions came from citizens and not professionals, the dynamic between questioner and responder was both changed and (often) heightened.
Politics is what we have instead of war as a means of settling differences. (It’s other things too, but that’s one of the main things it is.) If there *wasn’t* verbal conflict between candidates, I’d be concerned.
The riveting part was Candy Crowley’s intervention to set the record straight on “terror attack” vs “spontaneous demonstration” in Benghazi. I believe she is now being roasted for daring to fact-check on the fly in real time (and for allegedly not being factual), but to me, it felt like some welcome adult intervention. Did she violate the canons of journalism or moderation in doing that? I’d like to see much more of it, personally.
Re: looking like they might come to blows: Romney is almost certainly trying to be offensive, in a measured sort of way, because it is believed on the right that the President can be ruffled, and when he has been, he becomes a less effective and likable communicator. He doesn’t do “angry” well. I thought the tactic worked in the first debate, but that he showed more steel in the second debate.
Can’t wait to see what SNL does this weekend with all the fodder from this debate. ;)
JBruns@11:06: What was I expecting? First, I wasn’t expecting to see it because I was at a meeting that wasn’t going to end on time. It did. So I got back to my hotel and caught the last half hour. I hadn’t expected so much personal, in your face stuff.
When I watched the whole thing on Wednesday, I had already read some! of the punditry. I was expecting that Obama had done well and that so had Romney. Hence, I was surprised at how poorly I thought Romney came off; he doesn’t seem adept at interchanges, for example, with Obama and the moderator, Candy Crowley (he could seem querulous). He was gracious enough with the questioners, however. Obama did well, I agree; but he came as cool and condescending. I know people have described him that way. But it’s a surprise to see it in play. That’s why I said I’d never want to have breakfast with him…maybe not lunch either. I am glad his performance improved over the first debate where I took him to be tired and perhaps thinking about other things (Benghazi? kids homework? anniversary?).
Did she violate the canons of journalism or moderation in doing that?
She did. Well of moderation anyway. The function of the moderator is to ensure that each party gets equal time, ask open ended question and adhere to the rules and conventions that each party agreed to. Let each of the opponents fact check each other or the parties after the debate.
I am not going to get bogged into the weeds of that controversy but suffice to say the entire transcript is subject to multiple interpretations and the ambassador said later that it was a result of the youtube video, etc etc. Given that, she should have demured.
The larger point is that the moderator should not ever get involved in “fact” (whatever that means) checking. I like Jim Lehrer and it is no accident that he keeps getting called on. BTW, I think that should be a precondition for the moderator – that they agree not to vote.
As for the debate, neither actually addressed the actual question that was posed. I thought both sides did reasonably well.
I personally like zingers and Obama’s about Romney has a one point plan was a good one.
That said, it was good to see each backed into a corner so you see their core temperament. Both are pretty cool, both analytical. Romney is better at details and understanding the mechanics of operations but Obama is the better politician. I was surprised to see how ideological Obama actually is compared to Romney who I think is more centrist and pragmatic.
End of the day, though politics is about getting the trains to run on time and it is about economics – advantage Romney.
Did Crowley break the moderating law? Maybe. But it seemed to me she was trying to get Romney off his insistence that Obama was telling a lie (that he had used the phrase terrorist act the day after). Wasn’t Romney trying to get her to call Obama on that? Anyway my impression.
I also think the Republicans are making a big mistake in going after the Benghazi attack. To my ears it sounds like they’re more interested in beating up the Obama Administration than that they care about the four deaths, or about focusing on what the attack really signifies.
One of the rules the candidates agreed to is: “5 (e): The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates.” Romney was breaking that rule — as he did several times — in badgering Obama about whether in fact he had called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror, as he said (and as he in fact did). And Romney was insisting that the matter be resolved before Obama continued. So to me, Crowley’s intervention seems entirely in line with the duties of the moderator.
What was most striking about that moment, as Alex Pareene noted Tuesday night (Salon seems to be broken at the moment, or I’d link), was that the audience burst into spontaneous applause when Crowley set the record straight. (Another rule broken!) That’s how relieved people were to have someone finally stop the bickering with a clear statement of fact. Or at least that’s how I read it.
Then, what she should have done, was to immediately redirect that or call him on it. But that seems to me to be a dumb rule. I want to see the candidates debate each other. However, they agreed to it so…..
I saw a debate some time ago where the candidates were breaking the rules and Jim Leher did intervened saying jokingly but accurately, you guys were the ones who agreed to these rules. There are deft ways of handling it but the point is that the moderator should recede.
I will adhere to my own self imposed “rule” and not comment on the whole Benghazi fiasco.
