Revisiting the second debate: Crowley and Obama vs. Romney
Commenter “Daniel in Brookline” writes about that seminal second debate of 2012, where Candy Crowley intervened to back up Obama’s claim that he had called the Benghazi attack “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech the day after the attack had occurred:
I blame Romney for hesitating, and then being a gentleman, when it mattered most.
That debate was THE time for him to look the President of the United States right in the eye and tell him, in whatever diplomatic phraseology he could muster, that this simply was not the truth. He should then have let Candy Crowley have it, in a Reaganesque “I paid for this microphone!” manner.
He should have told her that she can either fact-check the debate or moderate it; pick one and stick with it. Or he could have told her ”” “Okay, Candy, you have chosen to stop moderating this debate and offer facts and figures. So let’s have them. Roll the tape of the speech, right now. The President and I will wait.”
He did neither, and the country is the worse off for it.
Obama gambled that Romney was too much of a gentleman to stare a sitting President right in the eye and call him a liar, on nationwide TV. Unfortunately, Obama was right.
I have since wondered ”” if Romney caved during that confrontation, would he not also have caved when negotiating with, say, the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese? But perhaps not. Romney was speaking to the President of the United States ”” an office he respects highly, I’m sure ”” and perhaps Romney was not prepared to treat him as an enemy in bare-knuckled combat.
We don’t know, we will never know. What we do know is that CBS News had its thumb firmly on the scales that night, and made no secret of it. (And, quite frankly, Romney should have expected that. Remember the protests that Candy Crowley would not be a balanced moderator, and remember how all those protests were brushed aside before the debate? I do.)
I agree with Daniel to a certain degree; I would have liked to have seen more of a challenge of the sort he mentioned. But at the time it would have been a very odd thing to do—almost impossible, for reasons I am about to describe.
I have a very different take on what happened internally with Romney during that debate. I agree that he’s a gentleman, and I agree he should have expected foul play to occur at her hands. But her actions were so unusual, even considering MSM bias, that I think he was caught off-guard by several factors, and furthermore I think almost anyone would have been. I strongly believe that he hesitated for a different (and very good) reason than his innate gentlemanly nature.
Romney had done his homework on Obama, and he was probably fairly sure that Obama had not referred to the perpetrators in Benghazi as “terrorists” in that speech. However, lacking a transcript of the speech in front of him, and the time it would have taken to check it out properly enough to be 100% certain, and given Crowley’s remarkable, outrageous intervention, which was so unprecedented, quick, bold, and sure in its assertion, it seemed very highly possible that she had access to some sort of transcript and that she was certain of what she was saying. This introduced some doubt in Romney’s mind as to whether he had his own facts correct, and that doubt was a reasonable one under the circumstances.
I am speculating, of course. But even when I first saw the debate, this was my very strong perception of events.
Romney immediately sensed he was being drawn into a trap. He had done his research and his aides had briefed him, but if he asserted that he was absolutely right and Crowley (waving her papers around, being prompted by Obama to get the transcript) was wrong, and then Romney turned out be wrong, it would be such a gaffe it could sink his presidency bid. So since he could not fact-check himself in real time and be absolutely certain, he chose not to press the point as hard as we would have wished. That was not a failure of nerve, it was an on-the-spot calculation based on the audacity of Crowley’s actions, which he had no way to know were not based on what Obama had actually said.
But why didn’t he call Crowley out simply for intervening at all? I believe it was because he calculated (and rightly so) that the Democrats and the press would have had a field day (especially if he was factually wrong about what Obama had said, but even if he was right) on him for his War on Women. Browbeating the woman, Crowley, and an upstanding member of the press at that! Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time such a calculation on Romney’s part made perfect sense. He was in a bind, where no approach seemed right, because no approach WAS right.
So let’s look at what Romney really did and said, instead of relying on memory.
The first thing to note is that Obama’s statement about saying he had called the Benghazi killings an act of terror in his Rose Garden speech was a response to a question from Crowley. Interestingly enough, it comes rather quickly in response to her question, and she also has set up the parameters by saying at the outset that she will be asking something of Obama but that Romney will only be allowed to answer very briefly. This is all consistent with the theory that the entire episode may have been a pre-arranged set-up between the Obama forces and Crowley, although it certainly doesn’t prove it. It does, however, set up Romney’s expectation that he won’t be allowed much of a response and that he needs to be quick, which I believe colors the entire exchange [emphasis mine in the following; my interpolations and speculations as to what’s actually going on are placed in brackets]:
CROWLEY: Because we’re — we’re closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the governor just quickly.
