By Richard K. Barry
This weekend marks 25 years since Democratic vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen landed one of the most memorable knockout blows in political debate history. Republican VP candidate Dan Quayle set the chain of events in motion by comparing himself to Jack Kennedy as a way to describe why he felt he might be ready to assume the top job, should it come to that.
Pick whatever metaphor you like. A commentator at the time said that if it had been a boxing match, the referee would have stopped the fight.
One of the greatest skills in politics is to make it seem that your comments are off-the-cuff when in fact they are well rehearsed. My guess is that someone figured out that Quayle was going to go there and Bentsen was waiting for him to do it.
You almost feel sorry for Quayle.
The debates would be meaningless even if they were debates
By Frank Moraes The New York Times has an article by Brian Stelter about the presidential debates, "Memo Outlines Format and Rules for Candidate Debates." It basically demonstrates that the debates are a sham. The most important part of the article is a quote from George Farah, "an anti-trust lawyer who runs Open Debates, a group that calls the current debate system antidemocratic." He says:
In 1992, audience members and the moderator could ask anything, and no one knew the questions to be asked. In 1996, follow-up questions were banned... In 2004, all questions had to be prescreened by the moderator in advance, in some ways arguably reducing the audience members to props. In 2012, there are new restrictions on what the moderator herself can do -- no follow-ups, no reinterpretations of questions, nothing really, except keep time and hold the microphone.
Of course, there is also the argument that Lawrence O'Donnell has put forth that the debates are basically useless because they don't test what a president actually does:
But Farah is correct that we can't get to the heart of what the candidates believe if we can't have an honest debate -- artificial as the whole process may be.
The Wall Street Journallet us know yesterday that President Obama is hard at work preparing for Tuesday's debate, but not too busy to deliver some pizzas to a campaign office in Williamsburg, Virginia near where he and his campaign team are holed up.
Must be quite a moment when the president stops by with a stack of boxes for the assembled workers:
Mr. Obama arrived in Willliamsburg Saturday for three days of intense preparations for his second debate against Republican rival Mitt Romney. The stakes couldn't be higher for Tuesday’s faceoff in Hempstead, N.Y., after his listless performance in the candidates' first debate disappointed supporters, and cost him his comfortable edge over Mr. Romney in the polls.
Well, I suppose. Good that Mr. Obama told reporters that, in response to how it's going, "it's going great." I'm pretty sure I knew he was going to say that.
The president began prep sessions Sunday at 10 a.m. and in between has strolled along the grounds of the resort, which is set along James River and features a golf course and a spa. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) was seen tooling around the resort on a golf cart, and Mr. Obama's top aides are on hand to assist, including former White House communications director Anita Dunn who is playing the moderator of Tuesday's debate, CNN anchor Candy Crowley.
MJWS:
First, the Steelers suck. Down 16-13 to one of the worst teams in football, with 3:24 left in the third? Pathetic. Embarrassing. I'm this close, this close, to being done with them this year. Second, Biden won.
And, it would appear, that's the general consensus. He was feisty, forceful, and clear, showing the sort of experience and determination that one has come to expect from him but that was all the more stark with an extremist neophyte sitting next to him as his challenger.
Particularly on foreign policy, he was strong and wise, contrasting Ryan's combination of vagueness and propagandizing. Ryan kept insisting on these differences yet admitted that on the key issues there is no disagreement with what Obama is doing, whether it's Iran or Syria or Afghanistan, and Biden effectively pointed that out. And where Ryan did disagree, he revealed his abject ignorance, as with respect to the handover to Afghan troops.
And on domestic policy as well, it was refreshing to see Biden pushing back against Ryan's right-wing ideology wrapped up in a package with a nice little bow, noting repeatedly that the facts say otherwise and the numbers don't add up. And when Ryan was lying, it was similarly refreshing to see Biden say enough is enough.
I'd say Biden's one weakness was his closing statement, where he should have spoken into the camera and directly addressed Ryan's accusation that Obama hasn't done anything. Saving GM? Ordering the mission that killed Osama bin Laden? Providing access to affordable health care to tens of millions of Americans? How about that?
But a lot of the talk is about style, about mannerisms, and specifically about Biden's laughing. As I pointed out in our mid-debate post, that was worrying me. But in the end I think he was able to show just how relentlessly Ryan was a) lying and/or b) expressing far-right positions. There were times when it looked like the smiles could turn into smirks, but he held himself back. And, really, the fact that Republicans are focusing on Biden's smiling and laughing as somehow inappropriate is all the evidence we need that Biden won, and won decisively.
(Okay, the Steelers just scored a TD and are now winning 20-16. But I have no confidence the D can hold. The Steel Curtain is no more. Alas... And, guess what, they're not stopping the Titans. Blah.) Terrible questions about faith/abortion and unique personal character, by the way. But otherwise it was an outstanding debate overall. (Moderator Martha Raddatz was significantly better than Jim Lehrer despite those last couple of questions and some Republican-oriented phrasing throughout, and she did well to keep the debate moving along while allowing the two candidates to interact in a meaningful way.)
Update: Way too much focus among the pundits on style, but what else is new? It's like they can't see past the body language to address the substance of what the two men said. Which is particularly disappointing in this case given that, again, it was actually a really good debate.
What still strikes me more than anything else, though, aside from Biden's overall strong showing, is just how unprepared and unqualified so obviously is for the vice presidency (let alone the top job). He was way out of his element on foreign policy and started cracking the moment his right-wing budget was challenged, just as he has in recent interviews. It's easy to see how he's such a whippersnapping Republican wunderkind, but beyond the talking points there's just not that much there, and all those talking points amount to is cover for his, and his party's, real agenda of slashing tax rates for the rich and otherwise turning the country completely over to individual and corporate plutocrats at the expense of everyone else.
