CAMPAIGN 2012

Conservatives on Debate: A Better Obama, A Weaker Romney

Updated: October 17, 2012 | 10:19 a.m.
October 17, 2012 | 9:42 a.m.

Some high-profile conservatives scored Tuesday’s debate favorably for President Obama, with many agreeing that the president was much more forceful this time around and Romney was not quite as good as in the first debate.

“President Obama was much better than last time, not surprisingly," wrote Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review. "He got in all the expected hits on Romney, and at times threw out more things at once than Romney could plausibly respond to.”

“Romney, on the other hand, wasn't quite as good [as] two weeks ago," Lowry added. "I think he’s at his weakest as a performer when he gets a little too worked up and shows too much concern with the rules. He did both” at the debate.

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes wrote, “Too bad for President Obama that he saved his aggressive performance for his second debate with Mitt Romney. If he had done as well in the first debate, the presidential race might look different today.”

Also at The Standard, Jay Cost wrote, “Obama was aggressive on debating/rebutting/getting points in. It was a big improvement over last time. In particular, Obama had a lot more facts at his fingertips this time around.” He added that “Romney was not as aggressive as Obama, but was by no means passive.”

At The Wall Street Journal, the editorial page editors wrote: “President Obama bounced off the canvas with a more spirited debate at Hofstra University on Tuesday night, as everyone expected he would. He was animated and on the attack.”

Many conservatives, however, said that the first debate had changed the race irrevocably and that this performance, though a solid one for Obama, would not make much of a dent in voters’ sentiments. As National Review’s Lowry wrote, “The big take-away from the debates so far — and the problem President Obama has — is that Mitt Romney has established himself as a plausible alternative with a plausible plan. Absent some terrible gaffe in the next debate, it’s hard to see how that bell is going be un-rung.”

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Related Content
Columns
Charlie Cook: Off to the Races

Republicans’ Hatred of Obama Blinds Them to Public Disinterest in Scandals

May 20, 2013
Republicans are so focused on their bitter battles against Obama, they can’t see how little impact the “scandals” have had on public opinion.
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
More Columns »