wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:39:39 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...c=news letter

And if I may be so bold, I'd suggest asking George Bush and Jimmy Carter, too.
Regardless of politics, both men were faced with some pretty tough issues not of
their own making, and while things might have been handled better, they could
have been much, much worse (and the same is true of Obama - at the end of the
day, things could be a whole ****potful of worse, both objectively and
subjectively). And also at the end of the day, if the US is, in fact, "WE, the
people...," and the whole idea is to reconcile as much as possible so as to lead
to rational debate that then leads to a better US and world, it might be time to
shelve partisan nonsense, at least for a few hours.
Sounds like Brokaw has gone soft in the head. And SHRUB ?!?! Obama
was awarded the prize, in part, for being the anti-Shrub. Why on
earth would he **** on the Norwegians by taking that warmongering
idiot to a Peace Prize ceremony ?

Uh-huh. That's the spirit...

I'd offer that Brokaw makes a pretty good case for using the Peace Prize - you
know,the one that some say is supposed to be for intentions and promise and all
that kinda stuff - to actually create a little of it. And if Obama is such a
statesman/peacemaker/diplomat/all-around wonderful person, willing to extend his
hand to all comers from around the world, extending it in such fashion so as to
do the most good for the US internally doesn't seem such a strange thing to do.

It seems ridiculous to me. Why would Obama take the occasion
of an award ceremony in Oslo, Norway to award an international
Peace Price as an opportunity to smooth ruffled feathers in the
United States ? His acceptance should be international in scope
just like he award he's accepting.

It is often said that the sign of a successful compromise is that no one is
particularly happy, but no one is particularly upset, either. I want Obama to
be "successful" in his "mission of hope and change." IMO, the only way he will
or can be is for as many people as, well, humanly possible to say, "He
succeeded" even if they can't or won't say "I agreed with everything he did."
And that will necessarily include those with differing views to his own and each
others'.
Obama made a reputation in the Illinois Senate as a deal maker
and a compromiser. One of his early campaign ads featured a
GOP state senator who was happy to endorse Obama for precisely
that reason. I can't discern any spirit of compromise whatsoever
in the GOP lawmakers or their civilian nitwit Steele. The GOP
strategy appears to be attack, delay, smear, spread fear and
pray for 2010 to get here real soon now. I don't think it is
humanly possible to compromise with folks who refuse to compromise.

The somewhat amusing, mostly disheartening hypocrisy (and irony of the overall
situation) of you making ad hominem attacks on those who you feel are making ad
hominem attacks aside, Bush made a similar reputation as Governor of Texas. And
I'd also remind you that the vast majority of the US population was also in
favor of both "wars" at the outset of each. Bush's approval rating actually
shot up some 15-20 points (from about 10 points higher than Obama's is now,
45-ish versus 55ish, to the mid-70s) with the outset of Iraq. And during the
outset of Afghanistan, his approval rating was in the 80's. If nothing else, he
was doing the bidding of his employers...you know, the same bunch that elected
Obama.

And I would remind you that the vast majority of the US population
is dumber than a box of rocks. I sure as hell don't want a President
who leads by reading the poll numbers. Here's some poll numbers I
read about yesterday in Salon:


Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2009 14:15 EDT
Time for Tennesseans to lay off the Jack Daniel's

Even in the wide, wonderful world of politics, there are sometimes poll
results that can be pretty depressing. Then there are the polls that
make you just want to shut down the computer, crawl back into bed, pull
the covers up and go to sleep for, oh, 70 years or so. A new survey
conducted by Middle Tennessee State University falls squarely within the
latter category.

The pollsters asked respondents, all from Tennessee, a few questions
about President Obama. What they got back was more than a little
disturbing. Thirty-four percent of respondents, including 47 percent of
Republicans, say Obama was either probably or definitely not born in the
U.S. (Fortunately, 50 percent say he was probably or definitely born
here. Thank goodness for small favors, right?) Similarly, 30 percent of
all respondents, including 48 percent of Republicans, believe it's
probably or definitely true that Obama is a Muslim.

Worst of all: A plurality of all respondents, 46 percent, believe that
Obama's probably or definitely a socialist. Forty-two percent said they
don't believe that's true. Seventy-one percent of Republicans, though,
believe it is.

(Hat-tip to Marc Ambinder, who has some interesting related thoughts.)
― Alex Koppelman