Live-Blogging The Michigan Debate

131996445

9.51 pm. At this point, I have begun to really lose it watching this crew. There are only two faintly plausible, credible presidents up there, both Mormons. The rest is beyond an embarrassment, and at this moment in history, the sheer paucity of that talent is alarming. Did anyone up there give you confidence he or she could actually lead the world countering this metastasizing debt and unemployment crisis? At best, there were noises about removing burdensome regulation on businesses and a simpler tax code. But who up there could actually bring that about?

Two other things: Romney's claim that Democrats hate profitable companies. It's an absurd statement on its face, but as a comment on reality, it's surreal. Profits are at record levels. If lack of profits is the reason for our employment crisis, there would be no crisis. Second: the boos for questioning a man in power who is credibly accused of sexual harassment and has settled such cases in the past is a sign of real contempt for women in such a situation. Both reveal to me a party hat has completely lost its way.

I'm beginning to wonder if these debates are helping Obama more than his own primary debates did in 2007 and 2008. Next to these doofuses, he seems reassuring. The losers of this debate: Perry and Cain. The winners? Gingrich and Obama.

9.47 pm. Cain is so out of his league on the economy it's painful. But he can remember three things and a punchline. But notice no ability to address the abuses on Wall Street. Then Perry actually criticizes crony capitalism. Yes, Perry. A reader writes:

As a moderately conservative Texan, I am absolutely ashamed that my state would ever elect such a fucking moron. Thank God that the office of Governor in the state is largely ceremonial and with minimal power. Furthermore, what in the world is a blended program between wage and cost? What does that even mean and how is it a solution to social security's deficit problem? How does it even answer the question asked?

It was one of the weirder digressions, but it had competition.

9.40 pm. Romney's anti-China passion is consistent and a little strange. Huntsman is right about the pandering. "We're not going to let them steal our jobs" is a sentence you don't normally hear at a GOP debate.

9.38 pm. Cain's response to Harwood should be disqualifying. He actually says that the tax code is why American companies outsource. Now I agree with him on scrapping the current tax code. But the notion that under any tax code, American workers can compete with Indians and Chinese earning one tenth of the salaries is bizarre. Cain jumped his own shark here a bit.

9.34 pm. Trying to be objective here, I suspect Gingrich's nutso diatribes are going to work with this bewildered base. Perry will surely crater after tonight. Cain sure should, given the mounting evidence that he is a liar. Bachmann has also effectively evaporated in this debate. Ron Paul's foreign policy views make him a poor fit to win over these voters. Gingrich could well emerge from this stronger. None of which, I suspect, is good news for the GOP.

9.29 pm. Ron Paul argues for total privatization of college education and an end to student loans; and Perry would abolish the Department of Education. Gingrich says that government student loans are an "absurdity". The complete indifference to the questioners was striking. Perry is now an extra in The Walking Dead. But less articulate.

9.26 pm. If Jon Huntsman believes the WSJ editorial page is the most respected economic authority in the world, then we have a problem. But his tax plan is bold and feasible; and it's amazing that because of his attachment to reality on climate change or civil unions makes him anathema to the GOP at this point in time.

9.26 pm. A reader writes:

Apparently, Perry hasn’t learned the “write the crib notes on the hand” trick from you know who.

9.22 pm. Harwood gets both Gingrich and Romney to endorse a core part of the Obama administration's American Jobs Act. Nice job. But remember: Romney's view is that he should always favor the opposite of what Obama does or proposes. So on this one, he's a little stuck.

9.18 pm. Perry collapses. Cannot remember a list of three federal government departments he wants to abolish past the first two. Seriously. And then he says "oops." He has all but disappeared inside his suit in this debate and is now basically done. And notice the casualness with which he intends to abolish whole government departments. Has he thought through the consequences? Or is he just a bad performance artist?

9.15 pm. Romney's old alliance with Ted Kennedy comes to the fore. It should be an asset, as John  Harwood notices. Romney says that Obama is only interested in his own political career and has no interest in helping the country as a whole. The sheer intensity of the attack – from a man hardly renowned for non-careerism – is what strikes me.

