Obama, Romney and Three “Buratinos”

The U.S. presidential candidate from the Republican Party, Mitt Romney, has seriously taken up the issue of foreign policy. While at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Nevada, he descended upon… no, not upon Russia, though it got its share as usual, but upon China, which in Romney’s opinion has been cheating in trade.

It must be said that Democrats have long been dreaming of Romney saying something new about foreign policy because he clearly does not understand it (although American voters are not very competent in this area either).

So far one thing is clear — an election campaign of rare intensity, constantly stepping out of the bounds of propriety, is taking place in the U.S. And it’s possible that even Americans, who are used to everything during elections, may start asking questions this time: What is wrong with our democracy?

How Many Veterans Are There in America?

Actually, the main discoveries in the area of foreign policy are still ahead — right after Nevada, Romney headed to the United Kingdom, then to Israel and Palestine, then to Poland, and he will say plenty more.

But this time at the meeting he spoke mainly of… the crisis in the area of national security.

The point at issue is the information the mass media received about the Special Forces raid in Pakistan that killed bin Laden and drone missions in Pakistan. This leak did not become a big problem in the U.S., but Romney remembered it and asked the following question: What kind of White House leaks secret documents for political gain? Good thing he didn’t say that Obama approved the leaks personally.

In March of last year Romney, to the giggles of experts on foreign policy, called Russia a “geopolitical enemy number one.” This time he avoided such stupidity; he did not rate the enemies, but quickly trampled all — China, Iran and indeed Russia — accusing Obama of “surrendering” anti-missile defense and American allies in order to please Moscow. And he fit all those thorny criticisms under one topic — the very same “national security crisis.”

The reaction to this speech… for example, in The New York Times: “This was a chance for Mitt Romney to show that he could be a better international leader than President Obama, who has already proved himself in that field. He fell far short.”

But that’s a New York paper for smart people, while the election is mainly for the illiterate. Ratings here are as follows: Based on polls by the Washington Post and ABC in May, 48 percent of those surveyed thought that Obama is carrying out foreign policy affairs well, and 46 percent did not.

The Veterans’ Convention is the traditional ground for similar exercises. With their constant wars, how many veterans does the U.S. have? Including families — 25 percent of voters!

Curiously, Obama spoke at the same convention a day earlier. But he took a different approach. It took place right after the slaughter in a movie theater in Colorado, where four veterans were killed. And, speaking of them, Obama appealed to the best sentiments of his audience. Romney appealed to somewhat different sentiments.

In Effect He’s Pinocchio

Everything happening during the election campaign in the U.S. can be explained by just one thing: Candidates are going head to head in ratings. At this point, according to the Gallup service, the count is 46-45 in Obama’s favor. I highly recommend taking a look at the graph with blue and red curves (showing the popularity of the two candidates) and even pointing your cursor at it; the graph has surprises in the form of floating numbers.

America has long been in a situation that most of the world population would consider a national disaster — one election after another at 50/50, society is split exactly in half. And this situation generates idiocy deserving no respect. Fooling ignorant people about what goes on in the world, supporting their illusions of the past era of American might — what is that about? And forging videos and ignoring known facts?

About two weeks ago the main issues of the election were the taxes paid or not paid by Romney (who refused to release his tax returns). Democrats were plenty entertained on the subject of financial sharks; the richer they are the less they pay. Washington Post writer Richard Cohen said, “[Romney] hides his taxes not because it would reveal anything new about him, but because it would reveal what he has always known about us: We’re suckers.”

Here it must be noted that Americans generally think that as far as the economy goes, Obama is not really doing so well, even though he is trying. And this is a strong topic for Romney. His experience in business is working for him after all. But Democrats are unremitting.

Here’s the question: What kind of Americans prefer Romney? Two opposing ideologies disagree specifically on this problem. To simplify, Republicans are for pure initiative and no taxes paid to “big government,” i.e. to welfare recipients; and Democrats, the opposite. And last week yet another election story, called “it wasn’t him,” took place.

Republicans (some artless person from the election campaign team) took Obama’s speech from July 13, cut several pieces out of it and combined. The manipulation of his speech made it appear as if the U.S. president were accusing business leaders of not being the ones who created their companies.

The thing is, Obama did say something similar, but in detail and persuasively. Indeed, Democrats have long discussed this, starting with Franklin Roosevelt. Obama said that success of a business is also because of the team working for the owner, and infrastructure, which the government has spent money on… And, basically, the reactions of Romney and other Republicans aren’t difficult to guess: Steve Jobs — he’s not the one who did it?

The problem is that election followers have discovered similar occurrences — by taking phrases out of context and twisting facts — among Democrats as well. And really, Republicans look worse in these stories only because they are losing more than winning right now, but victory is so close; within the range of a statistical error, a couple of percentage points…

Americans, especially the smart ones, escape it all with what they are very strong at: humor. Back in December a special blog was started, awarding howling politicians a “Buratino” based on “what they said” versus “what was.” One “Buratino,” two, three… Of course, this is not “our” (i.e. as retold by Aleksey Tolstoy) “Buratino”; in America he is more often called Pinocchio, his behavioral characteristics are somewhat different, and in the U.S. the meaning of such award is clear to all — a wooden man who says everything that comes into his stupid head. And so the combination of Obama quotes on the topic of business owners earned three “Buratinos.” Although here one should present a “fox Alisa,” i.e. an award for a big dirty trick, not for talking without verifying facts.

How many “Buratinos” will Romney receive for his revelations on foreign policy, especially after this recently begun trip abroad? Most likely a lot. Though we shall not forget that the surrounding world is not, after all, the most important topic for Americans.