"Pilloried by Democrats during his 2012 run, Romney has emerged as a strong voice for a bygone kind of politics."

Said Jake Tapper, introducing Mitt Romney on "State of the Union" yesterday.

Romney gave a long interview, and maybe you saw a clip of it, but I want to do my own edit:

ROMNEY: Donald Trump won. He won overwhelmingly. He said what he was going to do, and that's what he's doing. I mean, people are saying, oh, I don't like this appointment or this policy that he's talking about. But those are the things he said he was going to do when he ran. So you can't complain about someone who does what he said he was going to do. And I agree with him on a lot of policy fronts. I disagree with him on some things. But it's like, OK, give him a chance to do what he said he's going to do and see how it works out.... 

TAPPER:  Are you worried at all about being a target for retribution, you or members of your family?

ROMNEY: No, actually, I have been pretty clean throughout my life. I'm not particularly worried about criminal investigations.

"It’s true that the format did Biden no favors. CNN moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash avoided fact-checking..."

"... like it was the plague, which allowed Trump to steamroll an unsteady Biden with his usual stream of lies. Trump served up whoppers about abortion, his bungled covid response, Charlottesville, January 6, and more.... CNN finally ran an on-air fact-check of Trump more than an hour after the debate ended. But considering the relatively minuscule size of the audience at that late hour and the fact Trump was allowed to lie with impunity on the same network at length earlier in the evening, CNN’s belated attempt at basic journalistic accountability was worth very little."

Writes Aaron Rupar, in "Not great, Joe/Biden's debate showing stunk up the joint. But don't give up hope" (PublicNotice).

The format did Biden no favors? The format was engineered to favor Biden! Trump stepped up and did it the way Biden's people wanted. If the format chosen imposed disadvantages on Biden, it's only because his people thought other formats were more disadvantageous... unless the fix was in and the idea was to expose Biden's weaknesses.

Rupar, of course, is ridiculous. The "whopper about... Charlottesville" came from Biden. Who is still bitterly clinging to the notion that Trump said Nazis were fine people? Maybe Biden is so far gone that he actually believes it, but I don't believe Rupar believes it. I'm crediting him with rank cynicism. If the CNN moderators had been fact-checking in real time, they would have had to correct Biden on the "fine people" hoax... and on numerous other things, such as the claim that Trump told people to inject bleach into their arm. But Rupar is free to imagine that the moderators would have fact-checked in a biased way, a la Candy Crowley, and to pine about the debate that might have been.

CORRECTION: When first published, this post had a few stray sentences of Rupar's — at the bottom, after a big space — and I hope no one mistook that as mine! 

"Trump got his ass kicked in these debates, so they want to change the rules. It’s like a football team that can’t pass, so they want to make it illegal to pass."

Said Stuart Stevens, "who was Mitt Romney’s chief strategist in 2012 and who worked against Trump’s reelection in 2020," quoted in "Trump blows a hole in 2024 presidential debates/The RNC's move stamps former president’s imprint on future debates" (Politico). 

What is the rule change that is the equivalent of outlawing passing in football? What was Trump so bad at that it corresponds to "a football team that can’t pass"? 

What Trump opposed was the use of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which he accuses of bias, to set up the debates, so I think the analogy should be something more like a football team that believes the referees systematically favor their opponents.

"Gaming out every potential permutation of what might happen in the 90-minute showdown helps a candidate calculate how to respond."

Really?

Then why didn't Mitt Romney know what to do when Candy Crowley propped up Barack Obama with the infamous "transcript" remark?

Just when you think you've got everything "gamed out," there's one more game, the one you didn't imagine. But even if you could know "every potential permutation" and you could figure out the ideal reaction to each one — which is obviously impossible — could you memorize all those things and in the heat of the moment call to mind the correct one each time and deploy it? Wouldn't you look weirdly robotic cranking through all the alternatives? It's hard enough to read a prepared speech off the teleprompter in a naturally human way. And there's already a meme that Hillary is a robot. More here.

