Presidential Debate: Blue is Not an Answer

Gotcha!  Bet you thought I was talking red state/blue state or blue tie/red tie.

Nah.

Actually I am harkening back to my practicing law days.  When preparing a witness to testify, one of the simple declarative sentences I used was: answer the question.  Don’t duck it.  Don’t answer the question you wish was asked or the question you hope will be asked.  Just answer the question.

The example I used to get my point across went something like this: Let’s practice answering the question.  What time is it?  The person would then give me the time.  Good, I would say.  See how easy that is.  If I ask you for the time, you wouldn’t say ‘blue’, now would you?  Because that wouldn’t make sense.  When I ask you the time, do not tell me the color of the sky.  It’s annoying.  It’s rude.  It’s a waste of time.  And it looks dishonest.  So don’t do it.  Ever.

That’s how it went, the ‘blue dialogue’ – when I want to know the time, don’t give me blue for an answer.

Ignoring the question is a pretty common phenomena in politics.  Alas.  And last night’s debate was no different.  Both candidates did it much of the night.  But two examples jumped out at me.

First, Mr. Obama and the price of gasoline:

QUESTION [from Phillip Tricolla]  Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

ANSWER [Mr. Obama]  The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. . . I'm not going to cede those jobs of the future [referring to alternative energy jobs] to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States.  That's going to help Jeremy get a job. It's also going to make sure that you're not paying as much for gas. [point when Mr. Obama at least attempts to tie his answer to the question asked].

ANSWER [Mr. Romney, who was no better]  This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that's what I'm going to do.

CROWLEY [recognizing the questioner was not getting an answer]  Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is, are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon.  Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?

ANSWER [Mr. Obama]  Candy, there's no doubt that world demand's gone up, but our production is going up, and we're using oil more efficiently. And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We've opened up public lands. We're actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration . . . [he flirts with answering the question, but still isn’t there]

ANSWER [Mr. Romney]  If the president's energy policies are working, you're going to see the cost of energy come down.

CROWLEY [still looking for an answer to the question]  Mr. President, could you address, because we did finally get to gas prices here, could you address what the governor said, which is if your energy policy was working, the price of gasoline would not be $4 a gallon here. Is that true?

ANSWER [Mr. Obama]  Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting.  So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.

Whether true or not, I do not know, but the problem is Mr. Obama never answered the question of whether or not the government and the Energy Department in particular actually has a role to play in the price of gasoline at the pump.  So here’s a suggestion, Mr. Obama: the answer was yes.  In answer to the question, ‘Do you agree with your Energy Secretary . . .’, the answer is ‘yes’.  Yes, you do agree with him.  This is not rocket science.  It is, I grant you, a political hot potato.  But Republicans and Democrats in this time in history are in agreement.  Gasoline prices are not regulated in the United States.  We made that decision collectively some time ago and have never looked back.  Thus the only direct impact the government has on oil prices is fixing the level of excise taxes.  It’s free market all the way for us.  And for once, that’s probably a (potentially) good thing: the only way we’re likely to reduce our over-consumption of oil is to literally priced out of the market.  All of the other ‘fixes’ are temporary at best.  Why, oh why, oh why, would you not just say so?

And now it’s Mr. Romney’s turn.

QUESTION [question posed by Katherine Fenton] In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn? [Mr. Obama answered first and was directly responsive.  Crowley reminded Mr. Romney of the question, “Governor Romney, pay equity for women?”]

ANSWER [Mr. Romney]  And [sic] important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state [one has to wonder why Mr. Romney didn’t learn about pay equity when he was heading up Bain Capital.  His chief qualification to be president has been touted by him and others as his business experience.  Surely business experience includes at least a rudimentary knowledge of the laws against gender discrimination and the glass ceiling], because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.  And I -- and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are -- are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we -- can't we find some -- some women that are also qualified?"  And -- and so we -- we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. [Turns out Mr. Romney is in favor of Affirmative Action.  Who knew?]  I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women. [And there it is – the laugh line of the night. . . to be fair, Mr. Romney does talk about actively recruiting women to work for him – affirmative action – and flextime, but he never gets close to answering the question posed – never.]

ANSWER [Mr. Obama]  Katherine, I just want to point out that when Governor Romney's campaign was asked about the Lilly Ledbetter bill [referring to the Fair Pay Act of 2009, which effectively extended the statute of limitations for bringing an action against an employer for violating equal pay for equal work], whether he supported it? He said, "I'll get back to you." [Mr. Obama then went on to talk about contraception coverage.  Mr. Romney responded to that, but never addressed the issue of equal pay for equal work and elimination of the glass ceiling.]

