First Presidential Debate: The clear image of each party

Last night, 40 million people saw the Presidential Debate. The anticipation was overwhelming and the media speculation of the candidates’ strategies was, to say the least, ridiculous. 

But despite all the allegations of who won and who lost, if there was a lack of passion or a lack of truth, a clear image of each party came out so pristine that is it almost painful. 

The big absence was the people, not the 47 percent or the 99 percent or the one percent, the American people.

The contenders, a business man and a university professor, debated in their own style. It was a debate of personalities and big egos, not a debate for the middle man concerns. The big vacuum, again, was ordinary Joe. 

Gov. Romney, a powerful business man, applied his own words to his debate strategy: “I’ve got five boys; I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it.” 

As a business man, he is used to numbers and lies, trying to position himself by claiming his competition’s wrongdoings. 

Simple marketing strategy.

All along his speech and rebates, his main goal was to attack and cover in a forceful way and with an apparent mathematical precision –he mentioned a lot of numbers, possibly a counter effect of Clinton’s speech at the DNC–, what in true is his plan, the continuation of Bush/Cheney economic strategies enhanced by the ruthlessness of the Tea Party and his running mate Paul Ryan’s plan. 

Only, he tried to convey an image of care and inclusion, something a lot of moderate Republicans insist he truly believes in–his wife, Anne, has repeatedly talked about Mitt’s good heart. 

The media, on the other hand, keep insisting on Mitt’s need to “connect” to the public. Well, he connected last night with his base in the only way his base knows and is used to, forcefully and aggressively lying, hiding.

A strategy we saw during the whole Republican primary, and that above all defines the approach the Republican Party has turned to, because they cannot reveal the truth of their intentions. 

Freedom, and the pursue of happiness, the American Dream, only possible in you sit with them. 

Pres. Obama, on his part, appeared in his essence, an intellectual that is strong in words but weak in numbers, a true Democrat. 

His whole strategy was based on staying cool and avoiding a direct confrontation, while trying to go through this first debate and getting over it, almost as if he knew this was not his cup of tea. 

A “laissez faire” attitude, not calling his opponent lies, making impassive remarks about his administration’s achievements, Obama came about in an explanatory style that was totally inappropriate with the occasion.

It almost conveyed the belief that “if I do the right thing, no matter how hard or unpopular, then people will follow” type of statement. 

The unbiased Democratic conviction, everybody is entitled to their own belief and opinion. 

Moreover, it almost seems Pres. Obama really believes he has not done enough –knowing his competitive nature –, that he really expected to turn the economy and the country around in four years. 

A true American superhero. 

Forty million viewers did not pay attention to the lies or the numbers or the policies. Like in the Roman Circus, people expected blood, a confrontation between two gladiators, bringing in wild animals and unexpected weapons, and fighting for their lives until the end. 

What they saw was a giveaway, a parent’s admonishment to an aloof teenager that made the audience believe his son has been properly put in place and deserves punishment. 

What they probably didn’t see was the battle of two egotistic men, one lost in his own world of lies, the other in his world of fantasy. 

 

The Benghazi attack, a conspiracy theory

The American public is used to conspiracy theories, and as fast as they arise, they are dismissed by most. The term “conspiracy theory” is used to deem a story as ridiculous, paranoid or unfounded. For most Americans, “the Nile is a river in Egypt.”

John F. Kennedy’s assassination was the center of several conspiracy theories that even resulted in books, documentaries and the Oliver Stone movie. The versions involved parties such as the CIA, the American Mafia, VP Lyndon B. Jonson, Fidel Castro and many more. The likelihood that Oswald acted alone was extremely low, as proven by many, but the Warren Commission refused to release all the information. 

Coincidentally, his brother Robert Kennedy was also murdered, but of course, the American public again dismissed the possibility of a “conspiracy.” And then Martin Luther King was also a write off for many –but not all- Americans.  

When a conspiracy theory becomes true and can be proven, such as President Nixon’s Watergate break-in and cover-up, then it becomes investigative journalism or a historical fact.

In September 2001, the country was attacked by al-Qaida, in the largest operation ever known in the United States soil. 

Although the US armed forces launched the Afghanistan invasion shortly after, people around the world speculated about the Republican administration’s involvement in the attack, given the slow reaction of the then President George W. Bush, the excellent justification for the war on Iraq that followed, and the lack of “enthusiasm” in looking for Osama Bin Laden. 

Those theories have not faded away, says the BBC. Around 15 percent Americans, especially young people, believe in the possibility that VP Cheney was somehow involved in the attack. 

Over a decade later, with only less than two months to the Presidential elections 2012, the Benghazi attack occurs, damaging –or at least trying to damage–the successful Foreign Affairs performance of President Barack Obama in finding bin Laden and ending the war in Iraq. 

I just highlighted some quotes from the New York Times report on 10/1/2012:

“The Sept. 11 attack culminated several weeks of growing violence against Western and other diplomatic posts in Benghazi. State Department officials said they were aware of the worsening climate and took precautions. One American official who worked in the mission said the Americans there were able to get around with ‘appropriate prudence’.” 

“Apparently, due to the increasing violence reported, the US Embassy in Tripoli had sent Special Operations personnel, including Navy SEALs and bomb-squad specialists to reinforce the Benghazi Embassy.”

The Attack “began about 9:30 p.m., roughly 15 minutes after Mr. Stevens had finished an evening meeting with the Turkish ambassador, bid him farewell and chatted briefly with a handful of Libyan guards at the gate of the compound.”

“Mustafa el-Sagizli, an officer in the February 17 Brigade and a senior official in the transitional government, said that he repeatedly called the mission’s official translator who for most of the night was unable to reach the ambassador’s security guards.”

“Security at the mission has become a major issue as the Obama administration struggles to explain what happened during the attack, who was responsible and how the ambassador ended up alone.”

“Mr. Stevens’s own bodyguard was so far away that he needed to sprint across the compound under gunfire to reach the building where the ambassador was working at the time.”

“‘There are three villas inside and the walls are high, and the only house that got hit was the house we were in,’ said Fathi el-Obeidi, a Libyan militia commander who came to help evacuate the Americans.”

Was there any "insider information" about the situation of the Embassy and its surroundings? 

The situation surely called for chaos and confusion but I believe additional information will come out from the incident because President Obama has shown to be relentless in finding terrorists, however, … would he share the findings with the American public?

But, of course, this is just a “conspiracy theory.”