Your secretary of state, as I’m sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?
OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.
I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.
And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.
CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to…
ROMNEY: Yes, I — I…
CROWLEY: … quickly to this please. [she interrupts Romney to re-emphasize that he will not be allowed to say much, so that he feels rushed and pressed to begin with]
ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. [Romney is feeling his way into this, because he is astounded at the audacity of Obama’s lie—and although you might say one should expect lies from Obama, to lie about something so easily proven, and something Obama hadn’t yet lied about prior to this debate, was something I don’t think Romney would have been able to predict despite being aware of Obama’s propensity to lie]
OBAMA: That’s what I said. [Obama is very calm here, not rattled at all—which is odd under the circumstances. Does he know Crowley will play his trump card?]
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? [he repeats it and clarifies just to make sure that’s what Obama is asserting; now he thinks he’s trapped Obama in the lie]
OBAMA: Please proceed governor. [just as before, Obama is very calm here, not rattled at all; he doesn’t even bother to answer “yes, that’s what I’m saying.” Again, is he aware that Crowley will intervene and is eager to get there? Or is he just weirdly calm? Or is he playing for time?]
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. [making sure again; he again thinks Obama is now trapped in the lie]
OBAMA: Get the transcript. [Obama starts playing the trump card. Who is he talking to? Romney or Crowley, or both? Again, this is a very odd thing to say under the circumstances, and indicates the possibility that he already knows Crowley will back him up.]
CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. [Crowley has been playing with some papers in front of her ever since this sequence began, although she had barely looked at her papers prior to that, and at the moment she makes this statement she waves those papers in the air, giving the impression she’s holding the transcript, although she is not (see this)] So let me — let me call it an act of terror… [she backs Obama up]
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? [it’s not good enough for Obama; he wants to make sure she says it again, and louder, and so he prompts her]
CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. [she obeys Obama and repeats it] It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that. [she feels what she has just done is so blatant that she has to throw Romney a small fish]
ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction. [Romney is shocked, and wonders what in the transcript they could possibly be referring to. But he doesn’t have the transcript, nor do they, so he cannot say. He is trying to regroup and collect his thoughts at this unexpected development. Should he insist Obama said nothing of the sort, when Romney is pretty sure but not 100% sure? Romney thinks that’s another trap, and he doesn’t want to make an error if he’s wrong, so he goes to a related but slightly different issue, based on the fish Crowley has just thrown him]
CROWLEY: It did. [she agrees, thus reinforcing Romney’s tendency to go in this direction rather than back in the other direction. She’s telling Romney he made a mistake about the Rose Garden speech (which he actually did not do), but that he’s on solid ground here]
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary — [he’s pretty sure he’s right here, and he’s trying to get her to confirm it, she’s blocked his other approach, he figures this one is the better bet and might work to convey the same message he was trying to convey before]
OBAMA: Candy? [Obama is warning Crowley. He interrupts Romney to remind her that she’d better interrupt Romney herself before he goes any further with this more winning argument]
ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how — [Romney tries to get Crowley to ignore Obama, and he continues on with his argument, which he senses would be the stronger of the two at this point, since Obama is eager for him to stop]
OBAMA: Candy, I’m — [Obama is warning her again—she better shut Romney up]
ROMNEY: — this was a spontaneous — [Romney keeps going, trying to overtalk them]
CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me —
OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation —
CROWLEY: I know you —
OBAMA: — about foreign policy.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to — I want to move you on and also — [Here Crowley does Obama’s bidding and stops Romney, understanding that Obama really wouldn’t be happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.]
OBAMA: OK. I’m happy to do that, too. [the truth, no doubt]
CROWLEY: — the transcripts and — [this is a very curious moment which I’ve thought about but don’t quite understand. It goes with the start of Crowley’s sentence, which was “I want to move you on and also…”—also the transcripts? What about the transcripts? We’ll never know]
OBAMA: I just want to make sure that —
CROWLEY: — figure out what we — [inscrutable. Who’s “we”? She and Obama? She and Obama and Romney?]
OBAMA: — all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.
CROWLEY: Because what I — what I want to do, Mr. President, stand there a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzalez, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd. [she asks Obama a question that changes the subject and ends the sequence]
QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?…
That was fun, wasn’t it?
