READ THE TRANSCRIPT

BILL MOYERS: We’ve waited until all four debates were over so we could see them more holistically than we would one-by-one. So with a little more than a week before November 6th, I’ve asked two astute observers, widely recognized for casting a keen and discerning eye on what we journalists often miss, to sum up how they think the debates and the campaigns have served democracy. Or not. We won’t rehash who won or lost. Ultimately each of you has to make that call. We want instead to ask what we did or did not learn about the pickle our country's in, and how the candidates think we can get out.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson is a regular and familiar participant on our broadcast. Expert on debates, media, and political rhetoric. Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, she has been a force behind two essential, non-partisan websites, FactCheck.org and FlackCheck.org, each calling out the deception and confusion generated by parties and partisans.

On the other side of the continent, her fellow Annenberger Marty Kaplan is founder and head of the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. The center focuses on the bustling intersection of show business and politics. He's been a producer and screenwriter as well as a speechwriter for then Vice President Walter Mondale and a colleague of the late U.S. Commissioner of Education Ernest Boyer.

Welcome to you both.

MARTY KAPLAN: Thank you.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Thank you.

BILL MOYERS: Kathleen, the last time you were here you said all we've got left in the search for truth and knowledge is the debate. All right, are you satisfied now?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: No. We did not get an answer to the question that I wanted answered, which is: What are the sacrifices you're going to ask of us? Where are you going to get the money that we need in a way that won't tank the economy, that will increase the likelihood of economic growth? And so, the problem now facing the country and the candidates is we're going to elect a candidate who is going to govern by asking us to make choices that we haven't anticipated. And as a result, we're going to feel betrayed to some extent, even if we voted for that candidate.

BILL MOYERS: The debates were the most watched in a long time. Your field intersects politics and entertainment. Do you think entertainment values had something to do with this?

MARTY KAPLAN: Well, I think suspense was what was required down to the wire. And that's what we got. One won one, another won another. Then a couple of draws. What could be better for keeping people watching? Unfortunately, the lack of an answer to who sacrifices what is only the beginning of an endless list that, for me, is a reason to be disappointed, not just in the debates, but in the entire campaign.

I want to find out about things that are important, about plutocracy taking over democracy, the widening gulf between the powerful and the powerless. Wall Street, global warming, on and on. At most, they made a cameo appearance during the debate. And I think they were trivialized by the context. And usually, entirely absent. So I was disappointed overall in the complete lack of attention to some of the most important issues that the nation is facing.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And one of the things that is problematic is when we don't talk about it, we sometimes don't address it as a result. The absence of a discussion about climate change is one of those categories. We spent a lot of time talking about where we were going to get energy. But we didn't talk about how we were going to regulate the uses of the energy and the getting of the energy. And we didn't talk about the effects of the ways we would get it on either the environment or, more broadly, on the globe.

BILL MOYERS: Nonetheless, did the debates matter? Do you think they've had an impact on the campaign?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes. And what we, what we saw across the debates is what we expected to see. We saw learning about those issues that were addressed. More accurate placement of candidates on the areas in which they differ. What we didn't see is more accurate placement on areas that they're similar because the news never stresses areas in which they're similar. But nonetheless, we've seen learning across the debates in our Annenberg survey.

MARTY KAPLAN: But my sense is that when there is no penalty for lying or as Jonathan Swift says in the last part of "Gulliver's", for saying the thing that is not so, that the things one learns about what people say are completely irrelevant. Government Romney has changed his position on just about everything throughout his entire career.

And that, I believe, bedevils the fact checkers who will say, "Well, his official position is this, but then he did that. So it's hard to know, but you can't really say, this is true because also that's true.” If that's the context, if that's what's going on, then I'm not sure what can be learned at all about Governor Romney because the chances of him saying something different, doing something different once the election comes, based on his behavior during this campaign and while he's been running for president, are extremely high.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Let me give you an example of what people have learned. People know that Governor Romney is going to increase spending for the military. And that's a consequential difference. They know that President Obama is going to increase taxes, where, where Governor Romney is not if he's elected president. That's an important issue distinction.

Coming into the last debate, the Annenberg survey showed that the public thought that Governor Romney was more likely to take the country into a war, than was President Obama. But the public also believed that President Obama had gone around the world apologizing. Now in the last debate, Governor Romney reassured that he was not as likely to take people into war as they had thought in that debate. And I think that was a calculated strategy on his part. Now, you could say, "And it was illegitimate. You secretly know that he was more likely." But nonetheless, what we can measure is whether they get what he said he was going to do in the context.