9.13 pm. Santorum is asked how he could compromise with Democrats when he refuses any tax increases at all. His answer is: they will agree with us. Seriously.

9.08 pm. I cede my time to another reader, as the commercials run:

Another reason why Cain is the flavor of the moment: He makes the base feel good about not knowing what the hell is going on and still be empowered to affect changes in the outcome. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but he can articulate just enough reassurances that he'll "feel" his way through the situation to put the pearl-clutching mind at ease.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney knows what the hell is going on, but he doesn't do a good job of faking like he doesn't. Mitt Romney is the oily-smiled student council president-that's-secretly-a chess-club-nerd, loudly proclaiming just how much he loves watching the Tuesday night football league matches so he can sit at the table with the jocks.

I find the sheer display of repeated platitudes about the "heavy hand of government" and "picking winners and losers" and putting a flag in the middle of the country with the words "Open For Business" on it … well, discouraging. It seems to me that the crisis is a little too big for this kind of treatment. So far: only Huntsman and Romney seem capable of mastering these complex questions at all. Gingrich, once again, is a massive fraud. Ron Paul a wonderful purveyor of appealing abstraction.

9.05 pm. A reader writes:

On one end of the spectrum of political discourse we have your readers contributing to a ongoing, comprehensive analysis of the cause of the financial meltdown.  On the other end we have Michelle Bachmann's response in the debate tonight, which I'll paraphrase as: "Duuuuuuh… Freddie bad… duuuuuuh Fannie bad… duuuuuh. [applause] "  I don't know how you fucking watch this for more than two minutes.

They pay me.

9.01 pm. Gingrich is revealed as an emperor with no clothes on healthcare. His first response to what he would replace Obamacare with was he'd return to a relationship between a patient and a doctor. Then Medicaid to the states. Then some kind of crazy riff on brain science. Seriously, this is truly a pathetic spectacle, interspersed by occasional dogged attempts by Bartiromo to get them to address the reality outside their closed ideoloogical cocoon.

8.59 pm. Don't you think that someone with so many allegations of sexual harassment and assault against him might not belittle a former speaker of the House as "Princess Nancy"?

8.55 pm. So far, I have heard nothing specific on how to grapple with the uninsured – except pass the problem back to the states. Like Texas.

8.52 pm. Cain is a master of using any question to repeat his core message. Only then does he concede he would abolish the GSEs. Huntsman meanwhile wants more regulation for the banks, requiring them to increase collateral to protect the taxpayer from possible future crashes.

8.50 pm. I didn't know Freddie Mac paid Gingrich $300,000 for his advice, did you? I wonder what officials there remember about his advice?

8.48 pm. A reader writes:

A big cheer for bigger profits.  I suppose Romney and this audience must love Obama since corporate profits are at an all-time high now.

No, because, as Romney points out, Democrats hate profitable businesses.

8.42 pm. So far, the dynamic is, to my mind, much less vivid and interesting than in the other recent debates, despite a strong crew of questioners. Why? Because many of these issues are complex and difficult and these candidates, even if they were capable of grappling them, respond with cliches and slogans. And the huge question hovering over this debate sits there like a suspended giant elephant no one wants to talk about.

And then Romney sums up his message: just do the opposite of whatever Obama has done.

8.41 pm. A heads up to my colleagues Howie Kurtz and Michelle Goldberg live-chatting the debate here.

8.37 pm. Ron Paul wants to reboot the economy by cutting demand immediately by over a trillion dollars. And he warns of spiraling inflation. As I said, good times.

8.35 pm. Romney puts the entire blame of the recession on Obama. All of it. Nothing existed before 2009. Not even the recession.

8.33 pm. And if you want to know why Cain has caught fire, listen to him on tax simplification. He gets the need to junk the current system and start over. He understands why simplicity and transparency matter. And how they interact with clear political accountability. His solution may be flawed, but his arguments are real and vital. If Obama doesn't get that, he's missing this moment.

