PLANK OCTOBER 5, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In a new feature, Jonathan Cohn, TNR’s longtime policy wonk, and Walter Kirn, a novelist covering his first presidential campaign, debate the week’s big political stories via Google chat. This week, they discuss Obama's disdain for Romney; Romney's talent for closing deals; and what roles the candidates would play on Sesame Street.
Jonathan: Hi, Walter. So tell me - how did the debate play out in real America - by which I mean, not Ann Arbor – or Washington?
Walter: If only I knew, Jon. Real America, wherever you happen to be in it these days, consists of a hive of screens and media portals, so I guess I'm seeing much the same things you are from my high bleacher seat in Montana. I do know that my girlfriend's relatives in Chicago, moderate republicans with small businesses -- marketing firms, etc. -- were on their feet cheering Mitt's pro-enterprise statements and his general mode of vigor and animation. Also, I heard from a couple women out here, not particularly political, that all Obama's looking down and looking away and general sense of detachment and withdrawal seemed impolite and unattractive. i noticed that too. Obama seemed to reserve the right to be alone when he wanted to up there, to pull away into some personal psychic closet and close the door. For me, what lost him the debate, in human terms, was not what he said, but the way he behaved when he wasn't speaking.
Jonathan: Yeah, I heard from a relative -- smart, but not somebody who follows politics obsessively -- who was impressed with how detailed and sharp the debate was. I'm sort of horrified that people would come away thinking Mitt was a mater of policy, given how much he twisted the truth and dodged questions, but I can totally see why. If you don’t do this for a living, how the heck would you know? I wrote about the substance last night and will do so again tonight so I'm not going to go into that here. Instead, I’ll do what everybody else is doing and ask—why did Obama look so flat? Debating has never been his best forum. James Fallows wrote about this a few weeks ago, in an Atlantic piece that anticipated this show with uncanny accuracy. But Obama just seemed like he didn't want to be there. And that surprised me. My impression has always been that Obama has genuine disdain for Romney, more than for most Republicans. I think he always respected McCain, if not for what he was saying in 08 than what he had said and done before. I think he thinks Boehner is a decent guy trapped in a horrible caucus. I think he thinks Cantor is a snake but, let’s face it, Cantor knows he’s a snake and doesn’t try to pretend otherwise. But Romney is both without a core and self-righteous about it. I think that pisses off Obama—although maybe it just pisses off me. Anyhow, I expected Obama’s disdain for Romney to fire him up for the debate. Clearly it didn't.
Walter: Here's the main thing for me: as any casting director knows, you never can tell how to actors are going to seem once they're on screen together. Chemistry can't be predicted. Two people create a third reality once they're together, and last night that reality wasn't one that most people anticipated based purely on their sense of mitt as gaffe prone and awkward and Obama as fluent and assure.
Jonathan: Your point about the chemistry is exactly right. And it's been a while since Obama has been challenged in this way. Hillary roughed him up pretty good in 08, but she was honest -- and Obama got better with time.
Walter: Another thing: Romney's experience in business means he has had to mix it up, negotiate, sell, push, pull, and engage in all the myriad interactive modes that bring groups of people to a decision point or content them with a decision that's already been made in other words, relating back and forth may be better honed skill for him -- as opposed to solitary speechifying before a crowd, say. Obama, after fort years of being president, especially, may have lost some of his give and take, group-dynamic muscles even as he's kept in shape as an orator.
Jonathan: Yeah, that's a really good point. Somebody on TV today mentioned that Romney knows how to close a deal, whatever it takes. He'll say what he has to say. I think this is a problem for Obama. He thinks like a writer, so he's aware of nuance and instinctively wants to recognize it. I like that quality in an intellectual, not sure it helps in a politician.
Walter: As far as simple optics go, Romney's more angular profile worked well for him last night, emphasized by his habit of keeping his chin up, Obama was chin down most of the time, which made his head look like a finger sticking up out of a collar, chinless. The staging was all very strange. I felt like Romney was actually on the stage and Obama was in one of those odd isolation chambers they used to put contestants in on game shows.
Jonathan: True. I also think, honestly, the format is part of the problem. I’m not sure how you improve the debate -- every format has problems. And lord knows I don't want a single anchor playing fact-checker. I just don’t trust them to get it right. Maybe just let them go after each other? Or maybe have more of a panel-type format, with multiple questioners – and instead of newsy folks, get real experts. Or maybe people who clearly have opinions on left and right, so it’s it’s contentious. I really don’t know. I’m thinking aloud here. But that format we saw on Wednesday, the usual one, ust lets these guys get off two-minute punch lines. It’s hard to deal with substance at a deep level. And it’s ard to keep them honest.