The fact is that as I listened to his answer and observed his demeanor, I began to wonder whether Mr. Romney even knows what the glass ceiling refers to, although the questioner certainly gave him a big hint by referring to the ratio of earnings between the genders and given his experience in the private sector, he certainly ought to.  So having ‘helped’ Mr. Obama with an answer, here’s a similar aid for Mr. Romney.  The question was what will you do about the glass ceiling.  Your honest answer, Mr. Romney?  Nothing.

But at least Mr. Romney gave us something fun and funny to play with.  Mr. Obama’s answer didn’t even allow for that.

All joking aside, however, honest answers to sincerely posed questions is a sign of respect as well as competence.  Ducking is cheating.  And no one likes a cheater.

Whatever time it is, Mr. President and Mr. I-would-be-President, the answer is most definitely not ‘blue’.

9 Objections to the Rule of the Undecideds

Every voter matters for a very simple reason: every human being matters.  We each matter to God.  And though we don’t often seem to realize it, we each matter to the body of us as a whole.  We matter in our presence, but equally, we matter in our absence.

Withholding our (best) selves from the body politic matters.  And so does being withheld from it.

That’s why efforts that either intend to or result in voter suppression are so pernicious.

But what draws my attention today is my continued frustration with (and if I admit it, contempt of) the debate processes.

Tomorrow night the voters themselves get to pose questions – but not really.

The people who will ask the questions are those who have not ‘decided’ – for whom they will vote and potentially even if they actually will vote.  Weighting the debate (and the election) in ‘favor’ of the undecideds makes no sense.  I understand why the candidates themselves would court folks viewed as ‘still in play’, but this is not (supposed to be) a process to educate the candidates about the voters.  It’s supposed to be about educating the voters about the candidates.

I’ve said it before (Just Say No to Opinion Polls) – I hate polling.  In my own view, it adds nothing to the process for the voters and takes away quite a lot.

That the Gallup Poll actually chose the folks  who will pose questions to the candidates tomorrow night from its own determined pool of undecided voters is itself problematic.

(1) It presupposes that the remaining 80%+ of us have minds that cannot be changed or influenced by events and information gleaned between now and election day.  It presupposes that our elections are determined or predetermined as pollsters say they are.  Why bother to vote at all?  Why don’t we just let Gallup poll us all and then tell us who we’re going to vote for?

(2) While being undecided may mean one still has questions, it does not mean that the questions the undecided have are the best or even relevant questions.  In the informal focus group gatherings many networks have had, I have yet to hear one single question or observation that meant anything to deciding which candidate is actually the best of the two to be President.  Instead, what I continue to hear is either (a) the leanings (right or left) the person brought into the room; or (b) some amorphous something the person is looking for (call it the likeability factor) swaying the mood of at least some in the room.  How on earth is that helpful to any of us, including even the person so reacting?  I neither need nor benefit from a political discourse that continues to view my feelings as the most important thing.  Claims of feeling my pain are sometimes silly, sometimes deceitful, sometimes amusing, sometimes awkward, and almost never indicative of the overall qualifications of the person seeking the job.  I for one, am not looking for a Best-Friend-in-Chief.  Is empathy an important quality in a leader?  Of course it is.  But I am singularly unqualified to gauge the empathy of a stranger based on what they say.  I can hardly gauge my own empathy based on my words.  Actions really do speak louder – for all of us.  There is no connection between undecided voters and the quality of their questions.  They may have great questions or they may have really silly ones.  Shouldn’t it be the quality of the questions that is the focus of this interaction between citizens and their leaders?

(3) It is a myth that undecided voters decide the election.  Some years ago I watched a basketball game’s final minutes.  I think Duke was playing, but don’t hold me to that.  In any event, in the final seconds, the fouled team member stepped up to the line to take his shot.  The score was either tied or they were one point down.  The young man missed the shot and his team lost the game.  The narrative at the time and in the days following was that this young man lost the game for his team.  Did missing that last shot make a difference?  Of course it did.  But the difference was no more and no less than the difference made by each shot taken and made or missed throughout the entire game.  The fact is that the entire team worked very hard together and lost the game, a game which is scored based on an aggregate of baskets scored throughout the entirety of the game and not based on any one shot.  So it is with elections.  The last vote counted is not the winning vote.  It is merely the last vote counted.  As a friend pointed out last night, had Al Gore won his own home state of Tennessee, chad or no chad, no one would have cared about Florida.