Romney actually tries pretty hard, under extremely difficult circumstances, to evaluate what’s happening on the fly and to get some winning arguments in, too. He is clearly handicapped by his slight uncertainty about what’s in every word of the transcript, and their seeming certainty about it. He doesn’t know they’re bluffing, but under the circumstances, he senses that calling their bluff would be unwise. Bold, but unwise.
Nor would it have worked, because the MSM fact-checking machine, which should have blared forth headlines the next day saying that Romney was right, Obama wrong, and Crowley out of line, did nothing of the sort. Had Romney been more aggressive, the MSM would have also added how Romney falsely accused poor Candy Crowley, intrepid woman journalist just trying to do her job.
That’s not to say that no human on earth could have pulled this one out of the fire. But it was not just Romney’s status as a gentleman that did him in, it was the fact that he actually cares about facts, and wanted to get it right. Short of memorizing the transcript and quoting it verbatim and then analyzing it, what could he do? And the other part was that attacking Crowley would have been perceived very negatively, as well. The only plus is that it might have appealed to the Republican base, where Romney was somewhat weak. But he was focused on trying to get his substantive message across, and thought he was close to doing so.
I really think this debate was the first time Romney realized, at a deep gut level, how the MSM would stop at nothing in their determination to make him lose. I don’t think for a moment that any of this would have carried over into his negotiations with a foreign leader, which are not televised. But I don’t think we’ll ever get a chance to find out, because I don’t think Romney is running again. Nor do I want him to, although I admire his integrity and insight very much. I think we have plenty of other good candidates, and I like Romney in the role of senior statesman/advisor.
A great post and even greater scrutiny. It indicts the MSM with even greater counts of treachery that there had not been even a handful of reporters/pundits in that bedlam of the criminally insane who would/could make an issue of the collusion. It is already too late for the MSM to die soon enough — but die they must.
Gosh, Neo, that was painful, reading all that again. The Republicans were truly up against a very, very bad guy with Obama, a many willing to do or say anything, actually unprecedented in our presidential politics. And I think mostly that Romney was simply thrown for a loop.
But what occurred to me reviewing this one more time was that Romney made a tactical mistake in honing in on the Rose Garden statement rather than simply sticking with the it-was-a-video talking points pushed by the Obama administration on TV, notably by Susan Rice. There was nothing obscure about that, while the actual Rose Garden statement did give Obama some wiggle room, in that although he did not say outright that it was an act of terror, by inserting towards the end the sentence “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”, he could plausibly say he meant that to apply to all that had gone before in the statement. And I’m sure that sentence was put in there for just that very purpose.
What an amazing coincidence that Candy just happened to have the transcript of the Rose Garden speech and Obama just happened to know she would have it.
*a man willing*
“Had Romney been more aggressive, the MSM would have also added how Romney falsely accused poor Candy Crowley, intrepid woman journalist just trying to do her job.”
Agreed but I’m not sure he has it in him. There were other millstones around his neck.
Had Romney not been wedded to his Romenycare plan, he might have been able to tell the people back then- “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and it will be $1500 cheaper.” was a bold faced lie. But he could not disown his prodigy health plan.
While I’m sure he is a nice man and a good business man, Romney is no street fighter. Nor is he capable of understanding Chicago Politics. So just like a mugger will roll the nice businessman and take liberties with his wife, Romney was not up to the task.
The country paid the price and continues to pay a heavy price. I don’t really care to hear anymore about Romney. I’m sure his life will go on pretty much the same way it did before the election.
My fear is that the Republik’s now in charge will simply do the same thing when it comes to getting rolled by a thug who takes liberties with their “most cherished possession, the American people”. Although they might tell us aka Clinton- “You better go put some ice on that ” to show us that they really do care 🙁 🙁
I said it then, and I’ll say it again: He should have said something along the lines of “Wait – I thought I was debating the president, not the moderator…”.
Why the Republicans don’t draw a harder line on debate sponsors and moderators when they negotiate them is beyond me.
One idea that intrigues me is the idea of having joint debates with the Democrat candidates during the primaries. Let the voters compare and contrast the candidates and their positions, as well as the parties, in that format.
I just hope we won’t have a big slew of Republican primary debates in 2016 like we had in 2012. It was basically a circular firing squad in 2012, with everyone mortally wounded by the time it was over.
While I can’t put the onus on Mitt — I certainly feel that he was let down by his prep team.