Walter: It's amazing how different, to get down to psychological basics, our experience is of two people side by side in one place at the same time for a sustained and uninterrupted period as opposed to the impression we get of seeing them alone in alternation in all sorts of different settings and in short edited clips surrounded by commentary that creates expectations for what we're about to see and manipulates our responses to what we've just seen. Personally, I was blown away by how much difference the 'natural' staging made in my impressions of two individuals who I thought I knew. Obama, for one, struck me as almost an Obama double -- a kind of second-rate Obama double.
Jonathan: I wanted the dude who plays him on that Comedy Central series.
Walter: As someone who debated a lot rather than play real sports in high school and college, i for one didn't mind Jim Lehrer’s performance. Hang back, let them do their thing, what's he supposed to be -- a couple's counselor?
Do you think maybe Naomi Wolf gave Romney one of her media manliness coaching sessions, maybe? Romney was damn alpha in his body language and whole affect, from posture to arm placement, and his tie had a kind of rakish slant to it sometimes.
Jonathan: So ... Big Bird. I wonder how that plays. Truth be told, Sesame Street probably could survive on its own. It's such a huge brand. But other shows wouldn't and the network as a whole wouldn't. Of course, as the parent of two kids who grew up on Elmo -- and as a kid who grew up pretending to be Super Grover, I was not happy. The monster at the end of the book turns out to be mitt Romney. Who knew?
Walter: You have to admire Mitt for his unrepentant hard-ass attitude toward small cuddly animals, whether they be real or puppets. Cable news could really use a few good shrinks and analysts to keep us informed on the unconscious, dream-logic level of the campaign.
I think a winner for Obama in the next debate might be to come out on stage stroking a guinea pig or a new kitten ask Mitt to hold it for a moment and see what he does. Flinches? Goes all flushed and starts to shake? Quickly hands it off to Ann? Shoves it on his pocket?
Jonathan: So if Obama and Romney were sesame street characters, who would they be? I assume mitt is Bert, right?
Oops. My wife, looking over my shoulder, says I shouldn't be disparaging Bert. She says Romney is Guy Smiley.
Walter: Obama seems like a Sesame Street guest host type. Someone who talks in a real soft voice as he reads from an alphabet book and who plays a straight man to cookie monster and so on. Then he sings the rainbow connection or whatever, with puppet birds landing on his shoulders.
Jonathan: Oh, that’s good. Or maybe you have to change PBS children’s shows. Obama is Mr. Rogers. Won’t you be … my neighbor? At least that's how he acted in the debate.
Walter: Romney actually reminds me of no current character, but I could see him being worked into the script as a big landlord who comes to visit his properties and tenements as part of some some review of his holdings. like this: Everybody's down on the street doing their multicultural thing and jumping robe and learning phonics and joshing with Oscar the Grouch, etc. when all of a sudden a long black Cadillac with tinted windows pulls up. The kids and puppets draw back, apprehensive. Then, slowly, one of the rear windows rolls down, revealing Romney in profile. People draw back, intimidated, but finally someone approaches and asks him who he is and what he wants. He offers his business card and says: Mitt Romney, Sesame Street Holdings, LLC. We own this place.
Everybody freezes. The jump ropes stop. Oscar pulls his can lid over his head. Children scurry off. the street is empty except for big bird, who is protective and territorial and has no other place to go. And Romney says to him: 'Don't worry, demolition and Stage 1 construction doesn't start for another year. You’ll have plenty of time to find another place.
At that point Romney's phone rings. he glances at the screen. 'Sorry, I have to take this,' he says to big bird. 'It’s an important business associate." he clicks on the phone. 'Good morning, Donald,' he says.
Jonathan: Ha. Well, on that note, I think I need to back to reading the debate transcript, and figuring out exactly what Romney said.
15 comments
If elected President, (speaking hypothetically of course) Mr. Mitt may discover his doppelganger on Sesame Street. Should Mr. Mitt return to private life, the network can continue broadcasting to all those seeking alternatives to traditional education. And who told the President of the United States to enter the debate as if he was walking into a classroom?
