Day: October 17, 2012

Ask Mark Bowden Anything

[Update from yesterday with questions added by readers]

Bowden is out with a new book:

Mark Bowden’s The Finish is the first book, and, to date, the definitive one, that looks at the Osama bin Laden raid from President Obama’s perspective as he sat in the Oval Office debating how to continue the then-seven-year hunt for the al Qaeda leader. Bowden was granted rare access to the president to discuss the raid and to the strategic thinking that went into its planning at the White House, CIA, and Joint Special Operations Command. Bowden, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, has most famously written about U.S. Army intervention in Somalia in Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War (1999), Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar in Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw (2001), and cyberattacks and security in Worm: The First Digital World War (2011).

You know the drill by now: To submit a question for Mark, simply enter it into the field at the top of the Urtak poll (ignore the "YES or NO question" aspect and simply enter any open-ended question). We primed the poll with questions you can vote on right away – click "Yes" if you have a strong interest in seeing him answer the question or "No" if you don't particularly care. Thanks to everyone for participating.

First a supercut of Obama calling Romney out on his lies:

Ambinder judges the debate:

Obama killed it. He outdebated Romney, he never once seemed churlish, he had a better command of the facts, and he conveyed the aura of a man who is confident about his choices. Romney kept hitting bumps. He didn't let go of small points. He seemed irritated and peevish. He was uncharacteristically tongue-tied. As I reviewed my notes after the debate, though, Romney probably did better than my gut told me. But Obama still won the evening, and did so convincingly. I think if this debate had been first, Republicans would have a conniption. But since Romney tightened a race that won't loosen up much no matter what happens, the momentum for Obama will probably be somewhat less.

Douthat thought Romney made two stylistic errors:

Romney is very skillful at the on-stage slash and parry, but he has weak spots, and veterans of the long Republican primary slog remember two of them particularly well. One is his tendency to argue pointlessly with the moderator and his opponents over the rules of order. The other is his habit of pressing his advantage too far, seeking a kind of alpha-male moment that can seem bullying instead of strong. (His attempt at a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry was the paradigmatic example.) He gave in to both temptations this time around. 

Bob Wright analyzes Obama's stage presence:

I think Obama succeeded in striking a very delicate balance: He had to be sharp and feisty and tough (to erase those particular doubts about his first performance), but he had to stop short of Joe Biden levels of aggressiveness and remain essentially likeable. I think he did that. I've heard some commentators say Obama was "angry," but he didn't strike me as crossing that line — except maybe a few times when he displayed righteous indignation that I thought was effective. Certainly he didn't seem angrier than Romney, and he wasn't as disrespectful of moderator Candy Crowley as Romney was.

Ezra Klein looks at the substance:

After the first debate, President Obama’s supporters comforted themselves by saying Obama’s deficiencies were stylistic, and Romney’s victory was the result of confident lying. But reading the transcript, it quickly came clear that President Obama’s stylistic shortcomings were connected to his substantive shortcomings. His answers were rambling, his case for his candidacy was vague, and his attacks on Romney were often confused.  So I sat down tonight with a rush transcript of tonight’s debate. The same thing was true. The candidate who struggled on style also struggled on substance. But this time, that candidate was Romney. 

Chait celebrates Obama's victory:

President Obama is not a great debater, but in the second presidential debate, he gave his best performance. Mitt Romney came off well, but not nearly as well as he had during the first debate. Obama enjoyed friendly questions from an audience that obviously leaned left. But more importantly, Obama simply did not allow Romney to occupy the center as he had before.

Jonah Goldberg complains about the questions:

I thought the questions, prescreened by Candy Crowley, were for the most part indistinguishable from questions the Obama campaign might as well have drafted for her. Nearly every one was asked from a fundamentally liberal premise. Why on earth this debate was handed to undecided voters in a state where Obama is leading by nearly 30 points is beyond me. These weren’t undecided voters; they were at best dyspeptic Democrats. 