The ideal response would have to take into account how the people respond on an emotional level. There's no perfect scripted zinger for that. There's no planned facial expression or hand gesture. We the People are very sensitive to what we see and hear. We feel that we feel whether a person is good and true. We are manipulable and we can be faked out, but I think we are more likely to be manipulated and faked out by Trump's I'm-being-myself approach than by Hillary's gigantic team gaming out every potential permutation of what might happen.

"Is Obama taking Hillary out?"

Monica Crowley's conspiracy theory is seeming more and more plausible, no?

[Hillary] tried to get her dirty tricks consigliere, Sidney Blumenthal, a top position in the State Department, which Mr. Obama pointedly denied. So she hired him anyway through the Clinton Foundation. Through Mr. Blumenthal, she was fed all kinds of intelligence on global hotpots such as Libya, much of it inaccurate, as she circumvented traditional government communication chains via her private email server. 

She didn't trust Obama, the theory goes, and Obama didn't trust her.

In a recently disclosed email, Mrs. Clinton complained that she heard “on the radio” that there was a “Cabinet meeting” that morning and wondered if she could attend. The secretary of state — fourth in line to the presidency — was frozen out, so she set up her own fiefdom.

Obama wants someone he can trust in charge of preserving his legacy, and that would be Joe Biden, Crowley says.

So here’s the likely plan: Mr. Biden will announce that he is running for president (the reported dying wish of his late son, Beau). After a respectable amount of time, Mr. Obama will announce that while he admires all of the Democratic candidates, Mr. Biden has earned his particular loyalty. Following his presidential endorsement, Mr. Obama will then support Mr. Biden with the full weight of the White House, including the sophisticated technical infrastructure his campaigns used to win in 2008 and 2012. For years, Mrs. Clinton has begged Mr. Obama to turn it over to her, and he refused. He’s been saving it for someone else. Mr. Obama will also use his considerable influence with black and Latino voters to support Mr. Biden, which may be enough to help him significantly....

Crowley connects her theory to the recent, weird New York Times story that "two inspectors general from [Obama's] administration recommended that the Justice Department open a 'criminal' inquiry into [Hillary's] handling of classified material." There's reason to think that the leak came from "Mr. Obama’s own consigliere, Valerie Jarrett."

The Times walked back some of the details, but the damage was done. If Mr. Obama did not want a DOJ criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton to go forward, he would not have let it go this far. He wants the investigation, wants her nailed, wants her out. And he’s doing it, slowly, steadily.

So says Monica Crowley, who should not be confused with that other Crowley, Candy Crowley, the woman who threw the last election (according to another conspiracy theory).

Sharyl Attkisson says CBS News suppressed a clip of Obama refusing to call Benghazi a terrorist attack.

This clip — recorded in a Steve Kroft "60 Minutes" interview — was evidence of the precise point that Obama denied in the second debate with Mitt Romney, the moment when the debate moderator Candy Crowley stepped in to side with Obama. In the "60 Minutes" clip — which was left out of the edited interview that aired — Obama said: "Well, it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved. But, obviously, it was an attack on Americans."

In a chat that aired on Howard Kurtz’s Fox News media program yesterday, Attkisson addressed the apparent suppression/possible misplacement of that clip: “The ‘Evening News’ people who had access to that transcript, according to the e-mails I saw, when it was sent from ’60 Minutes’ to ‘Evening News’ the very day that it was taken, they in my view skipped over it, passed it up, kept it secret throughout the whole time when it would have been relevant to the news and I think that was because they were trying to defend the president — they thought that would be harmful to him,” said Attkisson to Kurtz.

Even more damning: According to Attkisson, CBS Newsers directed her to use a “different clip from the same interview to give the misimpression that the president had done the opposite” — that is, that the president had indeed acknowledged terrorism early on.

