A Romney win just feels right.  If he loses, it will be the biggest political disappointment of my life (and Chris Christie will have lost my political support forever).

Too bad most of the mainstream media won't run with this story.  I cannot find it on the Washington Post or New York Times web pages.  You can bet your bottom dollar that if this situation happened under Bush that there would be banner headlines today, however.

Romney won this debate going away.  Don't fall victim to the media's spin.  Does anyone on Ricochet really think the media were going to declare Romney the winner tonight under any circumstances?

90-percent of the voters watching have no idea what these two men were discussing; how many Americans have a strong opinion about Syrian policy?  What matters was how the candidates came across personally. Romney was presidential, Obama was petulant.

Also, don't listen to any conservative who tells you that Romney lost because he didn't bash Obama over the situation in Libya.  That story is unraveling for the Obama administration as is.  When your opponent is making a mess of things, simply get out of the way.

My original point was that Lehrer should have asked tougher questions of both candidates instead of simply saying, "Medicare.  Discuss your differences."  Ask Romney about 47%.  Ask Obama about his statement that his presidency would be a 3-year proposition if he did not turn economy around (or whatever that comment was; I forget the specifics).

It doesn't have to be a "gotcha" question.  Lehrer could have simply asked Romney, "Your opponent has been running lots of ads about your 47% comments that were caught on tape.  Would you like a chance tonight to respond to those ads?"

Yes.  A moderator needs to bring up the big campaign issues.

I had two problems with Lehrer last night: 1) every question he asked was simply, "let's discuss [insert topic here]...what are your differences?"  He did the same thing in the last presidential election.  I personally wish he asked more pointed questions of both candidates.  For example, ask Romney about 47% comment or ask Obama about four straight years of trillion dollar deficits.

2) Lehrer interrupted Romney far more often than Obama, even though the president continuously filibustered.

Professor Rahe, your analyses of the presidential race have been a well needed panacea for the myriad doomsayers in the legacy media and amongst conservative pundits as well.  Your optimism while faced with numerous health problems is to be commended.  If only it would rub off on more of your conservative colleagues here at Ricochet and elsewhere.

Here is when the 1984 presidential election ended.

I was no Romney fan in 2008 or entering this election cycle, but, over the past year, I have come to like and respect him.  During that same time, my allegiance to the flagship Ricochet podcast has been waning, however.  Too much defeatism.  Too much Romney angst (thankfully, Mr. Robinson has at least finally stopped talking about how Romney once criticized Reagan 20 years ago).  As such, I stopped listening to this podcast--and most other Ricochet podcasts--weeks ago.  The mainstream media depresses me enough already.

Thanks for the pick-me-up.  It has been hard to remain optimistic recently, especially with all the conservative talking heads going "Eeyore" lately.

No one is saying that our candidates are perfect; they are far from it.  But, in the midst of a very important political campaign, it would be nice if our side focused more on how imperfect our opponent is.

I never said anything about morality, just smart politics.

And how does your criticism of Romney at this point further the conservative cause?  Advancing the conservative cause may not be your goal, but it certainly is mine.

Maybe Romney's 47% comment was a gaffe.  Maybe it was not.  Conservatives who are smart and really interested in winning the election, however, will use this as an opportunity to advance the argument that Romney was intending to make--that too many Americans are too dependent on government--instead of wasting time debating the precise wording of what Romney said in an off-the-record conversation.

You are missing my point.  When we as conservatives spend all day debating whether Romney made a gaffe or not, Obama wins since no one is making the case that he must be defeated.

I would be happy to make the case to the nation that Romney should be our next president.  Only one problem -- only a handful of people in the nation give a damn what I say or think.  It is also unlikely that I will become a nationally syndicated columnist in the next 50 days.

Ricochet offers me an opportunity to talk to conservatives about conservatives.  That is what I have done (both here and in my previous post which you reference).

Too bad we are not debating substantive policy issues.  All the recent news cycles have been process stories about how the Romney campaign has been screwing up.  And, sadly, conservative pundits are playing along with their liberal brethren.