“I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator because we had Mitt Romney.”
White House’s spokesperson Stephanie Cutter in CNN’s “spin room” following the first Presidential debate last night, in the wake of a near unanimous media verdict that challenger Mitt Romney had bested the President in style and substance. Moderator Jim Lehrer was criticized by Cutter and others in the President’s camp for being too passive and allowing Romney to control the debate.
“Hmmmm. who can we blame?”
The comment, like most of Cutter’s statements to the media this campaign season, was both unfair and dumb:
- It was an excellent debate. I thought it was the most lively and substantive debate since the Kennedy-Nixon debates, with both candidates addressing each other directly and having sufficient time to argue complex issues without resorting to sound bites and canned responses. I moderate discussions for a living, and one rule a good moderator follows is that when the participants are engaging in valuable discourse, don’t allow rigid adherence to your plan to interfere with it. Lehrer, to his credit, let the candidates talk. The debates should not be about moderators, and his example should be followed by future debate questioners.
- Characteristic of this White House and this President, Cutter’s immediate reaction to a perceived failure was to blame someone else and duck accountability. It may be the most exasperating ethical flaw in this administration.
- Knowing how to work the moderator is a debating skill (as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews pointed out in his lament over Obama’s performance.) Romney did not abuse the moderator (as Newt Gingrich did routinely in the GOP debates), nor did be ever seem petulant, as Obama did when he briefly groused to Lehrer that “I had five seconds before you interrupted me.”
- Here is the dumb part of Cutter’s complaint: taking over and controlling dynamic situations is what effective leaders tend to do. Viewers saw that aspect of Mitt Romney’s experience and character last night, and it was one of the features of his performance, I think, that created a positive impression. Yes, he was commanding, and managed the situation, with the President of the United States on stage next to him. How dare he?
Personally, I was surprised at the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Obama’s performance. Yes, Romney was better, but the President hardly embarrassed himself. I think the negative reaction by the Democrats and the Obama-promoting media occurred because that they have deluded themselves into believing that Obama’s record is defensible, when it isn’t and has never been: he has an impossible task. The positive reaction of the public to Romney’s debate performance is similarly the result of a misconception. The picture of him they had been fed by attack ads and the media was of a cold-hearted, mean and venal monster prone to sticking his foot in his mouth. The reality was on display last night, and it exposed that cartoon for what it was: a grotesque misrepresentation..
Ethics Alarms 
I believe I found a good ethics alarm for you, involving the New York Times where this quote appears: (the tax code is hyperlinked in the first line)
Annie Lowrey: It is true. The tax code currently does allow companies to deduct certain expenses when they move operations overseas. As part of its plan to aid the manufacturing sector and promote job growth, the Obama administration has proposed ending this deduction, and giving tax credits to companies moving jobs back to the United States.
(http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03)
This is actually hyperlinked to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/fact_sheet.pdf
A white house press release, not the tax code 🙂
No, this is deceit. The deduction in question allows a company moving an operation overseas to deduct the move as a business expense, which, of course, it is. That isn’t a “deduction” for “moving jobs overseas”; its a deduction for the expense of saving an endangered business by making it possible to move overseas if that’s the best course. Not allowing such a deduction would penalize a company for moving overseas, even if that was its only way to survive, but only with the deduction. Obama referred to the deduction as if it was in place to encourage companies to “move.jobs.” It’s an accommodation to companies that need to move to survive.
I don’t see an ethics alarm question from jonathan, but I can’t follow your logic either. Because a deduction for doing X can save a business does not stop it from being a deduction for doing X. If the deduction wasn’t there, there wouldn’t be a penalty for doing X, just the cost of doing X. The opposite of deduction is not cost.
Moreover, even if the deduction helps save companies, it still works as an incentive to ship jobs overseas. Unless only failing companies can take advantage of this deduction, the logic does not hold.
Moving businesses anywhere get deductions. There are, as far as I can tell from the code, no deductions designed to make moving overseas more attractive–just deduction that keep it as an option. I object to the deceptive terminology in “But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.” If a company is going under unless it relocates, those jobs aren’t being “shipped overseas.” It is relocate, or the jobs disappear completely. Relocating a plant to a cheaper environment may, and has, kept American jobs in place by allowing a company to keep domestic plants open. Saying that the “loopholes” create an incentive to “ship jobs overseas” is completely misleading, both as the reason for the tax policy and the reason for the location, as well as the results of it.
I stand by my statements that your argument was bad, but I am on your side that these deductions fine and that the discussion of them was intentionally misleading.