And I think that President Obama responded to the apologizing around the world claim in a number of ways that were effective as well. And I think one of the things that we can say about debates making a difference is that, had there been debates in the Goldwater/Johnson election, had there been debates in the McGovern/Nixon election, I think we would not have had the blowout landslides that we had.

What debates do is take the caricaturing of the challenger and give the challenger a chance to stand there and be who the challenger would like to be in front of that audience. I think for Governor Romney the benefit was he knocked down some of the caricature that had been built of him. And I think he reassured people, even who may vote against him, that he is not as extreme and reckless as some of the Obama advertising and statements would make him out to be.

MARTY KAPLAN: See, I would say that he did not knock down the caricature. He deepened the caricature because his problem is that he will say and do anything, and there is zero accountability for it. So going into this debate, he had to prove that he was not the person that he was in the Republican primaries. But simply by saying different things, doesn't make him genuinely be anything else different. He's simply recalibrating what he thinks he needs to pander to undecided voters.

BILL MOYERS: What I learned is that Governor Romney is an abler and more intelligent public figure than he came across in the Republican primaries in the spring. And that he had to dumb himself down so much back in the spring in order to appease Rush Limbaugh, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist.

MARTY KAPLAN: You so let him off the hook. And I don't know why you do that. I feel as though that's what the media's frame for dealing with the primaries is. "Well, we all know that you have to appeal to the party's base in the primaries, and then you have to move to the center because that's just something that people have to do." Why do we let people do that as though that dance was acceptable in a democratic society.

BILL MOYERS: Oh no, I don't think you have to move to the center. I'm only saying he chose to go that route in order--because he thought he could only get the nomination that way.

MARTY KAPLAN: But why didn't you hold him accountable, not for just realizing that he had to do it tactically, but that that is a really corrupt thing to do. Inappropriate and disqualifying for leadership, as opposed to it's just what politicians have to be up to. Isn't it sad, he's a nice guy.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Candidates do change positions. And the question is when is it consequential and when isn't it. And when does it become a behavioral pattern that means you can't draw an inference about what the person is going to do when the person's going to govern? One of the questions that the electorate has the opportunity to ask in debates is precisely that question because you have two different factors holding the candidate accountable.

You have the questioning moderator and you have the other candidate. And in the head to head comparisons, if a candidate is vulnerable to the charge, if the candidate has changed positions a lot on consequential matters, you're going to have questions about it and you're going to have the opposing candidate make the argument. And then electorate then has to ask, "What do I make of this? Who do I think the person is? What do I think the person is actually going to do?" But they have more evidence than they would have in the absence of debates, and that's the value of debates.

MARTY KAPLAN: But look at the way it plays out. Romney will say, "Yes, I do have a deficit plan. Go look on my website. It's there. It's true." Which puts the burden on the audience. I wish they would go to your website because they won't find out the answer at Mitt Romney's website.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But then we come to the second part of the process that protects. You heard in the debates candidates saying, "That's not true. Check the record. Check the transcript," and an invitation essentially to go to the fact checkers and journalism. To the extent that this year we've had a lot of fact checking in national journalism, a lot more than we've had in previous years.

And we know now after the first three debates. Last time I talked to you it was, it was only a hypothesis, that the people who said they went to the fact checking sites or went to journalism for fact checking on the web, were more likely to accurately be able to portray the candidates' positions and those exchanges in which somebody was alleging deception.

Romney, his plan largely doesn't add up. Obama did not apologize around the world, if by apologize you mean said, "I'm sorry and I apologize." What we haven't gotten to is a deeper understanding of what Obama was doing in those moments.

I think he was doing something extremely important that we have not talked about, which is recalibrating our relationship to the rest of the world so that we would work collegially with allies in order to increase the likelihood that we were all on the same page when we moved, sometimes militarily, sometimes with sanctions.

BILL MOYERS: The debates, as both of you know, are agreed to by the press on the terms set by the two parties through the Presidential Commission on Debates. So, I think what we're getting are staged press conferences. Not debates in the sense that you mean them when you wrote your first book about them in politics. These are not debates in that sense, are they?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: No they're not. And they're-- I suspect that if we tried to go back to debates in that sense, we would have trouble holding public attention. In a world in which public attention span is being abbreviated daily, the likelihood I think that you'd get people to watch an hour long presentation on one side with an hour long response is probably approaching zero.