Anyway, the debate was much better than the Steelers game, which was a disaster. (Is it too early to say it's a lost season and that they'd do better to suck the rest of the way and get higher draft picks?)
But Biden's win was more than enough to make up for it. Sorry, CNN, but it wasn't a draw. Ryan didn't do anything terribly damaging, other than revealing his own ignorance and inexperience, and obviously a lot of what he said played well to the GOP base, notably his anti-abortion extremism, but it was Biden who came in and got the job done, picking up for Obama's poor performance last week, energizing Democrats (many of whom have been pretty down), and reaching out to the middle class. That's more than good enough for me.
(And apparently undecided voters give Biden the win, too. By a lot.) RKB:
I'm very comfortable with Biden's performance. Not sure how the media will see it. In terms of score, they might call a tie. I think it will help to stabilize the Obama campaign somewhat.
Biden's closing could have been stronger, but Ryan speaks in cliches. Anyway, I'm feeling good. Frank Moraes:
I don't know how this debate is going to be perceived by the Villagers. To me, Biden came off as knowledgeable and wise; Ryan came off as a kid. Here are just some notes since I have to go:
Great Biden line, "These people are my mom and dad... instead of signing pledges with Grover Norquist they should sign a pledge to the American people."
Biden talking directly into the TV to seniors. Very effective.
I've lost my breath. Biden says, "Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad."
Biden explains why vouchers won't keep pace: because that's the only way they save money. Brilliant!
Ryan: "We aren't going to end Medicare." Biden: "You are!" Too bad we didn't get this from Obama.
First part on foreign affairs, Biden did okay but didn't totally dominate. On Afghanistan, he is killing Ryan. You know Ryan is in trouble when he repeats "unraveling" talking point. Ryan just looks ignorant about Afghanistan.
Biden says Romney complains about foreign policy but when pushed would do the same thing as Obama. And when Ryan gets pushed for specifics and he demonstrates this by saying, "Our red line is the same!"
Ryan's "Bean" story died because it is so obviously canned.
"Mitt Romney and I want to earn your support." That's why we won't tell you our plans.
Biden has the human touch. Ryan does not.
I don't think this debate will move much. But it should make Democrats feel a lot better. I know I do! tmcbpatriot:
Well... That. Was. Awesome!
Most memorable line: "Now you're Jack Kennedy!" Biden gave the performance of a lifetime.
Before the pundits shape my answer, here goes: Biden is a smart man, around for decades who knows what is going on. He definitely had Ryan on the defensive all night. One pundit actually said it well. He said Ryan spent the night defending Romney while Biden defended Mom and Dad. That really nails it. He was ready and was not about to back down. Sure he had to build Obama back up after last week, but this is what he would have done regardless. He had Ryan right where he wanted him and had every opportunity to nail him and did with aplomb. He got Ryan on stimulus hypocrisy, on the 47% finally, and on foreign policy. It is hilarious, though. Last week Romney's interruptions and smirking was seen as agressive. Joe is already being called possible rude and snarky. Interesting. Liberal media my ass.
Okay, the "undecideds" just gave it to Biden. Normally I do not want to hear from these no-nothing morons, but tonight they get a pass. Who is undecided at this point? I ask you.
*****
I am sure Biden won this thing. We will hear some great sound bites in the coming week. Obama now has no choice but to come out and do what Biden did tonight or lose. He needs to put Romney on the defensive all night. We'll see. The moderator did a fine job, though. Charlie Rose on right now. I am afraid to watch. Al Hunt from Bloomberg is smooching Ryan's ass and reminding everyone how poorly Obama did last week. Rich Lowry says Biden was off-putting, obnoxious, and rude. Mark Halperin from Time is basically agreeing with Lowry. The media is going with Biden being rude and his "ticks," whatever the fuck that means. John Heilemann from NY magazine says Republicans will be happy with Ryan's performance. The whole talk is how those moron undecideds will react. Why do we care about people who still have not made up their minds? These people should not be allowed to vote with three weeks left.
Oh boy, now its Chuck Todd. He is counting how many times each man said the other man's running mate's name. At least he and everyone is saying that Biden ran the table. Gwen Ifill, surely pissed that she was snubbed this year, is talking about tone. It is absolutely amazing how these supposed professional pundits and journalists talk about what we all just saw with such little substance. It is disgusting.
*****
I am annoyed that Biden did not bring up Ayn Rand tonight. I really thought it would happen. But I will take what I can get nevertheless. Nobody on TV talks about the issues at all. The pundits are still taking about Obama's performance and where he will be next week. Will he bring it, etc. No talk of the actual issues and Romney's lies. All they talk about is style and no substance. Sickening.
Next week, according to these pundits, Obama can read a menu next week so long as he says it forcibly and aggressively.
Stay tuned for our post-debate post, coming up later!
MJWS: Okay...
Biden's doing well calling out Ryan on his dishonesty and bullshitting. I worry, though, that the split screen is hurting him. His laughing while Ryan is speaking may be a bit much. I get why he's doing it, but he needs to keep it under control. And while interrupted is fine, again, he needs to do it strategically and only to make key points.
I'd say that the foreign policy part was a wash. Ryan was spouting the usual propaganda, but Biden wasn't entirely effective at addressing it. And the problem with foreign policy is that simplistic points like Ryan's tend to go over well, while nuance -- dealing with reality, as Biden stressed -- falls flat.
