I see Romney as not one who will impose his world view on the national policies. And I see Obama as one whose world view structures his policies. Pres. Obama entered office with a view that the world is structured around moral equivalency, that the US fails in international politics because of our inability to accept this moral equivalency. He is wrong.

There is probably a massive amount of folks sick of hearing about politics by now.

I say that as part of a potentially more important demographic. Those who worked second shift instead of seeing the debate.

Those who worked second shift in manufacturing in rural Ohio, for a non-union “Japanese” multinational company…in Jordan’s rural/safely republican district. Given a demographic 2/3rds male… I do expect Romney to win most of these votes.

I would think there would be a foreign policy that would most suit the interests of Honda, exactly what such a foreign policy would look like is unclear, albeit maybe it would be interested in developments in China. Also anti-Japan sentiment in China, might create opportunities for american manufacturers… Jeep it seems is trying to expand in China. (What can you learn about foreign policy from watching Honda’s automobile manufacturing development channel?) If Jeep expands in China, what happens to the Jeep plant in Toledo? (Ohio electoral politics?)

There is a great Honda Fit comming out in Brazil that runs on ethanol, but which will also have other fueling options.

With all sorts of things which could “spike” oil prices…Honda seems well positioned. The Honda Plants are basically surrounded by corn fields.

Growing corn and building fuel efficient cars seems like a tremendous hedge on higher fuel costs.

I suspect foreign affairs could be a high salience issue like the economy. What about the foreign affairs of multi-national corporations?

What if you don’t watch the debate, but instead watch a different debate, more narrowly tailored on the economy and foreign affairs.