WSJ’s Bret Stephens: Romney ‘A Perfectly Plausible President’

The coverage I’m seeing this morning, is pretty much summed up with Bret Stephens “Wall Street Journal” column. Because Romney wisely (in my opinion) stayed above the fray, didn’t attempt to litigate things like Libya, and showed himself to be steady and informed — the media is talking about Romney being ready to assume the role of Commander in Chief as opposed to silly stuff about a gaffe or heated confrontation:

Mitt Romney needed to pass the usual tests for Republican presidential
candidates in his debate Monday night with President Obama.

There was the Ford test (alternatively known as the Palin/Cain/Perry test):
Would Mr. Romney say something so obviously misinformed, so manifestly silly, so
revealingly ignorant as to disqualify him from serious consideration as a
prospective commander-in-chief? He said nothing of the sort.

There was the Goldwater test (unfairly named, but reputations are stubborn
things): Did Mr. Romney make pronouncements so belligerent as to make ordinary
people fear for their children’s safety–or at least provide David Axelrod a
chance to make it seem as if he did? He did not, though that won’t stop Mr.
Axelrod from trying.

No it won’t, but after Obama’s unpresidential attacks wear off, what we’re left with is the impression that Romney was the more presidential of the two. Also, Obama lied about a number of points, including his bumbling away the opportunity to leave a residual force in Iraq and the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

So while everyone’s saying Obama “won” the debate, between his snide attitude and outright lies, in the post-debate, he’s a president being diminished further by the minute.