Obama learned little or nothing with his lick-and-a-promise visit to Copenhagen to boost Chicago for the Olympics. One short speech about ME and he was gone, much to the disgust of the Olympic Committee and the other contenders. As I said at the time, the hubris of his appearance did more harm than good to his cause.
Well, here we go again. Norway, silly boys, gave Obama a premature Peace Prize and now they’re miffed because he’s picking it up and leaving…more or less.
Barack Obama’s trip to Oslo to pick up his Nobel peace award is in danger of being overshadowed by a row over the cancellation of a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.
Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.
The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.
He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.
According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.
“Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king,” said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. “This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy,” she told VG.
Shabby? It’s tacky, rude, insensitive, and boorish. It’s embarrassing for Americans. But unfortunately, the Norwegians brought this on themselves. In their unseemly haste to kick George Bush in the leg again, they picked a recipient who does this kind of thing on a regular basis. At least when he’s not being inappropriate in the other direction, bowing to emperors, etc.
Americans don’t think much of Norway’s choice for this year’s Peace Prize either. CNN ran a poll:
- - - - - - - - -
Hours before Barack Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a new national poll indicates that fewer Americans than ever think the president deserves the award. But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, a majority of the public believes the president will eventually accomplish enough to merit the honor.
Nineteen percent of people questioned in the poll released Wednesday afternoon say Obama currently deserves the prize, with another 35 percent saying that it’s likely he will eventually accomplish enough in office to deserve the award. Still, greater than four in 10 believe the president will never deserve the prize.
The 19 percent who believe Obama deserves the award is down 13 points from a CNN poll conducted in October, soon after the award was announced.
[…]
But although most people do not think the president currently deserves the peace prize, seven in 10 questioned - including a majority of Republicans - say he should go to Oslo, Norway Thursday to accept the award.
It’s not like Obama doesn’t have the time to do this trip and accept this honor correctly and with all due humility. He sure has had the time for basketball and golf. Why not give the Norwegians their due respect and stay a little longer than twenty-six hours?
What am I saying? This is the man who gave his general for Afghanistan a fifteen-minute interview on the tarmac in Copenhagen.
Hamlet definitely doesn’t have the timing right during this run, as is shown by the buyer’s remorse that seems to be driving the polls of late.
Ben Smith says:
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans.
Somewhat of a surprise?? Obama has been in office less than a year and only 6% of Americans now prefer him to George “Hitler” Bush? Remember the blood-for-oil villain?
This “closeness” in the numbers has more than mere “implications” for the 2010 elections. It means that few, or none of his Democrat Congressional pack is going to want him around during the elections.
Maybe that would be the right time to mosey on back to Norway and beg a lunch off King Harald? He could bring a peace gift: say a few CDs of his better speeches.
27 comments:
And this surprises them why?
Chickens. Home. Roost.
"He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway."
But he is gonna wave with his little hand too the populace from behind half an inch thick bullet proof glass on a balkony in central Oslo. Also, there will be snipers all around on the roofs, so you probabely will not get rid of him at this occasion.
It must be my revolutionary spirit, but I'm still puzzled by the existence of monarchies in this day and age.
That aside, it is important to note that not only has B-HO's approval rating declined, it is the lowest for any president since polling began, after this amount of time in office.
As for B-HO's visit to Norway, he dare not stay too long. The last time they had a Quisling, he met a firing squad.
I think a lot of this is just pure politics. He knows most Americans think this is a joke. He just doesnt want to add fuel to his plummeting poll numbers by hanging around.
Here goes Obama again. In Norway. I just caught this part...
----
.....'Globalization'..'the cultural leveling of modernity'.. 'it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities, their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully, their religion'.
'In some places this fear has led to conflict. At times it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the middle east as the conflict between arabs and jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lives'.
'And most dangerously we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distored and defiled the great religion of islam... and who attacked my country.. from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of god, the cruelties of the crusades are amply recorded'..
'They remind us no holy war can ever be a just war, for if you truely believe that you are carrying out devine will then there is no need for restraint, no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic or the red cross worker or even a person of ones own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace but I believe it is incompatible with the vary purpose of faith. for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Adhearing to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature for we are fallible'...etc
Dec. 10, 2009
------
So globalization is going to LEVEL us? No bring some up but also bring some down? Or level us as in wipe us out?
people fear the loss of what they cherish... well that is no surprise why would anyone celebrate loseing what they cherish? their race? would he worry if the black race was being erased? I think he would. Religion? Does he mean muslims worry that their religion might fade with the modern world. Or Christians will disappear.
Globalization leading to fear in the middle east? I think they were fighting WAY before globalization. Moving backwards... BECAUSE of islam.
And the GREAT religion of islam, again...distorted and defiled... and they attacked from Afghanistan. No Saudi's?
