During the Republican primary (gosh that seems like ages ago) the National Review came out for Mitt Romney. When the former Bay State governor couldn’t get past John McCain, the magazine dutifully supported the Arizona senator.

Sure multiple writers reminded that McCain never had been a good Republican (I keep wondering if that is part of his problem), but no magazine founded by William F. Buckley was ever going to throw its weight behind a Democratic candidate.

One National Review writer is giving “the devil his due.” In his comments about last night’s debate Rich Lowry says that on all the points it’s no contest. McCain won. Ahhh, but everyone knows elections are not just a compare and contrast of position papers. When it comes to the White House race, there is also a sense of appearance. Theater if you will.

“Obama, meanwhile, just has to appear plausible and he did,” Lowry writes. “In fact, he’s a kind of genius at appearing plausible. If the Nobel committee had a prize for appearing plausible, he’d win it every time. He carries himself with confidence, he never appears flustered, and he has mastered his material.”

Can’t really argue with that. McCain and his partner Palin always point to Obama’s inexperience, but does he look wet behind the ears? Does he act like he’s a rank amateur? When he debates, does Obama appear peevish or annoyed like a smart freshman who is being disagreed with?

It doesn’t take brains to say that Obama has taken stuff out of the Ronald Reagan play-book,  which really has to rankle any tried and true Republican.