Jonathan Bernstein pushes back:

I thought the questions favored Obama during the debate, but a second look convinced me that it's wrong: the questions were about as fair as it gets. From the "Town Hall" audience questions, I count three that were solidly pro-Obama and one that was somewhat pro-Obama; three solidly pro-Romney and one somewhat pro-Romney; and three neutral ones.

Barro is disappointed by both candidates:

Romney and Obama fought with each other a lot tonight, but the subtext of their messages was sadly similar: If elected, they will sit around and hope the economy gets better. That's not a message that gives me much hope for the next four years, no matter who wins.

So is Frum:

For all the talk about competing with China, it is not Chinese industrial labor that is exerting downward pressure on the wages of the accountants, lab technicians, and paralegals of Long Island. Their jobs are being revolutionized by information technology or off shored to English-speaking Indians. President Obama touts higher education as the solution to all economic ills, but in the first half of the 00s, the wages of college graduates stagnated. What happens to the typical American worker in a world where routine white-collar work is exposed to the same global competition as blue-collar work?

John Cassidy finds that "the overwhelming majority of the pundits proclaimed the President the victor":

Even Charles Krauthammer and Laura Ingraham said that he won on points. With this type of unanimity, the media narrative for the next few days, which is at least as important as the debate itself, will run in favor of Obama and against Romney. The G.O.P. candidate, rather than being praised for having delivered a strong indictment of Obama’s economic record—the CBS News poll showed that sixty-five per cent of viewers thought he won the economic exchanges, against just thirty-seven per cent who thought Obama did—will be criticized for his blunders on Libya, guns, and women.

And Tomasky declares, "Obama is back!":

So how much difference does it all make? Not as much as the first debate, but my guess is probably enough. Obama needs these kinds of headlines: He’s back! Obama shows some fight. Obama on his game. Et cetera. He’ll get those, and he earned them. The press was hungry two weeks ago to get Romney back in this thing, so there’d be a race to write about, so the stories would get eyeballs. Romney delivered, and the press wrote it. The same will happen now.

But this debate probably won’t change the dynamic as much as the first one did. Probably fewer people watched. But certainly liberals and Democrats got the boost they wanted. And that bogeyman—Obama can’t debate, he’s frozen, and my own contribution, does he even want this?—is off his back. It’s showtime.

Following the debate, Candy Crowley said Romney had a point about the Benghazi rhetoric from the Obama administration but Romney "picked the wrong word":

We linked to the debate exchange here. PolitiFact referees it, calling Romney's claim that it took 14 days for the president to use the terrorist attack label a "half true" on the grounds that although he said "act of terror" in the Rose Garden on September 12, "neither [Obama] nor all the members of his administration spoke consistently on the subject."A good example of that:

[On Sept. 25,] Obama declined to called the attack an act of terrorism when asked directly on ABC’s The View. "We are still doing an investigation," he said when asked if the Benghazi attack was an act of terrorism. "There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering."

J.P. Freire questions Obama's implied meaning of "act of terror":

[In the Rose Garden speech, Obama] mentions the extent to which acts of terror will have an impact on American life (not much, apparently), but he never calls out this particular act as an act of terror. And whatever the case, it takes four whole minutes — a lifetime in speechwriter years — to get to that word. Terror. If you're going to rebut Romney's claim that Obama took forever to get to the heart of the matter, don't cite as your evidence a meandering speech in which Obama mentions terror, in passing, in a way that suggests, implies, or otherwise avoids directly addressing the horror as, in fact, an act of terror.

But Josh Rogin adds a piece of evidence that suggests otherwise:

[O]n Sept. 13, at a campaign event in Colorado, Obama again used the phrase "act of terror" and this time tied it directly to the Benghazi attack. "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America," he said. [video link]

While Jim Geraghty concedes the ambiguity of the Rose Garden phrase and finds Romney's handling of the debate exchange "disappointing", he also sees an opened can of worms:

[T]he American people may remember the administration spending a lot of time talking about a YouTube video in the days after the Benghazi attack, and Obama’s sudden insistence that his administration never really pushed that implausible-from-the-start alternate explanation may strike them as odd and implausible. Viewers may also notice that the president never responded to the audience member’s question about what the administration did in response to the reports indicating Benghazi was growing increasingly dangerous.

