PLANK OCTOBER 4, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
It’s easy to forget now, but the initial reaction to Paul Ryan’s speech to the Republican National Convention in August was overwhelmingly positive. On CNN, for example, Wolf Blitzer called it “a powerful speech … Paul Ryan certainly on this night delivered.” Gloria Borger agreed: “I think that Paul Ryan did a great job.” Among the network's anchors, only Erin Burnett sensed Ryan’s speech might have included some distortions. And even she gave it a glowing review: “Precise, clear, and compassionate.”
Burnett, of course, was onto something. In the hours and days that followed, analysts and journalists scrutinized Ryan’s statements and found all sorts of blatant deceptions. He’d blamed President Obama for the shuttering of an auto factory in Wisconsin, even thought it’d closed before he took office and Obama had famously rescued the auto industry, saving Chrysler and General Motors from oblivion. Ryan had attacked Obama for cutting Medicare by $716 billion when, in fact, Ryan had twice called for the same cuts in his own budget proposals.
Professional fact-checkers and critics from the left, including yours truly, were the first to cite these misrepresentations. But soon even mainstream journalists started pointing them out. It became part of the narrative. And, arguably, it affected public perceptions.
I thought about that today as I watched and read media coverage of last night’s presidential debate. The consensus, even among Obama’s allies, was that the president blew it. He lacked energy. He failed to make his points succinctly. He allowed Romney to appear more in command of facts.
All of these things are true. And all of these things are worthy of discussion. Presidents are human beings, so we want to know how they act and react in the public spotlight. Presidents are also communicators, so we want to know how well they can make the case for their policies. Obama himself should know that as well as anybody. As he has admitted, his failure to persuade more Americans to support his policies has caused him serious political problems during his first term.
But that is the not the whole story—or, I would argue, the most important story. As some of us have noted, Romney’s debate performance was full of distortions, just like Ryan’s speech had been. The two most important were about two of the most important parts of Romney’s agenda.
The most obvious was Romney’s claim that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No they aren't. Romney's plan would protect people with pre-existing conditions if, and only if, they already have insurance. Current law basically does that already. The question is what happens to people whose insurance lapses, because they lost a job or because they couldn’t afford premiums or because their carrier decided to hike rates. Romney’s plan would be all but useless to them. This was such an obvious lie that Romney’s own advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, was forced to admit as much after the debate, while speaking with reporters in the spin room.
Romney also denied that he had endorsed a $5 trillion tax cut. But the proposal he unveiled last March, which included a 20 percent reduction in all marginal tax rates, would cost $5 trillion. Not even conservatives dispute that. Romney has said he would offset that tax cut by closing loopholes, but he’s never specified which ones. An independent study by the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan research institute run by Brookings and the Urban Institute, says Romney’s promise is mathematically impossible, given his simultaneous promises not to raise taxes on the middle classes and not to let his tax plan inflate the deficit. Romney said six other studies back him up. That, too, is false. (Peter Coy of Bloomberg Businessweek and Dylan Matthews of the Washington Post have more details.)
Obama tried to make this point on Wednesday. He didn’t do so in a particularly effective way. But, in fairness, it’s difficult to convince viewers the other guy is twisting the truth when the other guy is willing to do so confidently, without obvious remorse or hesitation. And that’s why the media has such an important role to play. Reporting on the state of the campaign is important. Reporting on the substance of the campaign is more important. And while I’m hardly the first person to make this case, the media historically has gotten those priorities upside down.
This moment, then, is a critical test for how far the media has come—and whether it remains at the mercy of politicians willing to exploit the conventions of even-handedness. The Romney comeback narrative was ready to go even before last night’s debate. If Friday’s jobs report is disappointing and, more important, if Romney’s poll numbers rise, that narrative will be valid and the media should not be shy about reporting it. But the focus right now really should be on what Obama and Romney said on Wednesday night—and whether they were truthful. The media's number one job isn't to tell us how people reacted. It's to tell us how people should react. (Or, at least, on what facts people should make that judgment.)
Such an accounting needn't spare Obama. He said he merely wanted upper income tax filers to pay what they did during the Clinton era. Actually, once you include his health care plan, upper income tax payers would pay even more. He said his deficit reduction plan would produce $4 trillion in savings over ten years, but that uses the standard budget gimmick of counting almost $848 billion in defense cuts everybody already expects.
Overall, though, Romney’s distortions were more plentiful and more significant. It's not even close. As Jonathan Bernstein wrote at the Washington Post, thinking along the same lines, "It seems that there are at least as many factually challenged comments from Romney’s debate performance as there were in Ryan’s speech, although it may have lacked any screaming-headline lies."
