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.
