The right…
Ross Douthat: “[B]y essentially acknowledging the overlap between his posture and the president’s, Romney almost guaranteed that Obama would win the debate on points – which the president pretty clearly did, deploying the advantages of incumbency (not to mention the execution of a certain Al Qaeda leader) effectively in an arena where Americans are still inclined to trust him. The question is what the audience was looking for. If they were looking for evidence that a Romney administration would deliver significantly better results overseas, then they probably came away disappointed, and Obama’s win will boost him in the polls. But if they were just looking (as I’ll admit that I was looking) to be reassured that Romney is something other than a wild-eyed warmonger, then the Republican nominee may have helped his cause tonight even in defeat.”
Rich Lowry: Romney “was shaky at the beginning and strangely mentioned Mali a couple of times. I hope his team is going to clean up his Afghanistan answer because it certainly sounded like a President Romney would remove U.S. troops entirely after 2014, rather than leaving some sort of follow-on force. You can tell how much more comfortable he was whenever he started talking about domestic issues. … Overall, this night is the capstone on a successful series of debates for Romney.”
Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “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. This may or may not give the Romney campaign a boost, but it won’t hurt.”
Bill Kristol thought Romney was “more than holding his own.”
Bing West: “A man from the moon, having read about the past five decades of American history and sent to Earth to listen to the foreign policy debate, would have concluded that the aggressive Mr. Obama was the conservative Republican and the inoffensive Mr. Romney was the moderate Democrat. For the first ten minutes, it appeared Mr. Romney had decided not to show up.”
And why the more passive Romney – women? “The difference between the genders in the choice of candidates has been striking, and Romney’s performance would lead no reasonable undecided voter, female or male, to worry he was too bellicose.”
The left…
Greg Sargent: “[F]or most of the night, Romney studiously avoided attacking Obama aggressively. Perhaps Romney feels out of his depth on these issues and decided to tread carefully, to avoid major mistakes. Perhaps Romney thinks he’s on track to win. Perhaps Romney decided his most important imperative was to appear reassuring and presidential, rather than go on the attack. He clearly decided he needed to head off perceptions of himself as a throwback to Bush-era foreign policy adventurism, again and again stressing his desire for a peaceful world. Tonight, America was introduced to Peacenik Mitt — and watched him take a pummeling. I don’t know how much this will impact the overall dynamic of the race — it may not matter much at all — but it’s hard to see this as a good night for Romney.
Josh Marshall: “The first half hour was a draw, though President Obama scored by default when Romney either didn’t or couldn’t attack on Libya. After that though Romney began to falter as Obama became more direct, organized and declarative. Romney seemed increasingly lost. Obama seemed comfortable, happy. The visuals told the story. Romney was sweating a lot and looked like he was in pain. Into the second half of the debate Romney’s answers seemed more jumbled and unfocused. There was even that rambling and generally uncontroversial digression on Pakistan. Why? He seemed lost.”
Joe Klein: “President Obama won the foreign policy debate, cleanly and decisively, on both style and substance. It was as clear a victory as Mitt Romney’s in the first debate. And Romney lost in similar fashion: he seemed nervous, scattered, unconvincing — and he practiced unilateral disarmament, agreeing with Obama hither and yon … on Iraq (as opposed to two weeks ago), on Afghanistan (as opposed to interviews he’s given this fall), on Libya and Syria and Iran. He didn’t have a single creative or elegantly stated foreign policy thought and, indeed, seemed foolish at times, using the word peace about as often as George McGovern in 1972 (not that McGovern was foolish, but Romney has run so hot and aggressive on foreign policy that he seemed a sudden convert to transcendental meditation or Yoko Ono’s secret consort). Romney did have some strong moments — but they were, once again, on the domestic economy.”
John Nichols: “Mitt Romney’s just not that into foreign policy. The hapless Republican nominee for president spent most of the only foreign-policy debate of the 2012 fall campaign mumbling lines like: ‘I want to underscore the—the same point the president made…’ ‘That was something I concurred with…’ ‘I supported his—his action there…’ ‘I don’t blame the administration…’ ‘…do as the president has done…’ ‘… and feel the president was right…’ ‘I congratulate him for what he has done.’”