1) Benghazigate was HOT NEWS.
2) Barry had been telling whoppers forever on it.
3) His prep team should’ve used the issue as a debate wedge, for the matter would simply have to come up in the (2nd) debate.
4) By the time of the debate it was crystal clear that Barry’s earlier pitch was absurd.
5) And then Mitt could reel off the weird suppression of the video producer. It has a truly weird backstory, too. There is every reason to believe that the man was a deniable asset for the CIA. (He’d been ‘turned’ many, many, months earlier.)
6) This was a 3AM phone call — at 5PM during mid-week. So Barry ran off to bed — and Las Vegas. The White House phone was ‘off the hook.’
7) White House records established that Panetta and Dempsey were ALREADY scheduled to meet with Barry — at that very hour… and did so.
8) Meaning that Mitt should’ve banked on a cover-up — which is always juicy for the MSM — of which he could declaim.
His prep team dropped the ball, totally.
A good prep team would’ve had the script in Mitt’s pocket — and audio at the ready.
The White House had been spinning the story for weeks. The opportunity to nail their act to the wall was not taken.
Debates of this type ARE games of gotcha! They (his prep team) let a screaming gotcha moment pass on by. It was obvious then and now that Barry would morph his position to look smart today — smarter, even.
But, then, Barry has ALWAYS morphed his positions: new lies for old.
Neo, I think you have nailed it (as usual). I remember that moment in that debate so well.
It was such a shock to hear Crowley personally comment, in the context of a DEBATE, about Obama’s prior actions. I recall thinking, “did she she just say what I think she said..?” And then when Obama said, “get the transcript Candy!” and she pulled it out on cue!, I literally couldn’t believe what I was seeing and hearing.
As sharp and quick-witted as Romeny is, he must certainly have been caught off balance and he needed to respond carefully.
Another occasion that left me initially baffled was when George Stephanopolis asked Romney about contraception (during Meet the Press, I believe). The question seemed to come out of the blue, and then of course soon enough it made sense that the topic/question had been planted with Stephanopolis helping things along for the Dems in their “war on women.”
Both instances, especially Crowley’s actions during that debate, stand out in my mind as stark examples of press bias.
Should probably clarify in my comment that I understand that there is no proof that Crowley actually had the transcript in hand during that moment in the debate.
But at the time, to me at least, it sure looked like she was waving a transcript whether it was other papers or not. And it’s certainly odd that Obama verbally demanded the transcript.
Who was that other guy who used to wave papers around?
In the 50s?
Worked for him pretty well.
Until it didn’t….
Excellent analysis, Neo!
Also reminded me that this was the debate after the first one in Denver where Romney dominated Obama the entire time. Knowing how thin-skinned and vindictive Obama can be, it made sense that he would go into the next debate with at least one trap planned and coordinated with the moderator (in fact, it was critical to his campaign that he regain the ground lost with the disastrous first debate). Who knows if there were other traps laid, or to what degree Candy worked with the Obama team in drafting the questions.
How about Mr. Romney replying strongly that Obama and his Sec’y of State failed to mark Benghazi as an Islamic Terror Act at the ceremony with the coffins and families of the victims in the hanger?
I strongly disagree with Daniel’s contention that Mitt would have had trouble playing rough with thugs, butchers, tyrants and other Bad Guys.
Livs are livs because the msm is their sole source of information. The right has to hold the msm responsible for their in your face, in presidential debate no less, collusion with the left. There are ways to do that in a forceful manner without being perceived as being rude or belligerent. It requires a command of the facts and being fast on your feet.
I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
Maybe because all the other stuff was happening, but I don’t remember this part. Reading it, it sounds so so tacky! Talk about greeting the caskets?
I agree with you Romney was kind of in a bind and I read it the same way, that he was worried he might actually have been wrong in some detail and was worried about attacking too hard. And yes, the whole thing does sound set up.
neo-neocon, you are correct. (But you already knew that.)
Mike, as one who’s been in plenty of street fights and Board Rooms, I’d take my luck in the streets any day. You don’t make the money Mitt did in the M&A world without being very smart and tough. Mitt is no shrinking violet.
I too am persuaded by neo’s analysis and it seems obvious that Obama’s people and Crowley collaborated prior to this debate, specifically on this point simply because Benghazi was such a potentially damaging issue for Obama. And it’s also evident that Crowley is nervous because she knows that if her collusion is somehow exposed by Romney, her career is over.
