Andrew B. Wilson: The Historic Winston vs. Barack Debate
Andrew B. Wilson, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, writes from St. Louis.
The debate you are about to witness will not be televised, but it is indeed historic and it will provide some of the fireworks that were missing in the three presidential debates.
This is not said to disparage Mitt Romney's achievement as the clear winner of those debates.
In taking total command of the first debate, he connected with the American people for the first time. He showed that he was not the cold, heartless plutocrat pictured in the Obama ads and the mainstream media. He demonstrated that he could outthink and outtalk the president in any discussion of economic and foreign policy issues. And he looked and acted presidential. Barack Obama went from dopey and disengaged in the first debate to snarling and aggressive in the next two. But he didn't make up an inch of ground. More and more, over the course of the debates, men and women came to like and respect the challenger… and see the incumbent as the real impostor.
As good as that was, many Romney supporters were hoping for more. What Romney did not do during the three debates was to treat the thick-headed liberal/progressive mindset with the derision that it so richly deserves. The Obama administration has learned nothing from -- and cares nothing about -- its habitual mistakes and misjudgments, regardless of how costly they turn out to be. Why -- Bill Clinton pointedly asked -- is this election even close?
The president and his minions do not apologize for high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, or the sacking of a U.S. consulate and the murder of an ambassador and three of his co-workers. They do not apologize for the most anemic recovery in more than 60 years, or for wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money on bankrupt "green" energy projects. Instead they run around saying how much worse this country would be without them and their high-minded ideas about "fairness" and "social justice."
How galling is that?
It's time for a further debate -- one that does more than establish Mitt's bona fides; one that really takes it to the opposition...
comments powered by Disqus
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing
- Russian historian slams Putin