Two discussions of the third debate revolve around the “tests” that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had to pass. First from Fred Barnes in an article titled “Romney Passed the Test“:
Mitt Romney’s aim was to present himself with the demeanor and grasp of foreign and national security issues of a president of the United States. He succeeded. President Obama sought to make Romney appear unqualified to be president and commander in chief. He failed. And that was the story of the third and final presidential debate.
Then there was Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal in an article titled, A Perfectly Plausible President which begins:
Mitt Romney needed to pass the usual tests for Republican presidential candidates in his debate Monday night with President Obama.
There are a number of tests listed by Stephens – the Ford Test, the Goldwater Test, the Bush Test, the Carter Test, the Nixon Test and the Clinton Test – all no doubt essential and each duly passed. His conclusion:
Two points in particular: Mr. Obama referred at least twice to Israel as ‘our greatest ally in the region,’ a subtle but definable shift from his usual references to the Jewish state being one ally among several. This is the kind of pandering that fooled Jewish-American voters once. Will it fool them again?
And then he said: ‘One thing I’ve learned as commander in chief, you’ve got to be clear to our allies and enemies about where you stand and what you mean.’ If only that described the president we’ve had these past four years.
Score-keepers will say the debate went for Mr. Obama. Maybe it did. But Mitt Romney emerges looking like a perfectly plausible president—which was no doubt all he wanted from tonight
Mitt Romney is fighting an uphill battle against the Democrats, the media and the 47%. He has run a near flawless campaign and is within striking distance of a famous victory. Although he did not pass the Newt Gingrich Test – which is to be as ideological and strident as possible – nor the Rick Santorum Test – which is to focus on social issues rather than the economic – he may have instead passed the 271 electoral vote test, which when all is said and done is the only test that will matter in the end.
An interesting article about how an Obama insult can and should be taken as a badge of pride by Romney:
As Instapundit says “REAGAN, EISENHOWER, AND COOLIDGE: Sounds like good company to be in”
Only a Democrat would not realise the Eisenhower made the big decisions on civil rights in the 1950′s.
I don’t think I need to explain why Reagan is the gold standard for success in foreign policy in the 20th century.
Coolidge, small government centre right blog. ’nuff said.
Token
23 Oct 12 at 10:28 pm
Both Gingrich and Santorum knew this had to be a big ideological contrast campaign.
Mitt ran a disciplined campaign.
It’s utterly ridiculous to assert he has “run a near flawless campaign”.
I don’t think many conservatives think that.
They supported Romney as the anti-Obama until the Denver debate when Romney broke out and contrasted Obumma’s failures with the success of America’s core values of freedom, entrepreneurship, God-given rather than government bestowed rights to pursue happiness and the minimising the role of a central government to enumerated responsibilities.
Only then did they love him and only then did he connect with so-called moderates and undecideds.
Funny that.
JamesK
23 Oct 12 at 10:29 pm
You backed this horse from the beginning. If Mitt does it you deserve Kudo’s for your fine judgement and loyalty Steve.
Token
23 Oct 12 at 10:32 pm
If Santorum was the candidate Obama would be receiving electoral college votes from strange places like Texas.
Infidel Tiger
23 Oct 12 at 10:32 pm
Given that Santorum wanted to fight the election on birth control, gays in the military and Roe vs Wade, it would be better to call this the “Gallipoli Test” – leading a futile charge up into heavily fortified enemy territory.
His terrible, gravelly voice and constant whining would have opened up a 20-point gender gap in Obama’s favour. Luckily, this appalling man is never going to threaten to win another election in his lifetime.
Fisky
23 Oct 12 at 10:38 pm
But where would Kates be without his pro-Romney spear throwers in the threads? Some of us worked tirelessly exposing the kooky unelectable weirdness of Santorum.
Fisky
23 Oct 12 at 10:43 pm
challengers win debates by not losing. Bush was not good in debates but still won because he stilled defined himself. Obama is yet to make his case for reelection.