“Maybe because all the other stuff was happening, but I don’t remember this part. Reading it, it sounds so so tacky! Talk about greeting the caskets? ”
———————-
Photo-op, baby! Yeah! Give him a chance to put on his serious expression, and look deeply contemplative in photos!
On a more serious note, that’s also one of the reasons why Bush tended to avoid those sorts of events. His presence would make the event all about him instead of leaving the focus on the casualties.
I think this event more or less demoralized Romney. While I don’t know for sure, and have never really analyzed it, Romney seemed to be going strong right up until the second debate. And then the fire went out. This incident was unprecedented, and certainly hit at the right time to explain why he didn’t seem to fight as hard afterwards.
That whole “binders” nonsense certainly didn’t help matters, either.
Argument – “Romney’s administration treated its female employees better than Obama’s administration did!”
Counterargument – “Your argument is invalid because Binders!”
Great post. Thank you.
But this raises an interesting question: given that liberal media drones are skewing the debates in favour of liberal candidates, what can be done?
Here’s what I suggest:
1. The candidates get to ask questions of each other. They one one minute to ask. The other candidate gets a fixed period to answer — no extensions. The first candidate gets one minute for a follow-up, and the second candidate gets a fixed time to answer. Then they trade roles.
2. Moderators don’t get to ask questions, don’t get to make comments, nor do they get to control the amount of time a candidate gets to respond (i.e. no “very quickly, Governor”). I’d pick nuns with rulers to be moderators. Their only job is to ensure that the candidates don’t speak out of turn.
3. You could consider going without a moderator: put each candidate in their own studio. When it is their time to speak, the camera and microphone is on them. Otherwise, it’s on the other candidate.
Also, I’d like to see more debates in this format.
As Ann said, it was painful . But a really great post. Is this a case of life (or politics) imitating art because it reads like a hell of a piece of theatre. But would the audiences find it too over the top absurd? Candy Crowley would have to be played by a Jim Bailey type. Really, it’s all so creepy. Candy, socialist and propagandist, is I am sure more than ever respected by her fellows in the business.
We can only dream about the outcome if when Barack said “Get the transcript” and Candy waved the papers, that Mitt would have asked if that was the transcript and if so, that he would have graciously but firmly asked that the pertinent part be read.
The candidates get to ask questions of each other. They one one minute to ask. The other candidate gets a fixed period to answer – no extensions. The first candidate gets one minute for a follow-up, and the second candidate gets a fixed time to answer. Then they trade roles.
—————-
One problem. Based on the transcript (I don’t remember for certain), this was supposed to be one of those “have members of the audience ask the questions” debates. Even though the gimmick is mostly useless, shutting down these sorts of debates would be an unpopular move.
When you review the debate on youtube, it is obvious that Candy Crowley had colluded with Obama before the debate to entrap Romney. When Obama asked Crawley to “get the transcript” she lifted a piece of paper off the desk and began to wave it around indicating that was the transcript. The paper probably had other notes, but she didn’t brandish it until Obama asked her to “get the transcript”. Then she picked up the paper as if it contained damning evidence against Romney.
Under the circumstances it is difficult to imagine what else Romney could have done short of attacking Candy Crawley for her egregious behavior.
See 1:12:00 1:14:40 at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpCrcMF5Ps
Hard to read that transcript again. Some real evil was at work that evening…. And ever since.
Of course there was collaboration between team obama (or team hillary in the future ) and the msm. Duh. That is what must be attacked by cheerful, fearless warriors of the right.
parker said…The right has to hold the msm responsible for their in your face, in presidential debate no less, collusion with the left. There are ways to do that in a forceful manner without being perceived as being rude or belligerent. It requires a command of the facts and being fast on your feet.
Spot on. Especially that being fast on your feet, which gets more and more important because of that MSM collusion with the Dems. Among the possible GOP 2016 presidential candidates, who’s the best at that? I’m thinking Chris Christie. And maybe Rubio.
Well done Neo. I too think Romney was in a bind. I would not have expected that level of audacity by Crowley or Obama, apparently credibility is easy come, easy go.
I am not awed by the debate format at all; I don’t find them particularly useful or informative. I’m okay with maybe one debate just to see how a candidate handles pressure. I rather liked a presentation, I think it was moderated by Gov. Huckabee, where candidates were asked questions and they had an opportunity to expand and follow up on the initial responses. They were solo and uninterrupted. It gave me a better sense of who they were.
