PEGGY NOONAN SAYS A SMART THING, AND THEN SOME STUPID THINGS

Credit where credit is due: Peggy Noonan's latest column is about the upcoming debates, and part of it is probably correct, alas:

From a canny journalist with a counterintuitive head: "The media will be rooting for Romney." Two reasons. First, they don't want the story to end. They're in show biz: A boring end means lower ratings. Careers are involved! Second, the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that more than half the country (and some of their colleagues) think they are at least operationally in the tank for the president, or the Democrats in general. It is hurting the media's standing. A midcourse correction is in order, and Wednesday will offer an opportunity: I think it's fair to say Gov. Romney more than held his own this evening, and a consensus seems to be forming that the president underperformed.

That's very, very plausible. Obama is (unfortunately) the huge favorite in the debates because Romney has been a stumblebum for weeks, so mere competence on Romney's part could be spun as brilliance -- and that would seem to keep the racing going, to the media's delight. And Romney might win back the press a bit -- yes, this seems to have been the year when right-wingers lost their ability to "work the refs" in the mainstream media successfully, but it's naive to think that the press has become completely resistant to the right's ref-working. (For evidence of this, see Michael Cooper's latest article in The New York Times, which retransmits many Romney talking points about the Obama campaign's alleged dishonesty.)

But Noonan, after saying this smart thing, says some dumb things:

President Obama hasn't been challenged in public in a long time. He hasn't been challenged in private in a long time. So if Mr. Romney treats him with respect but not deference, if he really engages, challenges, questions and pushes, he just might knock the president off his stride.

Wait -- what? Obama hasn't been challenged? Well, yeah, I suppose that's true ... if you discount every word about Obama generated by the right-wing media since the 2008 Iowa caucuses, and every word written or spoken about him by every Republican politician, pundit, and operative. Not to mention just about every vote cast by a Republican in Congress since January 20, 2009. Yeah, apart from that, he's had a pretty easy ride.

(Noonan, I suppose, would argue that none of that counts, because Obama wasn't challenged to his face. Oh, except for that "You lie!" thing. And except for every negotiation he's ever had with congressional Republicans.)

Beyond that, is Noonan seriously suggesting that Romney will challenge Obama in the debates "with respect"? Respect? Mitt Romney?

Yes, she is saying that. She goes on to write:

There was something Mr. Romney did in the primary debates. When his competitors were answering questions, he didn't stand at the podium looking distracted. He'd turn and smile at them sweetly and encouragingly, as if he were thinking, "You're the cutest little shrimp." No one has looked at Mr. Obama like that since 2003. It's possible he wouldn't like it.

Actually, no, Romney didn't do that. He lurched from that weird mortitcian look he has into an apoplexy you'd expect from a rabid ferret -- and a prissy, moralistic one at that. The following clip is famous because of the gaffe that ends it ("I'm running for office, for Pete's sake!"), but watch what Romney does before that: he lashes out at Rick Perry as if Perry's interruption of him is a war crime worthy of The Hague. It's not pretty, or respectful:





Please, Mitt -- be like that in the debates. I'd love that.