Matt Welch does a good job reviewing last night’s debate, but
ends with an odd conclusion:  An opponent confident in his own
ideology would have put the incumbent away long ago [bold mine-
DL], unless the degradation of American politics is such that a
candidate like that wouldn’t have even come this far.  A
candidate with firm principles that he can articulate and defend
is more prepared to present an appealing argument for his
election than someone who lacks them, but that isn’t the same as
being confident in one’s own “ideology.” Even if Welch is using
ideology and philosophy interchangeably in his article, as he
seems to be doing, it doesn’t follow that a more confident
candidate “would have put the incumbent away long ago.” Romney
is famously unprincipled, but he is only too willing to adhere
himself to the current version of ideological movement
conservatism as long it is useful to him. As it happens, the
idea that a more ideologically “confident” Republican nominee
would be easily winning echoes Romney’