Obama came off as the person he really is… an inexperienced ideologue who makes bad decisions and then won’t own up to them. Romney came off as a patriotic, dedicated but real pragmatist, which is what we need. (I expect the White House to edit the tapes to make Obama look good. Which would be typical.) Obama didn’t have it, but frankly, never has. His last campaign promised a better economy, world, and life for Americans, and he’s failed miserably at it. The fact that he now has a record of failure is something he (and the White House) can only rebut with more ideology and more of the blame game. (Amazing that he still blames Bush for all of his problems and mistakes.) His lack of “preparation,” as the Democrats are citing, is simply an example of his unbelievable hubris. Last night it bit him in the ass. (Sorry.) Absent a teleprompter, and WITH someone who could and did call him on his statements rather than cheer wildly at whatever he says, he just couldn’t handle it.
Lucky for Obama the attack on American embassies, the loss of diplomats to terrorists didn’t come up. Next time. “Bump in the road?” Our people are dying over there, years after Obama went ’round the Middle East apologizing for the US. And the lying, the obfuscating, about warnings of attack, and changing gears on the reason for it being adjusted daily is only typical of the Obama administration.
Similarly, Obama’s comment about “protecting” America is pure bullshit, when we all know he has plans in place to cut the military back to pre-WWII ability. The thing we all should know is that America, as a world leader, has to have the ability to “project power,” and just that knowledge means something to the rest of the world, and on its own prevents war and war-like action by others . Obama doesn’t get it; never will. We are NOT safer, more secure, more financially stable, than when was elected. We crossed a great Rubicon when we elected our first black president, and even tho I didn’t vote for him, I was proud of America for that. More than a shame that Obama didn’t/couldn/t measure up. Ideology has to be matched by action — action that works. Obama has let ideology rule, and his actions have done more damage than good. And his “transparent” Administration has proved itself to be more secretive, ugly, and dense than ever imagined.
i disagree with you, Jack, that Obama comported himself in an even vaguely Presidential way. His overall demeanor was “Get me out of here!” And for good reason: his record (now that he has one) stinks, and he knows it. One hopes that the debate made this more obvious than his hate ads, his aides’ and his own excuses for his failures, and the fact that we really are worse off than when he took office.
So much stupid.
Paragraph 1:
Obama came off as the person he really is… an inexperienced ideologue who makes bad decisions and then won’t own up to them.
Both Obama’s words and actions show him to be a centrist democrat. His comments in the debate back that up. What did you watch?
Romney came off as a patriotic, dedicated but real pragmatist, which is what we need.
Romney appeared to be a pragmatist, and did so by lying and switching positions. Whatever he appeared to be, Romney continued to show that he is a sociopath who doesn’t care about the truth. He will do and say anything. That’s definitely pragmatism, but not in a good way.
(I expect the White House to edit the tapes to make Obama look good. Which would be typical.)
When has the White House editted tapes to make Obama look improperly good? Would it be a special crime or out of the ordinary in political discourse for a campaign or officeholder to make themselves look better than they were? Your implications here are both unfounded and unfair.
Obama didn’t have it, but frankly, never has.
The first part is clearly true, but are you going to support that second part? Let’s see.
His last campaign promised a better economy, world, and life for Americans, and he’s failed miserably at it.
Oh. you’re going to lie. We are better off than we were in 2008, despite the negative externalities that have occurred.
The fact that he now has a record of failure is something he (and the White House) can only rebut with more ideology and more of the blame game.
And then create false conclusions that are also counter to reality.
(Amazing that he still blames Bush for all of his problems and mistakes.)
And conclude with yest another lie. Obama most definitely does not blame Bush for all of his problems or even most of the country’s problems. The blame that is laid now about the recession is just as true now as it was in the past. It’s not like Bush’s policies ceased being responsible for creating the recession.
His lack of “preparation,” as the Democrats are citing, is simply an example of his unbelievable hubris. Last night it bit him in the ass. (Sorry.)
That’s one possibility among many, but it relies on an a priori assumption of Obama having unbelievable hubris. Do you have special knowledge that Obama’s lack of preparation was due to Hubris?
Absent a teleprompter, and WITH someone who could and did call him on his statements rather than cheer wildly at whatever he says, he just couldn’t handle it.
*sigh*. The teleprompter meme again. You are assuming that Obama is an idiot. You need to back that up.
Paragraph 2:
Lucky for Obama the attack on American embassies, the loss of diplomats to terrorists didn’t come up.