Jim Rose
23 Oct 12 at 10:44 pm
Is it 271 or 270?
roger
23 Oct 12 at 10:47 pm
270 to win; 269 to tie.
Jim Rose
23 Oct 12 at 10:48 pm
LOL, there were some very fun and robust debates.
I must say I am surprised that Romney, who threw many metric tonnes of dirt in the republican primaries, has mostly avoided such tactics in the Prez election.
There is a deftness and agility I didn’t suspect.
Token
23 Oct 12 at 10:53 pm
Romney is looking and sounding Presidential. Women will take note of that.
I have more time for him now than I did previously, just on personna alone.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
23 Oct 12 at 10:54 pm
Why do lefties need to prove they have the EQ of infants?
Token
23 Oct 12 at 10:59 pm
Because Obama’s greatest weapon was his likeability rather than his policies and beating Obama on that metric was the key to winning the election. By contrast, no one likes Santorum at all, not even most of his close friends, so all Romney had to do is crush him with negative advertising and be done with it.
Having said that, Romney has whacked Obama with a lot of effective ads, without going overboard.
Fisky
23 Oct 12 at 11:00 pm
the debates seem more important in an era where time is shorter and shorter; the buzz they create defines the tone of candidates. The republican primaries showed that people can remain viable despite no money if they do well in the debates.
Jim Rose
23 Oct 12 at 11:01 pm
I must say another advantage is the team of advisers Obama surrounded himself with,
Note, that is the Guardian noting this.
Lefty quota’s really deserve their own category of Darwin Award.
Token
23 Oct 12 at 11:10 pm
Wasserman Schultz has form. She is as weak a link.
Token
23 Oct 12 at 11:23 pm
LOL
I see Fisky never tires of lying thru his teeth to ‘win’ an argument.
He’s very like Obumma in that respect.
And a few others.
JamesK
23 Oct 12 at 11:34 pm
Washington Post with a jaundiced view of the latest Obumma tv ad:
Ad watch: Obama camp says Romney ‘not one of us’
What it says: “Mitt Romney would have just let us go under- just let them go… bankrupt.” Over a map of Ohio, the text at the end reads, “Mitt Romney. Not One of us.”
What it means: President Obama’s campaign has attacked Romney over the auto bailout before, but this ad is particularly harsh. (Our Fact Checker has explained that Romney called for a “managed bankruptcy,” not liquidation. But many independent analysts say that that approach would not have worked in 2008.)
Who will see it: Do you really have to ask? (It’s Ohio.)
JamesK
23 Oct 12 at 11:37 pm
Obama’s ‘not one of us’ attack on Romney echoes racial code
View Photo Gallery — On the campaign trail with the candidates: President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney campaign around the country in the weeks before Election Day.
Smaller Text Larger Text Text Size
Print
E-mail
Reprints
By Karen Tumulty, Tuesday, October 23, 12:32 AM
“Mitt Romney. Not one of us.”
That’s the tag line to a tough new ad that the Obama campaign is airing in Ohio. But ironically, it echoes a slogan that has been used as a racial code over at least the past half-century.
JamesK
23 Oct 12 at 11:38 pm
Obama’s ‘not one of us’ attack on Romney echoes racial code
View Photo Gallery — On the campaign trail with the candidates: President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney campaign around the country in the weeks before Election Day.
By Karen Tumulty, Tuesday, October 23, 12:32 AM
“Mitt Romney. Not one of us.”
That’s the tag line to a tough new ad that the Obama campaign is airing in Ohio. But ironically, it echoes a slogan that has been used as a racial code over at least the past half-century.
JamesK
23 Oct 12 at 11:38 pm
How Worried is Obama About the Jewish Vote? Very Worried
JamesK
23 Oct 12 at 11:44 pm
D’oh: Obama ads boost enthusiasm for Romney
JamesK
23 Oct 12 at 11:47 pm
Er James I don’t think that article says what you think it does.
Fisky
24 Oct 12 at 12:00 am
“Romney is looking and sounding Presidential. Women will take note of that.”