The link goes to Erik Wemple's column in The Washington Post that has the headline "Sharyl Attkisson’s compelling gripe against CBS News over Benghazi coverage." I don't think I've ever seen the phrase "compelling gripe" before. If something is compelling, it's not a gripe! It's like they want to minimize it and call it a big deal at the same time. Obviously, it's a huge deal!

CNN's Hillary Clinton documentary is making "life more difficult" for Candy Crowley, who's keen on maintaining the separation between journalism and partisan politics.

"You can say all you want, this is a commissioned documentary from people who are not in the employ of CNN. It’s not me. It’s not Wolf Blitzer. It’s not John King. It’s an outside documentary group. But we’re with CNN and so this is not a story where the nuances are well-received, particularly by Republicans."

She ought to know about nuances that Republicans don't receive well, like that nuanced occasion when she was supposed to be moderating a debate between 2 presidential candidates and the Democrat was getting cornered so she fought on his side.

"Candy Crowley Oozes Sympathy for Steubenville Rapists."

"Crowley was filled with sadness for two young men who took advantage of a drunk and possibly drugged young girl because the judge actually held them accountable for what they did. Instead of wondering aloud why they weren't tried as adults, she was instead very concerned that now they would have to register for the rest of their lives as sex offenders."



I can't believe CNN handled that case this way.

ADDED: "'This is the most pointless thing,' Mr. Mays said in one text message to the girl. 'I’m going to get in trouble for something I should be getting thanked for taking care of you.' But the girl made clear that she was not having any more of it, telling Mr. Mays in another exchange: 'It’s on YouTube. I’m not stupid. Stop texting me.'"

"We’re going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time."

CNN, working on the defense of Candy Crowley.

Mr. Romney, we're going to give you less time, because you talk faster.

At the Equine Dentist Café...

... take the scenic route home.

"Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates"

Observes Katrina Trinko, at NRO.

I would say, though, that on a few occasions, Romney used his turn to question Obama, thus ceding some time. But on the other hand, Obama interrupted Romney repeatedly. Not that Romney didn't interrupt. It seemed as though there was a continual insertion of factual disagreements. That's what they were doing and once it got started it was hard for either one stop, because it would give the other guy an advantage... except to the extent there are voters out there who recognize and credit politeness.

I wonder what would have happened, during the part of the debate about Benghazi, if Candy Crowley had not intervened. What if she'd kept her mouth shut and let the 2 men work it out amongst themselves? Here's the segment of the transcript in question (boldface added):

"The moderator will not... intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period."

That was the contractual term that Candy Crowley agreed to and blatantly violated in the debate tonight. She let us know in advance that she wasn't going to follow it:

"They will call on 'Alice,' and 'Alice' will stand up and ask a question. Both candidates will answer. Then there's time for a follow-up question, facilitating a discussion, whatever you want to call it," Crowley said. "So if Alice asks oranges, and someone answers apples, there's the time to go, 'But Alice asked oranges? What's the answer to that?" Or, 'Well, you say this, but what about that?'"

But she went way beyond her own statement of how much she was going to violate it.

Live-blogging the second Obama vs. Romney debate.

7:14 Central Time: Setting up this post, I say "I'm so psyched for this debate!" And Meade says "I think you ought to lower your expectations. I think they will both look good, both look presidential, and there won't be any real change because of this debate." Perhaps. But I think it will have an effect... not because I think Obama has a way to change his image back into something we will love, but because we'll see Romney again, and that seemed to work last time, as people saw that he is not the villain the Obama campaigned tried to make us think he is.

7:33: Someone just asked me what I think will happen, and I said "I think Obama will try to be different, but not that different, because that would be phony. And Romney has the advantage of knowing if he just acts like the person he really is, it will work as a striking contrast to the way the O campaign has portrayed him, which is really what happened last time. I think that will happen again. But O will be more alert and engaged so it won't be so horrible." That's my prediction, anyway. What do you think?

7:57: I'm looking at the gathered throng of "undecided" voters. I don't feel confident that they're really undecided. And I think the moderator, Candy Crowley, favors Obama. But that's the way it always is. The Republican must overcome the disadvantage. ADDED: We're told by CNN's Erin Burnett that these supposedly "undecided" voters "in 2008, overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama." But they are "dead even split" in this election.

8:08: Both Romney and Obama jump on this poor Epstein kid who's going to college and wants  to be able to get a job. Both candidates talk about their economic plans generally. They are both wired. Obama is particularly intense. He wants everyone to know he is awake and alive. I don't know if he can keep that up or if we can take it. Crowley calls Romney "Romley."

8:13: The second question, with Obama going first, is about gas prices, and Obama launches into alternative energy, which seems quite unlikely to help people struggling with the gas prices. This is a great opening for Romney. Romney talks about how oil drilling on federal lands has been reduced under Obama.  R is for more drilling and clean coal, and he makes that clear. Candy invites Obama to respond and he accuses Romney of getting the facts wrong. Obama is for oil drilling and even coal plants. Romney, getting his turn, asks Obama a direct question, and both men try to control this time. There's back and forth bickering, and Romney ends up in control of the floor. The tension is extreme!

8:22: Obama says gas prices were lower when he took office because the economy was on the verge of collapse. He's not taking any responsibility for what gas prices are now. In fact, he's kind of taking credit.

8:23: Romney is able to stay relaxed while dominating. Crowley and Obama both seem cranked up and stressed.

8:25: A question about taxes. Romney is clear and focused. Obama's over there on the chair, hunkered down, crouching, oddly. Hey, Jaltcoh is live-blogging. Check it out.

8:31: "Governor Romney, I'm sure you have an answer," Crowley almost snarks. Her bias shows. She prompts Obama, suggesting the substance of the answer. Now, this doesn't really help Obama. It makes Romney look more dominant, and we get the impression that Obama needs a boost. It's actually patronizing.

8:34: When Obama speaks, Romney doesn't go back and sit down. He stands there, eyeing Obama, who seems desperate. Obama yammers quickly in a high, strained voice. I can't believe this is making the people in the audience feel connected and confident.

8:37: Why does Obama go back to the chair? Does he need the rest?

8:37: Romney sits down when an audience member speaks. Obama gets a softball question about women not making as much money as men. Obama repeats a story we've heard before, about his grandmother's career. He tells us about the Lily Ledbetter law, the first law he signed. Romney talks about work he did as Governor. He wanted women in his cabinet and initiated a search and found "binders full of women." He promotes flexible work schedules and generally strengthening the economy, which will help women. When it's Obama's turn, he brings up Lily Ledbetter again, then switches to health care.

8:45: A woman brings up Bush. She's afraid of Republicans because they remind her of Bush. Romney has a 5-point plan — all 5 points differentiate him from Bush. "President Bush had a very different path for a very different time."

8:53: Another question — why did they pick this? — about the stagnant economy. The man basically says: I don't feel so good.  Obama rattles off a lot of economic points. I think they picked this question because it gave Obama a chance to show warmth and caring. [ADDED: But Obama didn't take the opportunity. Not that Romney did.]

9:09: Crowley calls on someone named "Carrie" and Obama does a "Hi, Carrie" that sounds gentle and it's obvious he thinks it's a female. But it's a big old guy. "Cary," presumably. And he's got the Libya question. Uh-oh.

9:10: Obama's answer on Libya is all material he's said before. Nothing updated to deal with the newest revelations. Same old talking points. Investigate. Track down the criminals. Romney politicized it. "I am ultimately responsible"... that's new.

9:12: Romney acknowledges that Obama took responsibility "for the failure."

9:16: Obama, yelling, says it's "offensive" to suggest that anyone on his "team" would "play politics." "That's not what we do," he says, making eye contact with Romney, but then he breaks eye contact and looks down. Check the video on this. It's a moment.