Josh Marshall's take: 

Now Romney’s allies are trying to recover the fumble on his behalf by saying well, sure he uttered the word terror. But that’s just a word. Look at the context. He also mentioned the video. And videos don’t have anything to do with terror! In other words, but, but, but … the video!

Live by the buzzword, die by the buzzword. It’s been a nonsensical proposition from the start to imagine that foreign policy seriousness is defined by being the first one to hit the ‘terror’ buzzer like you’re a contestant on jeopardy. But the Romney camp laid the trap. And tonight Mitt walked right into it.

Goldblog weighs in:

Does Mitt Romney actually think that Barack Obama doesn't believe that what happened in Benghazi was an act of terror? A larger question: Does anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama, a president who is at war in more Muslim countries than any president in American history, is soft on al Qaeda? And one other question: Does Barack Obama believe that Republicans somehow aren't allowed to raise serious questions about the Administration's response to the attack?

Again, I wish the Republicans would frame these questions not to raise doubts about the commander-in-chief's innermost feelings about terrorism, but to ask what specific actions do we need to take, quickly, to try to prevent follow-on attacks?

Think Progress provides a timeline of the Benghazi fallout.

A reader writes:

I disagree with you that Romney's hiring women for his cabinet was a good answer at all.  The issue was pay equity for women, not appointing token women in a GOP state administration.  That has nothing to do with pay equity.  And it reminds people of how few women are part of the GOP power structure.

Another:

I was egregiously offended by Romney's answer on women and equal pay. He begins by telling a story of not apparently knowing any smart conservative women, and having his staff return only male candidates. He sent them back to look for women. It was the sexist equivalent of "I can't have any illegals; I'm running for President for heaven's sake."

Another adds, "He is running on his business record, but he wasn't aware of women's workplace issues until he became governor of Massachusetts?" Another elaborates on that point:

No one in that inner circle, no one in the Romney campaign for Governor or Senator, no one from his circle of Bain capitalists knew any qualified women?  Not because none existed, because apparently binders full of women existed, but Romney and his staff never hung out with any, hired any, were friends with any women on a professional level, or served on boards or committees with qualified women. So, to find some, they had to turn to women's groups where those type of women obviously hang out. Because in the Romney sphere, they didn't know any.

Try inserting "African-American" into his quote instead of women and see the insult.  Imagine saying we had trouble finding qualified African-Americans so we went to the NAACP because they might know of some. Which begs the question on how Romney fared with minorities, but that is for another day.

Romney said "Government does not create jobs, government does not create jobs" … but also says, "I am going to create 12 million new jobs as president." Is it just me or is there a huge disconnect here?

Submit Yes/No questions of your own, or simply answer the ones provided (we will update with new questions throughout the morning):

The Town-Hall Debate

Explore the results here.

If he does, Nate Cohn expects it to be a small one:

 Obama isn't unlikely to return to his post-DNC standing of 49 or 49.5 percent of the popular vote, which probably reflected an unsustainably poor image of Romney and post-DNC momentum (unless Obama's losses were almost entirely due to Democratic enthusiasm or response rates). With Obama likely to fall in a narrow band between his post-debate 47 percent and his pre-debate 49 percent, any gains would be slight and potentially difficult to distinguish from static. Of course, if Obama could get his number back near 49 percent, that would still be significant and potentially difficult for Romney to overcome.

Silver's guess about post-debate polling:

Throughout this election cycle, you would have done very well by predicting that the polls would eventually settle in at an overall lead for Mr. Obama of about two percentage points. Whenever his lead has been larger than that, it has come back to earth. But Mr. Obama has also rebounded at moments when the polls seemed to suggest an even closer race.

