An easy cliche of a title, but certainly the truth. The final debate was far and away the most substantive of the three. Sure, the bar was low, and it was good only in a comparative sense, but there was significantly less posturing and a bit more substance.
And that is why I think this debate was a win for my guy. I have blogged before about Romney's foreign policy gaffes. Quite frankly, while I have avoided dissing Romney's career at Bain as that of a vulture capitalist, I do not buy into the argument that a successful career in business qualifies one to be a successful politicians. I'm much more receptive to Romney's arguments about his time as governor of Massachusetts as a case for why he would make a good president. Sure, running a successful business means he has managerial and leadership qualities, but a government and a for-profit corporation are very different entities.
But when it comes to foreign policy, experience does matter. It matters quite a bit. The closest thing Romney has to foreign policy experience is running the winter Olympics. He also managed to offend the British. This does not bode well.
I will admit that I was impressed, though not surprised by many of Romney's stances last night. Despite his attempts to hammer Obama on foreign policy, Romney's views aren't really that different, and that is a good thing since foreign policy is a major strength of the President. I will also admit that my biggest fear about candidate Obama in 2008 was his lack of foreign policy experience. I was worried that he wouldn't be able to make tough decisions. I was wrong.
But that gets me back to last night's debate, and why Obama is much better suited to the role of Commander-in-Chief. As I watched I noticed a look on Obama's face that struck me as "yeah right," in response to much of what Romney said. Tougher sanctions on Iran? Well yeah, of course, but anyone can say that. Obama made it happen. He has the experience of working with other nations to clamp down on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Disposing of Middle Eastern dictators? Obama's approach to the Libyan uprising was superb though in its aftermath we have some sorting out to do. The same thing is true for ordering the attack inside Pakistan that took down bin Laden. Not to politicize that and say Romney wouldn't have done the same - I'm sure he would have - but Obama has had to make that tough decision. He can weigh the information and has shown himself to be a shrewd decision-maker who can and will do what is necessary to keep America safe and promote our values.
The third debate was certainly the most substantive of the three, and in the third debate, though Romney did not look bad, only one candidate showed himself to be the one who really knows what it takes to make tough decisions. Obama's experience and wisdom showed, and while Romney was right to agree with the President on many points, he displayed his lack of experience glaringly on a few other occasions.
It has been no secret for quite some time that only one man is the right one to lead our country. And though Romney has etch-a-sketched pretty well, last night's debate cemented the fact that the President has what Romney lacks, fortitude and integrity. Flat in the first debate, aggressive in the second, last night Obama proved that the third time is a charm. He was composed and assertive and showed why he is the commander-in-chief that America needs for the next four years.
No comments:
Post a Comment