9:19: Romney, in command, questions Obama about what he said the day after the attack in the Rose Garden. "You said it was an act of terror?" Romney asks twice. After the first time, Obama says "That's what I said." After the second time, Romney gives him a penetrating look. There's a pause. Romney raises his eyebrows in a way that seems to repeat the question again. "It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you're saying?" Obama bows his head. His eyes are closed. Obama looks up and with a little smile says: "Please proceed Governor." Romney gestures with his hand. "I wanted to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi and act of terror." Obama says "Get the transcript," and Crowley helps Obama by saying "He did in fact, sir... He did in fact call it an act of terror. It did as well take 2 weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out, you're correct about that." Jeez, Crowley is way overparticipating! And the audience applauds her!

9:20: Romney got tripped up on a little detail there, so his theatrical presentation fizzled in the end. He stuttered a bit. He should have had the preparation for that moment nailed. Obama lucked out. [ADDED: We're checking the transcript on the Rose Garden speech and the word "terror" (or "terrorist" or "terrorism") is not in it! Am I wrong? That really tripped up Romney, so if he wasn't wrong, I condemn Crowley.][AND: He said "outrageous attack," but certainly nothing like "act of terror."][ALSO: The word "terror" does appear in the full transcript of the remarks, as opposed to the written statement, but not in the context of characterizing the attack in Benghazi, in a more general reference, quoted at 10:21 below. The answer to Romney's question "You said it was an act of terror?" was clearly no, and when Obama bowed his head and looked down, I think he knew he was being deceitful. I imagine he thought: This is what I have to say.]

9:21: Gun control. Obama's talking about the Aurora shootings. He wants "a comprehensive strategy" that includes getting "into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur."

9:22: Romney stresses the 2-parent family in response to the gun control question, then shifts to a Fast & Furious presentation. He'd "like to understand" what happened.

9:44: I've gotten behind in the recording after getting distracted by that "act of terror" business. And now, I'm so outraged at Crowley's intrusion to make an incorrect assertion to side with Obama that I can barely pay attention to the rest of this. (But I will keep going and get to the remainder of the material.)

9:47: Obama interrupts Romney — who's talking about competition with China — and he has been interrupting throughout the evening.

9:48: The last question is: "What is the biggest misperception people have about you as a man and as a candidate?" Romney says "his passion" flows from his belief in God. He also ticks through his resume again, which isn't responsive to the question. Ignoring the question is kind of the theme of the night.

9:51: Obama's turn. People think he believes that government creates jobs. "That's not what I believe. I believe in individual initiative."

9:52: Obama brings up the 47% remark, while it's his turn and he's speaking last. Romney can't answer! But Obama didn't make much of it. He said "47%" but didn't dramatize the idea in a memorable way.

9:54: "The most rancorous debate ever" — says the CBS announcer.  Presidential debates are changed forever, we're told.

10:03: It's bizarre to think of all the pre-debate commentary about how the town hall format is used to reach out to the individuals in the audience and demonstrate the human connection! It must have been a surreal experience for these poor folks.

10:21: The phrase "acts of terror" does appear in the Rose Garden remarks at one point: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." But as Patrick Brennan says at NRO: "One could take that as a reference to acts which include the tragedy in Benghazi, obviously, but there was clearly no effort made to label it an act of terrorism. One reason why this might be: According to U.S. law, acts of terrorism are premeditated. The Obama administration’s line for days following Obama’s Rose Garden statement suggested that the attack wasn’t premeditated." Obama's supporters may want to say this is enough. I don't think so. But what is certainly plain is that Crowley's manipulation of the event was unjustifiable. The bias from the moderator tonight was disgusting. But I'm sure it was worth it to her to squander her reputation to help Obama out of what was a very uncomfortable jam.

10:27: Here's the transcript.  Sorry I didn't write anything about the immigration discussion. It's all there in the transcript.

