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)

The Mainstream Media: Fooling No One But Fools

Today, the Los Angeles Times colluded with others in the mainstream media in a cynical attempt to change the subject and make the 9/11/12 attacks on the Libyan and Egyptian embassies about Mitt Romney and not about President Obama and his failed Middle Eastern policies.

If that sounds a bit paranoid, eavesdrop on members of the press corps prior to Romney's press conference following his supposed gaffe in criticizing Obama's response to the embassy attacks. In this audio clip , CBS news reporter Jan Crawford is caught on open mic prompting the other reporters on what to ask Romney. At the end of this clip she says she just wants to make sure that "no matter who he calls on, we're covered on the one question."

Ah, nothing like a bit of open mic. Sort of reminds you of Toto pulling back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.

Aren't we getting tired of the press literally not doing its job?

Do members of my liberal/left-leaning family really want to live in a country in which the press covers for their "guy" in office rather than holding his feet to the fire? I desperately fear that they do, for the "greater good."

Today's LAT lead editorial was called "Romney's Opportunism," and they blasted Mr. Romney for criticizing Obama's response to the attacks, calling it an "outrageous exercise in opportunism." They conclude thusly: "In mixing sympathy with specious attacks and self-promotion, Romney has diminished himself."

Not surprisingly, I disagree. In fact, I'd say it's the Times that has diminished itself, having lost all credibility and objectivity.

Anyway, so here's my Letter to the Editor:

Re. “Romney’s Opportunism” (9/13/12):

In your editorial, you accuse Mitt Romney of cynically playing politics with these horrific attacks at the Libyan and Egyptian embassies. 

This is a complete red herring. 

According to your own front-page story, these attacks, which occurred on the anniversary of 9/11, appeared to be “planned and complex,” yet apparently no Marines were stationed at these embassies to provide security. 

Libya and Egypt are still volatile hotbeds of anti-American sentiment, and their governments are anything but stable. 

President Obama was indeed belated in his response to the Egyptian embassy’s statement about hurting Muslims’ feelings. 

Secretary of State Clinton seems mystified that anyone would attack America.

Today, there was an attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen, and there’s more unrest in Egypt. 

And Mitt Romney’s the story? 

Instead of focusing on Mitt Romney, who as a presidential candidate has every right to weigh in on this debacle, the question you should be asking is: Who’s in charge of this circus? This attempt to divert attention away from the incompetence of the Obama administration by focusing on Romney fools no one but fools. 

It’s not Romney who’s playing politics but the Los Angeles Times.

Update (9/17): My letter to the editor wasn't published, but an even better letter was in yesterday's paper. Mary Bono Mack (Republican representative from Palm Springs), wrote the following:

The editorial is off the mark. The Middle East has undergone a historic shift. How the United States conducts its foreign policy there is always important and often decisive. 

The direction that the president has steered the State Department ship counts. But rather than raising valid questions about the Obama administration's handling of a monumental international crisis, rather than exploring the root causes of why American embassies are under assault, your editorial lambasts Mitt Romney for failing to raise his hand before he spoke. 

 The steady foreign policy constant over the last half a century is that American leadership matters. Romney provided leadership in the moment, and the Obama administration did not. 

As chaos erupts in the Middle East, your readers deserve a substantive debate on the implications of two competing visions of America's foreign policy.

I sent Ms. Mack a personal email, thanking her for her letter. 

On another note, the notion that the mainstream media focused more on Romney's comment and less on Obama's foreign policy, here's an interesting analysis from the Media Research Center: 

The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) Wednesday evening newscasts devoted more than 9 minutes (9 minutes, 28 seconds) to the flap over Mitt Romney's statement criticizing the administration's handling of the Libyan crisis but spent just 25 seconds on questions regarding Barack Obama's Middle East policy, a greater than 20-to-1 disparity. 

No media bias?

You can read their entire report here, along with transcripts.