I just googled rule and interestingly, there was one story where Candy Crowley violated many of the rules :
1. Where a candidate exceeds the permitted time for comment, the moderator shall interrupt and remind both the candidate and the audience of the expiration of the time limit and call upon such candidate to observe the strict time limits that have been agreed upon herein.” Explanation: Crowley repeatedly let both men carry on over their alloted time limits and, on the few occasions she did step in to let them know they were running long, the candidates continued nonetheless. She also repeatedly failed to offer reminders to the audience that both men were blatantly ignoring the countdown clocks scattered around the auditorium.
2. The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invited the candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.” Explanation: Crowley made it clear early and often that when the candidates responded to a question about oranges with an answer about apples, she wouldn’t hesitate to step in. By our count, did so during each and every response segment except the final one to ask some version of a follow-up.
3. President Obama shall be addressed by the moderator as ‘Mr. President’ or ‘President Obama.’ Governor Romney shall be addressed by the moderator as ‘Governor’ or ‘Governor Romney.’” Explanation: During Crowley’s first (illegal!) follow-up, she addressed Romney as “Mr. Romney,” a mistake she made two other times during the event.
4. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, beginning with Candidate A, for a total of 2 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic.” Explanation: This was another repeated violation on Crowley’s part, with the moderator rarely if ever striking a (admittedly impossible) 50-50 balance when whichever man responded first ended up running out most—if not all of—the alloted 2 minutes.
5. “In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic.” Explanation: The moderator managed to check this box too, thanks to an audience member’s question about gas prices. During the back-and-forth that followed, she stepped in with a line that made it clear she was rephrasing things: “Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is, are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon.”
6. After any crowd reaction, “the moderator shall instruct the audience to refrain from any participation in the debate. …” Explanation: Crowley let both the laughter and applause pass without reminding the crowd they were supposed to be keeping quiet.
Bottom line: Being moderator is no fun!
I never cease to marvel at how the Republicans can say “Government doesn’t create jobs!” with a straight face. Romney isn’t old enough to remember the Great Depression, but did he cut class on the day his history professor mentioned the CCC, the WPA, and the other projects started by Franklin Roosevelt to put the unemployed to work?
Americans need jobs, and the country has an urgent need for infrastructure repairs. Furthermore, interest rates are at record lows, so it’s never been cheaper to borrow money to get the repair projects started. Once people are working and earning money, they’ll want to spend it, which will spur growth in the private sector.
This could have been started as soon as Obama became president, but for the Congressional Republicans’ irrational hatred of government in general and Obama in particular. As the late Molly Ivins often said, it makes no sense that people become candidates for government positions when they don’t believe government can be a force for good in the first place.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Jim Pauwels: it was refreshing to see Crowley set Romney straight (even as she evenhandedly acknowledged he may well have had a larger point).
Since Romney generally hasn’t shown much inclination to follow rules he doesn’t want to follow (including debate rules), I don’t have much sympathy for the complaints about Crowley’s actions.
Michael Tomasky makes an interesting observation in his 3-days-after-evaluation of the debate: “… you can bet that if Obama had behaved exactly as Romney did, boy oh boy would we have a meme on our hands.”
[snip]
“And though it would never be mentioned outright (well…maybe not), everyone would understand that a black guy being rude is somehow ruder than a white guy being rude.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/18/the-right-the-left-and-romney-s-jerkitude.html
“I never cease to marvel at how the Republicans can say “Government doesn’t create jobs!” with a straight face. ‘….a straight face? Romney follows up with “I will create 12 million jobs as president’ That’s not even a flip flop it’s a bizarre contradiction.
How about Romney son saying he wishes he could rush up on the stage to take a swing at Obama. I’ll bet on the athletic Chicago guy.. with SS cleanup if needed. ..
Now that would get ratings.
Even though Crowley apparently violated every rule she was supposed to uphold, I thought she did a good job.
I had never heard of her before. Btw, my grandmother was a Crowley, but we always pronounced the first syllable to rhyme with “plow”, not “show”.
Back to rules, and non-observance thereof: as with the first presidential debate, we watched it on CNN. They have a focus group (in this case, from Ohio) watching and using dials or buttons to show positive and negative reactions in real time to what the candidates are doing. Every time Romney tried to step on the president or Crowley or argue about ground rules, his focus-group scores went negative. Virtually everything that both candidates say get positive scores of varying intensity from these focus groups, so to see it dip below zero is pretty noteworthy. Romney needs to chill out by a couple of degrees.
So far the moderator prize goes to Martha Raddatz. She kept a serious demeanor rarely smiling (unlike Lehrer and Crowley), was pretty firm about the time (although a few minutes got away from her), and she’s pretty (not that that counts!).
I had never heard of her before.
—
She’s the one who gave Karen Hughes a big triumphant hug on the bleak day George W. Bush was inaugurated.
