Third Time's a Charm

"Mr. President vs. Mr. Petulant." That's how some people are describing last night's debate. One person wrote the following: 

My 18 year old daughter watched the debate for no good reason. She's got the flu, she didn't feel up to playing a video game, and she was bored. Her impression? She thought that President Obama "came across like a bratty, bossy 7-year-old." She said that if she had known nothing at all and was basing her vote on this debate alone she'd vote for Romney because you can't put the  country into the hands of a bossy, little kid.

This was my sense, as well. At least three times when President Obama was speaking, I yelled at the TV, "Snark!" Obama was condescending, petty, mean, and yes, petulant. It's a good word, let's use it. Obama even came across at times as angry. He didn't just look at Romney when Romney was speaking--he glared. Contrast this with the first debate when he barely glanced at Romney. I guess with Obama it's all or nothing. Either ignore the guy or stare him down.

Romney's response to these odd mannerisms was fascinating. If Obama was trying to intimidate Romney or get under his skin, it wasn't working. It's been said that Mitt Romney is incredibly disciplined, both in his work ethic and in his self-control. That's what I noticed last night. No matter how sarcastic or condescending or demeaning the comment, Romney didn't react. He remained calm, eloquent, polite, mostly respectful. But he was not bloodless. I heard one analyst say Romney was playing chess while Obama was playing checkers. That's what I sensed, as well. It's as if he were three moves ahead of Obama, not just last night but from the onset of these debates. He refused to be predictable.

For instance, the opening question was about the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11th. Bingo! During last week's debate, most conservatives (including me) were disappointed when Romney missed an opportunity to draw blood on this debacle. Most of us anticipated a stronger response from Romney this time, especially since the focus of the third debate was on foreign policy. Instead, Romney answered this question in more sweeping terms: 

With the Arab Spring, came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women in public life, and in economic life in the Middle East. But instead, we’ve seen in nation after nation, a number of disturbing events. Of course we see in Syria, 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. We see in Libya, an attack apparently by, I think we know now, by terrorists of some kind against our people there, four people dead. Our hearts and minds go out to them. 

Mali has been taken over, the northern part of Mali by al-Qaeda type individuals. We have in Egypt, a Muslim Brotherhood president. And so what we’re seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region. Of course the greatest threat of all is Iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. And we’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaeda. 

But we can’t kill our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism, which is certainly not on the run. It’s certainly not hiding. This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to America, long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism. 

What was Romney doing? Why wasn't he calling Obama out on his administration's evasions and lies? If we conservatives were surprised that Romney didn't hammer away at this issue, how much more Obama? I imagine he expected a full frontal assault on the Benghazi incident from Romney, and no doubt had prepared and rehearsed extensively. 

Instead he got a vision, a long range goal to re-establish America's role in the world as a strong leader, a defender of freedom. And not just in that first response but throughout the evening. Romney lectured Obama on his "apology tour," scolded him for slighting Israel, chastised him for his surreptitious comment to Vladimir Putin caught on open mic, challenged him regarding budget cuts to the military. Obama didn't have an answer. All he had was sarcasm--stuff that plays well to adoring fans but comes across as mean and petty, yes, snarky, on the television screen in front of a silent audience. 

Who won last night's debate? The liberal media gives this one to Obama. But that's not what I saw. Obama came to the debate with his checker pieces, Romney with his bishop, knights, rooks, and queen. This is an easy call for me. Check mate.