Well, here’s what Peggy said about Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney, extracted from her column:
They stood earnestly in a row, combed, primped and prepped, as Nancy Reagan gazed up at them with courteous interest. But behind the hopeful candidates, a dwarfing shadow loomed, a shadow almost palpable in its power to remind Republicans of the days when men were men and the party was united. His power is only increased by his absence. But enough about Fred Thompson. . . . [cut]
Mitt Romney has to show he is not just an intelligent and articulate operator who is chasing the next and logical résumé point for no particular reason beyond that it’s next, and logical. . . . [cut]
The statuesque Mr. Romney had a certain good-natured command, a presidential voice, and a surprising wiliness. He seemed happy to be there, and in the mysterious way that some people seem to dominate, he dominated. He had a quick witted answer when Mr. Mathews asked him if the Roman Catholic Church should deny communion to pro-abortion politicians. What, said, Matthews, would he say to the bishops? “I don’t say anything to Roman Catholic Bishops,” he said. “They can do whatever the heck they want!” He deftly flipped it into a church-state issue. He did some light-handed and audience-pleasing Clinton bashing, and was confident on stem-cell research. But he was weak on Iraq, predictable, like someone who knows the answer that polls right with the base. How can you be utterly banal about a war, and such a controversial one?
The post was about who won the debate. The answer is clear. Mitt won the debate. Which candidate Peggy Noonon supports is not my concern. Seems like just yesterday everyone had labeled her a RINO and a turncoat.