(4) It isn’t particularly helpful to either the one posing the question or to me to see them ‘face to face’ with the person they’re questioning.  Was Bill Clinton the better candidate?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Did (or should) that have had anything to do with the so-called turning point when then-President Bush fumbled a bit on answering a question about national debt and its human face while Mr. Clinton approached the woman asking and gave her good face time?  I don’t think so.

(5) If polls are to be believed, undecideds almost never ask big questions, like “what is your view about the place of the United States in the world?”  “Why in your view should the US exercise leadership in world affairs?”  “What is the source of our power around the world in your view?”  “What should we as a nation do when we get it wrong, whatever the ‘it’ might be?”  “What is your theory of the purpose of government?”  “What writers and thinkers capture your imagination and why?”  “If you could constitute your own ‘dream team’ of advisors from the history of the United States, who would you pick and why?”  “Which advisor do you value for disagreeing with you?”  “What new thing have you learned that you didn’t know in the last month/six months/year?”  “To what degree does government actually affect the performance of an economy and in what ways?”  If, as one candidate suggests, it is the ideas, the big-picture thinking that each uniquely brings to the table, shouldn’t we at least be asking them about their big ideas?

(6) Team building is one of the most important aspects of a successful leader.  And we almost never ask any questions about the ‘team’.  Who are your key advisors?  Who is your ‘go-to guy’ on critical issues foreign and domestic?  What are their core beliefs?  The leader shapes the team, but the team also shapes the leader.  So what qualities are you looking for in your team?  Undecideds, along with the rest of us, do seem to be concerned about congressional gridlock.  Maybe team building questions will emerge there.  But to what degree is it fair or appropriate to hold any president accountable for a recalcitrant Congress?  I really don’t know the answer to that one.

(7) I am guessing that there won’t be much questioning about the judiciary.  None were asked of the two top-of-the-ticket candidates in their first and only debate about domestic policy, so this next debate is our only chance to hear both men speak about this.  I hope someone asks: what kind of candidates will you be appointing to the federal bench and particularly the Supreme Court?  What qualities and skills are you looking for?  What is your ‘litmus test’?  Here’s mine: Mr. Obama supports choice – would he ever appoint a candidate whose personal views are pro-life?  Mr. Romney is pro-life – would he ever appoint a candidate whose personal views are pro-choice?  Here’s another: exactly where does each candidate see the check on executive power?  What can the executive not do in their view?  It relates to judicial philosophy, inasmuch as each candidate is likely to seek appointees who are consonant with their own views on the issue of presidential powers and prerogatives.

(8) The process is itself a construct.  It is not an open town hall meeting.  The moderator screens and chooses the questions and thus substantially shapes the discourse.  Apparently, candidates decided long ago that the free-for-all of the first town hall was not on.  More’s the pity.  If nothing else, it might give us insight into how each candidate deals with chaos.

(9) Because it is such a controlled environment, questioners won’t have the chance to do something really creative or challenging like giving each candidate an eraser board with the demand that they do the math.  Too often big and vague language conceals what they’re actually talking about when it comes to things like taxes and the economy especially.  Give them an eraser board and let them explain how their vision will work.  Enacting vision requires the ability to effectively communicate the vision.  If they can’t explain it to us, they can’t explain it to themselves and it’s just all smoke and mirrors.

Maybe I’ll be surprised.  Maybe the questions of the so-called undecideds will be more broad, important and informative than I anticipate.  Maybe the candidates will shine in setting forth clearly their respective visions and goals.  Maybe we’ll have a quality national conversation about the business we’re about when it comes to governance.

I am part of the 100% and I will be paying attention.

Grading the Debate

Grading the Debate

My Scoring of the 1st 2012 Presidential Debate

With an important post-script about Syria & Turkey

I score President Obama the winner over Governor Romney by a score of 26-10.

How did I arrive at a score?  I flowed the debate, as best I could.  Even though this was not actually a debate in any sense of the word, I scored it as if it were and to that end, I took each candidate at their word (leaving my own pre-knowledge outside the room and leaving fact checking to others).

