Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama after the first presidential debate at the University of Denver, Oct. 3, 2012, in Denver. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)
04 October 12
The instant analysis after the first presidential debate - even on liberal-leaning MSNBC - was that Mitt Romney was the decisive "winner." But Romney not only ducked the specifics of his plans but looked sneaky and nervous in doing so, writes Robert Parry.
n
the presidential debate that I watched on Wednesday night, Republican
challenger Mitt Romney was shiftier than Dick Nixon in 1960 and less
coherent than George W. Bush in 2000, but the TV pundits, including on
MSNBC, overwhelmingly declared him the winner.
When I tried to follow Romney's logic, I couldn't.
Somehow the federal government was supposed to rein in rising health
care costs but his only idea for doing so was to let the free-market
work when it is clear that - whatever the shortcomings of "Obamacare" -
the old model of health insurance was broken.
Romney also claimed that his health-insurance plan
would cover people with pre-existing conditions and do other positive
things that are in the Affordable Care Act, but, as President Barack
Obama noted, Romney hasn't offered a serious explanation as to how that
would happen.
Romney treated any reference to his 20 percent
across-the-board tax cut costing $5 trillion over decade as a lie,
likening the President to his "five boys ... saying something that's not
always true but just keep on repeating it." After all, Romney has
declared that his plan would be revenue-neutral. But he continued his
pattern of refusing to specify how he would make it so.
In the debate that I saw, Romney seemed to be on the
defensive, in large part, due to the incoherence and incompleteness of
his arguments. And that reflected itself in his body language. He
shifted nervously, blinked rapidly and displayed a forced smile. It
looked like he was about to tear up during his closing remarks.
I saw a man struggling at the end of his rope. By
contrast, Obama looked, well, presidential. He was never flustered and
mounted vigorous defenses of his policies, offering details about what
he had done and what he would do. Yet, he didn't sound overly defensive
or whiny, a big risk in such a setting.
One could fault Obama for not being more aggressive
with host Jim Lehrer, who curiously seemed determined to stop the
President from exceeding his time limit while letting Romney ramble on.
But that is more a criticism of Lehrer, who behaved like PBS types often
do - they go weak in the knees when a Republican talks about slashing
the subsidy for public broadcasting, as Romney pointedly did.
So, I came away from watching the 90-minute debate
thinking that Romney had come as close to melting down in front of a
huge national audience as anyone I have ever seen in my half century of
watching presidential debates. Pundits often fall back on the cliché
that "no one landed a knock-out punch," but this was as close to having
one candidate lying on the mat as I have ever seen, although it was
mostly Romney doing the damage to himself.
Yet, immediately after the debate - even on
liberal-leaning MSNBC - Republican commentators were given the floor and
allowed to set the tone of the meeting. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow
deferred to GOP campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, who gushed over
Romney's performance. The verdict was "Romney won."
Everyone on the set except for Al Sharpton fell in
line. Ed Schultz blasted Obama for not lashing out at Romney and
especially for not blasting Romney's portrayal of 47 percent of the U.S.
population as irresponsible moochers.
For the past several days, pretty much every pundit I
watched had predicted that the "the 47 percent" comment would be the
centerpiece of the debate, but I never thought that was likely, having
watched Lehrer handle other debates. He almost never goes for the
"gotcha" question, favoring bland policy discussions.
Without Lehrer introducing the remark, it would have
been difficult and clumsy for Obama to shoehorn the comment in. Frankly,
it would have elicited groans from many Americans as an overreach. But
the pundits had decided that it had to be at the heart of the debate, so
they blamed the President when it wasn't.
What was particularly startling about the MSNBC
commentary was its lack of substance - except for Sharpton, who zeroed
in on the discrepancies between Romney's months of campaign statements
as a "severely conservative" ex-governor of Massachusetts and his
reinvention of himself as a caring fellow on Wednesday.
Yet, even on style, it was amazing to me that the pundits were favoring Romney, who looked more ill at ease than Nixon did in his infamous 1960 debate debacle with Kennedy and goofier than Bush in 2000, who was so unserious that he elicited a famous "sigh" from Al Gore. Romney wasn't as much on the offensive all night as he was testy. He talked fast, lacked specifics and nagged Lehrer about getting more time.
If Romney were a car salesman, he would be the one
urging me to overlook the car's lousy mileage and poor repair record and
begging me to buy his vehicle so he could meet his quota and not get in
trouble with the boss. On Wednesday night, I was a bit worried that he
would dissolve into tears during his closing remarks.
His shaky behavior and watery eyes brought to mind Ann
Romney's comment last Thursday that her "biggest concern" about her
husband getting elected president "would just be for his mental
well-being." In a TV interview in Nevada, Romney's wife pronounced him
competent and qualified but worried about "the emotional part of it" for
her husband.
