(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Presidential mud and oil wrestling - Tom Shales at Large
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20121020225159/http://blogs.suntimes.com:80/shales/2012/10/town_hall_debate.html

Presidential mud and oil wrestling

| 19 Comments | No TrackBacks

hofstradebate.jpg

(AP photo)

by Tom Shales

"What I try to do is be consistent," said President Barack Obama. He was talking about energy policy -- not about debating strategies, because as all the world knows by now, Obama projected a far more aggressive and engaged persona at his second debate against Mitt Romney than he did at the first. He managed to do it without being self-conscious, a neat trick since the reviews of his previous performance were so unanimously negative.

He wasn't consistent -- lucky for him.

At times the leader of the free world had to get down in the mud with his opponent; Romney is not the cleanest fighter in the world; he's a guy who not only changes his views and opinions as seems convenient but also, sometimes, alters the "facts" on which they were based. So it was that Obama's finest moment was also his most passionate -- when he declared it "offensive" that Romney had played politics with the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi last month and then accused the Obama administration of doing the same thing.

Referring to the now-notorious press release issued by the Romney campaign while the crisis was still going on, Obama lectured, "You don't turn national security into a political issue."

It had not, however, been a dull evening up to that point -- far from it. Obviously making amends for a passive performance at the previous confrontation with Romney, Obama struck back at his rival's charges and claims rather than just trying to ride them out and hang onto his dignity. Televised debates are not good places for maintaining dignity, as Obama learned the hard way that night, and in fact dignity may be counter-productive, especially when your opponent is given to rude interruptions and refusals to yield the floor.

Heated conflict is considered great TV whether the subjects are momentous or frivolous, and there was plenty of heated conflict at the debate, but it was meaningful heated comment for the most part. As a result, George F. Will, ABC's king of commentators, said that after having seen every presidential debate held in his lifetime, "This was immeasurably the best."

That's considerably more coherent, and convincing, than what anchor Scott Pelley said in his head-spinning post-mortem over on CBS: "Well, we have never seen the likes of that in presidential history," Pelley exulted. It would go down, he said, as "the night that presidential debates were changed forever."

It will? No it won't. That's ridiculous. Presidential candidates have certainly clashed dramatically in past debates, including those done in the "town-hall format" that was used for last night's, with both men rising from stools to stalk each other around the carpeted floor.

As in the first debate, Romney was reluctant to let the moderator run the show (and Republicans were already claiming last night's moderator, Candy Crowley of CNN, was biased against their candidate). When, late in the debate, Crowley asked Romney specifically to speak to the matter of "self-deportation," a phrase he coined for getting tough with illegal immigrants, Romney flatly told her "no," like a bratty kid. He didn't want to speak to it and he wouldn't, so there. He wanted to talk about something else.

What he really wanted was to run the debate, not just participate in it. As in the first debate, his approach verged on bullying, as well as being just plain bossy. Or "bossy moo cow" as a friend, mother of two, used to say.

Romney wanted to hammer away at the same points over and over, no matter what questions he was asked, which is standard behavior in American politics, whether at debates or press conferences. He wanted to say, for instance, that the middle class has had it bad under Obama, and say it and say it and say it, in terms as melodramatic as possible. He said middle-income families were "crushed" under Obama's policies, and used the word "crushed" again in reference to the same demographic and same policies a few minutes later.

He also used terms akin to suffocating the middle class, murdering the middle class, hitting the middle class over the head with a club and throwing it into the river -- that sort of thing, and it isn't much of an exaggeration. Chastised for not fighting back during the first debate against Romney, Obama saved a reference to Romney's notorious crack about "47 per cent" of the U.S. population not paying taxes and just sitting around collecting government checks for his final summation, so that Romney had no chance to shoot it down.

Romney obviously saw it coming, because in his closing remarks he made a pointed reference to caring about "100 per cent" of the American people, but Obama won the point with the help of the time clock and the format. Many observers had wondered why Obama didn't attack Romney on such a vulnerable matter during their first close encounter, so he made up for it at the end of the second one.

Having questions submitted by members of a pre-selected audience -- a few dozen supposedly undecided voters from the New York area (the debate was staged at Hofstra University) -- was only fitfully successful. One voter had tried to memorize an elaborately worded question and, stumbling over her words, had to pull out a paper and read from it. In wide shots of the assembled crowd, most of them looked enervated and bored; the Night of the Sitting Dead.

One woman in the audience, however, came up with a pretty nifty question, asking Romney to list the ways in which he differed from the last Republican president, bumbling and goofy George W. Bush. Romney listed several ways and didn't go out of his way to sweeten his remarks with token praise for Bush, either.