These extremists,meaning muslims, were not the first, remember the crusades? Weren't they the backlash against muslim violence? Doesn't he know that or does he just ignore it? Or is he just trying to transfer christian guilt. Trying to create moral equivalance.
...if you truely believe that you are carrying out devine will then there is no need for restraint...sounds like the permission given by the jihadists...
...the warped view is incompatible with faith? not according to Mohammad.
...the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us... Then islam is not a religion because that is not at the heart of islam. Not ANYWHERE in islam, is it?
And is his nose going higher into the air? And was the audience imported?
Did he bow to the King of Norway? He didn't bow to HRH the Queen of England, so I'm wondering if he only bows to certain royalty.
He really does love islam....
Anyway, all the pundits loved the speech.
That's right, Barry, take the trophy and run. I didn't know that the Nobel Prize Committee had affirmative action quotas too.
This wonderfully deadpan headline from the London Times:
Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize with defence of war and attack on Iran (I'd paste the link but I guess I'm supposed to use the goobledegook href< format, which I really don't understand)
The preening ass may well get us all killed but it'll be yuk after yuk all the way there.
by the way, if you dubt wath i say about woman this here is a qote you cant argue with:
"The results of the election for President of the United States held on November show that 56 percent of women voted for Barack Obama compared with 49 percent of men
Read more at Suite101: Obama and the Women's Vote: Eight Million More Women than Men Voted for Obama | Suite101.com http://us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/obama_and_the_gender_gap#ixzz0ZJaPJrRK"
@ P.C= POLITICAL CATASTROFY --
I have no idea what you say about women, but no doubt that the past two generation's worth are a buncha sheep.
Except for the sake of analysis, we can't really separate out the problem of women voters and the problems men present their own selves.
We're in this together. Be darned if I know what the solution is, but at this point, I'm inclined to protect men from the depredations of women (and boys from mean girls)
...but then along comes that penis writ large, aka Tiger Woods, to make men look like tee-total idjits whose brains have all dropped into their jockey shorts.
How about we go with "both sides of the gender divide need to grow up"?
what i said about woman(and man) was, that we need to have a separation of roles.
man should be responsuble for things like defens, immigration, crime, and anithing else that is scary.
and woman should be responseble for thing like education, health sience, culture, thing like that.
and thay should have two difrent elections, and reprasenitivs for that.
oderwise will continue too sabmisiv toward islam and oder scary things.
PC, I wouldn't put the average woman, at least the average Western woman, in charge of culture. Throughout the ages, men regulated culture and I believe this is normal. We don't really need roles, but we need to reward virtue and success, which isn't happening nowadays.
I'd say Thatcher did a pretty good job when she was a PM. Compare her to Harriet, for example. There's no comparison whatsoever.
rebelliousvanilla,
Neoliberals and modern socialists love Thatcher, one of the first of the world leaders to embrace globalization and preach the dark art of global warming - Thatcher was a poor man's national socialist.
The destruction of conservatism and Nu-labour is Thatcher's legacy.
rebelliousvanilla--
But women are already in charge of culture. Have always been. Men have been its architects (in past ages) but women were its transmitters and without that crucial administrative function, there would be no culture in any real sense of the term.
Just one small example: Think about the early patron(esses) of Christianity. Paul depended on the rich widows to feed, clothe, and shelter him during his ministry.
When men went off on their various escapades, who was left behind, chastity belt firmly locked in place, to run the castle and its domains?
Women are excellent administrators, negotiators, etc. They don't show as much (in general terms only, please) talent re the executive function, but what good is an executive without someone to execute?
Nope, it's not an either/or propositionn.
====
4Symbols --That's not a message that will ever carry much traction here. Thatcher had her faults, but what would have been in her place would've been much worse. The UK would be further down the road than it already is.
- A toast to the King of Norway
whereafter POTUS left the podium not having drunk from the glass and places it on a sidetable.
Quran 5:90
rebelliousvanilla, Dymphna
in the future muslim countries will have nuclear bombs.
are you sure you want woman to a part of deeling with this?.
what would be the chances of doing somthig seriose aginst them at home at point?.
So, will Obama bow to the white King of Norway?
Anyway, all the pundits loved the speech
They all got tingles up their legs I'm sure. Watching the MSM covering Obama gives me an idea of what life was like for people in the Soviet Union during the Cold War relying on Izvestia and Pravda.
But unfortunately, the Norwegians brought this on themselves.
True. I'm glad this is all happening. It is damaging to the image of the Nobel Peace Prize and that is definitely a good thing in the long run.
Thatcher broke the unions, privatised industry and cut social welfare spending almost in half. Socialist?
