Obama Wins Final Debate By Invoking Pat Buchanan (As A Protectionist); Romney Stutters, Babbles, Plies More 'Snake Oil' With His 5-Point Economic Boondoggle (by Dave Levine)

Obama Wins Final Debate By Invoking Pat Buchanan (As A Protectionist); Romney Stutters, Babbles, Plies More 'Snake Oil' With His 5-Point Economic Boondoggle

by Dave Levine

I watched the final Presidential debate and Soetoro-Obama was prepared and well-coached, impressively so. However, what shocked me was his invoking Pat Buchanan multiple times on his wanting to stop the "offshoring" of American businesses jobs AND to punish those companies who have done so. About the only thing he didn't mention--and it's a shame he didn't mention it though he mentioned it in the second debate--was "tariffs". It would have been a perfect segway into Smoot-Hawley!

Romney for his part tried to remain "presidential" but stuttered, babbled and plied more of his snake oil in referring to his shot down 5-point economic plan. It's a shame that so many Republicans and Conservatives seem to be falling for this guy. Weren't they taught as children and teens NOT to trust snake oil salesmen?

It was also interesting how Soetoro-Obama talked about "rebuilding the infrastructure of America" with "the war dividend"--building bridges, roads, etc. Of course, he didn't say that AMERICAN workers would get those jobs and not illegal aliens who the construction companies getting those contracts will certainly hire.

Romney, on the other hand, seemed "jingoistic" towards Pakistan (something actively pushed by both Gingrich and Santorum during the primary season) though he kept trying to play down his "adventurism" expressed in previous debates and in speeches in wanting to send U.S. troops everywhere around the globe.

Soetoro-Obama made a bad mistake in not following up on his statement that "terrorism" is his No. 1 threat to the nation while Romney said "a nuclear Iran". If terrorism (Islamo-terrorism) is the biggest threat to the U.S., then it would follow that Soetoro-Obama would remove the narco-terrorists from Mexico who are in our country and operating South of the Border in conjunction with the Islamo-terrorists and shut down the Southern Border with 50,000 National Guard troops!

It's a shame that Soetoro-Obama didn't follow mentioning the dangers of that threat through with the above common sense and logic that has been common practice for military manuevers and strategy--PROTECT YOUR FLANK!

He talked tough on Iran but not jingoistically as Romney has.

But all in all, Soetoro-Obama impressed me. I don't know if other Conservatives noticed it, but about the only thing missing from Soetoro-Obama's defense of his 4 years was his not talking tough on the 40 to 60 million illegals in the U.S. Had he done so, I'd have called him "a Conservative" in this debate.

Will talking "protectionist" get him reelected? No because Conservatives aren't going to crossover to vote for him. But he looked relaxed and "into" the debate unlike Debate #1.

Did Romney hurt himself tonight on foreign policy? I think so. He didn't convince me of anything other than the fact that he's the biggest flip-flopper in modern political history and Soetoro-Obama wisely pointed that out time and time again tonight.

Romney tried to bring domestic policy--the economy--into the discussion knowing full well that this was a foreign policy debate. That to me was chickenbleep. He should have stuck to foreign policy instead of plying his 5-point snake oil scheme that has been thoroughly and soundly debunked!

We'll see how the polls read in the next few days.