Ian Tuttle of National Review Online offers a scathing analysis of Donald Trump’s shoot-from-the-lip approach to communicating an electoral message.

The current pope, unlike his predecessor, has the gift of gab. But he has discovered, in his new role, that there is such a thing as talking too much. The secular media’s knowledge of the Catholic Church being what it is (read: nonexistent), the pope’s offhand comments are regularly interpreted as enunciations of doctrine.

But what is not true of the papacy is true, to a degree, of the presidency. The line between policy and pontification is fuzzy. When President Obama speculates about tax hikes, the markets dip. When he sympathizes with Black Lives Matter, beat cops retreat. When he talks about “commonsense gun reforms,” people in flyover country buy firearms. When he talks about U.S. foreign policy, leaders abroad take notice.

Given that reality, Donald Trump’s filibustering performance at Monday night’s presidential debate should be a source of alarm. In the first 30 minutes of last night’s debate, Trump succeeded — if that is the word — largely by being so pugnacious that he made it difficult for Hillary Clinton to get a word in edgewise. But that strategy was not built to last, and it didn’t. After the forum’s first half hour, Trump was at his near-worst: thoughtless, rambling, self-contradictory, and hostile — not only to his opponent but to moderator Lester Holt, President Obama, and any number of other enemies real and imagined, up to and including Rosie O’Donnell and a former Miss Universe contestant. It was obvious by the 45-minute mark that Clinton had managed to get under Trump’s skin, particularly on the subject of his personal finances. He spent the second half of the debate alternately snarling and flailing, completely devoid of the swagger and insouciance that he used to great effect during the primary debates.