Debate: Short Take

Obama just won the presidency tonight.  Also, Candy Crowley was awful.  The fact the she openly sided with Obama on the "Rose Garden Speech" was both horribly inappropriate and...totally wrong.  That is the most heinous piece of "moderating" that I have ever seen.  You can see the facts here and here is the actual speech where Obama alludes vaguely to "terrorism" but he does NOT call the act in Benghazi a terrorist attack.  In fact, for days afterwards Obama specifically refused to call it act of terrorism.   That said, Romney butchered what should have been a slam dunk.  BTW, I have CNN on now and the repeating the falsehood and totally misrepresenting what Romeny said.  Sadly, Romney got his ass handed to him by a falsehood. 

 Update: Reince Priebus, the head of the RNC, just called President Obama a liar.  Point blank.  And you know what, he's right.  And Candy Crowley apparently is too ill informed to know it.  BTW, I do think Priebus should not use that particular word.

Update 2: CBS says Obama wins 37-31, but Romney on the economy 65-34. 

Update 3: So, aside from the Libya debacle for Romney, why do I think Obama did so well?  Part of that is what went wrong with Romney.  He asked the president a direct question three times (I think) and each time he ended up looking a fool.  Second, the questions by these "undecided" voters were clearly slanted in president's favor.  There was the Steve Chu question that was a set up for Romney.  But the equal pay, outsourcing, guns, and Bush questions were clearly from a liberal premise.  And then there was the guy who asked Obama this really tough question: "Why should I vote for you?"  How can you NOT hit that out of the park?  Obama is a good stump speaker and that's what he got to do tonight.  I must say that Romeny might have pulled even, or actually won, if he had just stopped asking President Obama questions that Obama could manipulate to make himself look good and Romney look foolish. 

Update 4: For what it is worth, Fat Boy...I mean Frank Luntz's focus group is pro-Romney.  Wow, you gotta look at the crappy artwork behind Luntz.  Also, the way that the "special sauce" on his tie looks like Richard Nixon.  Ha, there is a guy who says he voted for Obama in 2012, but the presient won by lying and "bullshitting."  Yep, sounds like an Obama voter to me. 

Update 5: Detroit up 2-1 in the 9th.  If Verlander blows this my night is ruined. 

Update 6: CNN: Obama wins 46-39.

Update 7: The Tigers are like Obama: After trying hard to lose they win a squeeker.

Update 8: Althouse:  "Obama's supporters may want to say this is enough. I don't think so. But what is certainly plain is that Crowley's manipulation of the event was unjustifiable. The bias from the moderator tonight was disgusting. But I'm sure it was worth it to her to squander her reputation to help Obama out of what was a very uncomfortable jam."

Update 9: From Charles Cooke: Weird CNN poll results: Obama wins 46-39. But Romney 58-40 on economy; 51-44 taxes; 49-46 healthcare; 59-36 on deficit. Vote for? Tied 25-25...Also from CNN poll: Who is the stronger leader? Romney wins 49-46.

Update 10: From Elizabeth Foley at Instapundit: "Crowley’s intervention to support Obama, in my opinion, was inappropriate, unfair, and lop-sided.  She acted like a cheerleader, and as a result of her unprofessional conduct, she provoked pro-Obama folks in the audience to clap, which further amplified the unprofessional, gang-bang on this important issue."

Comments

[Donald Pay]

Interesting take on the debate. You are wrong on the Libya stuff. Obama is on tape from the Rose Garden and in Las Vegas talking about "terrorists acts."

I don't think Obama "won" anything tonight except the debate. I think he's got a reasonably safe lock on the electoral votes to win already, but he did make it more likely he will pick up more states (Nevada, Colorado, maybe Arizona).

The energy issue is the one I think both candidates lost. Both are totally pandering to niche voters and the dumb idiots who don't know squat but want low prices. Neither really addressed the real issues, though Obama was better since he was more forceful on the energy future.

