Romney was presidential during last night’s debate: He had a staggering
number of statistics available off the top of his head. The president
didn’t have many of his own (any, actually, that I can recall), and
couldn’t challenge Romney’s factual assertions.
The left seems exasperated at how often the two candidates agreed, and are criticizing Romney for agreeing with the president, but they shouldn’t feel that way. Foreign policy has never been a purely partisan issue. Even during the worst months of Vietnam or during the summer of 2007, there were hawkish Democrats and isolationist Republicans. There are ideological divides in foreign policy, but they do not cut evenly between the political parties. This is the one area in which we have not become polarized.
To give just one example that demonstrates this, every president who has run for office on a peace platform has waged war: Wilson, Johnson, Nixon, Obama. When you’re president, things happen out in the world that you cannot control: The world outside is a lot more volatile than the world inside. It’s a lot harder to be an ideologue in foreign policy than it is in writing checks to Solyndra.
So what is it that the Democrat-Media Complex wants from Romney? Had he disagreed and carped at the president, he would be called partisan, an ideologue. The governor demonstrated an open and rational mind, which was aided by his closing statement’s mention of bipartisanship. How ironic it is that President Hope-And-Change was on the attack, and Romney cited an actual record of bipartisan leadership?
Generally, a draw goes to the incumbent, but — the “scientific” snap polls notwithstanding — I think that this is a slight victory for Romney. He appeared presidential in front of the American people, unmediated by the media. It was a golden opportunity, and he took it.