BILL MOYERS: Yes, Mr. Lincoln, you can go on your website and tell us what you think about slavery, right?

MARTY KAPLAN: But you've seen montage after montage of, for example, Mitt Romney's position on abortion. And when you see the montage, it's so clear that he has many positions. And you can do a timeline along with it and, and make the relationship between his bid for higher office to it. Why can't a debate include the playing of such a clip and then say, "Mr. Romney, please respond to that," as opposed to the formality even of a conventional press conference in which someone is free to duck. You can duck a question. It's much harder to duck evidence and a video.

BILL MOYERS: But the parties and the candidates will not agree to that, unless you have it on their terms.

MARTY KAPLAN: Which is why I am more dispirited, I think, than Kathleen is because what you do get, even from this limited, signed on kabuki does still have some value, despite its limitations. I completely agree.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But on abortion, here's what I think we can reasonably say reading history. What candidates say they will do in the general election of a presidential campaign and what they repeatedly say they're going to do does predict what they're going to try to do, regardless of what they've done in their past or what they've said in the past. I would predict that if Governor Romney is elected president, he would support, nominate justices who would be more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade than would Barack Obama. I think that it is clear, however, that he would not do anything to outlaw abortion in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother being endangered. I think we know that from the exchanges to date. And so you can say he's had more positions across time, and his position-- you can mark different points in the calendar across his life.

BILL MOYERS: I do think that the public, by and large, perceives the fact that he has made more 180 degree turns than a whirling dervish. I read this comment online at “The Washington Post,” a reader who said that, "Romney has thrown Limbaugh, Rick Perry, Allen West and all the other Tea Party people under a freight train by essentially saying he would govern as President Obama governs." That's what he, in effect, he said this past last debate. What about that?

MARTY KAPLAN: Why would anyone believe that? Yes, he said that and yes he did it to convey the impression that the old Mitt Romney from the primaries was just something he had to do to appease his Tea Party base. Why should you now believe that, if he gets elected, he will not be a prisoner of the Eric Cantors and, and the John Boehners?

And the right-- extreme right wing of his party that will force him to do stuff as president that he now says he's not going to do because he's in a general election campaign? A person who doesn't have a core, it strikes me, is susceptible to the same kind of pressure once in office, as when he was running to appeal to his base in the first place.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But there is an underlying tendency here that's recognizable. Barack Obama opposed a mandate in order to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton. He has a mandate in his Affordable Care Act. There's always some movement toward the center in governance, as well as a move toward the center toward the general election because of the nature of the two party system and the nature of divided governance.

MARTY KAPLAN: I'm not sure I would call what happened in the last couple of years a movement toward the center. I think of it as Obama negotiating with himself with an intransigent right which used its power to hold the country hostage, rather than finding common ground.

BILL MOYERS: So, let's talk about what you did and didn't learn. You've watched the four debates now. Do you have any idea of how Governor Romney would manage to cut income tax rates by 20 percent without increasing the deficit? Or which tax deductions he would eliminate? Or specifically, how he's going to create the 12 million jobs he's promised? Or what Barack Obama's going to do in his second term? Do you have any sense of that?

MARTY KAPLAN: Well, in the case of the 12 million jobs, as we know, you don't have to do anything and you'll get 12 million jobs. Any number of economists and Moody's Analytics have predicted that simply by keeping present policies in place, 12 million jobs will be created over that period. So it's not much of a boast. As for the tax policy, my guess is that he doesn't know and he is just saying things.

He has said he wants to cut taxes-- rates by 20 percent. And I believe he does and would. But when you ask him why that won't be a $5 trillion increase in the deficit, he says-- and I love the third person, "If Mitt Romney says there won't be an increase in the deficit, there won't be. That's why and how."

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I know how he could, because some of the studies he cites make assumptions that would let him become revenue neutral. He could take the major deductions away from everyone making more than $100,000. That would effectively do it according to one of the studies.

He could also eliminate the tax free status, the tax free municipal bonds. Now that would pose a real problem for municipalities. But he could. In other words, there are ways to get there. But not under the assumptions that he offers in his plan. I think--

BILL MOYERS: Involving hard choices and sacrifices, which you've talked about every time you've been on the show.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But there's a second thing. We've been distracted by the discussion, how would he get to revenue neutrality? And as a result, not asked, how's he going to address the deficit because he has no revenue on the table if he gets to revenue neutrality. All he's done is not increase the deficit more than we already have. We should be focusing on, how do we address the deficit we already have, not worrying about whether he gets to revenue neutrality. Obama wants us to worry about is he going to blow the deficit up even more.

