We’ve made it to the third and final presidential debate. 

Really, this shouldn’t matter nearly as much as it does.  Our founding fathers made it clear that, in times of peace, 95 percent of all governance should come from the local level,   Now doesn’t that make sense?  Most governance should come from the politicians you elect on the local level – people you see at the coffee shop on the way to work in the mornings, who are having lunch across the room from you, and who you run into at the little league game or the movie theatre in the evening.  People you can reach.  People you know.  Not imperial politicians you might never see in your life, except on TV, and who you can only reach after running a gauntlet of multiple aids who’s true purpose is to keep the elected official as far away from you as possible.

That’s not the way it is, though.  Far from it.  Your local elected officials have been reduced to the role of carrying out policies and rules set at the federal level.  As little as 50 years ago nobody would have dreamed that the bureaucrats in Washington would come to your local school and tell the cooks what they can and can’t cook, and how they can cook it, for your child’s school lunch.  If that isn’t bad enough, would you have ever dreamed that your local schools would act on federal instructions to examine the lunch your child brings from home to see if it meets some federal nutritional standards?  Are you kidding me?

That’s what I mean when I say that this debate, and this presidential election, shouldn’t matter as much as it does.  We should be far and away more concerned about the people who are running for office in our local communities at at the state level, because that is where the policies that affect your life should be set.  Not far away by bureaucrats in Washington DC. 

But it does matter --- sadly, it does.  And tonight you will see two men on that stage for the last debate. 

• One of them has known nothing but government his entire life.  The other has some government experience – exemplary experience – but his life has pretty much been in the private sector.

• One candidate has actually hired people to work in private companies.  The other has only hired people to work for government.

• One candidate believes that consumers – free people voting with their dollars – should decide which products survive and which fail in the free marketplace.  The other candidate believes that the consumers aren’t intelligent enough to make those decisions, and that politicians in Washington should make those choices.

• One candidate believes that government spending drains our economy of the fuel it needs to grow.  The other candidate believes that government spending is what made America great.  We know because he said so.

• One candidate you should be able to go as far as your dreams and your willingness to work can take you.  The other candidate thinks that at some point you just have to admit and recognize that you have made enough money.  We know because he said so.

• One candidate thinks that when you spend a part of your life – YOUR LIFE – creating wealth, that wealth should belong to you and should only be confiscate for the essential needs of government.  The other candidate believes that the wealth you have earned by spending some of your allotment of minutes-to-live at work should be spread around to others who did not work for or earn it.  We know because he said so.

• One candidate believes that history shows that a strong America, an America willing to lead, can bring a peaceful and stable world.  The other think that America best leads … from behind.  We know because he said so.

• One candidate will stand toe-to-toe with foreign leaders not friendly to us, and look them straight in the eye.  The other candidate will bow in submission before these leaders.  We know because we’ve seen him do it.

• One candidate will look strong and determined on that stage tonight.  The other will look small and insecure.  You watch and figure out which.

So … tonight, the candidates will square off in Boca Raton, Florida in a debate focused on foreign policy.  Here’s the problem:  If your primary goal in life is to see just how deeply you can thrust your hands, with the government’s help, into someone else’s pocket … what the hell do you really care about foreign policy?  You don’t give a flip about foreign policy or the fact that China’s monetary policies are costing American jobs.  You just buy the simple Democrat line about your boss shipping your job (they are his jobs, not yours) overseas and you vote for Obama.  You, my union friend, are the picture of the low-information voter.

Trade with China is a large element of our foreign policy problems, but when you have some low-information out of work lifetime union member in Ohio screaming about evil American businessmen shipping jobs overseas. The unraveling of Obama’s story in Benghazi will just be part of the failed Obama foreign policy narrative.  Here are some headlines from just this weekend that Obama may need to explain …

On Sept. 11 Ambassador Stevens signed a three-page cable in which he noted "growing problems with security" in Benghazi

New York Times quietly edits story on Iran nuclear negotiations after White House denial

Obama admin recalibrating Benghazi narrative —again — before FP debate?

Could U.S. military have helped during Libya attack?  US reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle

The good thing is that Mitt Romney seems to be extremely capable of laying out the failures of Barack Obama.  He has done this on the economy in both previous debates.  He will likely be able to do that again on foreign policy.  But as we know, that’s only half the story.  What Mitt Romney plans to do differently .. his vision .. he will have to lay that our clearly and succinctly in order for Americans to trust him not only on the economy but also on foreign policy.  This will be tough.  Let’s face it, foreign policy isn’t as much in Mitt Romney’s wheel house as are business and economic issues. Then again, it wasn’t Obama’s in 2008, but he managed to convince people to vote for him nonetheless. 

While we are on the subject of foreign policy, we have a rectal-cranial inversion from Obama’s former green jobs czar and self-avowed communist Van Jones.  He says, “President Obama is a towering figure on foreign policy, you’ve got somebody with a Nobel Peace Prize and he killed Bin Laden.”  Van Jones is a Communist.  He’s also an idiot.  But I’m being redundant.

Nobel Peace Prize?  What a joke!  Obama was awarded this peace prize without ever actually accomplishing anything in his life other than being elected president of the United States.

He killed bin Laden?  The only thing that Obama did in regards to the raid that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was get out of the way.  That’s it! Obama no more killed Bin Laden than Richard Nixon put two men on the moon. 

Foreign policy?  Obama’s foreign policy has been and is to weaken the United States internationally.  When you understand that this was Obama’s goal from the beginning, you will understand that foreign policy is perhaps the one area in which Obama has been successful --- at least insofar as his own goals were concerned.