10:37: Even though Romney's big moment got deflated, I think the focus now will be on what exactly is in that transcript, and hair-splitting about "No acts of terror will ever shake" isn't likely to sound compelling, especially as it becomes an occasion for focusing on the 2 weeks of lies/nonsense about the nonexistent demonstrations and the "Innocence of Muslims" video. There's a controversy over what Obama said, and even if there is one way to wriggle out of it, it forces us to spend time on the statements made about the attack, and this should hurt Obama. Whoever "wins" the debate, there's the post-debate discourse, and that must be won too.

10:53: Thanks to all the commenters for keeping the flow of opinion going on the second, third, and fourth pages. I haven't had the time to get in there and read things yet, but I wanted to express my appreciation for your contributions and my pleasure at being able to provide a place where people can talk.

Drudge depicts women turning away from Obama.

Right now at Drudge:



Click to enlarge.

The full headline is "GALLUP: WOMEN TURNING AWAY." I cut "gal" from "Gallup" to symbolize the loss of females. Just kidding. I cropped the screen-grab to tighten the view of the revelant photographs. The metaphor was accidental, I admit.

But I don't think the juxtaposition of these photographs was accidental. Women are turning away, and there are Hillary Clinton and Candy Crowley, each turning away. Hillary is taking responsibility for security in Benghazi. And Candy is going rogue on debate moderation.

Click the image above to enlarge. You see what Obama is doing? He's palling around — to coin a phrase — with a cardboard image of himself. (And that was not an accidental allusion (to another gal).)

Ladies turn away from a narcissistic man — a man who is in love with himself. And ladies turn away from a man who's completely shallow — shallow to the point of 2-dimensionality.

ADDED: Rereading this post and the previous one, I find myself ranting out loud: Speaking of women turning away! We could have had the first woman President! She was there, she deserved it, she would have been better! This man who was not ready and apparently not really willing to take on the responsibilities of the presidency wooed us away from her. He deprived us of the first woman President! That's another reason for women to turn away. We can see now that the woman would have been tougher, smarter, more dedicated, every step of the way.

Hillary is letting us see that now, as she takes responsibility as she takes responsibility for security in Benghazi. It sounds as though she's protecting Obama from criticism. Sounds, superficially. But she is really criticizing him. Put the pieces together. Go back to that 2008 speech, embedded in that last post. She made her taking-responsibility statement, and immediately afterward, that video clip pops to the surface of the web. Beneath these surfaces there are depths. Not everything is 2-dimensional.

At tomorrow's debate, Candy Crowley is "going to react organically to what’s happening."

She "understand[s] that [she's] there." She's "not a fly on the wall." 

You got a problem with that? Apparently, both campaigns do. They were expecting a fly on the wall! They contracted for a fly on the wall.

Why did Althouse post this item?
	The blog has a theme today: candy!
	She loves to use the blog tag "insect politics."
pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: What does it mean to react organically? That's old hippie talk. There was a time when everything was "organic" or "so organic." Wow. No exclamation point after "wow." It was just... wow. It was so hard to think back then. When everything was... like... organic?.

But how does an organ react? The stomach aches, the heart attacks, the lung wheezes, the bladder loses control.

Debate moderators announced... and include Candy Crowley, who reacted to the Paul Ryan VP announcement with the phrase "some sort of ticket death wish."

Drudge aptly assembles the links:

DEBATE MODERATORS ANNOUNCED:
PBS Jim Lehrer, first Pres debate, Oct 3 Denver...
CNN Candy Crowley, town hall, Oct 16, Hempstead NY...
CBS Bob Schieffer, third Pres debate, Oct. 22, Boca Raton...
ABC Martha Raddatz, VP debate, Oct 11, Danville KY...
FLASHBACK: CROWLEY: Some Think Ryan Pick 'Some Sort of Ticket Death Wish'...
60 MINS edits out Ryan talking about Medicare mom in Florida...

That last link might seem less apt, a bit off topic. But think about it. It's not. Drudge knows what he's doing. This is about media bias.

So all the moderators will be liberals. Can't help that — you say? — all the big media people are liberal. Couldn't we get one Fox News person — Chris Wallace, for example? But Fox News is somehow known to be biased in a way that those other networks are not. Ironically, the reason that factoid is known is that we learned it through all those other media outlets. Their voices corroborate the view that Fox News is biased. Perception of bias is a numbers games.