BILL MOYERS: Kathleen, what were the big whoppers? Where did they cross the line?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: The incumbent always overestimates how much the incumbent has accomplished. And so, President Obama wants to suggest that there have been more jobs created in net than there have actually been created because he wants us to feel better about the economy than the data would actually warrant. Governor Romney wants to feature everything that's negative, without acknowledging anything that's positive about the economy.

And if people feature one of those indictments without picking up the other compensatory body of information, they don't have the whole picture. The reality is the economic indicators right now are mixed. And you have a new Obama ad on the air that's trying to feature the ones that are positive in order to increase the likelihood that you think about those as you ask whether or not the country is better off now than it would've been, had Obama not been president. We were in a deep recession.

And President Obama's having the difficulty of having to make the argument that, "Things are better than they would have been, had I not done what I have done.” But they're still not what they ought to be. And that's a tough case for the incumbent. And Governor Romney's exploiting it every inch of the way.

MARTY KAPLAN: My favorite whopper was when Paul Ryan said that the reason that they don't want to say how they will change the loopholes is because they'll be attacked. People will say mean things about them. And that Democrats and Republicans won't be able to work together. "Joe Biden is partisan but I, Paul Ryan, know what real bipartisanship is all about."

This from the most ruthless, relentless, disciplined right wing unified front that I believe the nation has ever seen. This is the person who is saying, "Bipartisanship is what we're all about. And you Democrats don't understand what that means."

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yeah, but there's, there's one other thing. Sometimes you sin by omission. And when the candidates suggest that their plans are going to be sufficient to address the crisis that we are facing, the deficit debt crisis that we're facing, in an environment which we can't afford to tank the economy, they are implying something that's fundamentally false, given what they've told us.

President Obama is telling us how he's going to get some extra revenue by tax increases. But he's not going to get enough that way. And he hasn't specified the spending cuts. And Governor Romney's numbers don't work out either. So you've got both implying that my plan is sufficient, when in fact neither is sufficient. And that's the problem. When they translate that into governance, if they just do exactly what they promised they're going do, we are in a real crisis. And long term, our country's got serious and unresolved problems.

BILL MOYERS: The voter out there only has a choice, therefore, between two insufficient possibilities.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But they do know that Governor Romney will cut more and Obama will tax more. That's a certain inference.

BILL MOYERS: On your point, I was surprised that when Paul Ryan said what he did to Joe Biden that, you know, "We can work together." And when Romney runs, Romney has a new ad out saying he can work better with Congress than Obama has, that somebody didn't point out that this is an obstructionist Republican majority in the House.

MARTY KAPLAN: I think that's because Obama is in a trap. He has painted himself into a corner, which makes him vulnerable to the charge, which has been heard increasingly often, that you don't know what Obama's going to do in his second term. That he doesn't have an agenda. That only the past he's willing to talk about, that was a failure. And he can't tell you because it's not going to be good.

I think the problem Obama has is that he can tell part of the story, thanks to Bill Clinton, which is, "They gave me a problem and I stopped what they were doing. Now you don't want to give it back to the people who caused the problem." But what he is not then able to do, which I wish he would do, is to say, "And the reason it was so hard for me to do as much as I wanted, and the reason I need your help, America, going forward, is that these people are going to fight us tooth and nail every step of the way.

And starting with dealing with this fiscal cliff in which there's this terrible sequester deal, those people are holding the country hostage. I'm going to go to you, the country, and ask you to pressure your representatives, including the Republicans, to make a deal, find common ground with us. And that's what it's going be like in the future."

Obama has not made a convincing case that the way in which the non-part-- the way in which the bitter partisanship of the past would be different from the future. Why wouldn't Mitch McConnell and John Boehner be even more vicious toward him in the future, and ferociously so than they have been in the past?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: President Obama and Speaker Boehner came very close to a deal that had both revenue and cuts on the table. In the first debate, we had kind of an ironic moment in which Governor Romney was both confirming that he would not put new revenue on the table and saying that he was going to be bipartisan and get a solution. You can't sit down with the Democrats and say, "I'm going to be bipartisan," and not offer anything. What the Republicans have to offer is revenue. And what the Democrats have to offer is spending cuts. And in that grand bargain which fell apart because neither could appease their own base effectively, they had both cuts and revenue on the table. That's where we're going to have to go for a solution. My worry is the country doesn't know that's what's going to happen.