A reader writes:

Wow. After all the promised Romney zingers for the first debate/debacle, the second round of "zing" went to the President. It felt to me like every off-the-cuff moment went to Obama. Where Romney's attacks sounded very rehearsed and collapsed when they didn't go according to plan, Obama's responses came much more from the heart. When he was angry, he sounded like a man who knew how complex the world was and was exasperated by an opponent who lacked the same knowledge.

This wasn't quite the bloodbath of Round One, but after ignoring a lot of fundraising emails earlier last week (and then being uplifted by Uncle Joe), I threw money in tonight.

Another notes:

And no UMMMMMS from Obama this time.

Another:

I'd say it was a win for Obama, but in the way that the faster of two people fleeing a bear counts as a win. While the President came off as the better candidate, neither man really answered the questions before them most of the time. At least Candy had the guts to call them on it and squeeze some substance out.

To me, it feels like Romney is a guy who never went on a real job interview. He keeps telling people how awesome he'd be if we hired him, but he's not offering specifics that pertain to the job description.

Another:

So Romney is against tax cuts for job creators, favors affirmative action, is proud of getting the uninsured down to near zero with a mandate, loves Mexicans, favors protectionism, and wants more free money for people to go to school. We are all Democrats now.

Another:

Romney on gun control: "Semi-automatic weapons don't kill people. People with single parents kill people."

Another:

Please tell me that you noticed Obama's long-winded diatribe on urban violence followed by Romney's condemnation of a federal program conceived to hunt down Mexican drug runners, and neither one suggested that both might have the SAME FUCKING CAUSE: the Drug War.  These debates are embarrassing, especially because one of these people will have to deal with a state legalizing weed as early as this year.

Another:

Romney probably prepared his final remarks expecting Obama to refer to Romney's 47% gaffe at some point earlier in the debate. What happened instead: Obama waited, and waited… and finally, Romney used the phrase "100 percent," emphasis on "100," allowing Obama to easily counter with "47%." It capped off an evening full of unforced errors from Romney that handed Obama the debate.

And another:

Obama's use of the 47% line was brutal as a debating point. But I noticed that the lines of approval on CNN went flat at that very moment, and those lines echoed my gut feeling: Romney has conceded the 47% comment was wrong. Once he did, bringing it up again doesn't fit the American tradition of easy redemption if you just admit you were wrong.

Another:

In his closing statement, Mr. Romney said he "served as a pastor" in his church for 10 years. This was intentionally misleading.  It was a way of saying "See, we Mormons are just like you – we have pastors, and I was one." The LDS church does not have clergy, only lay leaders.  It does not use the title "pastor" or "minister."  It uses "bishop" to indicate a lay leader with designated spiritual responsibilities.  Stake president is the leader of a group of wards, which are local congregations.  None of these positions require formal theological education nor are the people in them "ordained" for vocational ministry as are Catholic priests or Protestant pastors.  In the LDS, a bishop or stake president is chosen for a period of time and none of them work as vocational clergy.

Mr. Romney left the impression – intentionally – that he worked for 10 years as pastor of a local church. I would think many LDS members were troubled by the remark, as they do not, ever, use the term "pastor."

Another adds, "I watched the debate with my wife, who grew up in super-Mormon small-town Idaho, and she literally gasped when Romney said he had been a 'pastor' in his church." Another:

As soon as it ended, Romney made a bee line for his wife and they were immediately surrounded by their sons.  They appeared to be protecting their parents from everyone else in the auditorium. Meanwhile, in the background, Obama was mixing with the audience.  To me, at least, the contrast was striking.

Another:

I find it hilarious that the exact moment debate-watchers have dreamed of, the moderator pointing out a direct lie, is the one the right-wing commentators are decrying as Candy Crowley "shilling" for Obama. Martha Raddatz did something similar when she questioned Paul Ryan about which deductions and loopholes Romney would close, or if they really still had no specifics, and concluded "No specifics, then?" And again, the right was beside themselves with animosity at the unfairness of the moderator. 

