ROBERTENEAL
October 10th, 2009, 11:44 pm
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I guess that puts him in good company with a couple of others who have been awarded the prize in the past, Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat.
I am not impressed, because I never liked Carter, or Arafat, or Obama. But that is just me. There is nothing that those guys can do, or could have done that would have impressed me. Maybe they all have redeeming qualities that I just don't see.
Maybe Obama makes a good peace prize recipient by virtue of the fact that our troops don't seem to care for him. I saw two videos; one of the warm, friendly welcome that George W. Bush got from the troops when he made his last trip to the middle east, and the other of the uninspired (but polite) reception that Obama got from the troops at Camp Lejeune.
Comparing the videos is, of course, a subjective analysis that doesn't really prove anything. If the two presidents had made appearances at a convention of NYU professors and ACLU lawyers, I am sure that it would have been Obama that received the warm welcome, and Dubya would have been politely tolerated.
I always liked President Bush; in spite of the fact that he was far more of a fiscal liberal and pro big government than he should have been (IMO). On the plus side, I think that he was a good social conservative, and that he did a good job of trying to manage a variety of Catch-22 options in the national security and GWOT situations.
I can forgive Bush his faults, but I can't do the same for Obama. There are many who have feelings that are the polar opposite of mine. Feelings don't prove anything, though.
The point is that perception means a lot; even non-objective perception produces consequences.
This raises another topic of discussion: How is public perception used to elect presidents? Who uses public perception? How is it used?
As a Republican PCO, I was involved in district level and county level caucuses in 2008. I still don't understand the process. Most of the Republicans I know wanted either Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Hunter, Thompson, etc. Just about anyone but McCain.
Most Democrats I know wanted Hillary Clinton. I can't think of any democrats that I know of who wanted Obama to be their candidate.
I did not participate at the higher level caucuses, but I gotta wonder what really went on.
How did Obama and McCain come to be the candidates? There are some who say that the two are not all that different when it comes to the issues (especially the economic ones), but they are perceived by many as opposites.
Was a divisive election rigged, one where it would not make much difference which candidate won the debates and the election? An election that divides "we the people", but the same results are achieved regardless of which candidate wins the election?
Divide and conquer. Think about it.
I am not impressed, because I never liked Carter, or Arafat, or Obama. But that is just me. There is nothing that those guys can do, or could have done that would have impressed me. Maybe they all have redeeming qualities that I just don't see.
Maybe Obama makes a good peace prize recipient by virtue of the fact that our troops don't seem to care for him. I saw two videos; one of the warm, friendly welcome that George W. Bush got from the troops when he made his last trip to the middle east, and the other of the uninspired (but polite) reception that Obama got from the troops at Camp Lejeune.
Comparing the videos is, of course, a subjective analysis that doesn't really prove anything. If the two presidents had made appearances at a convention of NYU professors and ACLU lawyers, I am sure that it would have been Obama that received the warm welcome, and Dubya would have been politely tolerated.
I always liked President Bush; in spite of the fact that he was far more of a fiscal liberal and pro big government than he should have been (IMO). On the plus side, I think that he was a good social conservative, and that he did a good job of trying to manage a variety of Catch-22 options in the national security and GWOT situations.
I can forgive Bush his faults, but I can't do the same for Obama. There are many who have feelings that are the polar opposite of mine. Feelings don't prove anything, though.
The point is that perception means a lot; even non-objective perception produces consequences.
This raises another topic of discussion: How is public perception used to elect presidents? Who uses public perception? How is it used?
As a Republican PCO, I was involved in district level and county level caucuses in 2008. I still don't understand the process. Most of the Republicans I know wanted either Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Hunter, Thompson, etc. Just about anyone but McCain.
Most Democrats I know wanted Hillary Clinton. I can't think of any democrats that I know of who wanted Obama to be their candidate.
I did not participate at the higher level caucuses, but I gotta wonder what really went on.
How did Obama and McCain come to be the candidates? There are some who say that the two are not all that different when it comes to the issues (especially the economic ones), but they are perceived by many as opposites.
Was a divisive election rigged, one where it would not make much difference which candidate won the debates and the election? An election that divides "we the people", but the same results are achieved regardless of which candidate wins the election?
Divide and conquer. Think about it.