Full disclosure: I am and have always been a registered Democrat; with one exception, I have always voted Democrat. This will certainly not change for this, most important election. I intend to give my opinion in this article; I am using the classic definition of an Op Ed Piece, as stated in the next few paragraphs.
Definition of Op Ed Piece, from Wikipedia: "An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page (though often mistaken for opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members."
Another definition comes from DirJournal.com: "An op-ed is an opinion piece, often published in newspapers, and more recently in online publications. The term "op-ed" means opposite the editorial. In newspapers, it describes the common placement of an op-ed piece being on the page opposite an editorial. Op-eds are most often published by the author's local newspaper, and can be regarding everything from major national (or international) news stories, to smaller local town issues." Also, "In a general sense, op-eds are offered to educate members of the public about an issue, beyond what the media outlet may have been covering independently."
Mitt Romney began his answer to the first segment, by telling the audience "we cannot kill our way out of the mess in the Middle East. " After President Obama spoke, reminding the audience what he has done and intends to do, Romney responded by agreeing with President Obama, but phrasing it differently, to make it sound as if he was saying something different. President Obama responded by calling Romney on his ever-changing opinions, and frequently revolving stands on foreign policy, making Mitt Romney look like the dilettante he is.
In response to President Obama's discussion of how his administration intends to handle the Syrian situation, Mitt Romney simply parroted the President in describing his own position. Romney's position was, again, eerily similar to that of President Obama.
Half an hour into this debate, Romney seemed to have taken the President's positions, making them his own. Once again, Mitt Romney did nothing so much as confusing the viewers. Now he agrees with President Obama on both Libya and Syria. Before that, he disagreed with the President. Presto-Change-oh, Romnesia reared its ugly head again!
If this was confusing to an Obama supporter, imagine how the GOP people feel.
Throughout the debate, Romney sat with his smarmy, smug, almost a smile look; it was almost a grimace. Romney looked like someone with terrible gas pains, trying not to let one fly. Romney looked like he ate something, which did not agree with him -- his own words! Agreed, it was simply due to having his words shoved back at him, being a liar.
One thing Mitt Romney did prove -- he can definitely count to five. As in the first two debates, the Mittster used his five-point plans, revealing not a single detail. By now, the audience knows they will simply have to trust him. Romney asked the moderator to visit his web site; ironically, that's where the Big Lies are in print.
During a discussion on Iran, Romney offered, "The Iranian Mullahs said, Hey!" I hope You-Tube has a clip of that one, so people can see the Robed Ones, saying "Hey!"
At another point, President Obama commented that Mitt had just told the biggest whopper so far; everything Romney had said about the President communicating with other countries, especially those in the Middle East, was "simply not true!"
"We're four years closer to a nuclear Iran." Romney repeated, often, to make his point. The problem is that everything coming from Mitt Romney's mouth this night was a lie. This writer watched the Internet and the Fact Checkers. They advised everyone watching which (to borrow a phrase from the President) whoppers Romney had told; so far, almost everything he had said, had been a lie. Including this whopper: Iran is Syria's only route to the sea!
Then we saw President Obama ask, "Who's going to be credible?" when referring to the USA communicating with other countries. Clearly, the President was asking the viewers to make certain that they knew the answer to that one, as a Romney who is veracity-challenged, would be dangerous, not only to himself and the USA, but to our foreign allies.
With only half an hour left, Mitt Romney started to wing it, throwing out lie after lie. Even the moderator could hardly get a word in. Romney steamrolled over the moderator, every chance he got.
President Obama was pleased that Romney was endorsing Obama's policy; then POTUS said now you're for (it), before that you were against." And, "When it comes to going after Bin Laden, you now say that anybody would make that call." Before, according to the President and the press, Romney said it was foolish to go after Bin Laden." He would not make that call!
This moderator seemed, on more than one occasion, to have lost control. He gave Romney more than two minutes to respond about Pakistan; President Obama was given no time to respond, as the moderator gave Mitt Romney another question, about drones. More than two minutes later, he finally gave the President time to respond.
Romney thinks we need to take a hard line with China in the last debate; this time he said he wants to work with China. Of course he does, since he exports jobs to China. Take a few minutes to Google "Sensata," and see how Romney put US Workers out of work, after he had them train the Chinese workers who got their equipment and jobs. Go to this web article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-gerard/sensata-the-reason-romney_b_1998378.html and see for yourselves.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).