Peter Lawler: Romney Makes Good, and History

Is Romney smarter, better informed, and more spontaneously eloquent than the president?

Well, if all you had to go by is tonight’s debate, you’d have to say yes.

Romney’s presentations were clearer, tighter, more incisive, more eloquent, more factually detailed, and more savvy and nimble than those of the president. He certainly didn’t looked stiff or overprogrammed, and he had the confidence of a leader. It seemed he was really enjoying himself.

Bill Maher on Obama’s performance: ”I hate to say it, but he’s looking like he really does need a teleprompter.” The president’s comments were often halting, vague, somewhat inarticulate, and distracted and perfunctory. Even his closing statement was flat and pretty empty.

I’ll leave it to others to flesh out the details. But even MSBNC’s Chris Matthews admitted than Romney won big, as did famous Obamaite bloggers such as Andrew Sullivan. I’ll add, of course, the verdict of the registered voters in the CNN poll: Romney won 67% to 25%.

Here’s THE HUGE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS DEBATE: This is, as far as I’m concerned, the first time a Republican presidential candidate decisively won a debate according to the objective standards by which any expert would judge a debate.

The last and only other time a Republican might have won by any such standard was Reagan over Carter in 1980. In that case, the victory, if there was one, wasn’t overwhelming. And it was more that Carter stumbled than Reagan was all that impressive.

No Bush ever won a debate by such a standard, although Bush the younger benefited from the quirky, “issue-laden” behavior of Go

Category: Election 2012, Featured