Red vs. Blue
America is at a point of potential transition, with two candidates running for president. In the final presidential debate, Mitt Romney, boldly spoke of the Middle East. Obama was only retaliating against Romney in unstable arguments. Romney then highlights Obama’s defects to show truth in their argument, but was still no match. New York Times might be voting for Obama, as an American, I am choosing Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney's argument on foreign policy was substantive and accurate. Stating "We can't kill our way out of this mess" (ABC News .2). He speaks of internally converting the citizens to reject such idealist acts of violence. New York Times replied as such, "... often sounded completely lost" (New York Times). New York Times even went as far as "Mr. Romney sounded as if he had read the boldfaced headings in a briefing book — or a freshman global history textbook" (New York Times), grow up guys.
The debate was set up to have the Democratic Party attack the Republican Party. Obama obtained a set stance of dominance in speaking at the debate, leaving Romney in middle statement at times. “He announced that he had a “strategy” for the Middle East, particularly Iran and Syria, and really for the whole world, but gave no clue what it would be” (New York Times). "Well, my strategy is pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to -- to kill them, to take them out of the picture" (ABC News .2). “Mr. Romney sounded like a beauty pageant contestant groping for an answer to the final question” (New York Times), yet another bash towards Mitt. Obama was second to answer questions in this debate half of the time facing Romney focusing on what he is saying. The tactic was to inflate such bad judgments as The Navy’s unit size.
Romney’s point of the president “wasting” (New York Times) his time trying to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program was redirected to seem negative. Mr....