On the Final Presidential Debate

Okay, the third and final debate is finished.

Thank you Lord! I swear my head was going to explode if I had to go through another one of those.

Now, for my serious analysis.

This debate was "all over the map," to use a term those of us viewing it heard often.  I suppose the best place to start is how Mitt Romney acted during the debate.  He wasn't nearly as aggressive as he was in the previous two debates.  This probably benefited him more than hurt him.  He's in the lead and the national polling is trending strongly in his direction.  Indeed, many states (including my own) which were trending for Obama are drifting rightward.  By not taking risks, Romney avoided a blunder that could have blunted that momentum.

On the other hand, by playing it safe, Romney lost many good opportunities to hammer home points against the president, particularly on Libya.  While I agree with the analysis that says he shouldn't have over-pressed it, he hardly pressed the issue at all.  He lost ample opportunities to also bring in other international issues, such as the Eurozone fiscal crisis.  He also failed to differentiate himself from the president on many issues, which was dangerous, in my opinion.  Part of the reason many are voting for him in the first place is because he is different from Barack Obama.

Romney also skillfully brought the discussion back to our economy at home, however.  By mentioning that in order to be strong abroad we must be strong at home really resonated with me and many others.  It really brought home just how weak the United States is perceived abroad.  It rendered the President's counterargument ineffective because his record remains indefensible.

The president, on the other hand, was suitably punchy.  Again, however, he was forced to defend a record that was indefensible.  He was helped by Romney's lack of aggressiveness however.  It made some of his arguments stick better in people's minds.  Yet, as Romney was roused out of his non-aggressive posture, the president was slowly forced to start backing down during certain exchanges.  Additionally, he seemed petulant, occasionally angry and condescending.  In particular his crack about bayonets and "boats that go underwater" was utterly ridiculous and behavior unbecoming a president.

As for the moderator...Bob Schieffer was, much to my pleasant surprise, the best of the four.  Using the Lehrer-style, he rarely interrupted, but didn't allow himself to be trampled by the candidates.  This made him stronger and more effective than Lehrer.  He seemed to lose control when the debate veered into the economy about half an hour in, but by not taking control right away, it helped illustrate just how important the economy is in this election.

So my verdict?  Romney won.

"No surprise," you're probably saying.  You shouldn't be.  The president can pretty up his arguments and record all he wants.  It has no substance.  The country is, at best, just as weak as when he took office.  Frankly, the prolonged period of weakness means that we are in fact weaker than that day.  Romney was calm and in control, despite an annoying lack of fangs, but that fact didn't hurt him.  Of the two on stage, he looked presidential and that is to his credit and certain to help him.  Additionally, his arguments were well-reasoned and didn't generate into talking points that sometimes meandered completely off-topic.

With the last debate behind us, we have fourteen more days until the election.  Fourteen more days until we can decide where the country will go.

Let's do this, America.