As I’ve said many times, the proper standard for truth in a campaign is whether a candidate is trying to mislead voters about what he’s done or what he would do in office. Romney on Wednesday night tried make voters believe he never endorsed tax cuts for the rich, that he can magically reduce taxes without raiding the deficit, and that he can repeal Obamacare without making it more difficult for people to get health insurance. And that wasn't even the extent of it.
Will the media do its job, like it did after the Ryan speech? Will it point this out, plainly and clearly? It’s really too soon to tell.
follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
21 comments
Great, great point, JC. Let's hope that the media does as you suggest.
- Thunderroad
October 5, 2012 at 12:47am
Dr. Krugman is on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?hp Also, fans of the Big Bird are horrified. I am praying that Mitt has lied himself into a cage.
- Sophia
October 5, 2012 at 2:43am
Incidentally, the thought of this prevaricating, bullying snake oil salesman in charge of the US is flat out terrifying. His value system is completely cockeyed. I am not sure he isn't delusional. And his surrogates are appalling. Sununu says that President Obama is "lazy" and "not too bright." These insults to President Obama are too much. They're insults to all of us. As for Romney and his attacks on medical care, working people, environment, education, can you imagine what he'd do to this country?
- Sophia
October 5, 2012 at 2:45am
Romney in an e-mail to prospective donors Thursday: "Victory is in sight." I imagine his wife is already picking out the drapes she'll install in the White House. What a couple of arrogant creeps those two are. But the debate loss for Obama may have been a blessing. It got Republicans thinking about their strategy for Romney's second term already. And we know what goeth before a fall. Obama at a rally in Madison, WI Thursday, speaking about Romney: "I just want to make sure I've got this straight: He'll get rid of regulations on Wall Street, but he's going to crack down on Sesame Street."
- magboy47.
October 5, 2012 at 2:55am
How about citizenship. Don't all voters, all adult Americans, have a responsibility to be informed about the candidates, about important issues. And the responsibility applies equally to both Republicans and Democrats, both conservatives and liberals. Americans don't trust the media, not so much because the media doesn't do its job, but precisely because it does - Americans don't want to read or hear anything that doesn't confirm their established beliefs. It pains me to write this, but Romney's performance (and it was a performance) Wednesday night was right out of Jonathan Haidt's book, a collection of code words designed to appeal to center and left of center voters but without alienating his base on the right. How should Obama respond? By telling Americans they are the undeserving 47% and to vote for him? Hardly. He should respond with the same tactic as Romney, with code words designed to appeal to center and right of center voters but without alienating his base on the left. It's sad that elections are decided by code words, but until citizenship is considered a responsibility, Jonathan Haidt will have to do.
- rayward
October 5, 2012 at 7:44am
Romney: "My tax plan is revenue neutral because I said so and no economist can say otherwise because I said so." He could just have easily have said, "The British have learned recently that my tax plan is revenue neutral." President Obama should have said, "We're taxing those middle class people over there so we don't have to tax these rich people over here." Or, "The world is better off without Romney's tax plan."
- Nusholtz
October 5, 2012 at 8:05am
jobs reports are out soon, lets see if it is a double whammy or a big way for Obama to turn the conversation around. ADP reports 169,000 but they reports 200,000 last month. Can ADP be wrong twice or will the BLS revise upwards last month and come in with a solid report this month. Inquiring minds like myself want to know.
- blackton
October 5, 2012 at 8:15am
As a condition of voting, how about a citizenship test; if voting is a privilege and not a right, every voter should be required to show she is qualified for the privilege. I'd have a few simple questions, similar to the questions licensed drivers must answer every so often to keep their licenses (such as what do you do at a yield sign). A few possible questions: name one founder (no, Ronald Reagan is not a correct answer); what two countries fought in the Philippine-American War (Iran is not one of them); is Judaism America's official religion. To avoid having to retake the citizenship test, I'd offer a bonus question, such as: which founder proposed that America adopt generational sovereignty, and was it included as part of our Constitution. That last one is two questions, and I'd give credit for a correct answer to either.
- rayward
October 5, 2012 at 8:17am
Fair enough. Though Obama left the door open for Romney. What Obama needs to do, is accuse Romney, in Romney's own words. Saying "It's a 5 Trillion Increase in the Debt!" (Over 5 years, IF the 20% are not 'balanced' by something else, etc) leaves the door open. Romney never said he'd raise the debt 5 trillion, so he can deny he said that or plans that. Romney DID say he'll cut taxes on "Job Creators" by 20%. Now THAT he can't run away from or simply deny. How he'll pay for that, and the impossibility of his paying for that, then becomes HIS problem -- not Obama's to PROVE it's disasterous. That's the way to go.
- AllanL5
October 5, 2012 at 8:42am
This just in--unemployment rate down to 7.8 percent.