But Biden is really doing well on the economy, picking apart the Romney-Ryan plan and addressing voters directly. But he needs to point out more directly that Ryan is talking utter fantasy and show just how Ryan's plan is the imposition of right-wing ideology. Great point from Biden that Ryan asked for stimulus money. And Ryan's actually defending his "math"? Wow. An opening for Biden... and he's getting stronger. Can he keep it up?
Frank Moraes: Biden looks surprisingly good. He has made the decision to go after Romney rather than Ryan. This is very good. However, many lies are getting past. In particular, Ryan's multiple implications that Obama "apologized for America." How? This is not true but hasn't been called. Biden finally landed a major punch noting that the "You didn't meet with Benjamin Netanyahu" line is total bullshit. Now on domestic issues Biden is really taking off.
Also: the split screen is working much better for Biden than it was for Obama. RKB: I think Joe is schooling the young man thus far. He is engaged and good
on the facts. The most important thing Biden is doing is fighting. I
like the way he is interrupting Ryan. It's working for me. I like the
split screen for the way Biden is smiling and shaking his head at Ryan's
nonsense. It really doesn't matter what the arguments are as long as
Biden's energy is up.
As I wrote earlier, Biden's tone is very real. He knows how to talk to voters.
Stay tuned for our mid- and post-debate posts, coming up later!
MJWS: We thought about live-blogging the Biden-Ryan vice-presidential debate tonight, like we did last week's first presidential debate, but then thought better of it. Mainly because it's hard to live-blog and also pay close attention to the debate. You just miss too much, and you end up staring at the computer screen and thinking of what to write about what you just heard instead of watching the debate itself, picking up body language, and following the theater that are these debates, including what is being said. And, as was the case last week, that's especially tricky when you're pulling in comments from several different people, all coming in via e-mail, as I was doing. Interesting note: In retrospect, I think that's why I thought Obama did better than most other people did. I was listening more than watching, and what I was picking up mostly was Romney's lies. It's not that I was particularly happy with Obama's flat, detached comments, and throughout the debate I was urging him on, almost begging him to be more focused and aggressive both in responding to Romney's lies and in articulating his own positions, but the differences in body language weren't as obvious to me given that I was listening and writing. It was only later, watching clips, that I saw just how lousy the president's performance was in contrast to the more aggressive, and often bullying, Romney. Anyway, none of that tonight. I'd also mention that there's a Steelers game on tonight, and I'm going to watch as much of that as I can without missing the debate. Honestly, I'm not sure what would be worse, a Steelers loss or a Biden loss. Okay, not honestly. Obviously a Biden loss would be much, much worse. I've already resigned myself to a forgettable season from this mediocre incarnation of my beloved Steelers, while a Biden loss -- at least a convincing one -- would be disastrous for Obama. Suffice it to say that the combination of a Steelers loss (to the lowly Titans, possible given that they tend to play down to the competition) and a Biden loss would make me want to curl up into the fetal position with a bottle of Bourbon and listen to some Adele. I'm not sure I'd be able to function, and I'd be a wreck tomorrow and through the weekend at the very least. But I digress... What we're going to do tonight is put up three posts -- pre-, mid-, and post-debate -- with comments from all four of us and perhaps other of our contributors as well. Why mid? Because I have a fantastic idea. I think these debates, like football games, should be made up of two halves separated by a 15-minute halftime. This would allow the candidates to go back to their respective "locker rooms" and regroup. Imagine what would have happened last week. Obama, off to a wretched start, would have gone back to find Axelrod, Plouffe, Cutter, and the rest of his team waiting to rip into him. Okay, okay, I'm not sure you ever "rip into" the president, but at least they could have given him a rhetorical kick in the ass: "Uh, Mr. President? What the fucking fuck? Seriously! Wake the fuck up!" The media would love this idea, as the pundits would have those 15 minutes to spew their "in-game" analysis, just like the guys on CBS, FOX, and NBC do every Sunday, or the NFL Network guys on Thursdays, or the ESPN guys on Mondays. There could even be halftime entertainment. Tonight? Ron Paul enthusiast Kelly Clarkson! Or whatever. There's no way this isn't a good idea. We need to make this happen. As for my pre-debate thoughts... I'm worried. Worried that Ryan will be his usual smarmy lying self while Biden comes across as just a bit too nuts for his own good. Worried that the media will again refuse to talk substance and instead award the debate to Ryan for standing tall against the more experienced Biden and for being such a brilliant ideas man (the same way the media still give Newt Gingrich a free pass for supposedly being an intellectual). Worried that even just a steady performance by Ryan will reinforce the narrative that Romney might just be presidential material. As Jon Chait wrote:
Liberals are excited to see Joe Biden tear after Paul Ryan, and Republicans are expressing trepidation, but the prospect that Biden will tear apart Ryan’s math is almost a pure fantasy. Ryan is not a good budget wonk — witness his 2010 exchange with Ezra Klein when he simply abandoned all his nonsensical talking points and conceded everything.
But you can’t expose your opponent's misleading budget numbers to win a presidential debate any more than you can expose your opponent's misleading budget numbers to win a swimsuit competition. The audience has no concept of the underlying facts. The audience will only be able to grasp the atmospherics of the debate. And Paul Ryan is a world-class bluffer. He will spout figures with winsome authority, and Biden will come off as an angry old man.
At the same time, whatever his reputation as a gaffe-prone liability, I think Biden's really good at these things -- debates and speeches alike. He was excellent four years ago against Palin and excellent at last month's Democratic convention. And as New York's John Heilemann reports, drawing on an interview with the vice president from August, he appears well-prepared to take on Ryan tonight:
Much has changed in the race since Biden laid all this out to me, to be sure. But there are several clear takeaways that have been reinforced by reporting (by others and by myself) about the VP's game plan. First, he plans to be aggressive. Second, he plans to be substantive and data-driven. Third, he plans to draw out the clear ideological contrasts between the Democratic and Republican tickets. And fourth, he plans to perform with one thing paramount in his mind: that he isn't debating solely (or even mainly) as Joe Biden qua Joe Biden, but as a proxy for the president.