8.29 pm. Gingrich is running against the media. Bartiromo calls him on it. He has no real answer, except that he'd rather have seen someone in the media ask OWS the right questions. Bartiromo is easily the best interrogator of these debates so far – because she refuses to accept the premises of some of the answers. Gingrich speaks as if there is no inequality problem, and no social mobility problem. They don't exist. Like the victims of Herman Cain's sexual harassment.

8.27 pm. Romney says that Democrats are against profitable companies. Seriously. Then he says that Obama doesn't like business. Because he bailed out the auto companies. Successfully.

8.22 pm. Loving Maria right now. And the crowd is roaring support for Cain. It was the perfect moment to raise the question. And Romney, given a chance to double down, whiffs. From this debate and this crowd, Cain is doing fine. I find the dismissal of sexual harassment allegations to be disgusting. But denial is a powerful thing; and cowardice is Romney's second nature.

8.20 pm. So Gingrich would fire a fixed term appointee at the Fed and Bachmann says she alone can repeal a law. Good times.

8.17 pm. Perry matches his basement-level expectations. Gingrich doubles down on demonizing Bush appointee Ben Bernanke and repeats that he should be fired. Which he cannot. Gingrich then delivers a classic piece of crazy about evil Alinsky communism versus America. He's playing direct to the talk radio base.

8.13 pm. Romney tries to parse his various positions on rescuing Detroit. He almost slipped by using the word "bailout". He then parries a question about his political shape-shifting by citing his long-term attachment to institutions, like his Church, his wife and his company. A non-sequitur. And a weak questioner.

8.10 pm. Cramer gets real antsy about the notion of allowing a global financial collapse. Ron Paul talks of the benefits of full liquidation. Cramer – who is starting at a volume and intensity level of 11 – is aghast. Huntsman argues, I think, in favor of breaking up the big banks.

8.06 pm. Cain is asked about how to insulate the US from Italy. He has no idea and no answer. Romney insists on no efforts to help Europe help itself. He's an economic non-interventionist.

8.05 pm. Jim Cramer is on the panel!

8.04 pm. A big cheer for Herman.

(Photo: Scott Olson/Getty.)

Face Of The Day

131968417

A protestor confronts a policeman as students take part in a demonstration against higher tuition fees and privatisation in universities on November 9, 2011 in London, England. The march is expected to finish at London Wall in the heart of the capital's financial district. Around 4000 police officers are on duty and are to be allowed to deploy baton rounds if needed. By Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images.

Glee’s Consummation, Ctd

 Alyssa Rosenberg analyzes the milestone:

The show was very careful to equate Kurt and Blaine and Rachel and Finn, shooting both couples in essentially similar positions of repose, clasping hands the same way, and similarly clothed. In a way, I think it’s more useful to make the couples as similar as possible, rather than focusing on the mechanical differences between the way they’re going to get down. Given that conservative stereotypes about gay men in particular focus on the idea that gay people are promiscuous and emotionally detached, tenderness is more confrontational to those beliefs than actually shooting a sex scene.

Drowning Not Waving

131426352

In his statement to the press yesterday, motivational speaker Herman Cain specifically stated the following about Sharon Bialek:

"My first response in my mind and reaction was I don't even know who this woman is. Secondly, I didn't recognize the name at all… I tried to remember if I recognized her, and I didn't."

Bialek claims she confronted him only a month ago, at a Tea Party event. So there is a very stark and simple empirical conflict on a recent event which occurred in public. Either Bialek is lying or Cain is. I see no way that Cain can credibly claim he doesn't remember a woman who confronted him, as she asserts, only a month or so ago. And then you think: well, if it was in public, there must have been other witnesses. And guess what? There were:

Amy Jacobson of AM560 WIND in Chicago, first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times, corroborates Bialek's version of the October meeting provided at Monday's news conference…

In a telephone interview, Jacobson said Wednesday that Bialek assertively made her way backstage at the October 1 event and encountered Cain. In a telephone interview, Jacobson said Wednesday that Bialek assertively made her way backstage at the October 1 event and encountered Cain. According to Jacobson, Bialek approached Cain and said hello, and he smiled and they briefly embraced, then stood talking together. "It was more like she put her arms around him. She didn't corner him, but I can use the basketball term, boxed him out," Jacobson said of the encounter.

