Mitt Romney has been at least a de facto winner of the last two Republican presidential debates by focusing on the economy and President Obama, and avoiding tangling with the other candidates. His campaign has been built around such restraint, which helped him solidify his now-tenuous frontrunner status.

But the Hill is reporting that some Republicans think the strategy backfired and opened up space for Rick Perry to jump into the race. But not only does the story not deliver on its thesis, the sources used for it actually help make the opposite point.

First up is a statement from Mark McKinnon:

“Maybe it will work, but I’ve never thought you win the presidency by being cautious,” said veteran GOP strategist Mark McKinnon. “Given all the challenges we face today, people today want bold leadership more than ever. Playing prevent defense may keep the opponents from scoring much, but it doesn’t do much to excite the crowd.”

While it’s true McKinnon is a “veteran” campaign strategist, the piece neglects to mention he was most recently a veteran of the John McCain campaign, which enjoyed a bitter rivalry with Romney in 2008–and which lost the election. Perhaps McKinnon doesn’t share too much of the blame for that, since he left the general election campaign because he didn’t want to run against Obama. Not the best example of the “bold leadership” McKinnon advocates.

Additionally, McKinnon’s judgment may not be flawless; he praised Jon Huntsman’s “political instincts” and proclaimed of Huntsman: “Move over, Tim Pawlenty. Here comes the new No. 2.”

The next voice to criticize Romney is South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson, who just says Romney hasn’t made much effort in South Carolina. But that doesn’t really fault the campaign for its style or substance; it’s simply a representative who would like the GOP presidential candidates to visit his state more often. It’s entirely understandable, and it doesn’t really fit the narrative of the story. It’s also worth noting that Wilson was a supporter of Tim Pawlenty, who saw Romney as his main adversary (until Pawlenty’s dormant rivalry with Michele Bachmann was reignited).

The piece then includes some praise for Romney’s strategy. All in all, Romney’s strategists probably read the piece as vindication for their decisions. It certainly doesn’t make a case against them.