Clash is the debate concept that each debater meets the issue(s) raised by their opponent directly and responds, with evidence rather than with mere assertion.  Mostly what I ended up scoring was clash or the lack of clash.  This approach was in order to capture, as best I was able, the content of what each candidate had to say in relation to what the other said, which is the essence of debate.  If there weren't an opponent in the room, there would be no debate.

Round 1 - The economy and jobs: Obama claimed to have created 5 million new jobs, to have saved the automobile industry, that housing is on the rise, and that money saved from the two wars the US has been involved in will be used to ‘rebuild America’, and a plan to close tax loopholes regarding overseas investments, none of which Romney responded to.  5 points Obama.  Both agreed on a need to invest in skill building of the work force and education.  Obama specifically referenced Race to the Top educational reform, the plan to invest in 100,000 additional math and science teachers and to keep tuition affordable, none of which Romeny addressed.  1 point Obama.  Obama referenced developing new energies, increasing American energy production and increased oil and natural gas production, which Romney countered with the fact that energy prices have increased under Obama, public energy leases have been cut in half under Obama and increased development has occurred on private lands, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney’s tax savings plan was attacked by Obama with specific figures ($5 trillion in tax cuts, $2 trillion in increased military spending, e.g.), saying that these could not be offset by eliminating tax deductions.  Romney countered with the assertion that it isn’t true, to which Obama responded that the math is clear and it can’t be done without other cuts or tax increases to the middle class.  1 point Obama.  Assuming a nexus between taxes and job creation (as both seemed to do, at least part of the time), Obama claimed to have lowered taxes 18 times to the benefit of small businesses, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  On Obama’s proposal to raise taxes for those with an income above $250,000, there was clash about what is a small business, how much employment the top tier of small businesses generate, and finally, Romney’s claim that the top tier of 3% of small business owners employ 1/4 of the work force and enactment of Obama’s tax increase would result in a loss of 700,000 jobs, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  On the big picture, there was a bit of a tie: Romney’s claim that in the last 4 years, 24 million people have been out of work; and Obama’s claim that under the Clinton/Democrat model, there was record prosperity and under the Bush/Republican plan, there was record financial crisis - 1 point each.

Round 2 - The economy and the deficit: Obama urges the elimination of corporate subsidies to the oil industry, which Romney countered with the fact that the same subsidies were extended by Obama to alternative energy companies, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Obama urged eliminating deductions for corporations such as for corporate jets, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama claimed a record on deficit reduction of eliminating 77 government programs, 18 educational programs, saving tens of billions in eliminating Medicare fraud and 15 billion in waste, taking 1 trillion out of the budget, a 4 trillion deficit reduction plan, a plan to increase revenues by $1 for every $2.50 in spending cuts, to none of which specifics Romney responded.  1 point Obama.

