10/25 – The 3rd Presidential debate review
Just when you figure you have probably seen it all in debates, another revealing example of inborn designs was displayed for all Americans to witness. Before our insights are expressed, what did you think of the final Presidential confrontation? Beyond the bias of each of our personal political beliefs, how do you believe the two candidates acted (and reacted), as well as strategized before and during the debate? Who was the wiser of the two and acted most presidential? To the objective, logical (and emotional) evaluator, there was quite a distinction. Once again, setting our individual political ideologies aside, who was the ultimate victor last Monday eve? Who demonstrated greater integrity, professionalism, and civility?
Let’s consider the evidence: the first 15 minutes of the 90-minute session pretty much spoke for the entire evening. This pattern generally held throughout the debate and was reinforced one final time in the candidates’ closing statements. Did you notice how the two candidates treated and respected (or disrespected) one another, especially in the first quarter hour? Many thought it resembled night versus day. One candidate immediately began belittling the other without anything spoken antagonistically by the respectful, calm one. Even if the cheerful and upright debater had acted like his demeaning challenger, is a denigrating public attack consistent with a level-headed and wise leader, much less a president?
Consider just a few of the verbal barbs spoken by the lone disparaging candidate (without provocation) and near the beginning of the debate:
1/ Speaking of his opponent’s past, he said, “Every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong!”
(Don’t most of us who hear such statements of embellishment and distortion tend to value nothing else the person says beyond that point? How do you personally respond when others say such things to you, or about you? Think of it, do you know anyone who is wrong on every opinion he has? (Even the pariah Adolph Hitler had select points we would all agree upon.) To utter such an out-of-touch and demeaning statement toward a vying presidential candidate, and before a national TV audience, was not only absurd but immature—something we’d expect from a child.
Here’s just one more statement from the chiding candidate in the first minutes of the debate:
2/ “You have demonstrated wrong and reckless leadership that’s all over the map.”
(Again, without any provocation, this denigrating, inaccurate, and undiplomatic comment was spoken before millions of viewers. Is this what a president should say as he attempts to be a conciliator, facilitator, and model for the rest of us?)
Though this candidate doesn’t hesitate to bash and blame others, we at BTI greatly dislike speaking ill of anyone, much less any American leader, which particularly includes our President, Barack Obama. How wonderful it would be to only speak positive of all. Yet what should those do who attempt to be responsible, law-biding, and ethical, when others step beyond the lines of proper behavior—which includes stretching the truth? What if these people who oversee others—whether a leader, spouse, parent, or employer—infringe upon their subordinate’s freedoms and God-given rights? As bystanders and U.S. citizens, what are we to do? Placing this in context, we all know that there is not only an obligation to heaven above but also to our fellow man, to keep civility and the Golden Rule.
It is in this light alone that we try here at BTI to monitor the behavior of well-known public figures, especially those that control or dictate our freedoms and lifestyles. Regardless of political ideology or BT, all leaders should be monitored by each and every U.S. citizen. And above all, integrity must be our highest standard of critique. As we all know, when honesty wanes, guaranteed injury is soon to follow—for us personally, or, for others.
We have much more evidence below to prove our point of the ills of stretching the truth but for now, we only want to address the big picture. If we can’t grasp that or get the overall concept, we’ll never get the particulars. So let’s start with the grand scheme of things.
Though it appears BTI has more recently criticized some select Democrats in high office, let’s not forget only months ago when it was influential Republicans that came into focus of our ethical crosshairs. During the GOP primary debates, we leveled many criticisms of various candidates—such as of #13’s Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Hermann Cain, Ron Paul, #16 BCIL Jon Huntsman, and even #15 Newt Gingrich. Huntsman, Perry, and Santorum were the worst offenders and least mature (refer to past Insider articles). Newt Gingrich, another rare #15 with the inborn CEO, presidential mindset, was generally consistent in his upright and elder statesman persona, but in a few debates he, too, lost focus and allowed his fleshly nurture and nature to gain the upper hand—exhibiting immaturity, distortions of fact, emotional bitterness, and insecure language.