All through his career, Biden has had one huge advantage in every debate he's ever engaged in: being systematically underestimated by the press and his opponents...
We shall see, and we'll be back at "halftime" -- around 9:45 -- with some in-debate thoughts on how it's all going. As for the Steelers... well, they'd better win this one if they have any hope of having a decent season.
Okay, now my colleagues: RKB: I really don't have a lot to say going into tonight's vice-presidential debate. I think Joe Biden will do fine. I'm somewhat amazed the right-wing has been at all successful in suggesting Joe is some kind of fool who is likely to say any silly thing. Closer to the truth is that he is an experienced politician who understands the average American voter better than any of the other main characters in this year's election epic, including President Obama. Biden understands things the way most American do and expresses them in ways they can understand and relate to. Though I am no fan of Ronald Reagan, this was his strength as well, and it was easy to call him a fool back in the day. Much as I disliked Reagan's politics, I can't deny many people liked him because he at least seemed to be one of them. I suspect Joe Biden's considerable political success is owning to this, at least in part. Biden has also been around politics a long time and understands the issues. He will not get caught short on substance. As for Paul Ryan, I never understood all the adulation from those who consider him a courageous, big thinker -- the intellectual leader of the current variant of conservatism. He's nothing but your old fashioned small government Republican. If social Darwinism is the big idea Ryan is peddling, he can have it. We have been there. We don't want to go back. The issue tonight may be the extent to which Ryan pivots, as Romney did, away from radical conservatism. If he does, it will be an amazing performance. After all, Romney is a pretend conservative, always willing to say whatever it takes, while Ryan is the real thing right down to his Ayn Rand collector series underwear. If he starts moving towards the centre, the world might just stop turning on its axis. Without necessarily calling Ryan a liar, Joe Biden will have to find a way to do the same in a way far more direct than Obama felt prudent. He has to made to look foolish for not being able to explain how their budget numbers work, or how his Voucher Care program would not be a disaster for Americans. More than anything, Biden will need to be tough and engaged. I think he can do that. tmcbpatriot:
Here we go. Another debate. Of course, based on last week's fiasco, I am counting on Joltin' Joe to stick a fork in Ryan. If he is smart, which I know he is, he will not allow Ryan to lie like Romney did, but will hold Ryan accountable for his responses and, if need be, give him all the time he needs to explain his "math" to the nation. If Ryan says "It will take too long to explain" their tax cuts or how he and Romney will lower the deficit, Biden must simply cede his time to the gentleman from Wisconsin and allow him to hang himself.
Paul Ryan is no Sarah Palin. I imagine he is expecting a fight from Joe. I hope that is what we will see. I don't want to get my hopes up though, as I thought Obama was going to win the first debate. But I think Joe has had nothing but time to prepare for this and will be quite ready to take on whatever Ryan tries to throw at him. Joe is no dummy. He is experienced, smart, funny, dramatic and aware of the stakes. I am sad to say it, but all of that plays great on TV. Let's face reality.
Nevertheless, the Vice President truly has the opportunity of his lifetime to show the nation who he really is. I don't think this is lost on him. He also has an opportunity to call out Romney on all the things that Obama failed to call him on last week. Let's hope he does that too. Yes, the pressure is on and that seems to be when Joe is at his best. I am looking forward to a spirited debate. I am sure we will get it.
Frank Moraes:
My take on this debate is that it doesn't too much matter. The first presidential debate made reluctant Romney supporters comfortable with him. People who would have supported Romney but were ashamed to admit it came out of the debate confident enough to proclaim to pollsters, "I'm for Romney!" I think there is a corresponding group of Obama supporters who are waiting for an opportunity to proclaim their support for the President. (I don't think they all came on board after the DNC.) The VP debate tonight is unlikely to change this fundamental dynamic. There are three ways this could go. By far the most likely is that nothing will change. Slightly less likely is that Biden will do quite well. This will not make Romney supporters rethink their choices. Nor will it make people leaning toward Obama jump on the bandwagon. But it will no doubt stop the dirge liberals have been playing all week. The other possibility is that Ryan will destroy Biden. In this case, it might push the "undecideds" into being truly undecided. It could be bad. As for me, I've been careful to hide the week-long version of "16 Tons" that's been going on in my brain. In fact, I've been a bit of a Pollyanna -- at least in public. But I will admit now that it has been a hard week and now I want to see Biden destroy Ryan. In fact, what I'd really like to see is a fist fight. I know Ryan works out, but as any urban scrapper can tell you, "That don't mean a thing." It's all about attitude and being able to take a punch. And that's just as true of a debate. So I'm hopeful. Biden has one big advantage over Ryan: he really is from the working class. Ryan just pretends to be. And I expect to see that come through loud and clear tonight. Of course, if after the debate everyone is talking about Ryan's working class cred, I will lapse into full Andrew Sullivan mode and I won't stop until the 6th of November.
By Michael J.W. Stickings Okay, he may not have said it outright, but it was nice to see The Newt admitting today that Romney was, oh, something other than honest about his tax plan during last Wednesday's debate:
This morning on Meet The Press, Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs confronted Newt Gingrich on a fundamental inconsistency in Romney's description of his tax plan. During the primary debates, Romney insisted that everyone in America would get a 20% tax cut, including the 1%. But last week's during his debate with Obama, Romney insisted that his tax cut would not reduce taxes at all for wealthy Americans. Gingrich acknowledged the clear inconsistency, saying "I think it's clear he changed." He described the change as "good politics."
