The most recent debate between Mitt Romney, President Obama and moderated by Candy Crowley perfectly illustrates, in a microcosm, what Romney is up against in his run for president. It’s not just that he has to present his side of the issues and then let the people make their mind. No, he has to present them in an unfriendly environment, to an unfriendly interviewer (moderator), and then has to spend his limited time pointing out the disingenuous answers that are given by the President.
I will defend that statement in a second. But, first let me say that Romney acquitted himself very well last night. He had command of the facts and made point after point concerning jobs, the economy, and both our debt and growing deficit. He had Obama constantly trying to defend his record, and I don’t think Obama’s answers on the economy, or much else, are going to play very well with undecided voters. Both sides are claiming victory on this one, but Obama needed a decisive victory to stop the bleeding. He didn’t get it. Like the VP debate of last week, the talk is about Crowley and Obama’s deceptive answer, not the issues. Round two to the challenger.
Unfriendly environment; each of these four debates is being held at a university; supposedly neutral territory. But, last night shows, by the cheering (presumably by the students, and not the press) when Crowley “fact checked” on an answer the president gave. The vast and overwhelming majority of our colleges have become indoctrination centers for not only liberalism, but socialism. The fact that attendees could not contain themselves, when “their man” was supposedly vindicated, is proof positive. Why are none of the debates being held at places like Hillsdale College, Grove College, Pepperdine, or even in a non-university setting? Where is it written that the conservative must always be on hostile ground?
Unfriendly reporter: The prime directive of a debate moderator is to stay objective and neutral. Candy Crowley was not that. It started with the second question of the debate. In a debate there is a back and forth. Debater #1 gets the question; Debater #2 gets the last word. In the first question, about Jobs, Romney got the question, and Obama got the last word. On the next question, about gas prices, they went back and forth, but the last response should have gone to Romney. He had to call Crowley on that, and then when she tried to brush him off, talk over her to get his point across. She constantly let the president run over on his allotted time and Obama ended up with 11% more talking time.
Then we have the questions. And remember, these were not random questions. They were fully screened, chosen, and even who would get which question was decided by Candy Crowley and her staff. There was nothing random about what was asked or who it was asked to. Question #4 was about the “fact” that women make only 72% of what women do. This is an old half truth, which has been debunked time and time again. Women who have worked for the same company, for the same amount of time, doing the same job, make almost the same amount of money. The discrepancy is no where near 28 cents on
I will defend that statement in a second. But, first let me say that Romney acquitted himself very well last night. He had command of the facts and made point after point concerning jobs, the economy, and both our debt and growing deficit. He had Obama constantly trying to defend his record, and I don’t think Obama’s answers on the economy, or much else, are going to play very well with undecided voters. Both sides are claiming victory on this one, but Obama needed a decisive victory to stop the bleeding. He didn’t get it. Like the VP debate of last week, the talk is about Crowley and Obama’s deceptive answer, not the issues. Round two to the challenger.
Unfriendly environment; each of these four debates is being held at a university; supposedly neutral territory. But, last night shows, by the cheering (presumably by the students, and not the press) when Crowley “fact checked” on an answer the president gave. The vast and overwhelming majority of our colleges have become indoctrination centers for not only liberalism, but socialism. The fact that attendees could not contain themselves, when “their man” was supposedly vindicated, is proof positive. Why are none of the debates being held at places like Hillsdale College, Grove College, Pepperdine, or even in a non-university setting? Where is it written that the conservative must always be on hostile ground?
Unfriendly reporter: The prime directive of a debate moderator is to stay objective and neutral. Candy Crowley was not that. It started with the second question of the debate. In a debate there is a back and forth. Debater #1 gets the question; Debater #2 gets the last word. In the first question, about Jobs, Romney got the question, and Obama got the last word. On the next question, about gas prices, they went back and forth, but the last response should have gone to Romney. He had to call Crowley on that, and then when she tried to brush him off, talk over her to get his point across. She constantly let the president run over on his allotted time and Obama ended up with 11% more talking time.
Then we have the questions. And remember, these were not random questions. They were fully screened, chosen, and even who would get which question was decided by Candy Crowley and her staff. There was nothing random about what was asked or who it was asked to. Question #4 was about the “fact” that women make only 72% of what women do. This is an old half truth, which has been debunked time and time again. Women who have worked for the same company, for the same amount of time, doing the same job, make almost the same amount of money. The discrepancy is no where near 28 cents on
the dollar. It’s a penny or two. But, women bear more of the child rearing responsibilities, usually by choice, and they take time away from their careers for it. That might be unfair, but there is no government remedy for it. Businesses reward the people who are there. That’s the way it is.
An impartial moderator would not have chosen that inaccurate question at all, but it was the perfect opportunity to let Obama preach about the Ledbetter ruling by the Supreme Court. Romney would then have to try to explain reality. Reality is a bitch. Obama has made his bones by trying to shelter as many Americans as they can from the responsibilities of their own actions. It’s hard to get elected when you say “I’m not taking money from someone else to give to you” The more times the moderator could set that up, the better for her side.
“Her side?” you say. Yes, how do explain the following exchange?
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it
was an act of terror.