BILL MOYERS: Kathleen, how would your experience differ if you had watched on NBC, FOX, PBS, CNN? Did it make a difference which network you were watching?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes. The networks that held much of the debate in split screen invited you to see the debate through the reaction of the candidate who wasn't speaking.

BILL MOYERS: And you think that's significant?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I think it's significant because it minimizes the likelihood that you're hearing what's being said. And it's trying to create an interpretive frame in which, if someone is effective nonverbally, they can undercut the position of the other person without ever engaging in a rebuttal. You also saw on CNN, a running commentary line indicating how men and women--

BILL MOYERS: Those squiggly lines?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes.

MARTY KAPLAN: The worm.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: How men and women--

BILL MOYERS: The worm.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: --in some undefined space were reacting. And that invites you to say, "Why am I deviating so much from the women whose lines are being tracked? Why is it that men and women are diverging?" and in the meantime, you're not hearing what's being said. If debates are our most powerful vehicle for learning and we create structures that distract from that, we're not doing a service. And there's one more. People watching debates differently, they're watching debates on social media about--

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, this was a big year for Twitter.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: It's a huge year for social media, including Twitter. And what that means is we had about two-thirds of the electorate, two thirds of the adult population watching at least one debate. And about 20 percent of those watched while they were engaging in some form of social media. We have very tentative evidence that suggests that when you reported doing that, and we put all the controls in place, so education and age, all the things that might affect knowledge, your level of knowledge about the debates drops. That is, your ability to make accurate distinctions drops--

BILL MOYERS: How do you explain that?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Explain it because you're in fact being distracted. We all think we multitask well. And the best research says that we--

BILL MOYERS: No longer.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: --actually don't.

BILL MOYERS: I don't.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And so, to the extent that you are focusing on something first, that commentary stream is framing things for you. So you're now seeing through someone else's lens or you're trying to create your own lens if you're the one who's Tweeting, instead of engaging in the content. But secondly, you're being distracted from the content.

So as you're reacting, you're not processing useful information. We have fundamentally, in this new social media environment, changed the way in which a discernible part of the population is absorbing content. And they're not getting as much out of the debates, we suspect, as they might otherwise. What are they learning? Big bird, binders and bayonets. One, two, three.

MARTY KAPLAN: But consider the possibility that through social media, they are actually getting useful additional information. For example, during the fourth debate when Mitt Romney demonstrated that there was no difference between him and President Obama on any issue, Bill Maher tweeted, "The same as the other guy, only I'm white," as a summary for what Mitt Romney's position is.

And it struck me as a brilliant, concise description of how race is an undertone in this election. And that going to Romney is a safer choice for people who, at some level, have been made uncomfortable by this president. That would never have been an element of the onscreen debate. Arguably, it's, it's an irrelevancy to what was going on. But I would contend that it's entirely relevant to the conduct of the entire campaign.

BILL MOYERS: What do you think have been their main strengths and weaknesses?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Romney's main strength in the debates has been that he has appeared in the debates with a consistency of message and demeanor that suggests that the person who would be the commander in chief does not appear temperamentally to be the reckless person that the Obama campaign would make him out to be. And I think as a result, the strength in Governor Romney was dispatching the caricature that was created very effectively by the Democratic ads. And also, undercutting to some extent, the Democratic inference that he was more likely to take the country into war.

BILL MOYERS: What do you think is his major strength?

MARTY KAPLAN: He'll say anything. So whatever the situation, he will be delighted to give an answer which gets him through that moment and appeals to whatever group he's talking to. At best, the 47 percent comment was an attempt to pander to that audience and not revealing behind closed doors who he really is.

BILL MOYERS: And what were Obama's weaknesses throughout the debates?

MARTY KAPLAN: That he was unable to talk about how he would deal with what torpedoed him in his first term, which was the bitter partisanship. Which meant that no matter what he put forward, how good, how useful, how popular even with the country, that it would never go anywhere because that was the policy of the opposition, to stop everything dead in his track. To turn the filibuster into a day to day procedure of the Senate, as opposed to the kind of things where you, you know, you break the glass during an emergency.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Obama has the advantage that Al Gore ultimately had in 2000 on the complex issue of what are the implications of reducing the marginal tax rates by 20 percent and closing undisclosed loopholes. Throughout the three major president debates, Obama has driven the argument, you can't do it. First you have to tell us what the secret plan is.