The incident that has remained with me from the debate was Romney’s insistent repetition to the president: “Have you looked at your pension?” It was obvious that he had prepped the comment to use as an excuse for his extensive foreign investments and was ready to insert it whenever he could.
He’s done this before. He tried it with Perry and Santorum during the primaries. It is a nasty attempt to intimidate and makes him look, in my opinion, like a bully. It thought that the president shot him down in a calm, light-hearted manner.
http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/business/obama-to-romney-my-pension-not-as-big-as-yours-517509462
Speaking of nasty: Romney-Ryan supporters are so incensed over the protest over Ryan’s fake photo-op by the volunteer members of the St. Vincent’s soup kitchen in Youngstown, OH that they are stopping their donations.
I imagine the two men will need to be more congenial at tonight’s Al Smith dinner. Which sends sort of a conflicting message in a way. All of that aggression a couple of days ago can’t be all that heartfelt if, a couple of days later, they’re two friendly guys on a dais.
Actually, I thought Romney had some unconfident moments, like when he told Obama that he (O) was a good speaker. To me the debate was a hands down great display by Obama. I was disgusted with CNN’s analysis, and it made me think that in their earnestness to be unbiased, they were actually slanted toward Romney. I had no problem conceding the first debate to Romney (albeit because he was an artful flip-flopper), but returning the gesture to Obama seemed hard for all stations except MSNBC.
I think by not losing Romney won the debate, by not winning big Obama tied in the debate, and the clear cut, downright embarrassing loser was Crowley.
BTW, why wouldn’t pretty count? It matters for president.
Irene Baldwin: Please note that there is such a thing a ritualized aggression, which is what we saw each candidate enact in the debate.
Granted, we Americans are not accustomed to having television bring expressions of ritualized agression into our homes.
Nevertheless, when we learn how to accustom ourselves to expressions of ritualized aggression, then it becomes less difficult to understand how each man can knock off that stuff a couple of days later and act in a more becoming way at the Al Smith dinner.
Put differently, ritualized aggression is kind of an act — it’s theatrical.
Mark P will post his own pic next time. And I bet he could pic a ‘winner’ from Romney’s women binders.
Re Al Smith dinner, I heard the chancery is posting two big deacons to ride heard on Romney kids who might take offense at jokes and laughter. Nothing funny ever happened in Utah. . NYC has nothing to laugh at either as Yankees being swept will pour cold water on the dinner plates.
Why can’t the candidates be cut off automatically at the end of 2 minutes? The moderator could just start a clock when a candidate starts to speak, and at the end of 2 minutes the audio would go dead, or a trumpet could blare or a donkey could bray or an elephant screech, or something amusing.
Mark Proska:
Handsome (pretty) is as handsome (pretty) does.
Why can’t the candidates be cut off automatically at the end of 2 minutes? The moderator could just start a clock when a candidate starts to speak, and at the end of 2 minutes the audio would go dead, or a trumpet could blare or a donkey could bray or an elephant screech. (Jes’ jokin’.)
“I would love to have each one of them [audience members] respond after the exchange with a thumbs up or down regarding the response.”
I’m sorta with David Pasinski; instead of Crowley’s constant insertion of herself into the proceedings, I wish she had asked audience members if they wanted to follow up or if their question was answered to their satisfaction.
Viz the rules, Crowley said ahead of time she reserved the right to ask follow-ups and clarification. Candidates could have declined to participate, but then they’d look scared or less than candid, so lose-lose for them.
And, yes, I agree mike’s should be cut at the time limit, and the time limit should be 90 seconds instead of two minutes. That might force candidates to get to the heart of the questions.
Re: Ritualized aggression. The eyes don’t lie and it was pretty clear to me that these two really do not like each other. There is something personal underneath it even though it has been a pretty substantive, issue driven election so far.
I hope the Al Smith dinner is televised because I think the opposite is true. I think these two really do not like each other. I think it is personal and visceral.
To have to pretend to “be nice” is the theatrics.
If pretty is as pretty does, then Miss Crowley is less than pretty in more ways than one.
“Why can’t the candidates be cut off automatically at the end of 2 minutes? The moderator could just start a clock when a candidate starts to speak, and at the end of 2 minutes the audio would go dead, or a trumpet could blare or a donkey could bray or an elephant screech, or something amusing.”
A trap door in the floor?
I learned from the debate that Obama really, really likes Planned Parenthood, and that he really, really wants our tax dollars to go to Planned Parenthood, because he kept bringing Planned Parenthood up, even though it wasn’t responsive to any of the questions asked.
Margaret, I think you like Obama because he’s a Democrat, like you. No problem. Both politics and logic are about emotions – we think and feel what we think and feel. Who knows why?
It was an unpleasant hour or so, yes. But they had no choice – they didn’t write the rules. It was just another bout of spectator sport, verbal violence to please a bored television audience.