In this case, of course, "good politics" means... lying to the American people. Because Romney is still proposing a massive tax cut for the rich. (It's pretty much the centerpiece of the entire Romney-Ryan campaign, just as it's the centerpiece of Republicanism generally -- shift the tax burden even more unfairly down onto everyone else.) There hasn't been a change of policy, just a change of rhetoric. It was just one of many lies Romney spewed on Wednesday, and no doubt there will be many more to come. The deluge of dishonesty -- the only hope Mitt has -- will continue.
John Sununu goes racist in post-debate victory parade
By Michael J.W. Stickings Throughout the campaign, John Sununu, one of Romney's chief surrogates, has done something that Romney himself cannot, or at least not openly, and that's play the race card on President Obama -- or, rather, the racist card. You may recall what he said back in July (channelling the likes of Donald Trump):
He has no idea how the American system functions. And we shouldn't be surprised about that, because he spent his early years in Hawaii smoking something, spent the next set of years in Indonesia, another set of years in Indonesia, and, frankly, when he came to the U.S., he worked as a community organizer, which is a socialized structure, and then got into politics in Chicago.
Obama the the un-American, the anti-American -- because he was born in Hawaii, which apparently isn't part of Sununu's America, and spent some of his early years, through no choice of his own, in Indonesia, which is way far away and so very strange and different. Oh, and because he's black. Well, the odiousness continued yesterday, with Sununu holding nothing back:
Mitt Romney campaign co-chair and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R) appeared on Fox News on Thursday and took a victory lap following last night's first presidential debate. Sununu described Obama's performance as "babbling," "lazy," and "disengaged," and dismissed the possibility that he could do better in the future. "When you're not that bright you can't get better prepared," he said. During a separate interview on MSNBC, Sununu doubled down on the characterization. "I think you saw him admit it the night before when he delivered the pizzas. He said, you know, they're making me do this work. He didn't want to prepare for this debate. He's lazy and disengaged."
He might as well have dropped an n-bomb and called him a welfare queen. I'm with Balloon Juice's Tom Levenson on this:
Sununu wasn’t really blowing a dog whistle. He just about stood on top of the bar and trumpeted the noun we all can hear lurking right behind the adjective. Here we see again what's been apparent for some time: the Romney campaign has clearly set itself the goal of out-George Wallace-ing the entire GOP primary field as it looks for ways to remind the electorate that the 44th president of the United States is, you know, an African-American man.
Apparently Sununu, like Romney himself, can't let even a day of good news go by without fucking up and revealing his -- and the campaign's -- true colors. ********** Here's Sununu, in all his odious glory:
The Conventional Wisdom was in quickly on the debate Wednesday night and it says that Mitt Romney rolled and
President Obama just stood there. All the people who hyped down the
expectations have now switched sides: the Romney folks who said that
debates don't matter are saying it was a game changer, and whatever the
pundits said yesterday and the days before are either saying "I told you
so" or paying off their bets because they were 100% wrong but still
have an in with the bookers at Fox News and MSNBC.
There are some folks on the Obama side who absolutely lost it. During his live-blogging, Andrew Sullivan
had a complete meltdown, and I passed by a couple of other sites where
it was more like, "Hey c'mon, where's the blood and the fistfight?"
From a strictly theatrical point of view, it was like a comedy routine
along the lines of Abbott & Costello, where you have the
mild-mannered straight guy and the goofy hyper buffoon... except for the
time when Mr. Romney was grinning tight-lipped, which for some reason
reminded me of Jack Nicholson in The Shining just before he went for the ax.
I think if anyone lost Wednesday night, it was the guardian of the truth:
it was like they were run over by a tank. We all know that the facts
are going to get distorted in a forum like this, but there were so many lies and misstatements from Mitt Romney that it was easy for him to be "on his game" and "dominating." That's pretty easy when you're lying through your teeth. Mr. Obama may have had his moments of evasion and compression, but it
was nothing compared to the non-stop just-make-shit-up from Mr. Romney. I guess if you were to give points for that, Mr. Romney won the lying
portion by a mile. (By the way, whoever came up with the format for the
debate should be fired. The idea was okay, but not for 90 minutes. It
would have worked if the time frame had been longer — like two hours —
but by then you would have had people stroked out in the middle of the
street.)
To those who were inconsolable Wednesday night and yesterday, let me remind you that
first debates are rarely a sign of the eventual outcome. In 1984,
Ronald Reagan came across like Uncle Fluffy in his first outing
with Walter Mondale, and in 2004, George W. Bush was way off his game
in his first match with John Kerry. There are still two more debates to
go, and I know I will see comments from readers both here and abroad
that will speculate that President Obama took a dive on the first one
just to lull Mr. Romney into a false sense of security and that he will
wipe the floor with him the next two times. Okay, if that's what gets
you through the night. And for the folks who are chortling over Mr.
Romney's performance, a little advice from Han Solo: Don't get cocky. (Actually, go ahead and get cocky; it will be that much more fun to get
the schadenfreude on when you lose.)
Despite what Chuck Todd, Chris Cillizza, and the rest of the
punditocracy on both sides say, I don't think this debate will change
the poll numbers much. It wasn't as bad as some fear or as good as it
could have been. (Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)
President Obama did what he needed to do yesterday following his not-as-dismal-as-everyone-thinks-but-still-not-all-that-good debate performance Wednesday night, and that not so much to put the event behind him, although that was part of it, but to build a positive narrative coming out of the debate, not just to counter the "Romney won" CW but to provide an honest perspective focused on substance, on the facts, as opposed to the style points favored by the ever-shallow media.
