RE “On big issues, goals are similar, but styles differ” (Page A1, Oct. 23): Mitt Romney gave the country an extraordinary performance in the final presidential debate. He agreed with the president, and disagreed with himself.
The surge is working? We will be finished in Afghanistan in 2014? These statements are in direct opposition to Romney’s prior remarks about Afghanistan, and along with his other misstatements and contradictions regarding the auto industry bailout and his views on Iran, the American people got one last opportunity to see President Obama’s challenger as the ultimate flip-flopper.
At every turn the president was clear, concise, and on target with his statements about what his administration has done and will continue to do with regard to foreign policy, and he also gave us some insight into how education and tax reform would be key parts of his second term. Obama gave this writer the impression that his goal was to make America stronger at home, and as a result, stronger and more competitive around the world.
As in the second debate, the president won, but Romney did what his handlers wanted him to do: He survived, but as with his five-point plan and tax-cut policies, he failed to tell voters how he would accomplish his foreign policy goals. My question is, why would we ever want to change commanders in chief when the current president has accomplished so much?