By Eric Zanzucchi (@ericzanzucchi)
Contrary to the first two debates being heavily focused on the economy, tonight’s debate focused on foreign policy. Obama was elected for two reasons in 2008. We had a Republican president for the eight years prior who left us with a horrible economy and in two unwanted wars.
When the debates focused on the economy it gave Romney plenty of fodder. I believe Obama’s progress on the unemployment rate and national debt are defensible, but not ideal and thus are attackable. When talking foreign policy I really feel like Obama thrived. It makes sense that he would because he’s made America a lot more likeable internationally, while Romney has no foreign policy record at all.
People were pissed off four year ago about two wars started by a Republican president. Romney talking about not cutting military spending and potential interventions in other Middle Eastern countries is a reminder to some people of why Barack Obama was elected in the first place. (It gets a little comical when Romney took every opportunity to change the topic to the economy or education where he’s a little more comfortable.)
I don’t even want to say that Romney lost the debate. It’s just that based on the topic, Obama was dealt pocket aces and Romney wasn’t allowed to fold his 2-7 offsuit.
The Nationsmith 