If it were desirable, you'd be disclosing it. So it's probably not so desirable. But secondly, you can't accomplish what you're proposing on the assumptions that you're offering without exploding the deficit or hurting the middle class. If on Election Day people ask, "Does that really add up?" the vote is far more likely to be a vote for Obama.

BILL MOYERS: Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Marty Kaplan, let’s continue this conversation online. Thanks for being with me.

MARTY KAPLAN: Thank you, Bill.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: You're welcome.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Marty Kaplan on Campaign Rhetoric and Reality

Two of the country’s most astute political media observers — Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Marty Kaplan — join Bill to assess the true value of the 2012 political debates, and weigh in on the rhetoric and realities of two campaigns in the home stretch, looking to make their cases by any means affordable. Jamieson is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and the driving force behind the acclaimed online watchdog FactCheck.org. Marty Kaplan is the founding director of the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

  • submit to reddit
  • martiaa

    This is not the most unified conservative political movement. I believe the slavery/Jim Crow issues were more unified and for a much longer time than the current conservative movement. But it does have many similarities. It is a conservative movement that masks anti-minority conflicts. It pretends to be noble but is covering for some of the worst tribalism in society.

  • http://twitter.com/zinzinzor Sylvia Scarletti

    I’m watching now. Kathlee H-J is driving me nuts. I don’t think she gets it. She’s too center right. Marty Kaplan saw what I saw and is concerned about the same things that worry me-Romney’s lies and his lack of any character. Romney would bomb Iran. He would do whatever he had to to keep his job if he were prez. H-J is totally wrong. He would make a terrible commander-in-chief.

  • http://twitter.com/zinzinzor Sylvia Scarletti

    I’m glad you had someone else to counter Hall-Jamieson. She’s too far to the right to analyze the debates or the candidates objectively. Moreover, the deficit is not as important as jobs and the safety net. In fact, it scares me that H-J thinks Romney would make a good president. He would finish the job Bush-Cheney started. This country would become a third world oligarchy.

  • ivan V

    thank you for what you do

  • Anonymous

    Outrageous that she claims that Romney would not be a war mongering interventionist just because he said so in the debate. Seventeen of Mitt Romney’s twenty-four foreign policy advisers are former Neocon Bush advisers. With that, how could anyone expect Romney to be anything but a war mongering interventionist, and probably a torturer to boot? The Romney-Cheney Doctrine – By Representative Adam Smith: |
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/12/the_romney_cheney_doctrine

  • http://twitter.com/TearsInHeaven99 Midori Futabatei

    I used to like Jamieson. Now she seems like a right wing tool. IF Mitt gets elected, she’ll be eating her words when he Bombs IRAN.

  • http://twitter.com/TearsInHeaven99 Midori Futabatei

    P.S.
    MARTY, YOU GET IT Thank you

  • R Clark

    Thank you for this conversation. I’m glad that several points were addressed here that were not addressed in the debates, namely bitter partisanship, Obama’s focus on what he has done as opposed to telling us what he will do, and the sacrifices we will have to make in order to save our economy in crisis. My only disappointment is that everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that there are other presidential candidates besides the ones the democratic and republican parties have put forward. I would like to hear what they have to say before I send in my ballot. And it would be nice if someone would host a show in which we could hear them speak, or even debate, without having to go online and watch each of their Youtube videos and read their policies on their websites. It’s unfair to the American people, whose attention spans are being abbreviated, and who like to acquire information through channels of convenience.

  • Anonymous

    There have been several ‘expanded’ debates. You can find these at democracynow.org or freeandequal.org. Three were streamed at democracynow.org the same time as the other debates were going on and included Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice party for the Presidential debates. They also had an expanded debate for the Vice Presidential event. Two more, including one coming up on 10/30 can be picked up at freeandequal.org. One already held by them hosted Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill
    Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode, and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson. The next one will have only Stein and Johnson who picked up the most votes from the first freeandequal. debate.

    The expanded debate on the 2nd Presidential was so outstanding I could not even believe it myself. Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson were spouting so many truths, countering the lies of Obama and Romney and speaking truth to power to an extent I have never witnessed before. I thought I was very well versed in the issues but even I learned a few things from them that I did not know.