Conversely, FCIL’s Michelle Bachman and Gov. Romney were, by far, the most presidential and mature of the lot. That’s why we said from the very beginning of the primary season that Mr. Romney was the best candidate the GOPers had to offer (all things being considered), hands down. And as forecasted, he proved us right and even more so lately as he has also unintentionally exposed (in all three debates), a number of President Obama’s frailties before the world. We’re not talking about how MR has others’ backing in ideology, but to the discerning and objective regardless of party affiliation, his debates have been exceptional. He, too, is not without flaw, but MR has been remarkably civil and ethical throughout his many tribulations before the cameras and seemingly-countless debate audiences (especially during the GOP primaries). If flaws are to be exposed (particularly with MR), they’d likely appear after ten or more debates, wouldn’t you think?
MR has stayed above the fray in every debate, primaries and now. Monday night was not atypical for him. How in the world has he been able to do this for a whole year of debates? For one, #15s reside primarily in the brain’s most optimistic region, Q3. The four BTs most adept in this locale are, generally speaking, the most positive in perspective. Though they are all supreme critiquers, being dominant decision-makers, they nonetheless believe that all matters can improve with diligence, orchestrated thought, structure, and a never-give-up attitude (quite unlike the Q1s). When persons of these four BTs are not consistently positive, it can usually be traced to sub-optimal brain physiology or poor nurturing. The two Conceptual Q3s (#’s 11 and 15), especially, are typically the most optimistic of all BTs since they regularly strive for a better future more than a better today. This is why such #15s as JFK, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Mitt Romney have all been men of exceptional optimism and future-thinking drive. With MR’s background and indefatigable work ethic, it’s no small wonder he acts on stage as he truly is. BTI’s Founder JN has spoken to numerous persons close to MR (both political friend and foe), and without exception, they say he is the most optimistic, take charge, squeaky-clean person (and especially politician) they’ve ever met.
Though few at this time see Monday night’s final debate as a landslide for Romney, they will likely glean this more in the days ahead as he tends to win over female voters more than ever. MR could have easily reenergized the conservative base by being more confrontational Monday night, but that wasn’t his strategic game plan. He knew he already had most of these people. What he thought needed to be done was to appeal to the majority of fence sitters, including females, who often make up their minds when they are in the voting booth. MR is banking on them to finally realize that he is the most stable and mature of the two presidential candidates, and that during the debates he was to-the-point, decisive, resolved, most accurate (and in context) with facts, and a genuine, bipartisan conciliator. Additionally, he essentially did not speak one more word than necessary—unlike BO who often didn’t know when to stop (not unusual for Q1s). In fact, BO spoke the longest in all 3 debates. And by the way, when BO was preparing for the debates with his handlers, one of their key concerns for him was to not ramble as usual but to be concise and specific.
One final reason MR was able to pull off his debate feat of calm and collectedness was, like most #15s, he and they are not only quite comfortable in their own skins and typically possess extreme confidence due to their inborn and acquired competencies, but they rarely connect with their least adept cerebral locale, the brain’s emotional and oft-morose center (the largely subconscious Q2 region—which is entrenched in the deep limbic system). For President Obama and VP Biden, the Q2 region is their second region of brain adeptness, not the fourth like the two GOP #15s. Thus, it is quite easy for BT students to understand why BO and JB have demonstrated so many emotional behaviors (good and bad) not only during the debates, but on the campaign trails.
Before we sum up this debate season, let’s consider one other element of integrity with politicians.