Round 3 - The economy and entitlements: Noting a problem with the usage of the word ‘entitlements’, Obama said that Romney’s voucher plan is estimated to cost each person covered an average of $6,000 per year, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney proposes shifting to needs-based coverage, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney overall attacks the expense of provision of these benefits, to which Obama responded that Medicare has less administrative costs than private insurance, which also adds in the expense of its profit for doing business.  1 point Obama.  Obama cited AARP claiming that Obamacare extends the life of Medicare by 8 years, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama said that repeal of Obamacare would cost on average an additional $600 per year in prescription drugs, increase in co-pays, and benefitting only the insurance companies, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 3a - The economy and government regulation: Romney said that while some regulation is necessary, it can also become excessive and actually do unintended harm, citing Dodd-Frank banking regulations as an example.  Obama did not respond directly to Romney’s challenge about excessive or over-regulation.  1 point Romney.  Obama specifically linked the recent economic crisis to an absence of regulation, with which Romney either agreed or did not expressly refute.  1 point Obama.  Romney said Dodd-Frank hurts the economy with provisions like protecting banks deemed ‘too big to fail’, to which Obama responded that the banks had paid back the monies loaned to them by the government with interest.  1 point Obama.  Romney said that he would keep ‘some’ of the provisions of Dodd-Frank (used as an example of government regulation).  Obama charged that Romney had previously said he would repeal Dodd-Frank, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 4 - Health Care Romney asserts that Obama cuts Medicare to pay for Obama care and that Obamacare will kill jobs because businesses are less likely to hire workers because of the additional burdens it imposes, to which Obama did not respond.  2 points Romney.  Romney charged that a private unelected board would be making medical decisions for patients under Obamacare, to which Obama responded that the board did not deal with individuals but with industry best practice standards, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama claims that repeal of Obama care will result in 50 million people without health insurance, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Both claimed the provision of health care to be an important goal, but when challenged by Obama to reveal what his plan is, Romney did not respond save to say he would have one.  1 point Obama.  On the Obamacare model and its workability, Obama asserted that it is the same model as that enacted by Romney while governor of Mass. Romney shifted the argument to say that Obamacare did not have bi-partisan support, to which Obama responded that it was a Republican idea using the same plan as that in Mass, with actually the same advisors helping craft it.  1 point Obama.  Romney asserted that according to the CBO, Obamacare would result in 20 million people losing their health insurance, to which Obama did not directly respond.  1 point Romney.  Obama claimed that the rate of growth of health insurance premiums has slowed, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney asserted that the (federal) government is a bad bet as an organization or institution for saving money, to which Obama did not respond at this point, although Obama had earlier made the case that Medicare administrative costs are lower than private insurance, which when added to profits private companies received, results in savings to the consumer.  No point to either candidate.  Obama challenged Romney’s plan as failing to provide for coverage of pre-existing conditions.  Romney denied that was true.  Obama responded with an explanation of Romney’s plan (which sounded like COBRA), which would not provide universal coverage of pre-existing conditions, to which Romney did not further respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney’s health care policy foundation is his statement, “the private market and individual responsibility always work best”, to which Obama challenged him to explain how he would enact to provide health care and why keep it a secret, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 5 - The Role of Government - what is government’s ‘mission’?  After outlining their general principles about the role of government, the debate focused on education and the question of whether providing education or improving the quality thereof is a role of the federal government.  It is to that portion that I addressed my judgments, making no score on the two men’s statements of principles.  Obama alleged that Romney would cut the education budget by 20%; Romney said he wouldn’t.  No points.  Romney offered his school voucher proposal, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney attacked Obama on things like investments in green technologies and an implied attack of corruption (saying that Obama gave federal green monies to campaign contributors).  This was off topic, as Romney never tied it to education.  No points.  Obama cited his program of linking community colleges with industry, providing training for students, who are guaranteed a job at the end of the program as an example of the role the government can play in education, to which Romney did not resopnd.  1 point Obama.  Obama also cited his program which eliminates banks as ‘middlemen’ in student loans, saving students on the cost of repaying their loans, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 6 - Governing and gridlock Both men spoke about their aspirations and approaches.  No points.

On the substance of any debate, which is comprised of the often boring details and minutia of an issue, the winner was clear on my flow chart.  Mr. Romney tended to speak in broad terms.  That does not mean what he had to say was either unimportant or untrue.  It does mean that when it comes to debate, there was often little upon which to judge his performance.

Some general observations about the style aspects and other random thoughts

1. Pundits asked for a substantive debate.  Even observing that Gov. Romney spoke more generally, both men in fact gave a substantive debate, outlining their worldviews when it comes to governing and at least some of their particular ideas about how we go about achieving their vision for the United States.  The sadly ironic thing is that it was that very provision of substance that results in many claiming Mr. Obama ‘lost’ the debate on style points, which simply demonstrates that we apparently have absolutely no interest in how we are going to be governed and are only concerned about whether we like the person, or think the person is most like us, or some other such ephemera.

2. Here’s my take on who you should vote for, for whatever it’s worth: if you believe that government should get out of your way, be the least intrusive as possible in your journey towards your dream, leave it entirely to you to choose, whether you choose badly or well, vote for a Republican.  If you believe government should help you and provide for the common good, even if not your own particular good, then vote for a Democrat.  It is a philosophical difference.  It does not mean that one is necessarily morally superior to the other.  And the fact is that most of us believe government should land somewhere in the middle of these two poles.

3. Both men ran roughshod over the moderator.  Mr. Romney was more obvious, interrupting Mr.Lehrer often, even talking over him.  Most seemed to have found that appealing, as Mr. Romney was assertive, like a president should be.  I thought it was just rude.  But Mr. Obama ignored Mr. Lehrer as well; he was just more subtle.  One female commentator noted last night that maybe it’s a gender difference, but she didn’t like it.  I agree.  If you’ve agreed to a format beforehand, honor it.  If you haven’t, don’t tell us you have.

4. I just googled ‘judging the presidential debate by content rather than style’ and got 65 million+ hits, but not one of them was about the debate that actually happened last night.  Not one.  That, I think, is an incredibly sad commentary on us as a people.