- Doug12
October 5, 2012 at 4:14pm
Jonathan, you'd be surprised. The Republican primary debates were a little more varied when it came to format, but I definitely remember there was a Bloomberg-hosted debate with different anchors generating and asking questions, which played to their strengths or areas of expertise. Let's look at the following exchange, featuring White House correspondent Julianna Goldman and factoring in that her employer, Bloomberg News and BusinessWeek, is a decent indicator that she has some knowledge of economic policy: GOLDMAN: I said we would get back to 9-9-9. Mr. Cain, you say that your plan is revenue-neutral. And last year, the U.S. collected $2.2 trillion dollars in tax revenue, but Bloomberg Government has run the numbers, and your plan would have raised no more than $2 trillion. And even with that shortfall, you’d still be slapping a 9 percent sales tax on food and medicine. CAIN: The problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) So, yeah. Unless the media empower themselves enough to call politicians liars and are legitimately more combative, nothing will change. Interestingly, the Republican primary debates had a different environment. There were around two dozen and they (to the surprise of many) made a lot of money for the networks and organizations that hosted them, since they tended to broadcast exclusively on one channel and many people tuned in. If CNN all of a sudden decided it would do a hard-hitting debate that would call candidates on their BS, that would be the end of the debate process. "The Newsroom" has a lot of problems as a depiction of journalism and politics, but they have one episode in which the network really wants to host a debate and the RNC folks back out when they discover it will be fact-based with cross-examinations from the moderator. Fine. That can happen with impunity in the primaries. But when you move to the general debates, where there's a guaranteed audience north of 40 million, no commercials, no network exclusivity, no pre-clearing of questions, and an empowered moderator--in fact, when that moderator is Jim Lehrer and he's doing it because he's 78 and has nothing to lose since his career doesn't depend on it--there's absolutely no reason that Jim Lehrer couldn't hold a more serious debate than he did. In fact, if he chose to hold a debate where he explicitly called the candidates on their BS, it probably would have done more than any one moment of this campaign to move it back into the realm where facts matter. No more cheeky "the problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect". Which was an applause line, by the way.
- chaitless
October 5, 2012 at 4:15pm
We don't know what all was going on inside President Obama's head but I'll lay odds it had to do with the fact our NATO ally, Turkey, had just lost five civilians in a Syrian attack. Romney has nothing better to do than primp and polish his snake oil routine. Try just listening to the debate, you might have a different conclusion.
- Sophia
October 5, 2012 at 5:18pm
"Cohn & Kirn Debate the First Debate" Uh, shouldn't that read, "Cohn & Kirn Agree Wholeheartedly About the First Debate & Take Turns Stroking Each Other's Egos?"
- AaronW
October 5, 2012 at 7:43pm
I will write in Tavis Smiley for president and Cornell West for VP They will fight for the poor. IGNORING AMERICA'S POOR POSTING IN AL JAZEERA Ignoring America's poor With 46 million people living in poverty, why are the presidential candidates so quiet on issues affecting the poor? Inside Story US 2012 Last Modified: 03 Oct 2012 09:38 http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/10/201210343152481862.html
- JAIMECHUCH
October 6, 2012 at 8:22am
JC writes: "given how much he twisted the truth and dodged questions," The "lie" dems are most outraged over is the Tax Policy Center's claim that Romney's tax plan will cost $5T. During the debate, Romney claimed it would be revenue neutral, which has sent the left into spasms. More specifically, the TPC claimed the policy would "necessitate a shift from high-income tax payers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers" But of course, when pressed on the issue, the TPC has been forced to change their tune. They agree that if the reduced taxes result in higher economic growth (econ 101), then it gets better. They say "Nevertheless, even if one were to use the model from Mankiw and Weinzierl (2006) and assume that after five years 15 percent of the $360 billion tax cut is paid for through higher economic growth, the available tax expenditures would still need to be cut by 56 percent; on net lower- and middle-income taxpayers would still need to pay higher taxes.[11]" And alas, that means that growth could fill $53B of the the $86B hole. And thus, that leaves a $33B hole. Now, as Feldstein reported, >$100K earners collectively have $636B in deductions. Is it possible that deduction reform could claw back $33B (5%) of that? Certainly. Without breaking a sweat. In fact, even without economic growth you can get that back. The longer dems prolong this fantasy that Romney's tax reform will hammer the middle class, the more you prolong the punishment. Remember, Romney's reform isn't about paying less taxes. It's about simplifying and streamlining and keep the amount you pay the same. If someone earns $10M and through a 100 page tax return a $25K in tax prep fees pays $3.3M in taxes, then having them fill out a 1 page form with $0 in tax prep fees is better IF they still pay $3.3M in taxes. Obama will get smacked down even harder if he brings this nonsense to the debate again, because more writers are waking up to what this actually is. Romney can now cite CNN is on his side on this at the next debate.
- seattleeng
October 6, 2012 at 2:25pm
Jaimechuch, please do write them in instead of Obama. You will do your country a great service!