After President Obama disparaged Governor Romney a number of times in just the first segment of the debate, and had just claimed MR was wrong and foolish by once stating in the past that Russia was our greatest geopolitical foe, MR finally responded to this harshness and error by saying:
“The things the President has said about me I don’t concur with; the things the President has said about my record, they don’t happen to be accurate. Attacking me is not an agenda; attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to handle the challenges in the Middle East and take advantage of the opportunities there, and stem the tide of this violence. But I will respond to a couple of things you (BO) said: Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe…” Bo interrupts…MR responds…“excuse me” … BO goes quiet and Mitt continues… “and in the same paragraph (when saying Russia was our greatest geopolitical foe), I said Iran is the greatest security threat we face. Russia continues to battle us time and time again in the UN; I have clear eyes on this, and I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia and Mr. Putin, and I’m certainly not going to say to him, ‘I’ll give you more flexibility after the election.’ After the election, he’ll get more backbone.”
Number 2: “With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, there should be a ‘status of forces agreement’”… BO interjects “that’s not true.” MR responds, “Oh you didn’t agree there should be a status of forces agreement?” BO responds, “No, what I would not have done is leave 10k troops in Iraq that would tie us down and that would certainly not help us in the Middle East”… MR responds, “I’m sorry, there was an effort on behalf of the President to have a ‘status of forces agreement’ and I concurred with that there should be a certain number of troops to stay on; that was your posture and mine as well. You thought it should be 5,000 troops, I thought it should have been more. But you know what? We got no troops whatsoever.”
BO interjects, “Governor, just a few weeks ago you said we should still have troops in Iraq”… MR responds, “No I did not. I indicated that you failed to put in place a ‘status of forces agreement’ at the end of the conflict….”
So how do we make sense of just this small part of the debate, and does it shed light on the honesty, integrity, and embellishment issues, too?
1/ BO errored by stating MR was foolish for claiming in the past that Russia was our greatest geopolitical foe. (Actually, BO claimed this himself in the 2008 campaign.) In reality, Russia is a much greater “geopolitical foe” than small isolated and displaced militant/terrorist factions that have no established homeland. With thousands of nuclear warheads and a present-day Premier who once served as the KGB head (and who continues to ruthlessly treat those opposing him—including journalists), Russia and Putin are clearly America’s greatest geopolitical foe in 2012. As troubling as Islamic terrorists are to the U.S., at this time they neither have nuclear devices nor do they have the power to quickly set up another Iron Curtain.
2/ BO distorted matters by not invoking the second part of MR’s statement that Iran is America’s greatest and most immediate security threat. BO obviously did not want viewers to know the balance of MR’s point (unlike the Golden Rule).
3/ While BO tried to denigrate MR over Russia before a watching world, BO has never come clean with his whisper to Comrade Medvedev (picked up by left-on microphone) that when the U.S. election is over, he, BO, will be in a better position to make deals (unpopular with the American public).
4/ Regarding BO’s assertion that he had never agreed or tried to implement a “status of forces agreement,” this was, let’s call it what it really is, a lie. In reality, BO tried to establish a ‘sofa’ but was rejected after some feeble attempts. Even journalist, Democrat, and Nixon-nemesis Bob Woodward, stated the day after this last debate that BO wasn’t truthful. Additionally, even the ultra-liberal New York Times rejected BO’s ‘sofa’ claim.
5/ BO also chided MR as conveying the biggest of all lies and “whoppers” against him by MR insinuating in his campaign speeches that BO was not supportive enough of Israel. So BO responded at the debate that he had developed the strongest ties in U.S. history with Israel. (Yet nothing much could be farther from the truth.) BO has in fact greatly alienated Israel (including their present Premier Netanyahu) more than any President since Israel’s inception in 1948. In reality, President Obama has roughly a 12% approval rating with the Israeli people according to the latest polls. No U.S. President has had numbers this dismal. BO has not visited Israel since taking office or would he meet with Netanyahu weeks ago during the highly-proclaimed UN gatherings in New York. Instead, BO visited Letterman, The View, and Las Vegas for political reasons.
6/ BO also chided MR as finally “recognizing Al Qaeda as a threat.” (What? When has MR ever NOT cited Al Qaeda, et. al., as major threats? How disingenuous of the President.)