    Anyone who thinks they understand what the REAL issues are is fooling themselves if they do not go back and watch the videos of both the expanded debates and the one freeandequal had. Please don’t vote until you have watched these, really! And don’t forget to watch the last one between Stein and Johnson on October 3th.

  • Romney Pinocchio

    I agree with Sylvia S.: Hooray for Kaplan, “Romney will say anything” to get elected. Yes. LYING. Why don’t people get this–more. They sort of get it, but Kaplan was right calling Moyers out when he said ‘you so give R. a pass’ on this. The guy is LYING big time, not just the fudges around the margins that all politicians do, but this is outrageous, in your face LYING. Check out his record. This is the agenda of the radical right, the centrist sheep skin in the debates covered up his true agenda – get rid of government so the plutocracy can rule, as they mostly already are.

    It so drives me crazy when pundits say, as I heard on Washington Week tonight, “Well, R. passed the ‘commander-in-chief’ test.” His tremendous lying disqualifies him from passing any test. Why don’t people get this?

  • Big Time Romney Pinocchio

    I agree with Sylvia, hooray for Kaplan, he gets it. “Romney will say anything” to get elected. LYING. BIG TIME LYING. I don’t know why people don’t seem to get it, esp. the media. How can people be even treating R. as legitimate when he is lying all the time.

    It drives me crazy when people on say, Washington Week tonight, “I think Romney passed the commander-in-chief test.” From where I come from you don’t pass any test when you are lying. Instead, you are disqualified, which he should be.

    His centrist stance during the debates is just covering up the far right agenda of getting rid of government (protections) so the plutocracy can rule unfettered.

  • yes, it’s online

    CSPAN had 4 alternative candidates debating and DemocracyNOw.com had 2 debatilng/commenting as the debates were happening. Check it out online.

  • Janet

    Was I watching one of the many FOX channels or a rightwing thinktank chat on C-span? I didn’t think so but Kathleen Hall Jamieson was simply breathtaking in her rationalizations for Romney’s egregious, serial, yes craven, dishonesty almost with every utterance he has made since he announced for the presidency.

    The discussion between the logical, reasonable and sane Mr. Kaplan and stunningly irrationally authoritative Jamieson bodes ill for our future as a democracy.

    Jamieson rattled of her talking points with the smoothly and glibly I thought she must have been reeling of memorized talking points from the Romney campaign.

    FactCheck.org is been much criticised on other cable channels. I don’t recall over what, but I shall pay attention in the future!

  • robort1138

    These ideas presented tonight are some of the best I have heard so far. For example: during the debates, hold the candidates feet to the fire by presenting recorded information inconsistent with current talking points and ask the candidate to justify.
    The bottom line is we operate within a corrupt system and have real no tools for change.
    We patiently wait 4 years at a time to vote from candidates the corrupted parties have selected to be their unwavering poster boys, behooving us to accept their choices as our own.
    George Carlin said “politicians function to make you feel you have choices. You don’t. You have no choice.”
    We have labored long to discover what ails us.
    Now that we have all the information in front of us, we understand our unfortunate situation is that our government has side stepped the business of representing us. Taking care of the people’s business represents only chump change to them and they have bigger fish to fry.
    Try youtube’n the late George Carlin’s rant “The American Dream.” There are various versions as some have been edited with portions missing while other versions are complete and have not.
    He explained everything we see happening today (the how and the why of it) – in brief condensed detail presented years ago. You might ask yourself what he saw, how he knew, as you remained clueless these words falling on deaf ears. “The American Dream” opened my eyes years ago.

  • Janet

    She won’t be eating her words. She’ll safe behind her desk and won’t feel a twinge of shame. She’s a most willing rightwing tool and mouthpiece.
    Not only bombs for Iran but the conservative Supreme Court and … here come the vouchers!
    If Romney wins, the Republicans to move in and completely take over the United States government as their personal property.