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're
saying? (BK—Trying to make clear exactly what they are talking about)
OBAMA: Please proceed governor. (BK—note the specific failure to answer this question)
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because
it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi
an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It - it - it - he did in fact, sir. (BK—How does she know this, so quickly?)
So let me - let me call it an act of terror... (BK-He didn’t exactly say that)
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
I pulled up the Rose Garden speech and the words “act of terror” are there, towards the end, talking in general terms. It is very, very far from clear that the president was even talking about the Benghazi attack at that point. This speech was meant to eulogize ambassador Chris Stevens and was the standard presidential pep talk after a tragedy. It was meant to be completely inoffensive. It was written by a skilled speech writer who knows how to be ambiguous. And that is what the president took advantage of with his choice of words, in both the speech and his quoting them in the debate.
Fair enough. They are his words and he can spin them anyway he wants. He certainly has a history of trying to explain what he meant instead of what he said. Recall his “You Didn’t Built That” speech. But, what is telling to me, is that Candy Crowley was ready to defend those exact three words “act of terror”, not “terrorist act”, not “act of terrorism”, but to defend that Obama uttered those three specific words, during that specific speech. Why? Why would she be so ready to defend it, if she didn’t have a side?
But, Romeny’s point was not that Obama never said “act of terror”. His point was that it took Obama two weeks to finally break down and say the attacks in Benghazi were not spontaneous protests that got out of hand, but a pre-planned coordinated attack. It certainly helps when the moderator has your back.
Presidential Lies; In addition to the above, Romney had to correct the president on what he wanted to do with Detroit. Obama says Romney want to let it go bankrupt losing all those jobs. Romney had to remind the President how bankruptcy works and that they would have emerged from bankruptcy, stronger. Bankruptcy would have lifted the burden of the United Auto Workers union rules from Detroit and let them organize their debt. The workers would have kept their jobs. I’ve been through a company bankruptcy, I’m still there, and so would the vast, vast majority of the Detroit jobs.
Once again, I could go on and on, but I mercifully won’t. It still boils down to one thing. The President has to defend a dismal domestic and foreign record to those 5%-15% of Americans who have not made up their mind. Those people want a clear choice. They are getting it. Four more years of what they have been getting, or a new President, with a new plan. When they are standing in the booth, finally forced to choose, I think I know which lever they are going to pull.
An impartial moderator would not have chosen that inaccurate question at all, but it was the perfect opportunity to let Obama preach about the Ledbetter ruling by the Supreme Court. Romney would then have to try to explain reality. Reality is a bitch. Obama has made his bones by trying to shelter as many Americans as they can from the responsibilities of their own actions. It’s hard to get elected when you say “I’m not taking money from someone else to give to you” The more times the moderator could set that up, the better for her side.
“Her side?” you say. Yes, how do explain the following exchange?
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it
was an act of terror.
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're
saying? (BK—Trying to make clear exactly what they are talking about)
OBAMA: Please proceed governor. (BK—note the specific failure to answer this question)
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because
it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi
an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It - it - it - he did in fact, sir. (BK—How does she know this, so quickly?)
So let me - let me call it an act of terror... (BK-He didn’t exactly say that)
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
I pulled up the Rose Garden speech and the words “act of terror” are there, towards the end, talking in general terms. It is very, very far from clear that the president was even talking about the Benghazi attack at that point. This speech was meant to eulogize ambassador Chris Stevens and was the standard presidential pep talk after a tragedy. It was meant to be completely inoffensive. It was written by a skilled speech writer who knows how to be ambiguous. And that is what the president took advantage of with his choice of words, in both the speech and his quoting them in the debate.
Fair enough. They are his words and he can spin them anyway he wants. He certainly has a history of trying to explain what he meant instead of what he said. Recall his “You Didn’t Built That” speech. But, what is telling to me, is that Candy Crowley was ready to defend those exact three words “act of terror”, not “terrorist act”, not “act of terrorism”, but to defend that Obama uttered those three specific words, during that specific speech. Why? Why would she be so ready to defend it, if she didn’t have a side?
But, Romeny’s point was not that Obama never said “act of terror”. His point was that it took Obama two weeks to finally break down and say the attacks in Benghazi were not spontaneous protests that got out of hand, but a pre-planned coordinated attack. It certainly helps when the moderator has your back.
Presidential Lies; In addition to the above, Romney had to correct the president on what he wanted to do with Detroit. Obama says Romney want to let it go bankrupt losing all those jobs. Romney had to remind the President how bankruptcy works and that they would have emerged from bankruptcy, stronger. Bankruptcy would have lifted the burden of the United Auto Workers union rules from Detroit and let them organize their debt. The workers would have kept their jobs. I’ve been through a company bankruptcy, I’m still there, and so would the vast, vast majority of the Detroit jobs.
Once again, I could go on and on, but I mercifully won’t. It still boils down to one thing. The President has to defend a dismal domestic and foreign record to those 5%-15% of Americans who have not made up their mind. Those people want a clear choice. They are getting it. Four more years of what they have been getting, or a new President, with a new plan. When they are standing in the booth, finally forced to choose, I think I know which lever they are going to pull.
RSS Feed