Otherwise known as the Warren Harding error.
Jarrah
24 Oct 12 at 12:33 am
This election isn’t close, it only appears that way on the surface. The fact that an incumbent president is running even with a challenger means the incumbent president is in a lot of trouble.
Alex Pundit
24 Oct 12 at 12:34 am
Harding was thick as a post and a chronic womaniser. Not nearly as good looking as Romney either.
Infidel tiger
24 Oct 12 at 12:37 am
“Harding was thick as a post and a chronic womaniser. Not nearly as good looking as Romney either.”
I’m not comparing the two.
Jarrah
24 Oct 12 at 12:38 am
That wouldn’t be Obama, ‘Kenyan Royalty’ would it?
nic
24 Oct 12 at 12:49 am
Err Fisky I think that article says what you don’t think it does.
Still effing confusing though:)
Nanuestalker
24 Oct 12 at 12:59 am
Winner take all electoral college States is a barely believable distortion of the popular vote. The US must one day get rid of it.
Alfonso
24 Oct 12 at 1:04 am
I watched the debate with three females and another dude last night.
One of the women was wifely who really isn’t interested in the election and was forced to watch the debate because other people wanted to.
The other two females were democrats and Kenyan supporters.
All three females thought that the Kenyan came across as very nasty while the Romnster was seen as pleasant.
Rmoney won the likeability stakes with females last night. This isn’t good for the Kenyan.
JC
24 Oct 12 at 1:18 am
JamesK: yes, Fisky is gilding the lily a bit, but it is indeed true that Santorum was the only candidate who wanted to aggressively pursue socially conservative issues and make these major aspects of his campaign, and several times during the primaries he expressed his disappointment with the rest of the field that they weren’t joining him in Fighting the Good Fight.
Face it. The man was and is electoral hemlock. Thank christ Romney won the nomination, as Candidate Santorum would have guaranteed an Obama second term. To the extent that he would have been the GOP’s McGovern. This was plain to see pretty much from the get-go, yet somehow you missed it, and you keep bringing him up. So don’t be surprised when Fisky winds you up over his sheer inadequacy as a candidate for the President of the United States of America.
Oh come on
24 Oct 12 at 1:59 am
Ann Coulter Tweets:
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/260581147493412865
C.L.
24 Oct 12 at 2:17 am
Nice one Ann. As always.
Alex Pundit
24 Oct 12 at 2:48 am
Ann Coulter Tweets:
Ann Coulter trolls liberals. That’s her schtick.
She stokes the fires and fans the flames of their outrage; then she feeds off their bile-rich hathos.
Meh.
sdog
24 Oct 12 at 4:33 am
Santorum will never be US President. It’s impossible to rise to that level when gay lefties use your name to describe the mixture of faeces, sperm and lube that leaks from their arses after sex. He himself seemed to recognise this, allegedly vowing that he would not stop until the entire electoral map was covered in Santorum.
That is NOT a pretty thought.
perturbed
24 Oct 12 at 6:01 am
This commenter in a Pyjamas Media article on who won the third debate sums up everything I have been thinking and feeling about the West for quite some time:
1. 21. ericcs
Romney is not a traditional conservative, and he does not even come close to understanding traditional conservative principles. Therefore he cannot debate from original causes, instead he can only argue on the basis of secondary effects without any underlying explanation. Let me refer you to someone who can say this better than I can, Lawrence Auster of ‘View from the Right’ commenting on just one aspect about Romney:
“Here’s his problem. The administration lied about the nature of the Benghazi attack because Obama approves Islam, sees himself as the defender of Islam, and cannot admit that Muslim democracy equals Muslim jihad. But Romney also does not admit that Muslim democracy equals Muslim jihad. He separates Islam from jihad. He has shockingly said that jihad is “an entirely different entity” from Islam. So he is hamstrung in pointing out the meaning of the Benghazi event and its cover-up by the administration. Yes, he is capable of pointing out that Obama said untrue things, but he is incapable of explaining why this matters and why Obama did it, and thus he is incapable of nailing Obama to the wall on the issue, because (along with most mainstream conservatives, neoconservatives, and Republicans) he shares Obama’s non-critical view of Islam.”