We can agree, perhaps, that Romney "won" the debate based on the degraded standards we (or rather the "experts") use to decide such things, but on the substance, with respect to the truth, it was pretty clear that Romney failed miserably.
Attacking the president, and defining himself ever more deeply, with a relentless deluge of dishonesty, Romney supposedly looked and sounded confident and passionate, Obama's "equal" up on stage, all in stark contrast to Obama's supposed detachment. There is some truth to that, if you're basing it all on image and perception, but as it recedes further and further into the mists of time, we can look on it -- and must look on it -- with a seriousness of purpose that was seriously lacking among pundits, their knees jerking wildly, in its immediate aftermath.
Let's take a quick look at some of these more serious -- and for Romney, ominous -- assessments:
-- Igor Volsky, Think Progress: "At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes";
-- Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone: "The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies";
-- Greg Sargent, The Washington Post: "Romney's policies are still deeply unpopular, which is why he relentlessly obfuscated about them"; -- Jonathan Bernstein, The Washington Post: "Romney strong on performance, weak on policy in sluggish debate"; -- Mark Memmott and Scott Montgomery, NPR: "Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks"; -- Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog: "The triumph of style over substance"; and -- Ed Kilgore, Washington Monthly: "Mitt Gets Away With It -- For Now." And three from New York's Jonathan Chait: "The Return of Massachusetts Mitt," "Romney's Successful Debate Plan: Lying," and "Would a Republican Candidate Lie About Taxes?" (The answer to that question: Yes. Shamelessly.)
OK, so Obama did a terrible job in the debate, and Romney did well. But in the end, this isn't or shouldn't be about theater criticism, it should be about substance. And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.
And this is why the Obama campaign has a new post-debate plan, reports Benjy Sarlin of TPM: " Expose 'Serial Evader' Romney."
And to get back to the beginning of this post, President Obama himself was on the case during a speech in Colorado:
Now, the reason I was in Denver obviously is to see all of you, and it’s always pretty, but we also had our first debate last night. And when I got on to the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney.
Whereupon he proceeds to go through the ways in which the Romney of the debate was so different from the Romney we've come to know so well during the campaign, to contrast his policies with those of the real Romney, and to present a clear vision for the future, articulating, in stark contrast to Mitt's refusal to provide specifics, what he would do if re-elected.
Watch the clip. Obama may have struggled somewhat during the debate, at least in terms of style, but he was back on form the next day, and it's this sort of leadership that we need to see much more of in the two debates to come, not to mention on the campaign trail the rest of the way.
I realize that dealing with Romney's relentless lying isn't an easy task, but President Obama must stand firm.
By Michael J.W. Stickings I want to clarify something. I was angry the other night. Mitt spent the better part of the debate
lying, and you could see in his eyes how hard he was trying, and I even saw signs of rage and desperation, and the president, while pointing out some of those lies and misrepresentations, never really found his stride. And then there was the post-debate commentary, which was simply awful, even by the dismal standards of such commentary. By no means do I wish to argue -- I didn't then and don't now -- that Obama "won" the debate, in any sense of that word. By the terms of presidential debates, which are about theater, not substance, it was pretty clear that, to put it mildly, he underperformed, though I would note that he has never been much of a debater. Whatever the reason(s) -- he was disengaged, Romney's constant lying and pretending to be a moderate threw him off, he was intentionally trying to remain calm and above it all, not wanting to go negative -- he was just... off. Romney left the door open so many times with his blatant dishonesty, and there were many occasions for the president to drive a point home, either about his own record or about his Romney's right-wing policies and/or complete disingenuousness, but instead of engaging he stood back and let Romney take the debate to him, setting the tone and otherwise scoring points with little pushback from Obama. Yes, there's a reason so many of Obama's liberal-progressive supporters, including some high-profile media figures, almost lost their minds. Myself, I was live-blogging, and so often listening more than watching, but I found myself saying "come on... come on... come on..." numerous times, pulling for Obama to step up and tear down his lying opponent. But with a few quiet exceptions it was not to be, and so the result was that Romney "won" -- such is the clear consensus that emerged, and I can't say I disagree. But what made me angry in terms of the reaction was that Romney only won by the standards of the debates that entirely ignores substance... and the truth. And this was being pushed all throughout the media, including by supposed non-partisans. I encapsulated my thoughts in the caption to the photo I included at the top of
our live-blogging post:
Mr.
President, I'm gonna win this by lying, dissembling, hiding my real
views, not answering direct questions, acting all aggressive, stringing
together complete sentences, treating the voters like idiots, playing
right into the media's need for drama, and exceeding ridiculously low
expectations by not drooling all over myself.
It was all an act, you see, and Romney was the better actor, at least according to expectations of how one ought to conduct oneself during such an event. Ultimately, I wrote this:
I
suppose this could reset the expectations for the next two presidential
debates... Maybe if
Obama shows some passion, like, say, by jumping up and down on Oprah's
couch, the media will give him some credit. But of course far be it from
the media to talk policy, to hold Romney accountable for pushing
unpopular plans with math that doesn't even come close to adding up and
refusing to answer questions about what his positions actually are what
he would actually do as president. Much easier to say Romney was
passionate and held his own and Obama looked like he didn't want to be
there.