Romney also deserves credit for saying of the Republicans, "Our party has been focused on big business too long." No kidding! By saying that, though, Romney was able to segue effectively into his continuing diatribe about how beastly the Obama administration has supposedly been to small businesses and of course the crushed, stomped-upon, starved and tortured middle class. Can you, like me, remember a time when Americans generally chafed at being called "middle class," no matter how middle class they were? Seems it's ancient history now.

The audience in the hall broke the moderator's rule against never applauding, never making a peep of any kind, during Obama's emotional comment on the Libya attacks and the deaths of beloved U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans. Obama conveyed deep personal concern as he discussed the murders and the attack, but Romney looked and sounded as though he still wanted to score political points off it.

"Mitt Romney was not on his game," said the admittedly partisan Donna Brazile during the ABC post-debate analysis; she was biased, but she was right. By far, as at previous debates, ABC assembled the most illustrious group of commentators to talk about the event and went to the most trouble to fill out the two hours of air time allocated. Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos ably co-anchored. A couple technical foul-ups were fortunately minor.

Also part of the ABC group, columnist Matthew Dowd called the debate "a clear victory for President Obama," though over on NBC, Tom Brokaw was cautiously telling anchor Brian Williams that he thought neither candidate scored a decisive knock-out. And on CBS, Pelley just kept ranting on about what an unprecedented and history-making debate it had been, suggesting he hasn't paid very close attention to the last 50 or 60 years of American politics.

In the hour before the debate, ABC aired another episode of "Dancing with the Stars," this one featuring a guest appearance by Donny Osmond singing a duet with British working-class discovery Emma Boyle. The song they sang seemed chosen to be appropriate -- something about "This is the Moment," the big night has arrived and that sort of thing. One line, "I won't look down," could almost have been a direct reference to Obama's bad habit of appearing on-camera with his head bowed as, apparently, he read over notes while Romney talked during Debate No. 1.

He didn't look down, as it happened -- hardly at all -- during Debate No. 2. He held his head high, and not for nothing.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/50945

19 Comments

Way to go, Tom! With love, Tom. Actually I am trying to get the hang of handling comments about the blog. The more the merrier. Well not really. But anyway, a couple readers suspected a dire left-wing conspiracy when comments failed to appear after a previous column and in fact, it wasn't a conspiracy except maybe a conspiracy of dunces (a conspiracy of, a confederacy of, dunces? the title of a great one-of-a-kind book is embedded within) -- well to put it more simply, I screwed up. I myself, not a group of people. A confederacy of ONE dunce. We are trying to rectify this and, as David Letterman would say, you know how painful that can be.

Susan Boyle. Not Emma.

Hehe, it's important that be clarified.

I donn't have anything substantive to add to your fine assessment, so I'll assess the photo you chose: don't these guys look like they're singing "I Got You, Babe"?

Obviously, you're spinning everything to make Obama look as good as possible. Why, I don't know because Romney's answer to the African American gentleman's question about what Obama has done to earn his vote summed this election up entirely:

The type of recovery we have seen the past three years (that is to say, almost no recovery) is prologue for the next four years if Obama gets re-elected.

With Romney there is a chance of a real recovery, like him or not.

I stopped reading at "leader of the free world".

You think Romney was rude for interrupting? What about Biden??!!!!
And Candy was absolutely biased, anyone with eyes and ears could tell that.

I love Shales as a film critic, though I have not heard or read him for awhile. But, he certainly did not watch the same debate that I did. I saw a debate in which the moderator abandoned her office to become an inept, partisan, on-the-scene fact-checker and in which she interrupted Romney about three times as often as she did Obama. And, Obama got about four minutes more floor time.

We have wasted four years with Obama, we do not have another four years to waste.

Hey, Rob! Maybe you should take a look at the unemployment numbers (DOWN!) and the new home construction numbers (UP!). Took the Republicans several years to bring this country to its knees, but less than 4 for a Democrat president to start the process of bringing it back. Even with a Republican Congress doing every last thing in its power to kill the recovery, only for political reasons.

Personally, I think Obama could have made way better progress if he would have taken better advantage of his enormous approval rating right after he was elected. I believe his failure to do so, and some of his actions right after taking office - like his deal with Big Pharma - amounted to nothing less than a betrayal of those who put him in office. It also cost us a Congressional majority. After volunteering for him, and financially supporting him, I began to despise Obama for letting this country down so badly.

And STILL he is SO much a better choice than Romney. I just hope we get a much more active President as a lame duck.

Honest question I don't know the answer to. Is Romney's 47% number correct? It's been widely mocked, but if he's right, isn't that at least slightly important?

