So Much for an Impartial Media

The reason Mitt Romney trounced Barack Obama during the first presidential debate was because the moderator, Jim Lehrer, allowed the candidates to answer questions in at least some depth (though two minutes doesn't seem like a long time, it's longer than a minute and a half, which is the time allotment during last night's debate), and then respond to one another, if they wished to follow up with comments or clarifications. Lehrer was trashed by liberals who felt he left Obama vulnerable to Romney's attack. But in reality, what Lehrer did was allow America to get to know the candidates, to hear them express their ideas in unscripted, even candid ways. This is why Romney out-shined Obama in that setting. Obama is barely able to communicate without a teleprompter and prepared remarks (unless he's talking to cheering crowds), whereas Mitt Romney seems to have not only a keen grasp on the issues but an ability to think on his feet.

The reason Obama seems to have "won" the second debate, at least according to today's polling, is because the debate setting, facilitated by the moderator, Obama supporter Candy Crawley, protected Obama from even the remotest possibility of vulnerability. Not only did Crawley allow little to no follow-up discussion (maybe only once or twice when one or the other candidate refused to back down), thus allowing claims to go unanswered or unchallenged, at one point she actually interjected herself into the debate and "corrected" Mitt Romney's claim that Obama had not referred to the attack in Benghazi as a terrorist attack in his Rose Garden remarks on September 12th. Crowley's interruption elicited illegal applause from the audience (possibly initiated by Michelle Obama herself), a shout-out from Obama ("can you say that again a little louder, Candy?"), and fawning adulation from the liberal media. Today's write-up in the Los Angeles Times, for example, includes Crawley's interruption in the first few paragraphs of their reporting as though it were perfectly normal behavior for a moderator, and in an accompanying write-up, Times' television critic Mary McNamara  actually gushes: "Moderator Candy Crowley, like Supreme Court justices, should be appointed for life."

If Mitt Romney lost this debate, it was because the stage was set for Obama to win. My personal take was that Obama was not the better debater. His answers, as always, were vague, non-specific, off-topic (he literally avoided answering the question about responsibility for lack of security at Benghazi! Listen to the question and then his response. He did not even remotely answer the question). By contrast, Romney at least had something to say. I do, however, agree with Dennis Prager who complains that people don't remember statistics (millions and billions and trillions), they remember ideas. I also agree with other conservative commentators who are saying that Romney missed quite a few opportunities to walk away with this debate. Even if the questions were loaded (the question about women's pay equity? A cynical ploy to reclaim the women's vote. Assault rifle bans? George Bush?), Romney could have turned them into strong arguments for his position, instead of going off into the weeds of statistical minutiae. And the Libyan embassy terrorist attack? This is a huge albatross for Obama, and the person who posed the question practically gift-wrapped an opportunity for Romney challenge Obama face to face on what his administration did or did not know, and why they've persisted in lying to the American people about this story. Why didn't Romney go after this like a pit bull? Instead, he whiffed. Then, to make matters worse, Crowley managed to deflect the attack (at least for now) by literally (OK, figuratively) getting on stage and wriggling her guy off the hook.

In short, the town hall format was a joke, the questions were (mostly) a joke, the moderator was a joke. Nevertheless, Obama "won," so say the polls.

There's still another debate. Romney can re-group. I hope he does.

Here's what I sent in to the LA Times this morning:

Dear Letters Editor, 

The Los Angeles Times has no problem with moderator Candy Crowley “fact-checking” Mitt Romney in the middle of his argument, yet what she did was an egregious violation of a debate moderator’s supposedly neutral role. Crawley’s inappropriate intervention got a shout-out from the president, unacceptable applause from the audience, and fawning adulation from the Times, even though she has since acknowledged that Romney was, in fact, correct. Crawley’s behavior is analogous to a referee helping shove the quarterback into the end zone. Yet rather than fault Crawley for this violation, your next day reporting celebrates your team’s win and hails the referee. So much for the myth of an impartial media.

Candy Crowley Gets it Wrong, by Henry D'Andrea (Washington Times)