” Had Romney not been wedded to his Romenycare plan, he might have been able to tell the people back then……… But he could not disown his prodigy health plan.”
Sigh. This is so tiresome and has been debunked countless times.
Re McCarthy: read “Blacklisted by History”, which debunks the whole “McCarthy was wrong” myth. (Available through Neo’s Amazon link!)
At some point, preferably yesterday, Republicans will have to go to war against the leftwing media. Call them out, publicly and repeatedly, like Trey Gowdy did, for their outrageous bias and lies. They must be exposed, or we’re sunk.
“Get the transcript”, and the quickness and confidence with which Obama says it, seem to me a smoking gun as regards collusion.
Top notch piece, neo. Such a painful moment in the debate to watch. *sigh*
I blame the Republican Party, though. These debates have been dominated by the most biased, left-of-center (sometimes very far left-of-center) “moderators” that they should have stepped in long ago and demanded that this be changed. But then, the Repubs always play by the Marquess of Queensbury’s rules when they go to a street fight. They need to get real.
To fault Romney for his actions in that debate is simply fallacious. Crowley and Obama boxed him in. As we all know, this was not a debate on the merits of the arguments. It was an exercise in Public Relations. Once Crowley sided with Obama, Romney could not win.
There are only two villains in this little morality play. Obama obviously; and Crowley the accomplice. In my mind, Crowley was the worst.
If there were any ethics or honesty in the media they would have castigated Crowley without mercy. That they did not tells us what we need to know about the media.
Mac…
That’s it.
Further, Candy immediately holds up a prop — as if this particular transcript was the only one needed near to hand.
Moderators are never supposed to be a party to either side, and certainly are not to introduce evidence. Like a court proceeding, only the two contending factions are supposed to bring evidence and argument.
Candy jumped off her fence and joined the 0bama party.
Crowley interviewed David Axelrod on her CNN show on September 30th, just a couple of weeks before the debate. It’s interesting that in the exchange, she seems far less sure of how the administration handled the question of whether Benghazi was terrorism or not. Axelrod also tells her “as you know, the president called it an act of terror the day after it happened”. I suppose it’s possible that stuck with her — put it down to some clever prep work on Axelrod’s part, since he knew a debate moderated by her was coming up — and then she simply regurgitated in during the debate. Here’s the exchange:
@Ann
“I suppose it’s possible that stuck with her – put it down to some clever prep work on Axelrod’s part, since he knew a debate moderated by her was coming up – and then she simply regurgitated in during the debate.”
It more probable, however, that she got a memo from above telling her what the official party line was. That would explain the obviously pre-scripted exchange between Obama and Crowley which set up her waving the “transcript”.
This is the best deconstruction of that moment I’ve seen. **shiver**
Very well played, neo. Your analysis is spot-on. The collusion was jaw-droppingly blatant, and even if Romney challenged Crowley, he couldn’t “win” the PR fight, as others have noted.
CV Says:
November 12th, 2014 at 4:19 pm
I caught the George S. set-up as well – another blatant play for the Dems by the Mods. Romney and the other Pubs were genuinely perplexed by his question.
As a theater piece?
No one would believe it.
I think Romney, being a Mormon, was too naive and good-natured to think that he would be involved in a debate not only against Obama but the moderator, who had “evidence” in hand to use against him. Romney was a sap. You have to be evil–either atheistic or Islamic–to win in politics these days. Belief in a goodly higher power will only get you trampled upon by more clever and ambitious people.
The idea that Romney was going to ‘win’ by catching Obama in a lie is laughable. Obama does not care that he lies. That is his MO. He knows he can wriggle out of tight spots. He can make excuses. The press won’t hold him responsible.
But these things were known in advance. So why the grade school approach? ‘He said this.’ or ‘He did not say this.’ That is categorical thinking. It is as if making a single mistake is fatal to one’s credibility. We needed someone whose emotional IQ was a little higher.
That whole “binders” nonsense certainly didn’t help matters, either.
I still can not believe that people took that seriously as a criticism. I felt like Mugatu “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills’. He’s a bad guy because he….used a binder? Seriously? WTactualF!!!!
Almost as dumb as the racist rock criticism of Perry.
Shorter neo-neocon: Romney got bluffed.
The only thing I can blame Romney for was being naé¯ve, but that’s the most important thing. Too many establishment types don’t realize that we’re in a culture WAR. The left too often aren’t our opponents, they are our enemies.