- seattleeng
October 6, 2012 at 2:26pm
"Remember, Romney's reform isn't about paying less taxes. It's about simplifying and streamlining and keep the amount you pay the same." But what's going to be simplified and streamlined is something we have to wait until after the election when Pres. Romney will kindly let us know. And this is one guy I don't want to be surprised by.
- ironyroad
October 6, 2012 at 5:26pm
I suggest Obama come into the next debate dressed as a "white face" Dexter Morgan. Then he should offer to test Romney's blood type. If Romney refuses, Dexter Obama quips, "Turnip, eh?" Alternative theory. Experts on seduction (not me, for sure) say that the trick is to be cool and distant; not eager. Perhaps most of America is panting for Barak? Suppose Michelle pretends to disappear from now until the election. Oh, that's right. Obama is supposed to have the woman's vote wrapped up. OK, what about the repressed "denying I'm gay" "pretending I'm mach" evangelical vote? What's that? A triple double overthehead reverse layup?
- skahn
October 6, 2012 at 9:16pm
"They agree that if the reduced taxes result in higher economic growth (econ 101), then it gets better." So then Mitt Romney's economic policies ride on a very huge, completely discredited "if". Tax rates are only one variable in the equation of growth, and I've seen little to suggest it is the most important; or to put that another way, if there were truth to the statement that lower taxes always results in higher economic growth, then we would be suffering from the budget surpluses Junior's economic advisers were warning us about in 2000. We have historically low tax rates, so if lower tax rates always result in higher growth, we should be suffering from historically high economic growth. Sounds like just another Religion to me, with articles of faith far more absurd than anything in Catholicism or even Mormonism.
- GSpinks
October 7, 2012 at 12:11pm
GSpinks, what you are really asking is what side of the Laffer curve are we on. Recall the laffer curve that says increased taxes don't always increase revenue. And reduced taxes can result in more revenue. Note there aren't absolutes here. Sometimes more taxes will result in more revenue. And sometimes not. Depends on where you are on the curve. So, where do dems think we are? they obviously believe that more taxes will result in less revenue. That is why they voted to extend the bush tax cuts.
- seattleeng
October 8, 2012 at 2:18am
Irony writes: "But what's going to be simplified and streamlined is something we have to wait until after the election when Pres. Romney will kindly let us know. And this is one guy I don't want to be surprised by." As it should be. Romney isn't king. He gives congress broad direction and then drives them to come to consensus. The key word there is DRIVE. Not play golf and party with JayZ while congress spins their wheels. But, oddly enough, you seemed fine being surprised by Obamacare and the long string of executive orders...Hopefully that all comes to an end.
- seattleeng
October 8, 2012 at 2:22am
Obamacare was only a surprise in that it was an essentially conservative solution to a national problem that curiously didn't get any support from conservatives -- other than that, it was something that puts us on the right road and I was happy when it passed. And the exectutive order to get Osama bin Laden was quite ok with me. You?
- ironyroad
October 8, 2012 at 3:05am
Yes, not all EO's are bad. But the EO to kill US citizen I'm more conflicted about. And there's no question that the EO to loosen welfare work requirements (against the wishes of congress) was wrong. That specifically undid that which had previously been debated and decided. I think EO's work better when they cover something that congress didn't anticipate that needs immediate attention. Note the 1986 tax reform act was sponsored by dems, but it began with specific yet broad instructions from Reagan: Simplify, but make it revenue neutral. Decrease rates, but eliminate deductions. Sound familiar to Romney's plan? That is how bi-partisanship works. Reagan didn't say "Here is is. My way or the highway". I't laughable that dems want all the details hammered about before it goes to congress. Last time this was done (1986) that's not how it worked then. The "my way or the highway" is only a recent invention of the Obama administration. Where individual states were paid off to turn votes one by one. That is the sleaziest way to pass legislation that isn't the least bit good for anyone involved. I'll say it again: Leadership is about getting things done under extreme adversity. Nobody wants to hear about how mean and tough the other guys are. Of course their mean and tough. That's why they're in politics at the national level. But you got to find the gives and gets for both sides. That requires someone who has negotiated something complex before. Obama has not. And thus, he struggles at this. His repeated votes of "present" have really failed him (and us).
- seattleeng
October 8, 2012 at 2:40pm
The welfare-work requirements order was at the request of several state governors, including Republicans, who wanted a bit more flexibility in administering their programs. There's a difference between mean and tough -- that's legitimate -- and outright destructive malice. When a senior Republican leader says that his entire goal is to make Obama a one-term president -- beyond any consideration of national crisis or practical need -- then we're in new territory there.
- ironyroad
October 8, 2012 at 7:58pm