It's difficult to fault the candidates because there's a real disconnect between reality and what the public's perception is. When you start off having a clueless public that has been fed decades of lies about energy, you start formulating your campaign knowing you can't actually tell the truth, and expect to get elected.

For example, oil. I have oil property in the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, and the real issue is lack of reasonable regulation, not too much. The Republican mantra is totally at odds with facts. The oil industry can just steal your mineral property and force you to give them the oil. Add to that the fact that the surface owner has few if any rights to object. Obama was right about the federal lands leases. Oil companies had tied them up for years, refusing to drill, and speculating that prices would go higher. Also, by keeping federal oil off the market, the oil companies could increase the price of oil they were producing on private lands. The way Obama's land agencies and mineral management agencies have dealt with it is to cancel the leases if they aren't performing for the taxpayer. I would call that "running government like a business."

Coal is another issue that both candidates failed. There's a regional component to it that both candidates are dealing with. Both think "clean coal" will appeal to voters in southern Ohio and Pennsylvania. Coal is hurting because natural gas is competing effectively with coal, not because of too many regulations. If anything the regulations on extracting natural gas through fracking could be increased, which might make coal more competitive.

[Ken Blanchard]

Obama did use the word terrorism in his Rose Garden remarks, but he did not call the Benghazi assault terrorism. His administration spent most of two weeks studiously avoiding the word and trying to blame the attack on the infamous film. As Jon notes, even Crowley concedes that Romney was right.

[lynn]

Why is it that only liberal leaning people are picked to moderate these things? There was a concern that Crowley would be biased, and she definitely was. What a whoop-te-do surprise! How about using a liberal and a conservative as a team. And the format was bad, and some of the questions asked were a waste of the limited time available.

[Donald Pay]

You're spinning faster than a top, KB. The conservative toy box is getting full, Etch-A-Sketches and tops. Romney, good 1%er that he is, has Monopoly in there, too. You guys are pathetic.

Romney proved he was off his rocker, and a proven liar about the Benghazi comments. No amount of righty spinning, KB, can turn Romney's lying into the truth The Armerican people can count on one thing: there is no truth in the conservative movement. They don't live in the world of reality.

[Anne]

It is never inappropriate for a journalist to correct misstatements of fact. This is, or should be, the essence of their jobs.

[lynn]

Obama's word "terrorism" did not necessarily refer to the Libyan assault. He and his administration (Rice, Hillary, Carney, and others) went out of their way to blame a movie trailer for several days afterwards, even apologizing for it at taxpayer expense in several mideastern countries. Obama did not want any extremist terror attack at this point in the campaign after he said he had gotten rid of the threat from ak0l-Queda. In reality, the head was cut off but the beast just grew more heads and expanded. Romney was correct in his statement, and Obama fudged the truth, which he is quite adept at (with a little help from the moderator).

[lynn]

I do know how to spell al-Qaeda, the computer doesn't!

[Ken Blanchard]

Anne: as Crowley has acknowledged, Romney was right. Moreover, she was not acting as a journalist but as a moderator. Can you comprehend the difference?

[Anne]

There is a reason why the debate commission chooses journalists as moderators. They presumably are informed on topics, and in her clarification, she said she knew a question on Libya would come up, so she reviewed the information available on the whole incident. A moderator can correct misstated information. Keeping the debate somewhat focused on facts is part of the job. In her clarification, she said that Romney was right that it took two weeks for the administration to fully declare the incident a terrorist act. Romney himself provoked the rebuke when he turned to Crowley and asked for the president's statement to be put on the record.

And yes I know the functions of both moderators and journalists, but I am just another woman out of the binder, as your question implies.

[Ken Blanchard]

My question implied nothing other than the fact that you obviously do not know the function of a moderator. Referees and umpires aren't supposed to take sides. If it had happened the other way, you would be offended.

[larry kurtz]

am i "it?"

[Mike Cooper]

2013 President Romney with 53% of the vote, 52 Republican Senators, and a gain of 3 House seats for the Republicans.