Simple "analysis" from simple minds, as usual -- from the likes of Gloria Borger and John King, two of CNN's embarrassing crew. Again, I don't wish to suggest that I thought Obama did well. But I do think it was closer than the CW would have us believe, mainly because I think Romney actually hurt himself, perhaps badly, by lying so much, by throwing the right-wing Republican base under the bus in his quest to come across as a moderate with appeal to independents, by presenting himself as a shameless, flip-flopping opportunist who will say anything for votes, and by providing the Obama campaign with so much ammunition. Yes, it was Republicans who were so gleeful after the debate, and the day after as well, and still now, saying that Romney's supposed trouncing of Obama resets the campaign and gives Romney the clear advantage, and the polls will likely show some tightening, but over time Romney may well have added to his troubles --
if Obama can take advantage of his lying and if he performs better in the two debates to come. (And thankfully, as David Axelrod noted yesterday, adjustments will be made.) Am I just trying to find a silver lining? Maybe. But I do think substance -- and the truth -- matters, and while Obama may not have "won" the battle Wednesday night, he may have gained simply by being on the side of truth. And while Romney may have scored points by coming across as Obama's "equal" up on stage, holding his own against the far superior Obama (which is what this suggests), he frequently came across as an arrogant prick without an authentic core, reinforcing the image that over the course of the campaign has come to define him, an image based on a huge amount of evidence. There is still much for Obama to do. He has powerful ads running in the key swing states, and he has successfully defined Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat who doesn't give a shit about those below him on the socio-economic ladder, but he needs to use the platform of these debates to remind voters of Romney's
"47%" remarks, of his job-destroying / outsourcing record at Bain, of his tax shelters, of his massive proposed tax cuts for the rich, of his plan to destroy Medicare, and so on. This is all being communicated in other ways, but voters need to hear it from the president himself. Next time, he must not allow Romney to get away with it.
President Obama may have "lost" the debate the other night -- more on that in a few posts to come today (stay tuned) -- but already he and his campaign are pivoting off what was admittedly a less-than-stellar performance and going after Romney on the substance (as opposed to the style that obsesses the pundits), and specifically on Romney's relentless deluge of dishonesty. Here's the first Obama ad following the debate, and it's extremely effective:
Man. Why do I feel depressed today? Is it the non-stop cloudy
week? Is it that winter is coming? Is it that the president could very
well have handed the election to a lying liar who cares nothing for
anyone making less than he does?
Last night may have been, for all intents and purposes, the end of Barack Obama's presidency. I came, I saw, I guest live-blogged,
but what I came away with, after I had time to let it all sink in, was
watching Obama bring his meeting face, his Commander-in-Chief face, but
not his game face. Sure, we all know Obama may be too smart for his own
good. Sure, he likes to think a lot and is careful about his words. Sure,
he could talk about policy all day long. But this is an election, it is
not a policy meeting! The people watching this debate last night were
not policy wonks or economists salivating over minutiae of detail. These
were folks who literally were expecting to see Ryan Seacrest as
host and a half-time show featuring Beyonce.
In other words, Mr. President, you failed to deliver!
It is hard to understand how the president allowed Mitt Romney to
walk all over him, how he allowed Mitt Romney to spew lies and rhetoric without so much as a zinger from
Obama about the 47%, flip-flopping on every single issue or about what
economists have said about his grand lie to create 12 million jobs. All
we heard were dry policy discussions and a president who looked tired,
bored, annoyed, and a little too comfortable.
Perhaps Obama was thinking that the less he said the better. Perhaps
he was thinking that since he is doing well in the polls he would just
let Romney hang himself with all his lies. Maybe he was thinking that
the fact-checkers would sort it all out in the morning. Perhaps, and I
hope this is not true, Obama thought he was doing a great job and really
handling his opponent well.
Folks, we live in a reality-show world where TV is nothing more
than a place where good-looking people act out stories of betrayal,
deception, murder, and crime-scene investigations. Throw in some redneck
crocodile hunters and this is what Obama was up against. Television,
ever since the very first debate between Jack and Dick, has been about
style. Nixon was sweating while Kennedy looked "presidential." We all
know how that turned out. Al Gore acted strangely during his debates.
John Kerry put people to sleep. All the while, George W. Bush looked
like a deer in headlights with a power pack taped to his back and
getting his answers read to him and he still won against those two!
Now we are just weeks from this election. Again, we have a real
choice, as we always do. The two parties are not the same. We know this,
but think of how many people don't. During the remaining debates, Obama
has to realize that just knowing the truth is not the same as talking
about it. He needs to remember that people do not remember what was said
and only recall how the people on the TV acted. Were they
agressive? Boring? Tall? Short? Tan? Sweaty? It has nothing to do with
what was said.
Nevertheless, there are those of us who still want to hear Romney
called out on his lies, not to mention the fight for abortion rights and
a woman's rights on a multitude of issues. Sure, nobody will remember
what was said, but that doesn't mean we don't want to hear it!
There are two more presidential debates. If Obama does not bring up Romney's
million flip-flops, if he doesn't look right into the camera and talk to
the 99% and the 47% and remind everyone how we got into this mess and
that Romney wants to send Latinos back whence they came and the
stellar job he has done given what he was handed, then he deserves to
lose and we deserve what's coming to us... AGAIN!
If Romney wins in November, all it will have proven is that a man can
win an election based on nothing more than body posture and the volume
of his voice. It will prove that we are nothing more than TV
watchers and credit card numbers. Instead of honoring the Founding
Fathers, this country will have been proven to be totally commandeered
by the Funding Fathers, and history will forever be destined to repeat
itself over and over and over again.
If that happens, Republicans will have proven themselves right and
we will truly be on our own, again, with nobody to save us from
ourselves, again, and now with a corporate raider in the White House who
will sell us out for a profit, again.
Luckily, politics doesn't stagnate. It is as perishable as the milk
left out on the counter. By tomorrow, this first debate will be a memory.