Establishing global warming was a tactical choice, made as part of that drive to break the power of the unions, that turned into a strategic error. I doubt she envisioned it would become such a huge world-spanning apparatus.
The death of the tories came with rise of the economic wets accompanying Major and the sleaze years, not Thatcher. She was the last real tory. Not perfect (who is) but principled and strong-willed enough to stick to her principles in all but a very few circumstances. She underestimated the eventual growth of the EU and she underestimated the growing rump of the socio-economic leftists in her own party, lead by Heseltine and Major.
As Dymphna said, without her we'd be in a terrible state now. Under her leadership this country went from economic and social stagnation and decay to growth, and from the bottom of the pile of western economies to the second largest in the world. Now we're sliding down that scale again thanks to Brown and Blair and the EU, but just think where we'd be if she hadn't had the willingness to pull us out of that morass.
rebelliousvanilla, Dymphna
in the future muslim countries will have nuclear bombs.
are you sure you want woman to a part of deeling with this?.
what would be the chances of doing somthig seriose aginst them at home at point?...
Ummm...they already have nuclear weapons. Iran? Pakistan? Tennis anyone?
What difference women dealing with what is already a done deal has to do with nuclear weapons is beyond my understanding.
Bhutto, anyone?
==================
Archonix--
Thanks for pointing out the devil in the details on Thatcher. Do you know of a reliable biography on her time in power?
It's no reflection on America, since our President aint an American....
yeah yeah, I know I am crazy, but I still aint seen no birth certificate....
is this clearer for you? -
The Gender Gap in American Voting
% of women and men voting:
barak obama 56% woman / 49% men
Bill Clinton 54% women / 43% men
Al Gore 54% women / 42% men
Jimmy Carter 45% women / 37% men
When she (Thatcher) resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line.
Is this the benchmark of successful conservative economics, I beg to differ. To have achieved such a level of child poverty in the economic conditions of the time was a malicious economic scorched earth policy against a large section of the British population.
You realise that "poverty" in this country is a very artificial distinction, right? By current measures I live in "poverty" right now but I ain't poor.
Of course it's easy to point to arbitrary, politically defined figures about poverty and use that as a hammer against someone you don't like but it means bugger all in this country, when the vast majority of people defines as "in poverty" are really just a little bit below an arbitrary minimum income line. They could still afford clothing and food and the ruddy TV license. that isn't poverty, that's just being less well off. Real poverty is living in a caravan for six months and living on beans, which I had to do when my dad lost his business in 89 after a bypass was built around our home town.
In fact no, real poverty is living in a hut you scraped together from scraps of wood and metal and bartering part of a fish for some clean water. Happens a lot in south america. Were those children here starving to death because their parents couldn't afford food or freezing to death because they'd run out of clothing? No? Then they weren't in poverty.
@Dymphna, off-hand I can't recall one, though I remember one being mentioned in the news last year. The problem is, there are few people who can take a balanced view of Thatcher. They'd either write character assassination of a hagiography and neither is particularly useful. She has an autobiography out
Dymphna and Archonix,
I have one source, who might be contacted for a fuller explanation.
Dan Riehl.
no2liberals, a comment on the page you linked points to a page by John Daly that has an interesting overview of what actions she took in regard to global warming and her motivations for them.
@Graham Dawson (Archonix)
"You realise that "poverty" in this country is a very artificial distinction, right? By current measures I live in "poverty" right now but I ain't poor."
Interstingly your comment is the same response as Thatcher gave - a noteable early occassion of cultural relativism being used in popular politics.
To this I would have asserted at the time that discounting housing costs (rent) the level of subsistance benefit was equivalent in spending power to a dollar a day in a third world economy.
The alienation of a large section of the British population in the name of conservatism under Thatcher is very important in understanding present day U.K. politics. The adoption and progression of Thatcher's policies by Nulabour is why I claim "Thatcherism" was from the same neoliberal bottle as Nulabours Socialism - "Thatcherism" a (soft) national socialism.
Ironically welfare acted as her political safety net imagine the higher level of destitution and dissent if there had been no welfare state.
The destruction of the welfare state particularly with regards to unemployment and disability benefit instigated by Mrs T. was finally shaped and put on the statute book by Nulabour in 2009, laws that have been under reported by the MSM, if or when these instruments are used we will see the Social disintegration of the U.K.
As to the unions Scargill's decision not to hold a ballot was his second mistake his first was that he did not appreciate that the British people elected Thatcher to break the power of militant Unions. Thatchers mistake was that she thought that the mandate also gave her the authority to destroy the associated communities, suprisingly some of her most ardent supporters were from those very communities, the working class aspiring to the middle class.
Margaret Thatcher, a Sergeant Wilson no! a Captain Mainwaring yes!
Archonix
An interesting piece. I only wish he had included a bibliography.
Post a Comment