They both did OK, under the circumstances. No one burst out shouting or broke down and cried or fell on his face and slobbered. Stupidity was required and furnished. One more of these things, and then we’re off to vote, and it’ll happen all over again far too soon.
Um, Jim, she was wrong. Obama had used the word “terror” or “terrorist”, but he had not called the killers terrorists. The moderator’s intervention left the audience thinking Obama was right and Romney had screwed up. No doubt someone on youtube has found the Rose-Garden recording by now, but it’s too late – she made a bad call, but most of the audience will continue to believe what they saw on television. Unless she’s extraordinarily stupid, she’ll never do that again.
David, the below is an excerpt from the transcript, as reported on a right-wing site. The right-wing site argues that this indicates that Obama didn’t call the attack an act of terror:
Remember, the address is entirely about the killings in Benghazi. If by “No acts of terror” he was saying something general about the US, unrelated to Benghazi, it would have been out of context. It’d be like saying “and we don’t like jaywalkers either.” He was referring to Benghazi as an act of terror. And doesn’t Romney also say that Obama was apologetic? What part of “justice will be done” sounds like an apology?
Thanks for the quote, Lisa.
“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” is an attempt at lofty rhetoric, not a clear accusation. It’s a generalizing about all acts of terror, not about one specific act.
This incident the other night, though, was unfortunate. The moderator acted unprofessionally, and in doing so probably swayed the television audience against one side, if only momentarily. Bad form.
@David Smith (10/19, 3:20 am) I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.
When speaking of “acts of terror”, it’s not enough for Pres. Obama to structure his remarks so that the the paragraph in which he uses the words “acts of terror” begins with a specific reference to the most recent attack (in this case, in Benghazi).
It’s not enough that the sentence following his mention of “acts of terror” refers specifically to those killed (in this case, “four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America”).
And it’s not enough that he make his remarks the day after the attack.
Nor is it enough that he make his remarks at a press event called specifically to address the attack.
Do I have that right?
Have I missed anything?
And just what is the prescribed verbal formula Pres. Obama is supposed to use in cases like this?
Or is it simply the case that there’s nothing he could do or say that would satisfy his critics?
I think the issue is that “acts of terror” in that instance refers to a mob of people enraged over the you tube video because that is what the administration said caused the attacks for the next couple weeks or so.
As it turns out “acts of terror” refers not to the you tube video but a coordinated and planned attack by al Qeada.
This is why Candy Crowley said afterwards that in the main Romney was correct except for his narrow insistence on claiming that Obama never referred to it as an act of terror.
At issue is the referent for “acts of terror” and not the usage of the term itself.
And as it turns out, the intelligence never said the attack was as a result of the you tube video.
I do think George D’s take is correct. We can parse the Rose Garden statement to the nth degree, but to consider that statement in isolation would be to ignore the larger fabric of statements made in the following days by high officials in the Obama Administration to advance the meme that this was a spontaneous eruption over a film.
That Romney failed to capitalize on this moment by launching a substantive attack on the Obama Administration’s policies in the Middle East is a missed opportunity of monumental proportions.
David Smith- Hi David, As you pointed out, we sometimes hear what we want to hear. I learned right away on the news- (NOT a couple of weeks, but more like a couple of days) that this was NOT a spontaneous act of violence, but a well orchestrated attack that used serious weaponry. Originally I heard it was a terrorist attack that took advantage of a spontaneous protest, later I learned from the news there wasn’t a protest; it was only a terrorist attack.
So Obama’s opponents can parse his words any way they want, but whatever words his administration used, I know I learned pretty quickly from the mainstream news that it was not mob violence, but something more and something planned.
I think it’s beating up a straw man to charge the Administration for being at fault in the aftermath. It would be more strategic to question whether there were adequate safeguards in place before the attack. And, if not, why not? And what would the candidates specifically propose to better protect Americans serving in dangerous places.
The NYT lead editorial (Oct. 14) on Issa was good, imho. The hypocrisy of the Tea Party/Republicans is . . . what it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/republicans-have-no-shame.html?_r=0
From that:
The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.
At a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last Wednesday, Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California and the committee’s chairman, talked of “examining security failures that led to the Benghazi tragedy.” He said lawmakers had an obligation to protect federal workers overseas. On Sunday, he said more should be spent on diplomatic security.
But as part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion. In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016.
Hi, Irene (9:28). I pretty much agree with what you say. This kerfuffle might be mostly nitpicking if it weren’t for the debate moderator’s unprofessionalism.
Moderators, at least as I understand it, are ethically obligated to confine themselves to traffic control. Their job is form, not substance. Of course, for a television reporter – by definition an inflated ego accustomed to center stage – that’s probably asking too much. For future debates, it might be preferable to have moderators who aren’t even minor celebrities.