To John L's question upthread, when Mitt Romney made his reference to "the 47%," he seemed to have in mind Americans who would vote for President Obama no matter what; in other words, to Americans whose votes Romney could not hope to win. His explanation for this -- that these Americans would never take responsibility for their own lives, that they were dependent on the government, and so forth -- has been rightly criticized as beyond insensitive. Indeed, it was highly insulting.

However, Romney's remarks were not intended for public consumption. He made them to a closed audience of wealthy campaign donors, and tried during his remarks -- as Romney frequently does before any audience -- to pander to what he either knew or assumed were his audiences prejudices. They had come to listen to him talk about the campaign, and Romney did so in a way that he thought would make sense to them, explaining that the only electoral victory Romney could hope to win would be a narrow one.

It is doubtful that many members of his audience that day in Boca Raton disagreed with the idea that many Americans are dependent on the state, slackers, refuse to take responsibility for their own lives, and so forth. This is belief common among wealthy people in this country, even or perhaps especially among wealthy people who have come by their money through accidents of birth or skill in relatively unproductive industries like corporate law or financial services. In any event, Romney does not appear to have been delivering a socioeconomic analysis at the spring fundraiser. He was merely trying to explain why his campaign, like those of other recent national Republican candidates, had to play to win a close election.

The fact is, obama was utterly unqualified for the job. Read up on him, and you will see he has been handed everything on a silverplatter his entire life because of the color of his skin and his cool demeanor. Democrats have always been far more racist than Republicans. I'm sorry, but it's true! I mean, really people, what did you expect from this guy?

No, it wasn't correct. He was referring to people who do not pay an income tax, but completely excluding those who pay a payroll tax.

And in response to some of the hypocritical comments above, why is Romney considered a winner when he bullies and interrupts while Biden is labeled inconsiderate and rude? Let's face it, Romney won the first debate because he came with his guns loaded and Biden did the same. I'm as liberal as they come, and even I can admit it when my preferred candidate loses, though I do believe last night saw a nice turn-around.

I like your debate reviews most when you catch some things other reviewers miss: for example "Romney obviously saw it coming."

Other commentators are usually so busy spinning for their own side they don't care about the debate tactics of the players.

Long ago, I decided. I don't need debates...just common sense from looking at the world around me. My vote was settled as,"Anyone but Obama!"

How could anyone evaluate the past four years and want more of the same?

Don't take this the wrong way, but anyone who votes for the sitting President is a selfish child. Anyone who has had to work hard to feed his family and put a roof over his head can see right through the President. Anyone who has ever balanced a family budget, can see right through the President. Anyone who has had to make tough choices on where the money goes each month can see through this President. Anyone who has tried, failed, gotten back up and tried again can see right through the President. He is a sham.

Our economy continues to be in a shambles. Our foreign policy is incoherent. The national debt is six trillion dollars higher than when he took office. Our country, the one that both Dems and Repubs live in, is in sorry shape and this President has helped us get there. We need a change.


Rebecca, you embarrass yourself and your mindless, ignorant, ill-informed group of Obama supporters when you begin your diatribe with "UNEMPLOYMENT IS DOWN."

Ignorance is no excuse in this day and age and stupidity amongst democrats is apparently at epidemic proportions. There are more people unemployed today than when Obama took office. There are over 23 million people unemployed or underemployed and millions of Americans have simply given up.

If you are referring to the unemployment RATE going down mysteriously following Obama's debate depantsing by Mitt Romney, that rate is bogus on many levels. The simplest explanation being a combination of more people giving up looking for work & fuzzy math. Kind of like last week when unemployment filings were down. Of course that was because CALIFORNIA hadn't filed their numbers! Today's numbers being way up reflect CALIFORNIA actually being counted this time.

Obama had everything handed to him on a silver platter? A father who left him, a mother with a low income job...and someone said, "Here, african american man, a diploma from an ivy league school, followed by years of community involvement, leading to the highest office in the world!" You need to wake up and smell that stuff you're shoveling. It's funny that for years white people had no problem voting for other white people...

Leave a comment

Tom Shales


Tom Shales served as TV critic of The Washington Post for 25 years, winning the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 1989. He left the once-proud paper in Ruins. Shales also spent two decades reviewing movies for NPR's Morning Edition and is the coauthor of two bestsellers: "Live from New York," on "Saturday Night Live," and "Those Guys Have All the Fun," on ESPN. No wonder he's tired.

Categories

Pages

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tom Shales published on October 16, 2012 10:43 PM.

Biden vs. Ryan: "More real" was the previous entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.