Nothing will be remembered, except for Mitt wanting to fire Big Bird
and Jim Lehrer. Sure, Romney will be remembered for his agressive tone
and will have gained some points in the polls and for that alone Obama
needs to seriously think about what happens next, or at least save the
best for last. Romney understands this. If you recall, he won the coin
toss and chose to close last.
Public speaking is like plane flights. People remember takeoff and
landing but nothing in between, unless of couse someone starts running
up and down the aisle and banging on the cockpit door. Otherwise, it is
non-eventful.
Last night, Obama played it at 30,000 feet while Romney had control of
the beginning and the end, with a little act of agression in between.
Mr. President, take my advice and run up and down the aisle next time
and then take us home for a safe landing. It is effective and important.
In the meantime, I will keep my eye on the weather and hope my mood
improves. It is supposed to be sunny tomorrow. That should be a nice
change from today. (Cross-posted at Take My Country Back.)
Ed. note: This is Frank's fourth guest spot for us (in addition to live-blogging the debate with us last night). You can find his first, on the recent 60 Minutes interviews with Obama and Romney, here; his second, on European monetary policy and Spanish austerity, here; and his third, on conservative desperation, here. -- MJWS
Frank Moraes
is a freelance writer and editor with much too much education. He
lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is really hard to be a
liberal, and writes the blogFrankly Curious.
**********
I spent the debate "live blogging" here at The Reaction. Check out our live-blogging post to see my reactions as they occurred in real
time. My initial thinking was that Romney did better than I had
expected -- and I expected him to do fairly well. But I didn't think that
Romney necessarily "won" the debate, whatever that might mean. He did,
however, dominate it.
What surprised me was just how hostile the liberal reaction was to the
debate. I guess this makes sense, though. They want the president to be a
fighter. I feel the same way. For example, I couldn't believe some of
the things that Romney was able to get away with. In particular, I hate
his claim that he can't give specifics about his policies because that's
not how you negotiate. Never has a bigger pile of bullshit excreted
from a politician.
Regardless of how the debate went for the pundits, my overall reaction
was that Romney was even worse than I had thought. For a while, I've
been pushing this line that Romney's tax plan is, "
Trust me." But now I see that this is his plan for everything.
Education reform? Trust me. Financial reform? Trust me. Health-care
reform? Trust me. It reminds me of Nixon's secret plan to end the war in
Vietnam. You may remember that the war didn't actually end until he was
out of office.
The more substantive point regarding the debate was that Romney's policy
ideas changed radically. Now he's not giving a tax break to the
wealthy! Now he's going to cover pre-existing conditions by -- wait for
it! -- magic! He'll increase funding for education. And the military. And
anything else that you might like. It reminded me of the Michael Dukakis
line from 1988: Mitt Romney is the Joe Isuzu of politicians. Or if
you're too young to get the reference: Mitt Romney claims to be Santa
Claus.
President Obama has always been an "eat your broccoli" kind of guy. So
we shouldn't be too surprised that he used the debate to talk to the
American people like they were adults. (As my friend Andrea would say,
"That's a mistake!") But in the end, I think there is much fodder for
the Obama campaign. Romney will get a bump from this, but over time, I
think it reinforces the Romney nobody likes: the guy who will say
anything to get elected.
I think its safe to say that the reason President Obama seemed so disengaged last night is... BORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRING!
Was it the natural tendency of old campaigners to play it safe in the opening quarter? Or the tendency of longtime adversaries to score points off each other rather than illuminate their differences?
Or was it that the issues on which the presidential campaign will turn are so complicated — the economy, taxation, healthcare — that it's a challenge for anyone to make them accessible for average listeners?
Whatever the reason, Wednesday night's initial debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, provided red meat for wonks, but perhaps not so much for voters.
Now, I consider myself to be a little wonky, but even I glazed over (and ultimately fell asleep) in the first half hour.
That could be a good thing for the president or not, and vice versa for Romney. I'm betting most people felt the same way I did and tuned out quickly, missing first hand the president's lackluster, almost disinterested performance. That could be good.
Or bad, since that means most people are catching up to it the way I did: watching a replay after catching some of the "analysis" or, worse, watching just the Monday morning quarterbacking.
Romney was surprisingly good in my book, although to be fair, I didn't see a single primary debate so I have no basis to judge. Too, when you have five months to absorb and memorize talking points, it's easy to come off as well-prepared and informed.
Many liberals chided Obama for not being more forceful, like mentioning the 47% or bringing up Bain Capital. He did contrast what Governor Romney's definition of "small business" was, however.
I think this was a deliberate tactic. He knew Romney was going to try to get in some zingers and it was more likely those zingers would be tossed when he was on the defensive. There's plenty of time to talk about "presidenting half the nation."
Besides, the economic performance of the country is clearly weighing heavily on Obama's mind, as was evidenced by his body posture. If anything, he was the stronger for being patient, not defensive. He made Romney look like an adolescent on stage, voice rising, arms flailing, fingers pointing.
Obama stood and took notes, much like a trial judge would do while the prosecution levelled charges and brought evidence. He reacted even while he took notes (here's a tip for the next debate: do not watch the speaker; instead, watch the other guy) and showed he was taking Romney seriously, even if Romney and his party were not.
Obama may have overplayed this, to be sure, but letting Romney win the first debate could also end up being a masterful stroke. Remember 2004? Kerry pretty much mopped the floor with Bush ("He forgot Poland!" he whined) and won that debate handily.
Didn't help him much, did it?
Romney will get a bump out of this, maybe five points nationally and possibly place himself in a statistical tie with the president.
A blog on politics, philosophy, science, sports, and the arts -- featuring news, commentary, and analysis by Michael J.W. Stickings and the Reaction team.