  • Pam

    Kathleen H J is an extreme version of what has become prevalant lately in the press,even on PBS talk shows e.g Washington Week,GBH Radio and NPR.,false equivalancy that minimozes Obama;s strength and effectivieness and sticks faithfully to the “both sides” meme with no counterweight to the lying,deception and meaness of right -wing coverage and policies e.g the Ryan budget plan.
    Moyers has joined this chorus.He did not seem at all bothered by Jamieson’s going to bat for Romney under the guise of “neutrality” and “bi-partisanship.In fact, Moyers has also undermined Obama on a regular basis but he does not seem at all concerned re what we would face with Repubs in WH or Senate.
    He,like Jamieson and other pundits, get paid to give us this false equivalancy dribble,relying on previous reputations for more responsible and ethical coverage with some heart.They seem to be on a false equivalancy spree,infatuated with their own “fairness.”
    If Jamieson were really concerned re fairness, she would be adressing voter supression and outright lying.
    This contagous illnesses seems to have effected young,previously thoughtful and caring people and some who older commentators who previously had a “God forbid” Liberal bias and now have come to see the wisdom in right-wing sympathies or at least are apathetic re it.
    Is there any hope of getting off this train that is heading off the cliff to Plutocracy Land?
    I will hold out hope that,may

  • Anonymous

    last line has a typo, the date is oct 30th 9 to 10.30 p.m EST in D.C

  • Dave

    I was amazed that Mr. Kaplan was allowed to spew off as much anti Romney rhetoric as he did without any “accountability” from Mr. Moyers. When Kaplan said “Government [sic] Romney has changed his position on just about everything throughout his entire career.”, the first thing I thought of was a few months ago (May 9, 2012) when President Obama went on TV to explain his new views on same sex marriage. Let’s talk about core values – Kaplan’s later statement in the interview “A person who doesn’t have a core, it strikes me, is susceptible to the same kind of pressure once in office, as when he was running to appeal to his base in the first place.” If President Obama was a fish, he could flip-flop his way from Washington D.C. to the Pacific ocean in a couple of days. Most of what Kaplan said against Romney is more applicable to President Obama. By the way, it takes at least two opposing parties to make partisanship – in this interview, Mr. Kaplan demonstrated the Democratic party version of partisanship.

  • Spike

    Kathleen says that during the debates, we know about the candidates differences but not where they agree. Marty says Mitt Romney adopted Obama’s policy throughout the debate… I can’t help but think one of the two might be wrong, and I do believe the word “I agree with” being said a few times during the debates. Do we need a fact checker for the fact checker…?

    Really, i think miss H-J is around to sell us the idea of the Grand Bargain and sell us a false narrative that it’s the only sensible thing both Obama and Mitt Romney agree on.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BSXKJJP54IMPXAIWMCKHQWVMPM S

    Kathleen H-J is an economic illiterate and she should really keep her ignorance on the subject to herself.

  • Dan

    Is it truly Miss Jamieson’s assertion that seeing a split screen is to ones disadvantage? If it is, it is preposterous. Adhering to that logic, those who were present in the hall were at a disadvantage.The closer to being there your experience is, the better. I watch Cspan because they show the President and Gov. Romney at all times. Reaction IS important. Not solely the speaker.,

  • http://www.facebook.com/pat.elgee.5 Pat Elgee

    In the debates, Romney learned that his lies left the President stunned. When Obama brought up a flip/flop, Romney made it sound like a personal attack. Romney does not know anything about the mid East.
    The real issue is that Republicans first yelled “ObamaCare and Socialism” and now they are yelling “Debt and Economy and Jobs.” However they accept no blame for their responsibility.
    The real danger to the US is a CORRUPT CONGRESS! Voter suppression across the US, in CA that attack on Unions, lobbyist, bribes! Why do you think that corporations and Wall Street will pay $200 million to republicans? (Google lobbyist money and see)
    Some democrats are in on the take, but it is 80% going to republicans. They will do anything to sucker the voter into giving them absolute power. Romney in office will mean that they take over all three branches of the government; Congress, Presidency, and the Judicial Sys. We are truly in danger of losing our democratic government.

  • To the Future

    It was very refreshing to hear Marty Kaplan “say it like it is” – finally. The referendum is not on president Obama’s policies rather on the “good old boy’s club”, bigoted, racist white old men! The media should ask speaker Boehner – you fought for tax breaks for the “job creators”. You got them for over 10 years now, so Mr, Boehner where are the jobs? Mr. McConnel you have stated that your goal is to make Mr. Obama a one time President and you have obstructed everything put forward at the expense of the country is that not treason? Most of all the citizens of USA have to stop the insanity which is defined as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Voting Republican or Democratic over and over again is Insanity.Refuse to do this by voting anything but. Watching the ads. why would we vote for any of the candidates shown. Refuse to vote for anyone with negative ads. period. Demand that candidates speak about what they are going to do and none of the attacks ads will be accepted anymore. Have you had ENOUGH!