DOWNLOADS: (313)

PLAYS: (3145)

Embed

In his Rewrite segment this Friday evening, Lawrence O'Donnell talked to his viewers about his suggestion for how to modify the rules for presidential debates, and I have to say, I couldn't agree with him more. As he rightfully stated, we're not electing a "memorizer in chief, we're electing a commander in chief.

As O'Donnell reminded us, there's not a politician out there who makes a decision without the help of their staff, or written notes and other material readily available to them at their request, so why should the debates be any different? Why not let candidates have access to whatever notes, props, and a staffer on hand to go get them whatever material they need if they request it?

DOWNLOADS: (270)

PLAYS: (1093)

Embed

Former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is setting a low bar for President Barack Obama's debate performance, saying that he only needs to be "believable" to be re-elected.

The former House Speaker on Friday told MSNBC that GOP hopeful Mitt Romney would need a "very strong debate" to even have a chance at the White House.

"They're whistling past the graveyard," Gingrich said of the Romney campaign. "I think that everybody I've talked to agrees that he's had two and a half very tough weeks. I do agree, I think they started with the Clinton speech [at the Democratic Convention] and then they got compounded by all the other stuff that happened."

"I do think in all fairness to Romney, when it got to be a crisis in Florida [during the Republican primaries], he was very good in the debates," he explained. "That better be the Romney that goes to the debate with Barack Obama."

"It has to be a campaign of contrast, not a campaign of attack," Gingrich added. "Part of the contrast has to be disarming the president because if the president's believable -- this is where Clinton was so good -- if the president is believable at the end of the first debate, there's a very high likelihood that he going to get re-elected."

In a memo to surrogates on Thursday, Romney senior adviser Beth Myers tried to set very low expectations for Romney's performance at the debates.

"President Obama is a uniquely gifted speaker, and is widely regarded as one of the most talented political communicators in modern history," Myers wrote, insisting that Obama had a "significant advantage" because of his "ample rhetorical gifts."

(Nicole Add:) Newt has also generously given his unsolicited advice to Romney on how to conduct himself during the debates for maximum effectiveness. My favorite bit of advice?

Be assertive and be on offense against both Obama and his media

You can be on offense without being offensive.

The strongest reactions I got to my debates came from people who were desperate for someone to stand up to the media and redefine the questions and reframe the assumptions.

Americans are sick and tired of the unending liberalism and suffocating groupthink of the elite media.

If you look at my strongest applause lines virtually every one was taking on the media.

If you caught on to Newt's one trick pony back during the Republican primaries, you were not mistaken. However, how well did that work for Newt? Sad that he thinks this same advice that didn't help him win the primaries will give Romney the edge.

DOWNLOADS: (56)

PLAYS: (324)

Embed

It seems the Romney campaign is doing their best to lower expectations for the presidential debates, which start next week. After first engaging in a bit of "poll trutherism" when asked by Fox's Bill Hemmer what he thought of Romney trailing in all of the battleground states, spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom was asked about a recent article which called the debates "do or die" for Romney. Here's how he responded.

Fehrnstrom: Obama Will Turn Debates Into ‘90-Minute Attack Ad’:

Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser in the Romney campaign, said on Fox News Thursday that President Obama will turn the presidential debates into a "90-minute attack ad." Fehrnstrom also lowered debate expectations, saying Obama has had more experience in debates than Romney.

This coming from the same campaign which didn't have any qualms about literally carpet-bombing their opponents in the Republican primary race with negative ads. If their campaign is worried about supplying material for negative attack ads, I'd say it's just a little bit late now. There's enough out there already to keep the Obama campaign ad producers busy for months on end.

DOWNLOADS: (237)

PLAYS: (1260)

Embed

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney says the upcoming debates will be tough because President Barack Obama has a tendency to "say things that aren't true."

"I think he's going to say a lot of things that aren't accurate," Romney told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in an interview that aired on Friday. "I'm tempted to go back to that wonderful line by Ronald Reagan -- 'There you go again' -- but you can't use something that's [already been used]."

"Bill Clinton used that about you the other day during the Democratic Convention," Stephanopoulos noted.

"I didn't happen to see that, but doubt we're going to pull out something from Ronald Reagan, he's one of a kind," the former Massachusetts governor explained. "But the challenge I'll have is that the president tends to, how shall I say it, say things that aren't true in attacking his opponents."

"I've looked at prior debates and in that kind of case, it's difficult to say, well, am I going to spend my time correcting things that aren't quite accurate or am I going spend my time talking about the things I want to talk about? And that's the challenge."

But President Obama may also have his hands full when it comes to fact checking the Republican nominee.

MSNBC's Steve Benen spent months chronicling Romney's "mendacity" and claimed to have found 533 falsehoods in 30 weeks, according to a tally by blogger Fred ClarkBenen wrote during the 30th week. "It's actually a little scary to think of a leader -- a man who'd be given enormous power and influence, literally making life and death decisions on a regular basis -- who can convince himself that his falsehoods are true, and that others' truths are falsehoods."

(h/t: Mediaite)

DOWNLOADS: (215)

PLAYS: (1884)

Embed

From The Last Word's Rewrite segment this Thursday evening, Lawrence O'Donnell gives his take on Rush Limbaugh "working the refs" by attacking the presidential and vice presidential debate moderators, calling them "far left-wing liberal" Democrats when it's clear to everyone that they are not that.