More on Point
Some of the newspaper commentators more closely represented the debate that I watched. Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times noted
that "Mr. Romney managed, despite a dry throat and some rapid blinking,
to keep a choirboy smile pasted on his face while Mr. Obama spoke.
"Mr. Obama was quicker to drop his bonhomie and adopt
the look of a long-suffering headmaster enduring the excuses of a bright
student he is going to expel."
The Times also did a solid job of assessing the claims and counter-claims from the two rivals. And the Times' lead editorial took Romney to task for his mendacity and Obama to task for not holding the Republican accountable.
But how to explain the behavior of the TV
commentators, especially those on MSNBC, whose instant "spin" on behalf
of Romney surely influenced the opinions of millions of Americans in
their own assessments of who won?
Though MSNBC has done a relatively good job of
creating some balance in a cable TV environment that Fox News has tilted
sharply to the right, its hosts are under corporate pressure to present
themselves as neutral newscasters in situations like Wednesday's
debate. (Remember the trouble that Keith Olbermann encountered.)
So, aspiring careerists like Rachel Maddow can be
expected to demur in a situation like Wednesday night. After all, for
her there are grand career opportunities, like a regular gig on NBC's
"Meet the Press" or possibly even replacing David Gregory as the host, a
big step indeed.
So she immediately turned to Steve Schmidt, who did
what you would expect a Republican political operative to do in such a
case. He spun the outcome for Romney and did so with such confidence
that he seemed to influence the remarks of MSNBC show anchors, Chris
Hayes and Chris Matthews, who promptly fell in line.
For his part, Ed Schultz sounded more like a
disgruntled lefty who wanted Obama to be the perfect gladiator
mercilessly chopping Romney to pieces and then asking the American TV
audience, "are you not entertained?"
But that approach would have opened Obama to another
line of attack, the angry black man, a balancing act that Obama
instinctively senses but that white liberals don't seem to get. The only
MSNBC anchor cutting through the "Romney won" spin was Sharpton.
While it's true that Obama could have been tougher in
demanding more time from Lehrer and in going after his rival, the
President did resist Lehrer's curious eagerness to impose time limits on
Obama but not Romney.
Obama also made the key point about how Romney and his
running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, keep evading specifics on their various
plans. Indeed, that was my primary takeaway from the debate, that a
shifty and shifting Romney won't tell the American people what he
actually intends to do.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book,
"Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush," was written
with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com.
His two previous books, "Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush
Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq" and "Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the
Press & 'Project Truth'" are also available there.
READER COMMENTS
+16
#
2012-10-04 09:07
I hate Romney - scary
specimen of 1% - but Obama looked and acted scarred - something
psychological in his persona - lacking father figure?
Arrogant Romney was all over him .. neither offering rational and plausible solution to US economic problem. Fighting more wars on Chinese credit card will accelerate US bankruptcy. Romney will get more $$ from his peers - what are the options for the middle class?
Arrogant Romney was all over him .. neither offering rational and plausible solution to US economic problem. Fighting more wars on Chinese credit card will accelerate US bankruptcy. Romney will get more $$ from his peers - what are the options for the middle class?
+4
#
2012-10-04 11:09
I think Parry hit the
nail on the head. Obama looked presidental and Romney looked like a
snake oil salesman. I also noticed he almost teared up at the end. Was
that on purpose or what???
Romney passed so many lies thru his lips
last night and continually interrupted the moderator. Moderator didn't
have any balls to call him on it.
The biggest lie was cutting taxes
and closing loopholes. My god!!! That is how Romney made his money and
kept it protected. And he is going to do away with that. Think not. Are
people that dumb????
-1
#
2012-10-04 11:12
Good point, Obama's
body language was defensive and anxious and it came across as lack of
confidence in himself. He was not standing erect and that really looked
back.
They've done neurological studies of people where they mask the words or the consonant sounds so that the words cannot be understood, and asked people what they thought was going on. I think Obama's body language negated a lot of what he said, plus the constant hedging and qualification of his own comments .... "I think" he kept saying "I think" all the time arguing from an authority he did not back up with his posture.
They've done neurological studies of people where they mask the words or the consonant sounds so that the words cannot be understood, and asked people what they thought was going on. I think Obama's body language negated a lot of what he said, plus the constant hedging and qualification of his own comments .... "I think" he kept saying "I think" all the time arguing from an authority he did not back up with his posture.
+24
#
2012-10-04 09:09
Robert Parry, we must
have the same model TV because I saw the same debate you did.
Unfortunately, the die is cast and since all Romney had to do was put
into his stale baloney sandwich stump speech was some actual numbers
mustard in order to be declared winner, the general consensus is that
Romney won.
On the other hand, I agree with Rev. Sharpton that Romney
handed so much attack material to Obama that once the President hits
the campaign trail, any bump Romney received will be totally reversed by
the next debate.
