I want to put a slightly different viewpoint on this . . . .

We've hit on the obvious stuff on the other thread, and I agree that Obama can't be blamed for one socialist country's man-love for anything non-Bush.

But the thought I had driving in to work after I rushed to the Internet to confirm that the radio on my snooze alarm was not playing an April Fool's joke . . . .

If Obama were smart (and I believe that he most certainly is) he will turn this thing down, giving a speech showing gratitude and humility, but ultimately turning the award down while stating that he humbly hoped that by the end of his administration his achievements would be judged equally worthy as his intentions. He could have referenced some of the other deserving candidates, and heck, even made another pitch for his own goals on disarmament, the Middle East, etc.

Where could anyone have gone with that? Even his critics would've been left without much to do but grudgingly admit he'd taken the high road and at the same time held on to his ability to make foreign policy decisions without the albatross of a ridiculous award based on perceived promises (the perception being the fault of the awarders) handing around his neck.

I walked into the office and told some co-workers that I'd be willing to put $10 down that the White House was going to turn this down before lunch.

This is not meant as a criticism (other than the guys on the Committee who worked hard to make the award meaningless), and I started this thread to avoid that discussion, as I'm sure the other thread can handle that just fine.

What does this board, think, independent of leanings left and right?

Do you agree that Obama could've scored some major points by turning this down? Especially given his gifts as an orator? Wouldn't it have appealed to the left and the center, and pretty much everyone but the far, far right? Heck wouldn't it just have made the Europeans love him all the more?

Again, this is intended as a political question and not meant to drag policy into the discussion.

It won't happen. He will accept.

I am waiting to see the reaction from Europe and other places when the Peace Prize winner sends additional troops to Afghanistan, especially since the acceptance ceremony will not be held for another two months, so that the Afghanistan decision will have been made public by then.

Obama is too much of an egomaniac to turn it down.

(10-11-2009 09:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Obama is too much of an egomaniac to turn it down.

Then I seriously question the intelligence of his advisors.

(10-11-2009 09:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Obama is too much of an egomaniac to turn it down.

Not to mention that the prize carries a stipend of over $1 million. Can't imagine too many politicians turning that down.

By the way, according to Wikipedia, the only person to decline the Nobel Peace Prize was Le Duc Tho.

Well, we know he didn't turn it down.

I'll point back to the initial question:

Would it have been a smart move for him politically to turn it down?

Seems like a win-win decision.

Money shouldn't be an issue. The left absolutely loves him. He raised more money than any politician ever. Can't believe it's an issue to him.

I understand that he will give the money to a charity, as yet unnamed. I hope it isn't ACORN.

Sure, he should have politely rejected it. He knows he didn't earn it, the whole world knows he didn't earn it. Was it part of the cult of adoration, or was it subtle pressure on him to act in certain ways? Can't tell, probably we'll never know.

I wonder who nominated him, and what they were thinking. I wonder if they would still nominate him today, with more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq than were there at the time of nomination, and Gitmo still open. I wonder their reaction when he sends still more troops. I wonder their reaction to his reaction to Iran, whevever he decides to react.

If you see the list of other nominees, you see many people who deserve it. Obama is not one. This award is political, 100% based in hope, not actions.

What's next, a Grammy?

(10-11-2009 10:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What's next, a Grammy?

Well, he's already got a pair of Grammys (Grammies?) under his belt.
Best Spoken Word:
2006: Dreams from My Father
2008: Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

Maybe Oscar is next.

(10-12-2009 08:34 AM)lou Wrote:  

(10-11-2009 10:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What's next, a Grammy?

Well, he's already got a pair of Grammys (Grammies?) under his belt.
Best Spoken Word:
2006: Dreams from My Father
2008: Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

Maybe Oscar is next.

Maybe an Emmy, too - Best performance in reading a teleprompter. In truth, he might really deserve that one.

I believe the acceptance is set for December 10. I wonder if there will be any protesters outside.

Your version sounds great Rick...

Here are my problems with it...

Those that love him would love him for it, those that don't would find a reason to hate him for it (I sure wish I could afford to turn down $1mm)

Those in the middle would be just as happy with him ACCEPTING it on behalf of the American people and our collective efforts to make the world a better place... even when we are ultimately viewed as being mis-guided.