Finally, in my blog yesterday, I had a couple of questions I wanted answered.  Mr. Romney answered the questions I had for him:

Mr. Romney, if you wish to eliminate or substantially change the approach of progressive taxation, as your talking points suggest, upon what basis do you claim that this shift actually results in an increase in prosperity for everyone?  And as a subset of that question, if you have to sacrifice one of your taxation goals in order to achieve a balance to the budget, which goal is the most expendable from your point of view?

As I understand his position, Mr. Romney believes that lowered taxes on the wealthy (the job creators, as he describes them) generally frees up more capital for them to invest, which creates more jobs.  He did not say those words.  What he said was, “taxes slow growth”.  I extrapolate the rest, but I think I understand his position.  The second aspect was much more clear: what would Mr. Romney sacrifice to achieve a balance to the budget?  Everything – when it comes to government spending.  Everything except military spending.  And social security.  And education.  And Medicare for those currently receiving it.  But Mr. Romney made it very clear that under no circumstances would he increase taxes.

My question for Mr. Obama was answered as well.

Mr. Obama, given that as president, you are required to work with Congress, how do you propose to enact your economic programs (or any of your programs, for that matter) in the face of organized, concerted congressional opposition?  It is not enough to merely blame Congress.  What do you plan to do about it?

He said that he would take all ideas on board when it comes to solving our problems as a nation, whatever the source.  He said that he would take care to well-describe his plan so that there was understanding about what it is and what it is not.  And he said that occasionally, he would say no, to both friend and foes.

I believe them both.

Now to the hard work of citizenship and deciding where that takes us as a nation and what I intend to do about it when I enter the voting booth.

An important post-script

Yesterday as these two men were preparing to meet and debate, one of them had some other things on his mind, no doubt.

Yesterday Syria (or someone from Syria’s opposition groups) bombed Turkey.  This isn’t the first time.  But it is the first time that Turks were killed.  Five people, including a mother and her three children were killed.  Turkey responded by bombing Syria.  NATO weighed in as did Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

And Turkey’s military asks its parliament today for the authority to act against Syria.  Early indicators are that this is more symbolic than an actual precursor to outright war between the two nations and thus far, Syria has taken a conciliatory and apologetic approach with Turkey, promising to investigate how this could have happened.

But the border between the two countries is a tense place as Syria’s civil war continues and rebels move into Turkey for cover.

And lest we forget, Syria counts among her allies Iran, Russia and China.

World wars don’t always or often begin in the obvious place.  They begin with a skirmish there, an insult here, a death or two, revenge killings, drawing in of allies, and escalation.

Thus far it seems that in the aftermath, both Turkey and Syria are seeking ways to avoid war with each other – a good thing.  But allies are also being pulled in.

If you do nothing else today about world politics, pray for Syria and Turkey, pray for world leaders, that cooler heads prevail and that escalation is avoided.  In the U.S., pray that the man who you think didn’t have such a great debate last night be filled with wisdom and vision and the courage to resist violence as a problem-solving technique.  Pray like the world depends on it.

What Exactly Did Mitt Romney Win?

He did it: Mitt Romney won the debate.  Ask anyone.

Mitt Romney looked presidential.

And apparently the man who actually is the president didn’t ‘look like’ a president, whatever that means.

I’ll get to who I think won the substantive debate another time, but I’m very clear on who lost and it wasn’t either of the men on stage last night.  It was the pundits and pollsters and people who ‘decided’ the win/loss based on beauty pageant criteria.

In case I wasn’t clear, WE are the losers.

I continue to wonder what people who simply listened to the debate on the radio, or the blind, think of who ‘won’ or ‘lost’.  I know television is a visual medium, but don’t you think it’s bit ridiculous that John F. Kennedy was declared the winner against Richard Nixon because of make-up and its lack?  Or do we really comfort ourselves that the national judgment against Nixon that fateful night was somehow clairvoyant about the man Nixon was or would become?  Really?  Or did we just get lucky?

Here’s the reality check: you can’t tell much about a man by how he looks (or a woman, for that matter).  And that’s the truth.  Ask any woman who has been raped by someone she knows.  Or the parents of a child abused by someone they entrusted with their dearest treasure.

Our visual ‘truth’, ‘goodness’, and ‘character’ detectors are notoriously faulty.