It’s lucky that foreign policy didn’t come up in a domestic issues debate. You are not arguing in good faith.
Next time. “Bump in the road?” Our people are dying over there, years after Obama went ’round the Middle East apologizing for the US.
1) Obama didn’t go around apologizing for the US.
2) That people are dying is not evidence that Obama’s foreign policy was bad. Actual results don’t determinine if policy was sound or not.
And the lying, the obfuscating, about warnings of attack, and changing gears on the reason for it being adjusted daily is only typical of the Obama administration.
Do you have any evidence for your accusations of lies and obfuscations? This looks like an unclear situation that was responded to. As clarity increased, information was disseminated to reflect such. Why do you read intentional bad actions here?
Paragraph 3:
Similarly, Obama’s comment about “protecting” America is pure bullshit, when we all know he has plans in place to cut the military back to pre-WWII ability.
Well, if you take false premises, you’ll end up with a false result. Where did you hear about these in place plans?
The thing we all should know is that America, as a world leader, has to have the ability to “project power,” and just that knowledge means something to the rest of the world, and on its own prevents war and war-like action by others.
That we have knowledge that America should be able to project power prevents war? Um. No. That there are powers with devastating ability, and knowledge of this prevents war? Yes. Of course, the minor “cuts” in defense spending (actually, lessened increases) still leaves America as an incredibly dominant superpower.
Obama doesn’t get it; never will. We are NOT safer, more secure, more financially stable, than when was elected.
But we are safer, more secure, and more financially stable than the policies Mitt Romney has espoused likely would have left us. Going forward the same is likely to be true, and that’s what matters.
We crossed a great Rubicon when we elected our first black president, and even tho I didn’t vote for him, I was proud of America for that. More than a shame that Obama didn’t/couldn/t measure up.
So, Obama had to be phenomenal to not be considered a failure. Nice!
Ideology has to be matched by action — action that works. Obama has let ideology rule, and his actions have done more damage than good.
Evidence please. Which of Obama’s actions were more likely to cause bad damage than the republican positions?
And his “transparent” Administration has proved itself to be more secretive, ugly, and dense than ever imagined.
Something true slipped in. Well, blind squirrels and broken clocks…
Paragraph 4:
i disagree with you, Jack, that Obama comported himself in an even vaguely Presidential way.
Another, partial, agreement. I also didn’t like Obama’s presentation, but it wasn’t super horrendous.
His overall demeanor was “Get me out of here!” And for good reason: his record (now that he has one) stinks, and he knows it.
And return to those untrue premises.
One hopes that the debate made this more obvious than his hate ads, his aides’ and his own excuses for his failures, and the fact that we really are worse off than when he took office.
“hate ads”? That’s a new one. You followed that up again with a repetition of the false information and a false standard.
—-
Overall, I give this post an A for the impression it would have on an ignorant populace, and an F on substance and reality. Congratulate yourself, you’re Mitt Romney.
Thanks for the “stupid” comment and my “grade” as part of an “ignorant populace.” Why don’t you check the real facts? I keep track of the news, watch the Obama administration do its dance, believe firmly that they tried really hard to excuse their lack of concern for terrorist activity. And I didn’t say Obama needed to be “phenomenal” — those are your words. Okay, how about simply effective? How are we better off than we were before? If I’m so ignorant and you’re so smart, give me a list of what really good things have happened during his presidency.
Re the terrorist attacks… Give me a break. It was a YouTube film that caused it? Right. Then we’re told it was an “impromptu uprising?” THEN we learn that the Administration had been warned numerous times about the tenuous situation there, and did nothing. No extra security. Just an example.
If you want me to parse your comments on my comments, I’ll try to find the time to do so. Meantime, I stand by my statements, and comparing me to Mitt Romney is a compliment not an insult. Amazing that you would take the time to rebut my comments in such a detailed fashion — only proves that you are clearly in the Obama camp and won’t change your opinions even in the face of facts and truth. I give you a big fat F for your reply.
Thanks for the “stupid” comment and my “grade” as part of an “ignorant populace.”
Nice sarcasm. Also, bad reading comprehension skills. I did not say you were part of the ignorant populace. I rated how your post would go over with the ignorant populace.
Why don’t you check the real facts? I keep track of the news, watch the Obama administration do its dance, believe firmly that they tried really hard to excuse their lack of concern for terrorist activity.
None of this supports your position. This is a standard tactic of people who don’t actually have facts.
And I didn’t say Obama needed to be “phenomenal” — those are your words.
