I’m glad to see that National Review editor Rich Lowry managed to watch a debate without seeing starbursts (presumably because Romney didn’t wink at him the way Sarah Palin did), but I have to point out the empty platitude in his review of the third debate. This isn’t unique to him, of course; it’s the kind of thing pundits and candidates say all the time but it is beyond trite:
I think Romney executed what must have been his strategy nearly flawlessly: reassure people that he’s not a bomb-thrower; project strength but not bellicosity; go out of his way to say how many Obama policies he agrees with to create a sense of his reasonableness; focus on the big picture of a world that seems out of control; get it back to the economy as much as possible; and communicate a real passion for the future.
Lines like that just drive me nuts. Communicate a real passion for the future? Seriously? WTF could that possibly mean? This is why our standard political rhetoric annoys me so much. Politicians, and many pundits, are masters at the art of talking much and saying nothing.