Jacobson said she was unable to hear the conversation, which continued until an event organizer interrupted them to hustle Cain on stage for his speech. "She talked to him for a few minutes, which made me kind of mad because I wanted to talk to him," Jacobson said. While unwilling to characterize the encounter, Jacobson said that Cain looked "stone-faced" after his initial smile. "There was a smile, and then things got tense," Jacobson said of the encounter.

Why would Jacobson make this up? Why would Bialek? I am inclined to back up the Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed:

The bottom line. I believe Amy.

You, Sir, need to get your act together and off the campaign trail.

(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

College Is A Consumption Good?

That's Jason Kuznicki's belief:

College is a socially expected consumption good, but still, what we’re seeing now is the real reason exposed when all the secondary reasons (Earn a paycheck! Join the world of 9-5 office work!) have evaporated. Most people go to college for personal fulfillment — to achieve all kinds of ends way high up on Maslow’s hierarchy. The rest is secondary.

Glenn Reynolds echoes Kuznicki's argument and sticks up for trade schools:

There are many paths to increased earnings that don’t involve college, and that have smaller upfront costs: Skilled trades such as electrical work and plumbing face a constant shortage of qualified workers as Americans increasingly disdain manual labor, and these fields pay wages that compare very favorably to those earned by college graduates. There’s an additional advantage to these hands-on jobs: They’re harder to outsource. If you’re a so-called knowledge worker in the global information economy, you’re in competition with smart people all over the planet. If you fix cars or HVAC units, you’re competing only with the folks in your neighborhood. 

The Blissful, Devastating Life Of A Sports Fan

GT_DEJECTEDFANS_111107

Reflecting on the World Series, which the Texas Rangers lost in seven games, Ross Douthat celebrates the "almost wins" that precipitate true fanhood:

As a rule, it isn’t winning a title that usually cements a fan base’s loyalty to a baseball team. It’s almost winning — having victory within your grasp and then having your heart ripped out at the last moment. World Series titles come and go (just ask a Florida Marlins fan, if you can find one), but devastating near-misses stay with you forever. The pre-2010s Rangers never inspired much passion from the Texas faithful not because they never won, but because they never broke any hearts. They were just lousy-to-mediocre, year after year and decade after decade, with none of the near-misses and epic disasters that bind suffering sports fans to their star-crossed teams. 

(Photo: Liverpool fans during the Barclays Premier League match between Stoke City and Liverpool at Britannia Stadium on September 10, 2011 in Stoke on Trent, England. Photo by Scott Heavey/Getty Images.)

Digital Taps On The Shoulder

Eyal Ophir, who put out a study on multitasking a couple years back, reflects on what he has learned:

Historically, when someone tapped on our shoulder, they were necessarily physically next to us. So they knew if we were already holding a conversation with someone else, and could adjust their behavior, or withhold their request. We, in turn, felt compelled to respond to the tap on the shoulder when it came. But now, the incoming chat message, the phone call, and the television announcer, all tap on our shoulder in a sense, trying to get our attention. They are entirely oblivious to each other, and solicit our attention as if they were the only ones. We, on the other hand, feel the same obligation to respond. It may be that our social norms and instincts are not scaling at the rate of communication channels. In this way, media may have brought about a new tragedy of the commons – by aggressively trying to grab our undivided attention, they have threatened the very notion of undivided attention.

We Should Worry About China

Walter Russell Mead parses a freaky new report: 

China’s growth is likely to slow to 8.7 percent next year, 6.6 percent in each the four years after that, and then average 3.5 percent per year between 2017 and 2025. It has long been an article of faith inside China and among most China watchers that the country needs 9 percent growth per year to avoid widespread instability. If China’s growth decelerates that fast, that far, the biggest question in world politics won’t be how the rest of us will accommodate China’s rise.  The question will shift to whether China can last.

Geoffrey Gresh sees a (for now) rising China as increasingly critical to America's Middle East strategy. Robert Farley thinks any GOP President will have a tough time successfully managing our relationship with the Asian power.