ADDED: Why Crowley? They needed a woman... and it was the best they could do?

Napol(ogize)itano.

The Secretary of Homeland Security eats her words:

Ms. Napolitano said Monday on NBC’S “Today” that her remark the day before — “the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days” — had been taken out of context. “Our system did not work in this instance,” she said. “No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way.”

ADDED: Let's read the context. Candy Crowley is interviewing Napolitano on CNN's “State of the Union.” The first question is whether the attack was "part of a larger plot" or whether Abdulmutallab was "a lone wolf." Napolitano dumps her basic canned response — that people should trust the government and feel good about flying:

Well, right now, we have no indication that it’s part of anything larger, but obviously the investigation continues. And we have instituted more screening and what we call mitigation measures at airports. So I would advise you during this heavy holiday season just to arrive a bit early, and to know that we are going to be doing different things at different airports. So don’t expect to do the same thing at one airport when you transfer through to another airport.

But the traveling public -- this is my message for you, Candy. The traveling public is very, very safe in this air environment. And while we continue to investigate the source of this incident, I think the traveling public should be confident in what we are doing now.

Crowley forces her back to the original subject of the scope of the plot. She asks "has there been any evidence of the Al Qaida ties that this suspect has been claiming?" — which is slightly inane, since the suspect's claim of al Qaeda ties is evidence. But we know what she means. Napolitano says:

Right now, that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing...

The criminal justice investigation. That reveals a mindset. Is there a war on terrorism? Or does Napolitano think she's dealing with a crime problem?

... and I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he has such ties.

This is the criminal justice model.

What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel.

Now, she's back on her canned statement, the one that Crowley said she'd get to later, after focusing on where this incident fits in the war on terror. Napolitano is keen on repeating herself and slathering us with reassurance. It is here that she drops the quote everyone jumped on:

And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated.

The context is reassurance, and the lambasted quote isn't even reassuring. She was unresponsive to the question asked, other than to try to repackage the incident as a routine criminal matter, and in an effort to repeat herself, she said something laughably stupid.

So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly.

The key word there is "respond." The notion is that it's fine to stand back and see what "crimes" occur and then show up and investigate.

Crowley presses on, saying "Well, it seems as though the reason this plane did not explode is that the explosion failed and then you had some quick passengers who jumped on him when he lit this fire. So let me ask you about how he could have gotten on the plane, with this substance, the PETN. I mean, we get on, you can’t have more than 3.4 ounces of toothpaste and you can’t have more than 3.4 ounces of anything in a little bag, and so I think people are thinking, so how does he get on with an explosive? How does that get past security?" Here's Napolitano again:

Well, we are asking the same questions, looking at what happened in Amsterdam as he transferred flights to a flight that was U.S.-bound. We have already been working with the airport and airline authorities there to see what kind of screening, screening equipment was used. We have no suggestion that he was improperly screened, but we want to go through and see. We’re always ...

No suggestion! Ridiculous! Crowley interrupts:

CROWLEY: I’m sorry, but if he was not improperly screened or properly screened, and yet you want Americans to feel safe on the planes, and so if it was properly screened and he got on anyway with that, it doesn’t feel that safe.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, it should.

Wha?????!!!!

This was one individual literally of thousands that fly and thousands of flights every year.

Oh, thanks. I just read that out loud, and my son Chris said: "That's like saying you shouldn't be worried about terrorism at all, because even if you were flying on 9/11, the likelihood of you being on one of the actual flights that were hijacked is very low."

What an awful performance. And check it out in video form:



Why is she slurring her words like that? Does she sound drugged or drunk to you? Or is that some sort of effort to sound like a tough guy? Now, watch it with the sound off. That bland half-smile — that numb mask — those unblinking, wide eyes ... the visual is weirdly incongruent with the audio.