I never claimed you used the word phenomenal. I characterized your argument. You said that Obama wasn’t as good as the breakthrough of electing the first black president, and you used that to attack him. I stand by my statement.
Okay, how about simply effective? How are we better off than we were before? If I’m so ignorant and you’re so smart, give me a list of what really good things have happened during his presidency.
Dow is up. More jobs than at start of term…after inheriting a recession. That’s better in absolute terms and much, much better in relative terms. Throw in 20 million more people with healthcare, and this wasn’t hard to do.
Also, I never claimed you were ignorant and I was smart.
Re the terrorist attacks… Give me a break. It was a YouTube film that caused it? Right. Then we’re told it was an “impromptu uprising?” THEN we learn that the Administration had been warned numerous times about the tenuous situation there, and did nothing. No extra security. Just an example.
The administration is warned of tenuous situations all over the place and to varying amounts. At the time of this attack, it wasn’t clear that it was linked to any of the intelligence, and the mob WAS using the film as cover. This is exactly the situation I described. Our timeline of knowledge does not show that the administration was hiding anything.
If you want me to parse your comments on my comments, I’ll try to find the time to do so. Meantime, I stand by my statements, […]
In other words: “I don’t care what arguments you have, I must be right”. Nice.
[…]and comparing me to Mitt Romney is a compliment not an insult.
if you believe that looking good while lying is a compliment, so be it.
Amazing that you would take the time to rebut my comments in such a detailed fashion — only proves that you are clearly in the Obama camp and won’t change your opinions even in the face of facts and truth.
is the problem here not obvious? You’ve just said that if someone rebuts an argument using facts, then they must be biased against the argument. If your logic were to be true, it would be impossible for anyone to have a substantive, unbiased, open minded discussion on any topic. Anyone want to find some arguments I must now be in the tank for due to my detailed shredding of opposing arguments on this blog? I’m pretty sure I’d find that I’m pro-Christianity, pro-theology, pro-Republican party, and pro-abortion.
I give you a big fat F for your reply.
That’s your opinion, but it doesn’t look like your reasons support the grade.
I wrote my PS before I saw your long rant. I will get back to you on each point, when I have the time. Unfortunately, I have a small business to run, and can’t spend the time today to do so. I imagine you’re some government employee with a paycheck and nothing better to do than attack me and my comments. Back to you soon, with details.
I look forward to your response, and understand time constraints. My posting on this blog ebbs and flows with my time.
Various other points:
(1) I am not a government employee
(2) I am still not attacking you
(3) If you don’t see attacking (bad) arguments as worthy of spending time on, I don’t see how responding to me can be worthy of your time. It looks to me like you were just trying to call me a loser or a mooch.
PS You are an insulting, ignorant , hateful person. How dare you characterize me personally as you did? You criticize some of my assumptions, but make your own — based on what? Conclusions about what Romney MIGHT have done, e.g., which is more “STUPID” than anything you think I might have said. You call Romney a sociopath. Example, please, just as you ask for documentation of my opinion that Obama is full of hubris. Let’s just get into this, shall we?
You criticize some of my assumptions, but make your own — based on what?
Which of my statements do you feel were unfair? I believe I supported all my statements that directly reflect on you.
You criticize some of my assumptions, but make your own — based on what? Conclusions about what Romney MIGHT have done, e.g., which is more “STUPID” than anything you think I might have said.
I criticize assumptions that don’t appear to be supported. And you should do the same for me. The response should be evidence to back what were apparently assumptions.
Here, you have accused me of assuming what Romney might have done. In actuality, I stated that I was going off of the action that Romney claimed he would done. No assumptions necessary. For instance, letting Detroit go bankrupt, not passing the stimulous, not extending the safety net during recession, cutting taxes on the rich, and bombing Iran.
You call Romney a sociopath. Example, please, just as you ask for documentation of my opinion that Obama is full of hubris. Let’s just get into this, shall we?
Sure thing. Can we agree that Romney tends to speak confidently about his proposals? His Proposals change from year to year based on what is politically beneficial for him, but he refuses to acknowledge changes, assuming the confidence will paper over it.