Unfortunately, the same is true for all of the PJM columnists, as well as the vast majority of its readership. What’s needed is far more than a booming economy. That kind of simplistic recommendation is akin to what a Marxist would say, since Marxists place all of life’s problems within the context of economics. Economics is secondary to and depends on underlying principles of a traditional society which have been thoroughly violated by the left, and there can be no improvement unless & until people shake themselves out of their stupor and wage the fight on a cultural and moral basis.
The US in particular and Western Civilization in general are now so firmly under the influence of the left that it almost doesn’t matter anymore whether people start to use their analytical faculties to understand what’s required. It may be far too late already. Nonetheless, I urge you all to wake up. Like a fish, you are thoroughly inundated in a sea of leftism and don’t even realize it. Think of it this way… if the same attitudes now had been prevalent in 1776, there would have been nobody to pledge their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honour, and there would certainly be no United States of America.
CarolK
24 Oct 12 at 7:21 am
You sound more dis than per
JamesK
24 Oct 12 at 7:23 am
Bollocks Oco.
I’ve had this out with you before and I’ve no desire to re-litigate but you just repeat your tired old tropes which are nothing more than opinion without bothering to provude evidence or argument.
I referred you once to the WSJ’s Daniel Henninger’s account of his stump speech.
You choose to believe the Fauxfacts US-equivalent MSM.
And Fisky is a fuckwit
JamesK
24 Oct 12 at 7:29 am
What the fuck are you talking about Fisky, you dope?
JamesK
24 Oct 12 at 7:31 am
The Romney campaign have already made an ad on Romney’s indictment of obumma’s denied Apology Tour.
Clowns like Jarrah are welcome to look:
Obama’s Apology Tour, the Ad
JamesK
24 Oct 12 at 7:44 am
Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll:
R 50%
O 46%
JamesK
24 Oct 12 at 7:47 am
Gallup Election 2012 Likely Voters 7 day rolling average:
R 51%
O 46%
JamesK
24 Oct 12 at 7:49 am
That ad is devastating. I hope its played continually until election day to remind Americans what a sack of american hating shit the Kenyan truly is.
JC
24 Oct 12 at 7:54 am
JamesK actually wanted the Republicans to hold off nominating a candidate until the third debate. Presumably he thought Santorum-Akin would be able to raise a billion dollars in two and a half weeks.
Fisky
24 Oct 12 at 1:11 pm
It’s what he said in the primary debates, James. I don’t need to link to any articles (which are, perhaps you haven’t noticed, opinion-based) to remember the early primary debates when Santorum often whined about two things
1) not getting enough airtime
2) the other candidates weren’t paying enough attention to social issues
Oh come on
24 Oct 12 at 1:24 pm
Listen, here we have a first-class candidate in Romney, whilst JamesK still wistfully ponders a Santorum-Akin ticket.
Oh come on
24 Oct 12 at 1:28 pm
Don’t be an arsewipe Oco.
We have liar-steve® et al for that sorta slime.
So Henninger’s account of Santorum’s 40 minute stump speech is “opinion” now Oco?
What I used hear from idiots like you, Kates and particularly and offensdively trollish Fisky was media elite leftist talking points ad nauseum.
I decried Akin’s selfisness and stupidity straight off the bat.
I may even have been the first to draw attention to his stupidity on this blog.
Oco, your ‘arguments’ aren’t.
JamesK
24 Oct 12 at 1:57 pm
Ah, James. You’re just too much fun.
Oh come on
25 Oct 12 at 1:23 am
Whatever
JamesK
25 Oct 12 at 1:27 am
Santorum’s out there in the battleground states getting the vote out for Romney. A little respect, fellas.
dover_beach
25 Oct 12 at 1:56 am
Yes, whatever, James. The thread title is instructive. And happily you passed the test. Again.
Oh come on
26 Oct 12 at 4:10 am