They much preferred Romney buffaloing Jim Lehrer, which was painful to watch. Democrats certainly grumbled about Lehrer's competence in the first debate, but they blamed their candidate. The right won't do that; the right won't look in the mirror.

One of many fair-weather readers:

I'm a long-time reader and occasional contributor to the Dish, but I had to take it off of my bookmark toolbar the day after the first debate, because it had just became too painful to read. I couldn't bring myself to watch the second debate but got some indications from friends that it went well for President Obama. Hoping against hope, I went to the Dish, and saw Andrew's 10:48 entry: "To my mind, Obama dominated Romney tonight in every single way…" For the first time since the first debate, I feel I can stop panicking (a little). I may even start reading the Dish throughout the day again starting tomorrow. I've missed it.

Another:

The other big winner of the night was my relationship with the Dish. I didn't leave you over it like some readers you quoted, but the Dish has definitely been in the dog house with me since you're live blogging the first debate gave me a panic attack. Tonight, reading you live blog the President crushing it … it was like make-up sex. Feels good.

Today on the Dish, Andrew called it game-set-match for Obama and expressed his "bloody elation" to Chris Matthews. As bloggers aired their takes and the Tweetosphere weighed in, Romney lied egregiously on Obama's regulations record. And after Romney discussed binders full of women, lo, a meme was born - and based on a lie.

In debate previews, Allahpundit put odds against Obama, Tomasky recommended the element of surprise and Waldman advised connecting with voters. Galupo wondered whether Obama could take down Romney's hazy tax math, readers proposed debate questions and as Mark Salter said Romney didn't need to bring it, the Denver debate turned out not to have sealed the Romney deal in Ohio. Plus, Romney debated himself – and Tweet of the Day here.

In the latest polling, Andrew looked on in still more horror at Obama's post-Denver plummet as he shuddered at Obama's loss of the female vote. Romney pulled ahead in Florida, Silver argued the second is as important as the first debate and Nate Cohn discouraged against reading too much into Obama's Ohio lead. Paul Ryan envisioned himself as the economic Cheney, Romney's jobs plan disintegrated upon inspection and Hillary took the fall for Benghazi. As Bruce Bartlett eviscerated Romney's economic plan, the possibility that the Fed could cut off quantitative easing under Romney seemed likely. In ad coverage, Bill Clinton explained taxes and Jane Lynch led gay celebs in equality-promotion. Brad Plumer contextualized the shutdown of a stimulus-fundee, taxes subsidized the NFL ,and Michael Klarman reviewed the history of litigating gay life. And for a little levity, Romney's tax plan was revealed by Dems.

In assorted commentary, Andrew reflected on the strain of lying and his process of coming out as HIV-positive, Christopher Ryan discussed the first swingers, and Brendan O'Kane defended Mo Yan. Ned Hepburn hailed Seinfeld's low-budget show, Woodie Guthrie tinkered with his Dustbowl persona and readers offered more advice on New York Shitty. Felix Salmon pondered pumpkin flavor, advice columnists gave back, and as Craig Mod described his life with Fitbit, more people worked from home. FOTD here, VFYW here, MHB here, VFYW contest here and don't forget to ask Mark Bowden anything!

– G.G.

(Photo by Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)

Yes, according to David S. Bernstein and "several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm":

What actually happened was that in 2002 — prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration — a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor. They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

(Image from your favorite new tumblr)

Fom the Princeton Election Consortium:

CBS undecided voters: Obama 37, Romney 30, Tie 33.
PPP Colorado voters: Obama 48, Romney 44, 58-36 among [indies].
CNN debate viewers: Obama 46, Romney 39. R+8 sample.
Andrew Sullivan: calmer now that Obama took charge. Sort of a human InTrade.