Romney has lied numerous times, and then modified previous actions to make his statements currently true (though lies at the time). For instance, he claimed on his taxes that lived in Utah while working on the Olympics. Afterwards, to run for Governer, he modified multiple years worth of previously filed taxes so he could claim the ability to run for Governer in Massachusetts. This year, he played the same trick. During the Republican debates, he said that he never would pay a cent more in taxes than was owed, and doing so would disqualify someone as president. He also claimed that he never paid less than 13% in taxes. Well…, he didn’t have to pay more than 13% in taxes for calendar year 2011. What to do? Instead of saying “I thought it was 13%, it was really 12% this year”, Romney failed to deduct everything he could, and, by his own words, disqualified himself for President. Romney is just pretending that never happened. Ignoring reality to present an image in the face of all evidence. Not caring what people think about it. That’s sociopathic.
He claims that it doesn’t matter what fact checkers say while meanwhile claiming he’s going to fact check the democrats. A clear contradiction where reality is cynically hidden by personality.
Well, there’s my evidence. Where’s yours?
Whomever is telling you that it is even possible to cut the military back to pre WWII ability is a liar and anyone who believes it is possible is an idiot and a fool . You would have to cut the Marine Corps alone down from a strength of 220,000 , that’s not counting the 40,000 in the reserves , to below 20,000 total. That’s impossible to do with out disbanding the Corps and that is prohibited by law.
Of all the White House representatives I consider Cutter to be the most incompetent. She’s so bad that now, whenever she’s announced as the next guest, I immediately turn the channel. She’s delusional. Who cares what she says?
Jack, I have two problems with your post.
First, the comment that Obama’s record is indefensible. Bull.
Second, the picture of Romney you described as a misconception was only true in one place, and only partially: that Romney is prone to sticking his foot in his mouth. Romney is prone to switching positions, but he does it with authority, like he had never said anything before. He doesn’t waffle in demeanor even when his language is all waffle.
Stephanie? Stephanie Cutter?
Is that you?
You realize that I didn’t support Cutter for one second, right?
Oh, it’s indefensible. I know partisans will try, but its indefensible. That’s why the President’s main strategy has been to blame Bush, blame the GOP, blame Europe, the tsunami, on and on. Strong, capable leaders don’t blame; they stand accountable, and either fix the problems they are handed or admit that their methods haven’t worked and try something else. You can’t defend promising to be a unifier and to pursue intentionally divisive tactics; you can defend failing to meet the majority of your own standards for success, no matter how unrealistic they are. You can’t defend allowing the deficit and debt to balloon to a dangerous extent. But you can try.
No, Romney is gaffe-prone, or at least prone to say things in ways that can be misrepresented, like his “corporations are people” line, or the 47%, or “I bet you $10,000.” None of these were Joe Biden-type gaffes, proof of dementia, but they are the marker of some degree of naivete.
The 47% thing wasn’t a gaffe. It was preplanned. The speech doesn’t make sense without it.
No it wasn’t. It was said in response to a question.
Did you listen to it? It sure sounds like a recitation of planned information to me. Yes, it was in response to a question. No, that doesn’t mean the linkage was off the cuff.
Oh, it’s indefensible. I know partisans will try, but its indefensible.
You just slandered anyone defending Obama’s record as a partisaon.
That’s why the President’s main strategy has been to blame Bush, blame the GOP, blame Europe, the tsunami, on and on.
Um, what? Obama’s strategy is to talk about what he’s done, and why he’s done what he’s done. A significant part of that is (1) the recession that was unknown when he was running for office, and (2) the obstructionism he’s faced, with republicans voting against their own ideas.
Strong, capable leaders don’t blame; they stand accountable, and either fix the problems they are handed or admit that their methods haven’t worked and try something else.
Strong leaders don’t lie to the public about what the problems are and they don’t take blame when the blame comes from a secondary group. If congress was beneath the executive, this would apply.
Obama has also admitted mistakes in his methods to try other things. For healthcare, he started with the idea that he could get bipartisan support for bringing Romneycare to the nation. When that failed, he pointed it out, and switched to using his party’s numerical advantage. That’s exactly what leaders do, right?
You can’t defend promising to be a unifier and to pursue intentionally divisive tactics; you can[‘t] defend failing to meet the majority of your own standards for success, no matter how unrealistic they are.
For part 1, see response above. He promised to be a unifier, but unification takes buy in. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
The same goes for defending not meeting one’s own standards for success. You honestly explain what the problems were (in this case, the GOP), and what happened.
You can’t defend allowing the deficit and debt to balloon to a dangerous extent. But you can try.
There are ways to defend this to. When your other option is causing enhanced suffering of the poor, for instance. More importantly, the deficit HAS NOT BALLOONED. It’s less now than when Obama entered office.
Do you know what’s actually indefensible? Making false accusations in an attempt to buttress a bad point.