7/ President Obama also claimed he never advocated sequestering navy ships. Instead, he childishly belittled MR by saying we’re beyond using bayonets and horses (which the military still uses by the way; many horses have been deployed to Afghanistan), and we now have submarines, etc. This elicited some laughs from the foolish in the audience and BO, but it was entirely missing and evading MR’s point (which Right brainers tend to do under mental [and especially ethical/spiritual] duress). Missed by most, MR astutely prefaced his sequestering comment by citing navy hierarchy’s requests for additional ships and that he was supportive of this for sound military reasons. Lastly, the Wall Street Journal wrote the day after this debate that BO’s ‘sequestering’ snafu was ‘his biggest gaffe or deliberate evasion of the evening.”
8/ Many more issues BO claimed could easily be proven false (like when he claimed MR said we needed to have Pakistan’s permission to pursue Bin Laden… or that he, BO, never apologized for America during his Middle East tour after becoming President, or that his Administration has been forthright following the Benghazi debacle and obvious cover-up, etc.)
Or how about BO saying in one campaign speech after another that MR is a blatant liar, regardless the subject? How proper, much less ethical and accurate, is that? Where is there any evidence for such a ridiculous claim? Also, our nation’s President has embarrassingly coined the disparaging term, Romnesia. Mr. Romney never has said such things regarding BO, though he has much more real evidence for this position than does BO against him. (Many suggest he should hit back with Obamanation, for starters.) As BTI cited in the last article, Left brainers are usually challenged or defamed for making their positions crystal clear, taking a stand where all can know what is espoused. (Consider, for example, Congressman Paul Ryan’s well-thought-out and thorough federal budget proposed in recent years. And what did he get for it?, Democrat election ads showing a Ryan look-alike throwing a wheel-chaired grandma off a cliff! Was that fair, and ethical?
And why wasn’t President Obama instead challenged on his federal budget? The Right-brained BO has never even submitted one to Congress in his 4 White House years! Unlike the typical Left-brained politician, BO and others of his Right brain dominance (particularly men) often let issues slide, until it’s an assured deal and they’re ready to tackle it (without other distractions). Mañana is often their mantra. So to force the President’s hand to submit a budget which obviously must include his yearly trillion dollar deficits, Congress took his proclaimed spending ideas and brought it before Congress. Not one vote supported it, even from Democrats!
Or how about this one from just last night? One of BO’s biggest fans in the media, David Letterman, said on the Late Show that he was “upset” and “discouraged” the president lied about Mitt Romney in Monday’s debate, wanting to let Detroit go bankrupt. Here’s what Letterman said on air:
“Here’s what upset me last night, this playing fast and loose with facts. And the President Obama cites the op-ed piece that Romney wrote about Detroit, ‘Let them go bankrupt, let them go bankrupt,’ and last night he brings it up again. ‘Oh, no, Governor, you said let them go bankrupt, blah blah blah, let them go bankrupt.’ And Mitt said, ‘No, no, check the thing, check the thing, check the thing.’ Now, I don’t care whether you’re Republican or Democrat, you want your president to be telling the truth; you want the contender to be lying. And so what we found out today or soon thereafter that, in fact, the President Obama was not telling the truth about what was excerpted from that op-ed piece. I felt discouraged.”
Guest Rachel Maddow responded: “Because the ‘Let Detroit go bankrupt’ headline you feel like was inappropriate?”
LETTERMAN: “Well, the fact the President is invoking it and swearing that he was right and that Romney was wrong and I thought, well, he’s the president of course he’s right. Well, it turned out no, he was taking liberties with that.”
Concluding these issues, let’s not forget that it’s often those who have major blemishes in their own lives who sadly try to pass the buck and blame to others.
What is most threatening to America is not the many and dire issues outside our borders but the blatant dishonesty and lack of integrity of the politicians who control our lives and land. Every political party has this problem; it is not limited to only one.
As JN has now evaluated some 60,000 persons spanning 4 decades, he has discovered that one’s spiritual/ethical/moral foundation (or lack thereof) is the single greatest determinant for practicing integrity or honesty. He also places a high degree of relevance on BT for implementing truthfulness and playing by the rules. Some BTs are far more prone to embellish and morph issues (especially the Q1s), whereas others are far more likely to stay within the boundaries of acceptable behavior and thought (Q4s of the Left posterior). Yet if a person has a strong moral compass, dishonest, uncivil, and immoral temptations can be kept in check. Israel’s great King Solomon of the Old Testament strongly appears to have been a #13 FCIR. His far-reaching and outside-the-box exploits are widely known, and he lamented many of his early indiscretions at the end of his life. So he left his readers, including us today, with the admonition to “fear God, keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man (Ecc. 11).” Though he achieved mankind’s greatest fleshly and intellectual desires, perhaps more than any person then and since, he eventually regarded it all as “vanity” in light of God’s revealed standards and one’s eternal destiny.
One other Biblical person who should especially be a great inspiration to us all was Symeon by his original Hebrew name, or the adopted Greek name of Simon with similar sound, or the Christ-conferred handle of Cephas or Petros meaning “rock”, better known as the Apostle Peter. (The Biblical evidence strongly supports for Peter a #5 FEIR innate design—the consummate quarterback, by the way, for those with NFL interest). Even when a part of Jesus’ inner circle of three, the young and former fisherman was known for his embellishments and oft-unchecked behavior. In fact, as late as the day of Christ’s incomprehensible execution, Peter not only thrice denied his Savior and mentor but cursed when accused of being an associate of his. Yet soon thereafter, following the resurrection, Peter had a spiritual transformation from above that from then on, continually kept his rough edges in check—lasting some 30 years until he was martyred for his faith. This time he did not deny Christ.
Spiritual/moral stability is crucial for keeping man’s fallen nature in check. Yes, man has many inborn areas of value, but he also has areas of deep depravity. As parents, we never have to teach our little ones to lie, steal, pout, or to be selfish. They are born with this condition. Thus it is essential that we instruct them from the time they can comprehend, to be upright and regard others with the Golden Rule. If we fail to do this, they, and we, will experience many unnecessary troubles in the years ahead, regardless of BT. Additionally, it is paramount that we as adults also help one another in attaining and maintaining our proper ethical, moral compasses.
Yet we must not lose sight of inborn designs and how they influence specific aberrant behaviors. JN has kept criminal profiles for 3 decades and has found astounding links to specific crimes and certain BTs. In his new material to-soon-be published, he especially places in the spiritual sections the strong tendencies for improper behaviors unique to each BT. This should be of value to all of us, regardless of age. As BTI has cited from its beginning, BTs enable us to not only enhance our inborn (mental and physical) giftedness beyond any other man-devised tool, but to also better view our flaws and indiscretions. We have found that it is only the mature and wise who seek to diligently rid themselves of these hindrances. May each of us strive (especially politicians) to be among this minority.
And finally, if you believe we have been misguided in our appraisal of recent high-profile political behaviors, feel free to let us know. We welcome dissenting opinions. Yet remember, please, that we have not singled out non-debate incidences, choosing only to critique performances when the candidates actually confront one another in person, and the American people. It’s one thing for them to misrepresent or fabricate to one another, but it’s something else to do this before 300 million Americans. We readily allow candidates to change their positions, even on the spot. They need, however, to admit then and there to this recent development. What we do not want to allow is when they seemingly mislead, intentionally, the viewing public, and there is strong corroborating evidence for this (far beyond what BTI may perceive). Neither do we attempt to expose all or even most of the conveyed indiscretions. Yet when it becomes a strong and reoccurring tendency for distortions, it’s time to hone in and try to make sense of it for BT students. We can never expect others, or ourselves, to ever implement BT (or any other subject) ethically if we do not identify, at least, the glaring transgressions of misrepresentation (starting with selves). Let’s all strive to be aboveboard in all we think and do.
The views expressed may not be those of BTI in its entirety.
Written by: Staff