Obama Cult of Personality

David Henderson wrote: But I don' wanna. The premise of this thread appears to be the classic political approach -- attack the guy's strength and make it a liability. FWIW

A serious question.
What is his strength?

David

Both of you go to perdition and take David Orange with you. You're stinkin' up the joint.

Matthew Gano wrote: I mean, what did Kissinger do that was so great regarding the Vietnam war? What was there for him to negotiate? "If we leave will you promise to stop shooting at us?" Perhaps I'm missing some crucial piece of that puzzle, but I'm really curious how that negotiation could be described as very profound.

A brief history lesson;

We first got involved in Vietnam in 1950 under President Harry Truman. At the time the French were fighting in Indochina (Vietnam ) to keep it as a colony. President Truman sent military advisers and equipment to help the French.

In 1956 the French had completely withdrawn from Vietnam and President Eisenhower increased the amount of equipment and military advisers to aid the South Vietnamese government.

President Kennedy increased the number of military advisers after 1960.

In 1965 President Johnson sent over combat troops to fight. The number of troops escalated under President Johnson to a peak of 540,000 in December 1968.

Under President Nixon the number of American soldiers fighting in Vietnam were reduced until a cease fire was negotiated in 1973.

Henry Kissinger was the person who negotiated the cease fires with North Vietnam in January of 1973. All American troops were withdrawn by March 1973.

In December of 1973 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the cease fires.

There were 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians who died during the war.

There were 58,228 American soldiers and civilians who died in Vietnam, 303,635 wounded, and 1,740 missing in action.

His negotiating an end to the war was profound.

David

Reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search

David Skaggs wrote: A brief history lesson; We first got involved in Vietnam in 1950 under President Harry Truman. At the time the French were fighting in Indochina (Vietnam ) to keep it as a colony. President Truman sent military advisers and equipment to help the French. In 1956 the French had completely withdrawn from Vietnam and President Eisenhower increased the amount of equipment and military advisers to aid the South Vietnamese government. President Kennedy increased the number of military advisers after 1960. In 1965 President Johnson sent over combat troops to fight. The number of troops escalated under President Johnson to a peak of 540,000 in December 1968. Under President Nixon the number of American soldiers fighting in Vietnam were reduced until a cease fire was negotiated in 1973. Henry Kissinger was the person who negotiated the cease fires with North Vietnam in January of 1973. All American troops were withdrawn by March 1973. In December of 1973 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the cease fires. There were 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians who died during the war. There were 58,228 American soldiers and civilians who died in Vietnam, 303,635 wounded, and 1,740 missing in action. His negotiating an end to the war was profound. David Reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search

David:

You missed some VERY IMPORTANT history.

During WWII, we promised Ho Chi Minh that if he fought against the Japanese, we would support Vietnam's independence from France. We supported, helped and trained his fighters. Obviously, we did not honor our promise at the end of WWII. France played upon our fears of Communism so that they could hold onto their collapsing "empire." They used that fear to sucker us in to help them out, as we betrayed the people of Vietnam. They used that fear to leave us there, while they conveniently returned to the "Continent."

It was our failure to honor our promises, followed-up by our trust of France, compounded by our fear of Communism that created that quagmire that sucked so many lives to useless deaths. We were very fortunate that Henry Kissinger was able to be realistic enough to finally get us out of there! He truly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for those efforts.

Marc Abrams

Alfred Nobel intended the Peace Prize for the person who:

" during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_peace_prize

If it wasn't his personality, what did Obama do the preceding year prior to his nomination for the Peace Prize to even be nominated let alone win.

David

Dear Mary,

It appears I offended you; I'm not sure why, but I apologize.

Dear David (Skaggs),

Your serious question led me to think more about what I wanted to say; thanks.

After meeting President Roosevelt for the first time, O.W. Holmes reportedly adjudged he had "a second class intellect, but a first-class temperament."

I believe it was David Brooks who suggested, before Obama's inauguration, that he might have both a first-class intellect and temperament. I think its too soon to tell whether that's apt, but it's the public image of Obama as a person who impresses and, yes, as the first African-American President, inspires that is one of his political strengths.

It's that public image and that quality which Michael Steele was reframing when he chided the Nobel committee for being swayed by the President's "star power." Irrespective of whether Steele has a valid point in saying Obama hasn't accomplished enough to deserve the award, a point on which the President may largely agree, this rhetorical flourish was not simply an off-hand comment. It looks like a variant of the "celebrity" ad campaign during the election, and it illustrates one of the methods by which politics is practiced in this Country.

In my opinion, similarly, the "cult of personality" meme provides a clever way of subverting or inverting Obama's public image as an inspirational and would-be transformational figure:

It attacks the same underlying political strength; it frames the issue in a way that puts Obama's supporters on defense; and it articulates with other emergent right-wing themes, including Obama the outsider and Obama the radical. Nor does it have to be utterly convincing to be politically useful.

Whether a reframing like this ultimately will stick, in my view, depends largely on events that have not yet occurred. For example, but for subsequent events, President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment would not have morphed into an ironic icon of the Left's subversion of his image from the "CEO president" into one of incompetence.

YMMV

Respectfully,

cdh

David Skaggs wrote: A brief history lesson;

I'm pretty familiar with the basic chronology you provided and it says almost nothing about what Kissinger negotiated. Also, let's not forget the fact that by the time peace was negotiated with the US of A, the Vietnam war was incredibly unpopular.
Also from wikipedia:

wikipedia wrote: Along with North Vietnamese Politburo Member Le Duc Tho, Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 1973, for their work in negotiating the ceasefires contained in the Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam," signed the January previous.[10] Tho rejected the award, telling Kissinger that peace had not been really restored in South Vietnam.[14] Kissinger wrote to the Nobel Committee that he accepted the award "with humility." [15][16] The conflict continued until an invasion of the South by the North Vietnamese Army resulted in a North Vietnamese victory in 1975 and the subsequent progression of the Pathet Lao in Laos towards figurehead status, and the rise of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Kissinger then returned the money portion of the Nobel Prize, although the Nobel committee returned it back to him.

Considering he was also attributed as having a role in the indescriminant bombings of Cambodia (assuming I read it correctly), I have to wonder a little about the guy. Still, I'll do some more reading now that the subject has come up.
For what it's worth, I've been to Cambodia and seen some of the lasting results from operation menu...even have a picture with me standing next to a 500lbs bomb marked USA. So here's a guy who it seems both supported the muder (my opinion of course) of random people and fought for peace at the same time and he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Add to that the omission of the Mahatma and I think the Prize takes on less austere tones.
...Although again, I am admittedly ignorant of quite a lot concerning these things.
FWIW.
Take care,
Matt

I think even Obama doesn't really understand how ultimately embarrassing this gratuitous liberal accolade is, but some people do. In fact, a number of liberal media outlets curtailed their coverage of the "honour" because it too obviously shows the thinness of the self-absorption veneer of Obama and fawning Children's Crusaders. But try this comment via the Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...e-nobel-prize/

David Henderson wrote: It attacks the same underlying political strength; it frames the issue in a way that puts Obama's supporters on defense; ...

Oh stoppit.... an embarrassing moment like the awarding of a "Nobel Peace Prize" to an empty vessel speaks nothing bad about "the other side". Let's face it... the award was a joke.

Go back an look at the history of the Nobel Peace Prize and remember that the "Nobel Prize" in literature, physics, mathematics, etc., is a serious prize and is done by the Swedes. The "Nobel Peace Prize" is something a few idiots in Norway do, not the Swedes. Historically, the Norwegians gave the Nobel Peace Prize even to the Nazis in order to do the liberal "let's have peace and love in the world" thing. Note that there was about a 3-year hiatus in the Nobel Peace Prize during the early 1940's.... that's because the Nazis occupied Norway at that time. You'd think the Norwegians would be embarrassed by what clowns they are, but they're not. May they be occupied again; the first time didn't take... it didn't affect the foolish awarding of Alfred Nobel's money.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: You'd think the Norwegians would be embarrassed by what clowns they are, but they're not. May they be occupied again; the first time didn't take...

Hi Mike.

That seemed taken out of context, but it's ultimately just a difference of opinion, yes?

Take care.

David Henderson wrote: ...it's ultimately just a difference of opinion, yes?

Maybe...but I just find it oddd....or maybe a little something more than just odd...when so many people are so vehement that Obama has done nothing...yet the same people want to convince everyone that....he's....ruining....the country????

You say you can't have it both ways....but some people seem more than able to have it any way that suits their agenda.

Of course, the big game is to foist off the tragic failures, and far worse, the malevolent manipulations of the past eight years as now being all the fault of Obama...who, they tell us, has done nothing.

Hate the democrats, hate the Republicans all you want, but Obama is a person and he's bending over backward to be fair to all sides--including those whose only side is "NO" and hate and tin-hat howling. We have to at least give him a chance. The fate of the nation is at stake, after all.

Sad, really.

David

David Orange wrote: Maybe...but I just find it oddd....or maybe a little something more than just odd...when so many people are so vehement that Obama has done nothing...yet the same people want to convince everyone that....he's....ruining....the country???? You say you can't have it both ways....but some people seem more than able to have it any way that suits their agenda. Of course, the big game is to foist off the tragic failures, and far worse, the malevolent manipulations of the past eight years as now being all the fault of Obama...who, they tell us, has done nothing. Hate the democrats, hate the Republicans all you want, but Obama is a person and he's bending over backward to be fair to all sides--including those whose only side is "NO" and hate and tin-hat howling. We have to at least give him a chance. The fate of the nation is at stake, after all. Sad, really. David

I think we're in a period of time when a lot of people have stopped liking either party. Look at this trend for Obama. I only use him because it's the latest news feed. Congress has the exact same problem.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

That's a nasty downward spiral. The downward trend started with Congress when Bush was in office.

Throw in all this spending of money. Yeah, the first one started at the end of Bush's time, but Obama has kept the trend going and added even more spending.

According to here, that spending hasn't helped us.
http://www.republicans.waysandmeans....umentID=150826

I don't even care to research the numbers. The Republicans under Bush at the end were just as bad. It's the reason a good bit of their own party didn't vote for them.

I don't trust either party anymore. And a lot of people I know and talk to feel the same way.

Mark Murray wrote: I think we're in a period of time when a lot of people have stopped liking either party. Look at this trend for Obama. I only use him because it's the latest news feed. Congress has the exact same problem. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll That's a nasty downward spiral. The downward trend started with Congress when Bush was in office.

I understand your feelings on this Mark, but Obama is what we have now. He has the tremendous job of cleaning up an unbelievable mess--a tragic mess that ended up with millions of Americans seriously believing that Sarah Palin was fit to govern this entire country!!!

I've been saying for years that the two parties are like sock puppets with the super rich having one hand in each of them and putting on a show for the rest of us.

HOWEVER, don't we have to do something? Someone has to run the government and right now i't's Obama's job. So why is everyone trying to ride his back and drag him down while he's trying to recusitate the economy that Bush et al ruined, trying to get our men out of a pointless war that Bush started and got us mired in, trying to win a war that George Bush started and then turned his back on, just as GHW Bush did after the Soviets left. Does anyone think all that piling on will help him do a better job?

Limbaugh out and out said "I hope he fails," and that's the kind of nutso attitude that has been destroying this country since Nixon was forced out of office for his crimes.

Ever since then, the Republicans have been seeking revenge and have shown a sharp willingness to shut down and swamp the nation to achieve that end.

Oh, that and a lot of smoke screen to cover the getaway of GW Bush, Cheney and their cronies from the scene of their crimes and incompetence, leaving the country virtually destroyed.

The fact is, Obama must do whatever is to be done. No one else may. It's his job. And there's no question he's doing 1000 times better than GW.

The alternative?

Civil war? Secession? Assassination?

There simply isn't an alternative for intelligent people. Hang together of hang separately. The best thing we could do to start is put Limbaugh in prison and let Glen Beck be his roomie. Shut down their sedition and get on with repairing the wreck that Bush caused. The eight years behind us were disastrous. It's going to take tremendous work to make the next four years productive and no amount of carping will help that.

Best to you.

David

David Orange wrote: So why is everyone trying to ride his back and drag him down while he's trying to recusitate the economy that Bush et al ruined,

Bush didn't create the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. That was done by Democrats who used a manipulation of parliamentary rules to block oversight and regulation of FannieMae and FreddyMac. Even some Dems have admitted that publicly, David, including one of your own Alabama representatives.

To say "well, since the Dems pulled that unethical stunt while Bush was president, it's Bush's fault" is simply dishonest. And that's the way I look at your statement. "Subprime mortgages" are mortgages given to people who really don't qualify for mortgages. The Dems put in rules saying that if Banks did NOT make such high-risk loans, the Dems would block them from doing business in other places. Let's be fair about this. At least give some lip-service to the idea that the "subprime mortgage meltdown" was caused by subprime mortgages, not Bush.

I also find it sort of duplicitous for Dems like Obama to talk about the "deficit" without mentioning that Obama voted yes on every costly item that led to the deficit. Of course, you may think it's appropriate to play silly games with honesty, but I don't.

Don't get me wrong.... I didn't support Bush. But at least with him the rumours about him being a crook are far different than listening to reasons why Obama's documented lies, changes in campaign promises, etc., are different matters and a little crookedness is for the good of the country. Why, for instance, did Obama not fund the office that oversees union administrators/officials' expenses so that they could escape scrutiny? Tell me one honest reason.

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: Bush didn't create the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. That was done by Democrats who used a manipulation of parliamentary rules to block oversight and regulation of FannieMae and FreddyMac.

No. It was caused by making CDOs out of the millions of subprime mortgages sold by brokers and selling those CDOs into the investment and retirement funds of the whole country--in other words, by the big banks and investment houses: the super wealthy who got all the tax cuts of 2000.

The subprime mess, further, was only a fraction of the whole meltdown and Bush tax policies and war waste were at the heart of it.

Mike Sigman wrote: To say "well, since the Dems pulled that unethical stunt while Bush was president, it's Bush's fault" is simply dishonest.

Who said it? I didn't.

Mike Sigman wrote: At least give some lip-service to the idea that the "subprime mortgage meltdown" was caused by subprime mortgages, not Bush.

The subprime mortgages were just one tool used by the super rich to suck more money out of the middle class. It was neither the Dems nor those nefarious poor people trying to buy a house who caused it.

Mike Sigman wrote: I also find it sort of duplicitous for Dems like Obama to talk about the "deficit" without mentioning that Obama voted yes on every costly item that led to the deficit.

Yeah...first, I don't hear dems talking about the deficit. It's the republicans who pumped up all manner of invisible spending under Bush (back in the days when I was shouting about "the burden of debt on our children") and who now are screaming like teenaged girls while Obama tries to drag the economy out of the bonfire Bush built for his weinie roast.

Mike Sigman wrote: Of course, you may think it's appropriate to play silly games with honesty, but I don't.

Is that right?

Why don't you get Jun to run a poll of readers and ask whether Mike Sigman plays silly games with honesty?

Maybe you could learn something from the response.

David

Mike Sigman wrote: Bush didn't create the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

Regardless of who you think caused it, it is Obama's job to fix it. Unless you guys are able to foment an actual revolution in this country, it's going to remain his responsibility and no one else's.

And he has to clean up the ungodly mess of two wars that Bush has allowed to deteriorate into chaos: one by sheer incompetence and waste paid to cronies, the other by sheer neglect, allowing the enemy to rebuild and entrench.

If America is going to come out of this stupid situation on top, it has to be with Obama in charge. So why are you riding his back and trying to make it impossible for him to achieve it?

David

David Orange wrote: Why don't you get Jun to run a poll of readers and ask whether Mike Sigman plays silly games with honesty? Maybe you could learn something from the response.

Tsk. Such a hater, David.

Mike Sigman wrote: Tsk. Such a hater, David.

Why would it be "hate" for you to find out?

Don't you find it odd that your assumption is that if you find out what people think about you, it amounts to hate?

Why do you have that feeling?

David

Thread closed.

-- Jun