The third debate

Every once in a while, my preconceived notions about what ought to happen to advance the cause of liberty run counter to what needed to happen, and did indeed happen.

Such was the case last night.  The MEC offered Mitt so much low-hanging fruit - on Iran and Libya, certainly, but  also on domestic issues that worked their way into the proceedings, such as the MEC's standard canard about "asking the wealthy to pay a little more" and "investing in clean energy."  Of course, I was thinking, 'Jump all over that crap, Mitt!'  As the evening wore on, though, I realized the scope of his perspective.  At this late date, it's about convincing the remaining undecideds.  It's about speaking broadly to desires for a peaceful world and fundamental reasons why America must lead.  Hammering a failing ideologue every time he spouts radical rhetoric is not the most effective use of 90 minutes of live nationwide exposure on October 22.

So we got the restrained Mitt.  I just hope that the fact that he exuded a few too many symptoms of Reasonable Gentleman Syndrome ("I know how to work in a bipartisan fashion") for my comfort can be explained by his understanding of what he needed to do in that particular situation.

In any event, it bolsters the argument that it is urgent to also send the most principled Tea Party-type Congress to Washington next year along with the statesman from Massachussetts.