I had an initial reaction last night about the debate winner and loser based on content.  As I said in yesterday’s blog, I flowed the debate.  That meant that I spent much of my time head down, listening and taking notes about what I heard and almost no time at all, save during the opening and closing remarks, to watching the two men.  Their visual impact on me was quite limited.  Thus my own ‘take’ about what was happening was very different than other folks in the room.  The things they had noted I did not see.  My not seeing was actually intentional: I wanted to minimize, as best I could, my own biases and preconceptions and come to a conclusion based on the content of the debate.  Of course it’s impossible to totally free one’s self of the baggage brought to any experience, but there are tricks to detaching even from ourselves: avoiding the visuals is one of them.

As Gwen Ifill noted after the debate, the punditry had asked for a policy wonk debate (one where the debaters actually addressed the issues rather than engaging in political tap dancing), but once they got one, they judged the two men according to the rules of tap dancing. (I paraphrase freely, of course).

Like I said, I’m on my way to flow the contents of the debate to come to my own conclusions about who carried the day.  I’ll let you know my results.

In the meantime, can we all just take a breath and ponder what each man actually had to say and what it means for the governance of our country and stop thinking about who ‘looked’ the part?  Please?

Tonight's "Debate"

I put the word debate in quotes intentionally.  Whatever the exchange tonight between Mrs. Obama and Romney, it is not a debate.  As a collegiate debater in my youth, please take my word on this.

And the passing from the stage in the 1980's of the League of Women Voters was a true loss, for the League, as they pointed out in their decision not to sponsor the debates any longer, looked out not for the candidates, but for the electorate.

That said, I have prepared myself a flow chart to score, in debater fashion, which speaker carries each point.  So it was with interest that I checked out CNN this morning with its article on 5 Things to Watch for in Tonight's Debate.

Alas, I am again disappointed. #1 on CNN’s things to watch for?  “Who’s presidential”.

Sigh.

The most important thing for me to know tonight, apparently, is not how they would actually address the things about which government actually has some sway, but whether they ‘look’ and I ‘feel’ that they ‘look’ presidential.

I’m guessing (it’s a pretty safe bet) both men will wear conservative suits and ties, with nice hair cuts and shined shoes.  Beyond that, what exactly does a president ‘look’ like?  Other than being male and generally tall for their generation, there seems to be no precise definition.

Some were thin, some fat, some classically handsome, some not so much.

To be fair, the author went on to note that to ‘look’ presidential is to have a certain ‘tone’ – what he calls ‘composure and stature’, or acting like they belong to the job.

Yet I remain puzzled.  Mr. Obama, by definition acts presidential, as he is already the president.  He may not ‘act’ like what folks want him to, but when he acts, he is being presidential for the simple fact that he is (the president).

For some, acting presidential means being ‘strong’ enough to pound your opponent to the ground.  Others seek someone more in the image of the dignified statesman.  Still others are looking for that indefinable ‘something’ that says ‘President’ to them.

But this is all star gazing.

If we want someone who seems presidential, then we should have elected Michael Douglas from American President, or Jeff Daniels (playing Washington), or maybe best of all, Henry Fonda as Abraham Lincoln.  Not having ever seen Mr. Lincoln in real time, I am guessing Mr. Fonda looked a better Lincoln than Lincoln ever did.

I don’t need stature in a president.  What I require as a voter is competence.

I don’t look for composure – both these men have already passed the test of time on the campaign trail – I look for solid ideas and plans for how to accomplish those ideas.

I don’t mind if they’re human; in fact, I prefer it.  Thus I do not especially care that Mitt Romney looked a bit silly trying to bet Rick Perry money during one of the debates.  Nor do I care that Obama told Hilary Clinton that she’s ‘likeable enough’.

What I do care about is their vision; their philosophy; their worldview.

I care about whether they care – not about me so much as the poor, those who need and require their care.

I care about whether they have the personal integrity and courage (and it takes courage to resist the exercise of power) not to bomb our enemies.

So here are my two most important questions for tonight:

Mr. Romney, if you wish to eliminate or substantially change the approach of progressive taxation, as your talking points suggest, upon what basis do you claim that this shift actually results in an increase in prosperity for everyone?  And as a subset of that question, if you have to sacrifice one of your taxation goals in order to achieve a balance to the budget, which goal is the most expendable from your point of view?

Mr. Obama, given that as president, you are required to work with Congress, how do you propose to enact your economic programs (or any of your programs, for that matter) in the face of organized, concerted congressional opposition?  It is not enough to merely blame Congress.  What do you plan to do about it?

I look forward to your answers, gentlemen.