While I agree with him on why Limbaugh is doing this, I disagree with his characterization of the moderators. They're not neutral. They're corporate, inside the beltway Villagers. And I haven't watched a lot of Lehrer or Raddatz on the air, but I do catch Crowley and Schieffer on a regular basis and they're both neither fair or balanced and are always more hostile to Democrats than they are to Republicans and both are pretty useless when it comes to addressing issues or matters that actually have any real impact on most voters' lives.

Limbaugh knows full well these hacks aren't liberals. You want some real liberals, let someone like an Amy Goodman, or Paul Krugman, or Sam Seder or Rhandi Rhodes moderate the debates and then we can literally watch Limbaugh's head explode in the studio. Although, sadly we'd never get the Democrats agree to have any of them asking questions either because they'd be asking both sides questions they don't like.

Here's more from O'Donnell's blog: Rush Limbaugh attacks debate moderators as 'far left-wing liberal Democrats':

Rush Limbaugh has a problem with the four journalists selected to moderate this year's presidential debates. As Lawrence O'Donnell highlighted on The Last Word, Rush thinks they are all "far left-wing liberal Democrats."

Jim Lehrer of PBS, whjo'll be hosting the first encounter, has previously hosted eleven debates. Limbaugh called him a "far left-wing liberal Democrat."

CNN's Candy Crowley, who will host the second "town-hall" style debate, is a "far, far left-wing liberal Democrat momma," Limbaugh said.

Rush dubbed CBS's Bob Schieffer a "far, far left-wing liberal Democrat...and dinosaur."

And he called ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz, who is hosting the vice presidential debate, the same—except instead of a "dinosaur," Rush dismissed Raddatz as an "infobabe for ABC."

“It’s the same old media hacks handling the debates,” said Limbaugh.

That last line I actually agree with. Just not for the same reasons as Limbaugh. Sadly these so-called "debates" are so scripted and structured that it's not always going to make a whole lot of difference who's moderating them. They're not real debates. They're media events.

Time for your weekly podcast with The Professional Left, our own Driftglass and Bluegal. Another fine job with the podcast this week my friends. If you enjoy these as much as I do drop them a note at proleftpodcast@gmail.com and maybe they'll read your email during their show. I know they enjoy getting feedback from their listeners. Have a great weekend everybody!

You can listen to their archives or make a donation if you'd like to show your support and help keep these going at http://professionalleft.blogspot.com/.

DOWNLOADS: (756)

PLAYS: (2997)

Embed

With a little over a month to go before the Arizona primary election on August 24th, John McCain finally faced off against his rival J.D. Hayworth and Tea Party candidate Jim Deakin in their first debate. As I wrote about back in March when J.D. Hayworth appeared on Rachel Maddow's show, John McCain's willingness to cover up Hayworth's involvement in the Jack Abramoff scandal when he chaired the Indian Affairs Committee is coming back to bite him once again.

Once again Hayworth claimed that McCain not bringing him up during the hearing proved his innocence in the matter and he went so far as to chastise McCain for calling him corrupt in one of his campaign ads. As I asked back in March, how's that cover up working out for you now John?

Moderator: When you were in Congress you were one of the biggest financial recipients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, then there is you acting as a pitch man, which has been brought up from a questionable firm promoting free government money. Your critics such as Senator McCain have questioned your character, in fact today the McCain campaign sent out a release calling you J.D. Huckster. How do you respond to that?

Hayworth: Well, you know it’s really sad to see John McCain who should be revered as a statesman basically reduced to a political shape-shifter. John you’ve changed positions so much in this campaign, maybe we ought to set up an extra podium for you depending on which John McCain is going to answer which question.

Now the fact is rather than dealing with insults and I invite everyone because of my limited time here to go to the website jdforsenate.com to see extended explanations of that, but let me explain, this should be about the issues, about Mr. McCain’s record, yes on amnesty, coauthoring cap and trade, yes on the bailouts and the accompanying earmark spending involved there and of course no to tax cuts that help reinvigorate our economy.

John has a record that he does not want to run on. That’s why he’s engaged in this kind of attack ad and frankly it’s really unbecoming to you John. You’re not a statesman any longer. You’re simply a political shape-shifter.

Moderator: Senator McCain.

McCain: There you go again. Just as I predicted at the beginning of this debate, facts are stubborn things. Congressman Hayworth was one of the big spenders. He told people like Jeff Flake and me who were fighting against this earmark and corruption, he called us jihadists. He sponsored earmarks. This is corruption in Washington. My friend Dr. Coburn says it’s the gateway drug to corruption and that is one of the reasons why J.D. Hayworth was voted out by his constituents, because Republicans let spending get out of control. I fought against my own President and against my own majority to eliminate pork barrel earmark spending and I’m proud of my record.

[…]

Hayworth: John if you had told the truth about Barack Obama the way you’re spreading falsehoods about me, you might be President of the United States right now. The fact is John McCain is caught in cynical attack politics in Washington D.C. and one other note John; you chaired the Indian Affairs Committee hearings into undo influence of lobbyists. Never did my name come up. Never was it uttered.

John it’s sad you’d stoop to this. Shame on you. Arizona deserves better.

As I noted back in March, for more on McCain's cover up of Hayworth's role in the Abramoff scandal go read Dennis G's excellent post at Balloon Juice The Grifter and the Coward…. McCain should be ashamed alright, but not for calling Hayworth a huckster.

From The Daily Show April 21, 2010:

For the first time ever, British candidates import American-style democratic theatrics.