The closest parallel to this is the left’s refusal to believe that the west is in a culture war with Islam. I think we all know how that’s going…
Painful stuff, but a reliving of the scenario that shows only too well the extent of collaboration between the progs and the MSM.
I agree with your conclusions about why Romney was caught out, neo. His campaign theme was that Barack Obama is a decent man whose policies are wrong. To call him a liar or some such equivalent term on national TV would demonize the man and make Romney seem to be aggressively pursuing the politics of personal destruction. Romney didn’t want to go there when he was not absolutely certain what the “transcript” might show. Blindsided, he was. Unless his debate preppers had anticipated such a move, it was almost impossible to come up with an appropriate rejoinder without making a personal attack.
Well done, Neo.
Your very own tenor and tone illustrate an important point in defense of Romney. I’m not referring to the ‘bullying of a woman’ bit, either. But even here, even now, even in retrospect, “one” is, perhaps reasonably, reluctant to simply call a spade a spade in the most blunt and categorical manner possible.
Why? Because you know that even now you cannot state categorically in a way that would preclude all possibility of a “libel” retort, that Candy Crowley proactively conspired, much less shilled and carried water for, the Obama cause.
Even the title of your piece is framed as a revisiting of an issue – the specific theme implied – rather than an analytical expose of beyond all doubt wrongdoing.
And how would anyone go about nailing it down beyond all doubt? Haul Crowley into court? Strap her into a chair and administer Sodium Pentothal?
Imagine just trying to get an interview with her on this subject much less the prospect that she would be forthright.
So given that, what could Romney really have done, but to either do what he did, or go for broke and interrupt the proceedings and break the 4th wall, so to speak.
And that, as you point out carried its own immense risk.
I doubt that something carried off by foul-mouthed debaters would have worked for Romney; the left doesn’t have to defend rules of civility and comity and transparency, while feeling perfectly free to attack those upholding them, for any perceived deviations whatever.
Water boarding Crowley, or her undergoing an epiphany, is likely the only way anyone will ever get the truth; and that aint gonna happen.
Lea:
So, are you with Gruber on the stupidity of the American public 🙂 ?
The truth is that propaganda works, if it’s done cleverly. And what seems preposterous can still work as propaganda if you understand the buttons to push. It’s not even necessarily about smart vs. stupid. Sometimes (often?) it’s about the things that resonate emotionally with people.
DNW:
Yes, it is unprovable unless there some recording of the collaboration, and of course there is not. Perhaps the collaboration was not overt, even. Perhaps someone merely said to Crowley at some point prior to the debate (as, for example, Axelrod apparently did, as Ann points out here) that Obama had called it a terror attack in that speech. Perhaps she understood the rest—that is, what was necessary.
Hugh Hewitt did an interview with Candy Crowley both before the debate (Oct. 5) and a couple of months after the debate (Dec. 7). If you can bear it, both are worth a read. Couple of excerpts — first from before the debate:
And from the Dec. 7 interview, here she is pleading innocence in the face of those accusing her of colllusion with Obama:
Ann:
Interesting. When I get a moment I’ll take a look at those interviews, although I may have read them 2 years ago, when it all happened. But just the fact that Crowley stood by her assertion that Obama called the Benghazi attack terrorism in the Rose Garden speech reveals her bias, because he definitely did not. But that doesn’t deal with the remarkable fact that she decided to fact-check Romney in real time, without a transcript, and wave those papers, going way beyond the role of a moderator in a presidential debate. Even had she been correct in her facts, that was an outrageous act on the face of it.
I agree, Neo, her role was not to interject herself into the debate like that. And I think she may have realized that a moment or two after she did it because she becomes exceedingly flustered right after that point, even trying to throw a bone to Romney by saying he was right on some other aspect of the thing, I think Susan Rice’s spiel on TV news shows.
I had a vague memory that before the debate she made some comments to the effect that she’d be inserting herself rather forcefully into the debate, unlike earlier moderators, and I just found this:
So she saw her role as “pro-active” from the get-go.
Add to that the pressure she must have been feeling to come to Obama’s aid because of his extremely poor performance in the first debate.
Many thanks for going over it all in detail, Neo! (And yes, as many have already said, that was painful to re-live.)
