According to the newspapers, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had their third and final debate last night, supposedly on foreign policy. As with the previous two, I didn't bother watching. What for? See What do the debates prove?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-do-debates-prove.html and Netflix disappointed me
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/netflix-disappointed-me.html
From what little I read in newspapers, I didn't think it was worth watching. I think the debates were summed up by two snippets from "Sparring Over Foreign Policy, Obama Goes on the Offense
", Peter Baker and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 2012-10-22.
"For all its fireworks, the debate broke little new ground and underscored that the differences between the two men on foreign policy rest more on tone, style and their sense of leadership than on particular policies. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney seemed to align on matters like withdrawal from Afghanistan, the perils of intervening in Syria and the use of drones to battle terrorists."
"Mr. Romney pinned the cascading crises around the world on Mr. Obama’s shoulders, saying the president had failed to live up to his promises from his 2008 campaign and left the country in a weaker position."
Baker and Cooper seem to say that whoever wins the election will follow essentially the same policies. Maybe, maybe not. However, I think the second quote is quite telling of Romney's attitude that the President of the U.S. should be emperor of the world and bring all these hot spots in line with U.S. "interests". My usual question is who elected the President as "the leader of the free world"? It certainly wasn't the people of Canada, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. How can you claim to be for freedom and democracy if you anoint yourself as "the leader of the free world"? Napoleon crowned himself as Emperor of France, and look what happened to him. Look what's happening to our economy as we spend all this money on weapons and war without raising the taxes to pay for them.
