Every once in a while we get an email from a disappointed reader that we haven’t made the positive case for Romney, so let me make one point based off of last night’s debate:

One of the distinguishing factors between Romney and Giuliani’s tenures as executive is that Romney was able to accomplish a significant policy proposal outside the realm of budgetary concerns. Romney’s healthcare plan is a singular policy proposal that is unmatched among his opponents. Giuliani did a lot of good work with his city’s budget and crime, but Giuliani never points to any policy proposal that he was able to champion as mayor. He talks a lot about outcomes as mayor: crime was down, abortion was down, adoptions up, budget was better. However, he never talks about how he went about accomplishing those outcomes. Specifically in reference to the abortion/adoption numbers, his lack of any sort of initiative leads me to question whether he did anything to effectuate the outcome. Romney, on the other hand, can point to his proposal in healthcare, his efforts in enacting it, and then the effect it has had in reducing premiums by half. This is the kind of executive leadership that I want.


Here’s a couple more non-Romney thoughts. These aren’t in any order, or even a comprehensive analysis of the debate:

McCain: If McCain were forced to speak for longer periods of time, his lack of substance would become apparent. McCain has offered very few substantive ideas other than gimmicks like “making famous the person who offers a pork project”.

Thompson: The thing that keeps running through my mind when Thompson goes on the offensive is “Thou doth protest too much”.

Tancredo: He’s even parodying himself these days, taking Giuliani’s bait on pushing illegal immigration into topics where it has little relevance.

Hunter: Other than sounding ignorant of entitlement programs, he didn’t make a dent in the debate.