Playing it safe?

Not one word on the Libya cover-up from Romney. Not one.

He went after Obama on Israel, somewhat. He went after the apology tour, somewhat. He went after the administrations inability to identify democrats (small "d") within the Arab Spring to back with weapons and rhetoric, somewhat. It seemed that Romney was playing it safe, protecting a lead. He decided to handle the fiery, borderline insulting (strike that, there was nothing borderline about "We have these things called air craft carriers, planes land on them, and ships that go under water, they're called submarines.") and the other cutting jabs from Obama by smothering them in a peace-loving hug. Now look, Romney didn't "forget" about Libya. And he had ample opportunity to go after Barry with a sledge hammer (the POTUS even tried to draw him out on it saying, "let's return to Libya for a moment"), but Mitt was nothing doing. It was clear (and the Romney camp not only admitted this after the debate, but noted this was a strategy specifically insisted on by Mitt) that Romney was not going to go on attack over foreign policy in the way he went on attack over economic policy. He would instead find ground (with some notable exceptions) where they agreed on foreign policy, and use the balance of his time to pivot and hammer home the economic argument. Essentially he's decided "It's the economy stupid", to quote a fellow Southerner and Saints fan.

Look, we're not GOP sycophants here. If you're asking me for what I like to see in a debate, it's a brawl. It's precision cuts across the artery of the inner thigh, it's take him apart at the joints, it's what the hell do you mean Israel should retreat to the 1967 borders and are you going to let your madam SoS take the rap on Benghazi sir? It's shouting that you can find out all you need to know about the president's energy policy every time you pull up to the gas station, it's going for the soft underbelly all the time, every time, and Romney just didn't deliver for me ... BUT ... Romney's not looking to convince me. And that's the one other thing, besides pivoting to the economy, that I thought he was trying to do tonight - convince undecided voters that he's not George W. Bush. Due to Dubya's inability or flat unwillingness to defend himself during his two-terms, every GOP nominee for the rest of our lives will be forced to say "See, I'm not a war monger, I like peace." And that was Mitt's only other goal, "I'm tired of war too, I'm not Bush." It was either clever, or too clever by half, but I am willing to admit that the verbal blood on the sand I hope and cheer for may not be the winning strategy to capture those last few folks in the moderate, mushy middle. Time will tell.

One other observation. The roles were interestingly reversed in a traditional/historic perspective. Mitt seemed to be the seasoned incumbent, confident in his lead, unwilling to rock the boat, opting to play defense rather than keep a jab in his opponents face. While the sitting POTUS played the role of the scrappy contender, taking risks, coming off as almost belligerent. We at the Bund of course prefer a belligerent confrontation whenever it can be found ... but like I said, he's got us. On debate points, Obama wins. However, the only point tally Romney's debate strategy was concerned with is the electoral college. And I pray, literally, that this strategy worked.