Many here are stipulating a collaboration, overt or otherwise, between the President and Crowley. (We will not have anything other than suspicions unless either Obama or Crowley come forward with evidence. However, using Occam’s Razor, it really is difficult to believe that there was NOT collusion here.)
So stipulate collusion. The connotations are mind-boggling.
The President said “Get the transcript”… and Crowley jumped right to it, as though it was an order she was expecting. (Had she not, her reaction would have been “Are you talking to me, Mr. President?” or perhaps “Which transcript?”)
What’s even more mind-boggling for me is that the President could not have known, in advance, that he’d be called on this particular issue. So Crowley must have been prepped to back up the President, perhaps on more than one issue, at his request.
The sheer brazen dishonesty of the President — for he must have been in on it, to make the call the way he did — and of Crowley, to go along with it — is breath-taking.
Concerning your basic thesis, Neo, I agree that Romney was bluffed to perfection. And it’s quite possible that no one, in his shoes, could have done any better than he did. That doesn’t stop me from wishing he’d risen to the challenge. It’s just too bad, that’s all.
And it’s also too bad that it took something like this to discover what President Obama is actually good at. It’s the only virtuoso performance by him, at anything, that I can recall.
Nice job, Neo, although that was painful. I HATED that evening. Felt it was a death-blow to the gut of the nation. Not so much the vent itself (which was bad enough, in a Soviet Show Trial way), but the Fourth Estate’s reaction to it, and the Democratic Party’s reaction to it. No criticism. Silence. It showed that the machine worked whatever means to attain ends they thought best. And the well-meaning Democrats, who are legion, just set themselves up to be destroyed by whomever, or whatever, adopts those tactics and gains power.
Sham on Candy Crowley. Shame on any news agency that didn’t fire her on the spot. Shame on any party that would let its leader behave in such a manner.
Nice work. Well done.
I wish Mitt would personally sue Candy Crowley for millions of dollars. There has to be some consequence for moderator behavior that might swing an election.
Kathleen: part of the problem here is that LOTS of people seem to consider it their DUTY to do things that “might swing an election”.
I believe Tina Fey still brags about taking down Sarah Palin. The various news networks hide information that might be embarrassing to the President, while embarrassing Republicans at every opportunity… and they do it because they want to, not because they were told to!
Let’s count ourselves lucky that the Democrats were asleep at the switch in 2014. You can bet they won’t be in 2016. And a great many unpaid Democrat activists will do anything they can do influence the election. (Fortunately, we are starting to see a backlash — see Neo’s post about the man who researched Jonathan Gruber in his spare time.)
And let’s hope that, among the many legislative measures Republicans push over the next two years, that electoral transparency is among them. We may not have had much of a problem with voter fraud in 2014, but we can certainly expect it in 2016.
Daniel in Brookline, 5:57 pm — “We may not have had much of a problem with voter fraud in 2014, but we can certainly expect it in 2016.”
We don’t know that, concerning the 2014 election. We really don’t know how deep and tall and wide and profound and punishing to the bad guys the 2014 results may actually have been, had there actually taken place a genuinely clean election.
Anyone out there care to speculate?
By the way, thanks, neo, for the meticulous effort you put in, in undertaking this analysis. We are ‘way more “up” on this watershed event as a result.
(Too bad most of us will probably not get to use our insights in conversations, since those with whom we agree don’t need it and those with whom we disagree won’t hear it.)
MJR: I’ll speculate. There has been a lot of talk lately about an election being “beyond the margin of fraud”… and some statistics were done, indicating that, when elections are extremely close, they really do go to the Democrats, significantly more than 50% of the time.
Are we seeing that now? We may have seen it in New Hampshire. But frankly, that election was not expected to be close; it’s amazing that Scott Brown got as close as he did. So I don’t suspect fraud in that case, not really. And we just heard that a very close election in Alaska has gone to the Republican candidate.
Nor have we heard, as we did in 2012, of massive voter intimidation at the polls, nor of districts where 100% of votes went to a particular candidate. It’s possible that it happened, although I do think we’d have heard about it by now.
All this means to me, however, is that those intent on perpetrating voter fraud — no parties named here! — were not terribly motivated in the 2014 mid-term election. I strongly suspect that this will NOT be the case in 2016.
So let’s deal with voter fraud preemptively… BEFORE 2016.
“it was the fact that he actually cares about facts, and wanted to get it right”
Nailed it. The terrible thing about an MSM that doesn’t care about facts is that victory goes to the boldest liar. Not good for the Republic.