Food for Thought for Independent Voters

I just happened to be in the kitchen fixing a little snack and turned on the radio just in time to catch a snippet of Dennis Prager's interview with Michael Medved on Prager's radio show.

Medved has just published an e-book called The Odds Against Obama in which he argues (among other things) that, historically-speaking, the numbers just don't add up when it comes to Obama being re-elected. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on this. However, the few moments that I tuned in were interesting more from the phone call from a listener than anything Mr. Medved had to say about his book.

The caller introduced herself (I think her name was Kim) and labeled herself as a "Christian Independent Gay Person" (or CIGP, as Dennis joked). The gist of her call was that she was not impressed with Obama in the aftermath Democratic National Convention but that she wasn't entirely sold on Romney, either, and she didn't know what to think.

I thought Michael's response to her was very good. He asked her if, as an independent, she wanted to see more cooperation between the parties in Washington.

Of course, she replied. Like most people, she's tired of the gridlock.

Then ask yourself, Michael responded, which of the two candidates is more likely to cooperate with members of the opposite party: Romney, a successful Republican governor of Democrat-leaning Massachusetts whose legislature was comprised mostly of Democrats, or Obama, who early in his tenure alienated members of the opposite party (he famously shut down Republicans objecting to the size of his stimulus package by saying, "I won"), who rejected Republican input regarding his health care reform bill and ended up passing it without a single Republican vote, whose entire campaign is based on characterizing the Republican party as not only wrong but evil?

Point well taken. Kim seemed to agree.

After Kim hung up, Dennis asked Michael to explain the caller's ambivalence. Michael attributed it to the possibility that she, being gay, might still struggle with the perception of the Republican party as being anti-gay (it is not). He hopes people like Kim are able to understand that there's a difference between believing the one man/one woman definition of marriage and being anti-gay.

I'd add that I feel the gay marriage issue has become a red herring in terms of its relevance (or irrelevance) to this election. In my view, the key issues that should matter to voters are the economy, the deficit, taxes, and the size and scope of government (which is related to the previous three). Social issues like gay marriage and even abortion, which is only back in the spotlight because of the asinine comments of an irrelevant Republican senator, should be subordinate to these other issues.

Clint Eastwood and Mitt Romney: Timing is Everything

Two days out and still lots of reaction. Everything from spluttering outrage to expressions of pity. I've read conservative commentary postulating that it was all choreographed: the tousled hair, the long pauses, the stammering and the stuttering, the occasional blistering zinger. I've read liberal analysis from political pundits and film critics speculating about everything from Eastwood's diminished mental state to his underlying motives (maybe deep down he supports Obama, which is why he seemingly sabotaged Mitt Romney's long-awaited moment in the spotlight!). There have been the expected cheers from the right ("Go ahead--make my day!") and charges of hypocrisy ("they can dish it out but they sure can't take it"), as well as the occasional point-well-taken (stand-up comics have simply not dared to mock Obama--Clint Eastwood was simply doing their job).

In fact, pretty much every point is well-taken. For what it's worth, here's my take on Clint Eastwood's appearance at the GOP Convention on the night Mitt Romney made his acceptance speech as the nominee for president of the United States: 

Meeting Mitt Romney

Loved this video. Laughed out loud a couple of times. Cried a bit at others. I admire him.

Yes, America Does Deserve Better

I love this new Romney ad that focuses on the vile ads coming from the Obama camp, and also the one put out by American Crossroads. The Obama team must be convinced that the only way Obama can get re-elected is to utterly demonize Mitt Romney. And they may be right since Obama obviously can't run on his record, and the idealistic "hope and change" message that catapulted him to the Oval Office in 2008 has been revealed as totally bogus. So I guess these ugly ads from Barack Obama (not such a nice guy, after all) will just keep on coming until November 6th.

