I figured it would be more interesting to talk about the VP debate than the presidential one. I'll try to make this short.
It's interesting that the campaign people of the Obama administration are playing the peace-card yet again. It will surely work though since people are usually very forgetful. David Boaz reports on the Huffington Post that troops and drone attacks actually increased exponentially during the Obama administration (source). Aside from that, Biden emphasizes "ending" the Iraq war even when their embassy in Iraq is bigger than the Vatican.
Paul Ryan talks about his supposed conservative (in the American sense of the word, see Liberal vs Conservative vs Libertarian) ideologies and advocacy for limited government. I actually made the case against this already in another blog I'm writing for (see Romney Chooses Paul Ryan as Running Mate). He voted for the Patriot Act, TARP, bailouts, unnecessary wars, and foreign aid to dictators. Most, if not all, Biden supported as well.
The Obama administration actually continued Bush's interventionist economic policies. Whether it's Biden or Ryan who wins, spending and debt will increase in spite of Paul Ryan's "passion" for fiscal conservatism or for Biden's alleged support for a balanced budget. Either way, the wars will expand and crony-capitalism will prevail. And as I have made the case many times in this blog, their policies will not only be detrimental to the prosperity and civil liberties of the US but also the whole world.
The above photo is from a segment in the Daily Show satirically implying that there should be more elections. I appreciate it that they used Kucinich and Ron Paul as opponents. Before I became a libertarian, I was actually a Kucinich supporter. Being that I was a social democrat then, as most people seem to be, I chose the one who would actually be consistent, sincere, and passionate with his principles not just based on voting record but also in his platform. Evidently, I was swayed to libertarianism and became a Ron Paul supporter. Regardless of that, I do believe that at least the debate should be between these two people. Regardless of what are now differences that I have with Kucinich, people should be watching these two instead of Obama or Romney and their running mates. Unfortunately, the ideal candidates are the ones who are deemed "unelectable"; a culture I believe people of democratic nations should start changing.
A real solution would be to allow Gary Johnson in the debates (see Why it's okay for Ron Paul supporters to support for Gary Johnson?). He's in the ballot in 50 states anyway. What's so wrong about letting him join? Isn't that what democracy is all about? It's happened before anyway when independent candidate Ross Perot got to join the debates.
In the UK they now have three parties in the debates (labour, lib dems, conservative) and will hopefully become 4 as UKIP (Nigel Farage's party) gains more supporters. I don't understand why in the US only the two major parties are allowed in the debate. Also, taxpayers' money are used to fund the said parties' national conventions.
Politics nowadays is so hard to distinguish from showbiz and entertainment. It's all about money, power, and fame. Especially here in the Philippines. At least the US parties are based on principles and platforms unlike here where you can just switch parties because all they really mean is money and connections.
A lesson I learned: if someone is deemed "unelectable" then most probably he/she is saying something worth our time and maybe they're the ones who deserve the votes.