What the debate did reinforce, however, is the need for a strong economy to be able to protect our nation and by our example eventually lead all the people of the world to freedom and self government.
On the economy, President Obama has a clear record of failure. His only apparent solutions to our economic woes are to hire more teachers, continue to grow government and tax the rich. As a serious remedy to our economic ills, it's likely that Obama's campaign rhetoric is being seen by We the People as the reelection ploy it surely is.
Without a strong economy, we'll no longer be able to remain the prosperous and secure America we've long been. And with President Obama economic policies in place for another four years, U.S. military and economic strength will continue to weaken.
Thus, the better course is for We the People to vote to change who occupies the office of the president. Change is needed, and we have nothing to lose by making that change now. At least that's my view.
I realize that's not a ringing endorsement of Mitt Romney, but it's the way I feel. So let's remove the president we now have and try someone new. That means Mitt.
In ay event, Commanders in Chief provides a concise analysis of last night's 'action' at the foreign policy centered debate:
"About 45 minutes into Monday night's Presidential debate on foreign policy, we found ourselves asking which of the two men on stage in Boca Raton was the incumbent and which was the challenger. President Obama kept attacking Mitt Romney for various things he had said or claimed he had said, while the Republican mostly tried to look fluent on the issues and steady enough to be Commander in Chief. Maybe Mr. Romney really is leading in the polls.
If Mr. Obama wanted to make the Republican look "wrong and reckless," as he said, he surely failed. The former Massachusetts Governor was so intent on appearing to be cool and steady that he avoided offering any major policy differences on Syria, Iran or Afghanistan. Most remarkably, he even refused to challenge the Administration's handling of the deadly assault on Americans in Benghazi.
Mr. Romney was clearly keeping his eye on his main challenge of the evening, which was looking Presidential on issues that offer an incumbent a natural advantage. He passed that test with ease . . . . He wasn't rattled, and if anything looked cooler than a sometimes peevish Mr. Obama. The President scored more debating points, but he looked smaller doing it. . . .
No doubt voters didn't see a big difference in this debate because it really wasn't about American foreign policy. It was really a debate to change the minds, if any can be turned, of the remaining undecided voters . . . . Both candidates can read the polls that show those voters care mainly about the economy and so both candidates returned again and again to their competing plans.
Mr. Romney won this economic debate going away because he doesn't have to defend the miserable record of the last four years. He could even invoke Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim that America's soaring debt makes us weak. That's a critique of the Obama years that most Americans would agree with."
This election is going to be all about the economy and how to fix it, pure and simple.
By taxing the rich as a "popular" political tactic and continuing to grow government, including entitlements, and suffering ongoing high unemployment as a result?
By contiuing to shortchange such essentials as energy independence and dealing resolutely with our soaring national debt and deficits for another four years, assuming the world's creditors will allow us to do so?
Or by aggressively tackling these all too real economic issues, which if not seriously attacked in a We the People manner, will see America become weaker in every way?
The choice is ours, because that's the wonderful way our system of self government works.
In other words, we'll get the government we deserve.