Of course my fear is that the "average" (read: non-scrutinizing) voter could very well believe these lies. I know members of my own family who believe them. So the Romney team must walk a fine line in their response: to return "tit for tat" and turn out dishonest ad hominem ads the Obama does could backfire. On the other hand, to say nothing, to play the gentleman, the way John McCain did in 2008, is to essentially surrender. So Romney has to be willing to play hard ball while at the same time playing fair. I think these ads meet those two requirements.

Mitt Romney's Full Speech at NAACP Convention

Today Mr. Romney spoke before the NAACP Convention. Since most news outlets will focus on the moment during the speech when Mr. Romney was booed when he discussed "Obamacare," my guess is that most people will assume Mr. Romney was reamed and that the speech was a disaster. But I listened to the speech and was impressed by the fact that he was applauded several times (politely, yes, but applause is applause).

The audience applauded when he said, "With 90 percent of African-Americans voting for Democrats, some of you may wonder why a Republican would bother to campaign in the African American community, and to address the NAACP. Of course, one reason is that I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed or sexual orientation, from the poorest to the richest and everyone in between."

The audience applauded when he said, referring to black children who are disproportionately represented in under-performing schools, "Our society sends them into mediocre schools and expects them to perform with excellence, and that is not fair. Frederick Douglass observed that, 'It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.' Yet, instead of preparing these children for life, too many schools set them up for failure. Everyone in this room knows that we owe them better than that."

He was applauded when he said he would defend traditional marriage.

And the "booing" was actually an interesting moment in the speech. Yes, the audience booed, but Mr. Romney handled it in a way that I thought was very classy. He didn't seem to get flustered, he didn't ignore the booing and then carry on with his speech. Instead, he let the audience express themselves, and then, going off-script, he explained further what he meant and didn't back down. If you can't respect him for that, then you'll never respect him.

Anyway, for those who didn't watch or listen to the speech, here's the video (source: PBS NewsHour).

Why I Support Mitt Romney in Italics

I am bothered by the impression of late that a choice between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney is an either/or proposition in terms of which one is the conservative candidate. I don't believe it. Mitt Romney is conservative. His life choices reflect conservative values:

He's a man of faith. Even if doctrinally we differ, he is still a man of faith. Can't we at least concede this? Dennis Prager made a good point this morning on his radio program about this. Some Christians say they can't vote for Romney because of his Mormonism. Prager says, Jimmy Carter is a born-again Christian. Would these same people vote for Carter just because he says he's a Christian? They would not. Even Barack Obama claims to be a Christian (cynicism aside, let's just take him at his word). Let me see....Obama the "Christian" or Romney the Mormon?

He's a family man.

He is a charitable, philanthropic man.

He is an honest man, a decent man.

He's a patriotic man. 

He's a smart man, a business man, a pragmatic man.

He's a proven leader. 

I'm getting a little tired of hearing people (calling in to talk radio, for example) say they can't vote for Romney because he's robotic, or that doesn't have enough passion about social issues, or he doesn't speak for "the working class" person, or worse, that his Mormon doctrine is a deal breaker. Enough of this. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, which in all likelihood is going to be the case, what are these people going to do with Barack Obama's arrogance (give me robotic over arrogance any day), Barack Obama's passion on social issues like gay marriage or abortion, etc., Barack Obama's antagonism toward working class people, or Barack Obama's cynical disdain for people of faith, Barack Obama's hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Yes, it's time to stop the bloodletting in the Republican party so whatever damage has been done these past few months can hopefully be undone and these naysayers can be convinced to re-think their views and get them to unite behind the Republican candidate, as imperfect as he seems to them. I am absolutely terrified that this divisive rhetoric within the Republican party is doing irreparable damage to our chances to defeat this horrible president, and I wish social and religious conservative leaders would accept the inevitable, take the initiative, and unite 100% behind Romney.

Romney can't win if the conservative base is divided. It will be hard enough to win back the independents who have been turned off by this intra-party mudslinging. I consider myself a social and fiscal conservative, but I am also a realist, and this is how it appears to me from where I'm sitting.