The final debate of the 2012 presidential campaign is history, which is ironic because that’s where Mitt Romney appears to want to lead America.

There was almost nothing that Romney said that described a vision for the future of America. The entire focus of his remarks centered on either what he regarded as Obama’s failures in the past four years or his own proposals that closely mirrored those of the Bush administration – or even farther back. When Romney raised what he surely thought was a killer point comparing the size of today’s Navy to that of the Navy in 1917, Obama shot back

“But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

The President topped that observation by noting that Romney’s backward looking analysis failed to take into consideration the capabilities of a modern military force. While it may be true that the number of certain defense assets fluctuate, Obama zinged “We also have fewer horses and bayonets.”

Romney was clearly uncomfortable talking about foreign policy, an area in which he has no experience. He was so uneasy that he repeatedly attempted to shift his answers to the domestic economy. Unfortunately for him, he lost debate points on that field as well. Romney’s dodging resulted in a lackluster performance that even his conservative colleagues noticed. Many of them lamented that he didn’t bring up Libya and the tragic murders in Benghazi. In fact, the only time Romney could be said to have gone on offense was a lame criticism of Obama’s travel itinerary in the first few months of his presidency.

On many other issues of substance Romney resorted to agreeing with Obama’s policies – on Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden – even though Romney had previously excoriated Obama on those matters in stump speeches throughout the year. With regard to Romney’s past criticisms Obama blasted his judgment saying “I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.”

Audiences were keenly aware of Romney’s failings. The polls that have been published this morning all give the win to Obama. CNN put it at 48-40. CBS has 53-23. Public Policy Polling gave Obama a 53-42 advantage. It’s what is commonly known in polling circles as a blowout. Although it remains to be seen what impact this debate will have on broader presidential preference polling that will be conducted over the next several days.

Perhaps the most devastating misfire by Romney is the one that Fox News has been trumpeting all morning as a success. Romney had the gall to chastise Obama for the fabled “apology tour.” The folks at Fox and Friends were nearly giddy in their recitation of that segment of the debate. However, the charge is one that has been examined and repeatedly debunked. PolitiFact gave it a ruling of a “Pants-on-Fire” lie. And that is emblematic of the Romney campaign. If this remains the core talking point in Romney’s favor for the rest of the day, he’s in big trouble.

As of this morning the race is still pretty close. But if substance matters, voters should begin to swing back to the President. He has now decisively won two out of three debates, and he has demonstrated his superior grasp of both domestic and foreign affairs. And any objective analysis would have to conclude that the country is way better off now than it was in 2008, after Republicans, executing the same policies that Romney advocates today, created an economic calamity of historic proportions. Obama’s best message is that, after all we’ve endured, we must not allow the party that steered the nation into the rocks to regain control of the helm.

This is just a little distraction in the build up for the third and final debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney. It may also be a prescient foreshadowing of what’s to come for Romney.

Tomorrow’s presidential debate will be focusing on foreign policy. Instead of wasting 90 minutes on shallow disputes over out-of-context soundbites and arguments over who gets credit/blame for events that only tangentially reflect on the office of the presidency, the public would be better served if there was a substantive discussion on the issue just raised by the UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson. In a symposium on the negative impacts of post-9/11 security measures, Emmerson said…

“There is no doubt that the Romney administration would be able to claim — in the event of a Romney presidency — a democratic mandate for torture. That would put Romney as the first world leader in history to be able to claim a democratic mandate for torture.”

Emmerson’s remarks are based on Romney’s advocacy for the euphemistically-named “enhanced interrogation” techniques such as waterboarding. The rest of the world calls it torture, and even many U.S. experts regard it as an inhumane tactic that produces unreliable results.

As usual, Romney has taken both sides of this issue. In a debate in 2007 he said that he opposed torture, but refused to say whether he considered waterboarding torture. However, he also refused to rule out the use of waterboarding, and just Last month, when asked directly if he believed waterboarding to be torture, he responded, “I don’t.”

President Obama can exploit both Romney’s wavering positions and his current stance approving of practices that include torture. Obama signed an executive order that put an end to the use of enhanced interrogation, which Romney has promised to rescind. Romney’s position is of concern to international allies, as expressed by the UN’s Emmerson…

“The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad. Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to.”

Were Obama to point out this fatal flaw in Romney’s foreign policy platform he could draw a sharp distinction between his steady leadership that is in harmony with our allies around the world, and Romney’s extremism that would serve only to alienate our friends and give our enemies justification for accelerating their attacks in an ever more brutal fashion.

Hopefully Obama will raise this subject if the moderator does not. It would provide for a far more enlightening discussion than one consumed by nonsense like when Obama said that the attack in Libya was an act of terror, or how badly Romney hurt U.S./British relations by insulting their Olympics.

Mitt Romney and President Obama both appeared at the annual Al Smith charity dinner last night (videos below) to deliver a few jokes. But if Romney hoped to soften his image as a cold-hearted, robotic, elitist who doesn’t connect with ordinary folks, he failed miserably.

Romney seems to have had the impression that this affair was a political roast where you go after your opponent with hopefully humorous insults and put downs. Actually, that’s not typical of the traditional presentations at the dinner. More often participants engage in light-hearted self-deprecating humor and general swipes at the institutions of government.

However, whoever wrote Romney’s address was intent on lambasting the President repeatedly over political matters that have been a part of his campaign all along. Romney used this appearance as just another stump speech with a few extra punch lines. The result was that he affirmed his reputation as a bully who lacks the social skills to congregate amicably.

Romney’s rant included references to Joe Biden, Big Bird, “You didn’t build that,” unemployment numbers, redistribution of wealth, the deficit, Bill Clinton, the “liberal” media, and Obamacare. All of those are staples on the campaign trail with Romney and he used them all to disparage Obama in this speech.

By contrast Obama’s speech was heavily weighted to jokes about himself. There were very few references at all to Romney, personally or politically. His performance demonstrates the distinct difference between the personalities and temperament of these two men. One is a self-aware, congenial, decent person with a sense of humor. The other is a self-centered, exploitative, megalomaniac with a superiority complex.