- ballston
October 5, 2012 at 8:58am
This just in from the ABC: With job creation at the center of the US presidential race a monthahead of Election Day, the Labor Department reported Friday that U.S.employers added 114,000 jobs in September and the unemployment rateunexpectedly fell to 7.8 percent, the first time the rate was below 8percent in three years. And it is over for Romney. Yes I know a lot of people have left the jobs force (here is a little secret David does not know, millions of Mexican have repatriated back to Mexico the past 2 years, officially they are still considered to be here but in reality they aren't so labor force participation might seem lower than it actually is). For most people the number 7.8% is going to be the one that shines through.
- blackton
October 5, 2012 at 8:59am
Said Sophia: "Sununu says that President Obama is 'lazy' and 'not too bright.'" These insults to President Obama are too much. They're insults to all of us." As someone who cheerfully doubted Dubya's intelligence, I will confine myself to merely disagreeing with Sununu.
- frippo
October 5, 2012 at 9:11am
"And it is over for Romney. " I don't believe that, blackton. One poll showed that Romney "won" the debate Wednesday, 60-22. Viewers ignored Obama's reasoned arguments and believed Romney's lies, including those which the Etch-a-Sketcher told about what he had said in the past. That tells me that the average TV viewer doesn't do any research and is impressed by attack dogs. Obama's body language Wednesday betrayed a touch of the same opinion that you have--that it was over for Romney. Obama doesn't believe that anymore. That debate loss was a wake-up call for the president, and I'm glad it came a month before the election and not a week. The new, lower unemployment figure will help Obama, but what is lingering in the minds of voters now is the impression of Obama as a wimp that live TV viewers saw with their own eyes.
- magboy47.
October 5, 2012 at 9:42am
Didn't Mitt say in the Boca Raton speech that he wished he could fire the whole SEC? Something along those lines.
- stanmvp48
October 5, 2012 at 10:27am
>raiding the deficit... I think this is meant to be *raising* the deficit. I can see the s and d keys right next to each other on my keyboard.
- floydsm8
October 5, 2012 at 11:34am
Yes, stanmvp48. Romney, like Bush 43, wants to get rid of the SEC totally. Bush actually went to the SEC and advised them not to do their job, because "regulation is bad for business." After that some SEC employees were caught taking bribes from the Wall Streeters they were supposed to be regulating, and others spent much of their workdays downloading porn in the office. Now Romney is lying like a Republican, telling us that he supports regulations for Wall Street. Once in office he would gut the SEC. The GOP-controlled House has proposed cutting the SEC budget dramatically. Romney would happily sign any bill passed to that effect and then refuse to enforce any Wall Street regulations left in place, like Bush did.
- magboy47.
October 5, 2012 at 11:55am
Rayward, I believe the answer is...Thomas Jefferson. Rip that constitution up every 19 years, & start over (not sure why 19 is the magic number, but it was). Can I vote now?
- Haole45
October 5, 2012 at 4:18pm
Oh, yeah, part B of the question: Obviously no, this notion of "generational sovereignty" was not incorporated into the constitution.
- Haole45
October 5, 2012 at 4:21pm
Romney's continuous stream of self-reversals & outright lies is such a baffling blizzard of bullshit that it's hard not to get dizzy trying to stay on top of it all. Just think - only a few days before telling us in the debate that there are aspects of the ACA he likes, such as the "pre-conditions" part of that law, he was telling us, a la GW Bush, that the ER is a fine substitute for regular access to medical care for the uninsured. It is enough to make your brain ache.
- Haole45
October 5, 2012 at 4:42pm
You said it, Haole, unfortunately one has to remind the American people of that again and again, and Obama had that chance on Wednesday but didn't utilize it. Again, we may see something very different going on in the next debate.
- ironyroad
October 5, 2012 at 4:55pm
A little less than two months ago I was diagnosed with rectal cancer. The prognosis is good, treatment is going well, and no doctor seems to think this is going to kill me. While I know there's going to be financial pain some time soon, my insurance actually appears to be covering things not too badly so far. The tricky part is that this insurance is a plan offered through the seminary I currently attend. I can't be covered on my wife's plan because she telecommutes from here in VA for a job in FL, and their plan is local providers only. I won't be a student forever. If things go right I will graduate with a Master of Divinity degree in June 2014. I'm good, mind you, but I'm not that likely to roll right out of the commencement ceremony onto the moving truck to head directly off to a pastoral parish. That means I'll lose that insurance at some point, probably around 1 July 2014. What I will do then is uncertain, particularly if those people win and repeal the ACA as they are so itching to do. So when that mendacious arrogant sleaze Romney starts lying about his non-plan protecting persons with pre-existing conditions, I take it a little more personally than I would have two months ago. I don't feel particularly apologetic for considering this person, someone who would lie so brazenly that his top aide couldn't even defend him after the debate, to be the most morally repugnant presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime (and that lifetime includes Nixon, people).
- cspencef
October 5, 2012 at 7:19pm