The Difference Between George Jonas and me

The difference, of course, is writerly talent, and I do not think if I spent more time writing, I would write better.

The chief political event of the week has been the victory of Romney in the debates with Obama, which I have reported in less a triumphalist tone than some. I said he won on points: Obama was not as bad as he has been described by his acolytes, and if Romney was better, it was that he politely made better points, as how could he not, with the US economy in the tank? My hero George Jonas has taken the same view.

They went 10 rounds, with the challenger taking the fight to the title-holder, as challengers must. There were no knock-downs, let alone knockouts, but after the final bell Romney was ahead on points….

Obama may be better at campaigning than debating, but he was good, even very good at times; calm, laid back, relaxed. Romney was less relaxed, and it worked for him. Both contestants seem to have made a strategic decision to sound moderate, polite, pragmatic, practical, conciliatory, agonistic rather than antagonistic; to come across not so much as George Washington’s heirs seeking to lead America, but as Geneva-class technocrats, offering to build a 21st century ecumenical shopping plaza in outer space. The decision served Romney better than Obama.

 

Which was my point exactly. A certain amount of age, experience and skepticism explain our lack of exultation or despair. But watch how Jonas hits a ball out of the park, whereas I, at best, had a stand-up double.

 

Both contestants seem to have made a strategic decision to sound moderate, polite, pragmatic, practical, conciliatory, agonistic rather than antagonistic; to come across not so much as George Washington’s heirs seeking to lead America, but as Geneva-class technocrats, offering to build a 21st century ecumenical shopping plaza in outer space. The decision served Romney better than Obama.

 

“A 21st century ecumenical shopping plaza in outer space”? George! You outdo yourself. Maybe, in truth, that is what America is.

_______________________________________________________

Addendum:

 

The best description I have seen so far of the reasons for liberal  shock on Obama’s performance is from James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal:

What we saw last night was the real Obama–a bright but incurious and inexperienced man who four years ago was promoted well beyond his level of competency. The Obama that guys like Matthews and Sullivan expected instead was a character in a fairy tale–a fairy tale written by guys like Matthews and Sullivan.

 

 

Bookmark and Share
dmorris

The difference in the candidates,aside from Obama’s pathetic lack of credentials for the job, is that basically Romney DOES believe in American exceptionalism, while Obama apologizes for it.

But,with either, it’s “buy my brand of band-aid,rather than my opponent’s”.

Romney,though, is WAY better for Canada, as he sees us as a source of oil, while Obama wants fairy tale solutions to the energy problem. I wish our MSM had the sense to realise that, but in their cossetted little world, real jobs don’t seem to matter.

Sue

More from James Taranto

“Journalists and pundits turn on Obama for failing to make their fairy tales come true,” and notes that one reason why last night’s debate “came as such a shock to Obama” — and by extension, Obama’s Palace Guard MSM — “is that it was the first time in his career that he shared a debate stage with a serious opponent:”

“The (James) Taranto Principle.” In short, it means that the liberal media so coddles liberal politicians that they have no idea how to cope outside that liberal media bubble. . . .

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *