Tuesday, October 23, 2012

With all due respect, Bill O'reilly, you are wrong!



Bill O'reilly is not just wrong, he is full of crapbull on the third Presidential Debate. 

On Fox and Friends this morning, Bill asserted Romney wanted the woman's vote, so he took a soft approach and avoided calling the handling of Benghazi as "Incompetence", hence forgoing the chance to turn Obama "into a puddle".  To the Fox crew, he asked if anyone learned anything new and since no one did, Bill proclaimed it as the most boring debate. 
Romney was not at the debate to provide entertainment or teach a class. He was at the debate to interview for the position as the Leader of the Free World. A position that has been pathetically shrunk  in the last 4 years. Obama was "present" on American Foreign Policy George Bush had laid out, but he did nothing to lead. This is what Romney was trying to show. Undeniably, the women's vote will be won over, but it is incidental. Why? Because women have a greater propensity in terms of handling interpersonal relations. Women's preferred problem solving model is to listen and talk through first. Especially in leadership positions,  women do not respect emotional outbursts or bully tactics. These  are the same qualities required to lead the world. 
On Benghazi, it was a brilliantly calculated move. A clear win over Obama. Romney already took the shot on Benghazi in the last debate. It has triggered the whole nation's attention towards Benghazi. Even die-hard democrats agreed that things could have been different. The undecideds already have doubts about Benghazi. 4 Americans are dead, clips of protest on the news everyday. Confronting Benghazi last night yield a much lower utility than to appear presidential and calm.  Obama wanted Romney to engage in the Benghazi topic, as seen in the last debate. It got into a "he said, he said" situation which will make Romney look petty as well. Most americans have a basic distrust towards politicians. There are always enough spin in the news followed to suppport both arguments. On taking the higher ground, Romney was safeguarding the bigger picture - his Mittmentum. 
Who do you feel safer with? Who is more likely to look at a situation calmly and act decisively? Who is more in charge? heck, who will show up as the Commander in Chief and work effectively with the military?
Obama brought his game face and spin the best he could punctuated with the "me"s and "I"s. He was petty and irritable and his voice was less commanding. We wake up today remembering far more lines of Romney that Obama." We will show more BackBone", " We Free Countries from Dictatorship", "30,000 dead in Syria" etc  Once again, all the eloquent talking points in the world cannot heal the obvious breakdown of Obama's foreign policy. 
O'reilly is right to say that Obama was trying to show how Romney switch position through lies. And Romney has explained them as lies. It won't matter because most Americans already assume Politicians will switch positions. As long as they do it prudently in the interest of the country. 
Romney does not need to be a bully to prove competence. He was not soft, he was understanding and pleasant. Clear-minded with laser focus on building America's economic strength and unapologetic for American principles. The qualities needed to work with allies all over the world. 
In business, we do not just focus on closing the deal, because it is not the deal that would really matter, it is the subsequent deals that do. It was critical for Romney to leave a pleasant after taste from now till Nov 6 to counter more personal smears and attacks.

No comments: