Pretty is as pretty does.
Barack Obama waxed rhapsodic about his love for Canada - and spent five hours here. He has since spent considerably more time every where else he went.
Within hours of her appointment, his new Homeland Security Head, Janet Napolitano, accused Canada of having supplied the U.S with "several" of the 9/11 terrorists and said we're soft on terrorism [which is why, I suppose, we obediently handed over Maher Arar to the FBI].
We promptly got bumped onto the American's baddest-copyright-pirates-list - ahead of numerous far more deserving candidates.
He's moving quickly to support trade protectionism in the U.S. - not in Canadian interests.
"I love you," said he.
"Strangely, I feel none the better for it," said she.
"They do not love that do not show their love," said Shakespeare.
Meanwhile, we can confidently predict what Obama intends to say to the Saudis about their atrocious human-rights issues and total rejection of democracy - nothing.
'Democracy,' over there, is just another word for 'oil.'
At the same time, he's already broken a string of promises regarding accountability on Gitmo.
And the Secretary of State appointed by the guy who ran on a platform of a new and more moral America made a point of not discussing human rights in her recent visit to China. The Chinese government was happy to listen to her talk instead on how to help make Americans rich again. (As soon as their honoured guest was gone, however, they tucked into arranging a new 'de-dollarized' era-to-come,' - but that's another issue.)
I think that Americans who voted for Obama really believed they were going to get a more moral, more idealistic president.
Instead, they, and we, are getting yet another life's lesson in the dangers of mistaking charisma for character.
I doubt Americans want a more moral or idealistic President. Anyway, I certainly don't.
I expect Obama to promote American interests. In some cases, that means we will have to fight him because we have different interests. But in most of the more global issues, we're on the same page.
I juts want Obama to promote American interests more intelligently, and so far, he seems to be doing that.
@ Pithy, re your: "I doubt Americans want a more moral or idealistic President. Anyway, I certainly don't."
Riiiight - because Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield and Dubya were as moral and idealistic as a body could want.
How about more 'ethical' and 'accountable,' Pithy: those were part of his campaing platform - do you think maybe Americans wanted that - even if you don't?
Anyhow, good luck with your new American best friend, Pithy. Be sure to let me know how that's worked out for you in four years form now.
But if W, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld weren't particularly moral or idealistic (and they certainly weren't idealistic), then doesn't the fact that Americans voted for them and they were quite popular for about 6 years suggest Americans aren't that into moralism and idealism?
IIRC, the Bush administration only became really unpopular when it tried to divert Social Security taxes to individual accounts and failed to prevent a hurricane hitting New Orleans.
To avoid coming across as a nihilist, I should say I want a moral President or Prime Minister, albeit not a moralistic one. Morality in this context has to include a certain political skill and willingness to take on the role to which you have been assigned. It would be irresponsible for Obama or Harper to say everything they truly thought about public policy.
"But if W, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld weren't particularly moral or idealistic (and they certainly weren't idealistic), then doesn't the fact that Americans voted for them and they were quite popular for about 6 years suggest Americans aren't that into moralism and idealism?"
Or, maybe they grew up some, and voted for a president they thought would be better.
You haven't answered the question as to whether or not Americans indicated a wish for a more ethical and accountable President in voting for Obama.
"To avoid coming across as a nihilist, I should say I want a moral President or Prime Minister, albeit not a moralistic one."
You want a moral Prez or PM. In your previous comments you said you didn't want a more moral or idealistic President. Connecting the line between those comments and these last, is it reasonable to infer you think that George was moral enough for you?
I meant "more than" Obama, not than Bush.
Thinking it over, I guess no one can be too moral, although they can of course be too idealistic.
The question, though, is what makes a moral politician. I'd say it's different than a moral journalist or moral judge. A politician's key job is to represent coalitions.
Pithy, it's "different from" - seriously.
http://englishplus.com/grammar/0...ar/
00000202.htm
and in the above, it should read "different from being a moral journalists or moral judge" -
do, tell, you moral relativist, you, how 'you'd say' that a politician is justified in determining his morals according to the coalitions his "key job" it is to represent.
P.S. You still haven't answered the question as to whether or not Americans indicated a wish for a more ethical and accountable President in voting for Obama.
Scaredy-cat.
You still haven't answered the question as to whether or not Americans indicated a wish for a more ethical and accountable President in voting for Obama
Short answer is "no." Longer answer needs a post.
re "Longer answer needs post."
Good. I look forward to it. Here's something to get you started:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/
O...ntForChange.pdf
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/
..._calls_for.html
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.c...r-transparency/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-...promise-broken/
http://www.pvtrib.com/main.asp?S...7110&
TM=2476.89
Here's an interesting item about Barack Obama's former mentor, Rev. Jeremy Wright's explanation for why the Prez no longer returns his calls - It's the fault of "them Jews:"
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-...ing-to-
him.html
(How many years did Barack Obama listen to this guy? )
"But now a U.S. president's actually a positive force."
Apparently, not all Americans agree:
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines.../10/
223863.html
(I'm just sayin')
I understand why so many Jewish people would be paranoid about anti-Semitism, but boy is that dumb.
You're usually so polite, Pithy, -perhaps I hit a nerve, there?
Sure am looking forward to your post on the ethics and accountability portion of Obama's campaign - and how that's not what Americans were voting for.
"Stupid" referred to the Rabbi's attempt to blame Obama for the neo-Nazi murder at the Holocaust museum.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up, Pithy.
Re your: "I just want Obama to promote American interests more intelligently, and so far, he seems to be doing that."
- Apparently, not all Americans would seem to agree:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/b...1321/
story.html
I am afraid I can't promise to confine myself to propositions with which every American (or Canadian for that matter) agrees.
Now you're speaking archly, Pithy.
Is that your way of getting out of doing the post as to whether or not Americans indicated a wish for a more ethical and accountable President in voting for Obama? Are those the "propositions" to which you don't wish to be confined?
You talked yourself into a position and then thought the better of it, eh?
It's all right. You don't have to do it. Let's just move on, then, and speak no more of it.
In any case, you'll like David Frum's analysis of Obama's Middle East agenda much better:
http://network.nationalpost.com/
...#commentmessage
Later days....
Got a job, for you, Pithy,- requires an expert in constitutional law:
http://network.nationalpost.com/...-them-
quot.aspx
Commenting by HaloScan