Even if you HATE Bush, you have to be blinded by politics to believe that he INTENDED to do harm to the country or the world. Obama is being hailed for his intentions... but we ALL have great intentions (at least most of us)

(10-12-2009 06:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your version sounds great Rick...

Here are my problems with it...

Those that love him would love him for it, those that don't would find a reason to hate him for it (I sure wish I could afford to turn down $1mm)

Those in the middle would be just as happy with him ACCEPTING it on behalf of the American people and our collective efforts to make the world a better place... even when we are ultimately viewed as being mis-guided.

Even if you HATE Bush, you have to be blinded by politics to believe that he INTENDED to do harm to the country or the world. Obama is being hailed for his intentions... but we ALL have great intentions (at least most of us)

Those on the furthest fringes might still find a way to criticize . . . .

but I believe that you always win at least SOME people over by doing the right thing, especially when it's obviously the right thing, and when it is unexpected.

http://www.star-telegram.com/1021/story/1680195.html

(10-14-2009 02:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://www.star-telegram.com/1021/story/1680195.html

Exactly, that pretty much sums it all up in a nutshell, and I'm glad someone who gets paid for their opinions stated it as well.

As crazy as it sounds, Obama was handed an absolutely golden opportunity on a silver platter to IMPROVE his approval ratings and deflect criticism from the extreme right.

He would've come across as someone with high character, and to those who already are on board with him, he would've been a freakin' HERO.

If he had no one on his staff begging him to do this, he needs new staff, period.

(10-14-2009 06:31 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 02:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://www.star-telegram.com/1021/story/1680195.html

Exactly, that pretty much sums it all up in a nutshell, and I'm glad someone who gets paid for their opinions stated it as well.

As crazy as it sounds, Obama was handed an absolutely golden opportunity on a silver platter to IMPROVE his approval ratings and deflect criticism from the extreme right.

He would've come across as someone with high character, and to those who already are on board with him, he would've been a freakin' HERO.

If he had no one on his staff begging him to do this, he needs new staff, period.

Did you notice the author works for the NY Times news Service? No vast right-wing conspiracy there.

Douthat is a decently known conservative author and blogger. Just because it's on the NYT News Service doesn't mean that it's liberal. David Brooks is also well established there. Douthat took over for Bill Kristol in their roster. Similarly, George Will syndicates through the Washington Post service. In fact, some conservatives might say (as they often did about David Brooks during the 2008 campaign) that he's squishy/not a real conservative because he writes for the NYT and sometimes doesn't toe the line.

I haven't read enough of Douthat's stuff to judge him on the spectrum of conservativeness (whatever that means).

(10-14-2009 07:35 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Douthat is a decently known conservative author and blogger. Just because it's on the NYT News Service doesn't mean that it's liberal. David Brooks is also well established there. Douthat took over for Bill Kristol in their roster. Similarly, George Will syndicates through the Washington Post service. In fact, some conservatives might say (as they often did about David Brooks during the 2008 campaign) that he's squishy/not a real conservative because he writes for the NYT and sometimes doesn't toe the line.

I haven't read enough of Douthat's stuff to judge him on the spectrum of conservativeness (whatever that means).

Sorry. I guess I'm not decent since I never heard of him before. (Just kidding) (about the not decent part, that is)

Given the bipartisan nature of the negative responses to the NPP, it's hard to tell someone's core beliefs.

What do you think he will say in his acceptance speech?

Absolutely nothing that will be more politically beneficial (or truthful) than a well-written speech turning down the award would have been, that's for sure.

News reports today indicate that most of the Nobel Committee was initially against giving Obama the Prize, but later submitted after an episode of "arm twisting"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1

Of course, this is all about media manipulation...just like the planted kid in New Orleans "Town Hall" today that asked Obama "Why do people hate you?"

Kid, to paraphrase Elizabeth Bennet Browning "Let me count the ways".....

(10-15-2009 07:41 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  ...the planted kid in New Orleans "Town Hall" today that asked Obama "Why do people hate you?"

A suprising question, considering that for most of this decade we have been told that if a president is arrogant, is out of touch with common people, and advocates destructively stupid policies, then it is proper (indeed a matter of duty) to hate him -- not just abstractly, but personally and viscerally.

By that standard, why would anyone expect Obama NOT to be hated?