It is not uncommon for first ladies to be more popular than their husbands, in terms of either their favorable ratings or their job approval ratings. To illustrate, Laura Bush averaged a 71% favorable rating from 2001-2009, compared to George W. Bush's 56% average.
Hmmm. I knew Laura was popular — what did she ever do to offend? — but it's interesting to see that Bush's overall average was 56%. He seemed so famously hated.
***
The Brits are liking Michelle:
"She's a lovely lady, she's very open... she'd talk to anyone" [— some English lady.]
"Now we've met, will you please keep in touch?" [— the Queen.]
Posts
97 comments:
I am forming no opinion of First Lady Michelle Obama until I get to watch her “Christmas Tour of the White House” on PBS.
Also, it would be nice if she would hurry up with her cook book.
But I’m not fussy.
A syndicated weekly advice column on child-rearing would serve just as well.
It's genuinely wonderful that she seemed to have left such a good impression with the Brits. I have been ambivalent about her, despite some of her more eyebrow-raising comments "never been proud," etc. I'm glad she's been charming and gracious while in London.
"it's interesting to see that Bush's overall average was 56%. He seemed so famously hated."
The only number that matters is how popular he was with the media class.
He seemed so famously hated.
You have to include the post-9/11 bounce. That supported him for at least a year. But the 56% seems high to me as well. I wonder exactly what they mean by favorable.
Rachel Lucas was going on yesterday about the UK media's snit over Michelle's failure to curtsy to the Queen. I don't think the sovereign citizens of the US are supposed to curtsy, much less the wife of the Pres, but what do I know.
The Brits are liking Michele? Not according to Rachel Lucas. Apparently our First Lady touched Queen Elizabeth, which is an absolute, carved in stone, prohibition. Now we can debate among ourselves whether there ought to be such a prohibition, but the fact remains that for the second time in about a week we've had a (thankfully!) minor gaffe, first Hillary and now Michele.
Apparently -- Rachel has a link to Hot Air -- Barack Obama has not yet appointed a Chief of Protocol and wasn't aware that the State Department has a whole office devoted to state visits. I don't understand why Hillary doesn't know that -- she did spend 8 years as First Lady. Shouldn't she have informed her boss?
I'm with Rachel on her main point -- if George and Laura and Condi had suffered these gaffes (minor though they be) we'd be hearing about it for the next couple years on CNN and MSNBC, and the New York Times and Washington Post would run it in page 1, above the fold.
I think favorable just meant that they didn't consider him the Anti-Christ
The Brits are liking Michele? Not according to Rachel Lucas?
Well that settles it!
"The Brits are liking Michele? Not according to Rachel Lucas. Apparently our First Lady touched Queen Elizabeth, which is an absolute, carved in stone, prohibition. Now we can debate among ourselves whether there ought to be such a prohibition, but the fact remains that for the second time in about a week we've had a (thankfully!) minor gaffe, first Hillary and now Michele."
Good, I'm glad she touched her. America as a sovereign political entity was founded on the rejection of the nonsense of hereditary monarchy. As long as she behaved respectfully, Americans shouldn't "curtsy" and grovel before foreign potentates.
I'm with Rachel on her main point -- if George and Laura and Condi had suffered these gaffes (minor though they be) we'd be hearing about it for the next couple years
I'm pretty much convinced that he could have taken a dump right on the palace floor and it wouldn't have made a dent in his popularity.
@Palladian, I'm not at all glad she touched the queen. It's not good to give offense, even if inadvertant.
Now if Michele meant to touch the queen as a demonstration of American democratic (small 'd')principles, then that's different. But I see no indication that that's the case.
Me, I'm waiting for the stories "clarifying" what happened that assert that Michele did not, in fact, actually touch the queen, that it merely appeared that she touched the queen. Several years back didn't an Aussie put his arm around her and then have to try to push the notion that, yes, his arm was around Her Majesty, but he didn't really touch her.
People forget Bush also had the highest approval ratings of any President after his decisive action to take down the Taliban and overrun the Al Qaeda training in the face of people calling Afghanistan "the graveyard of empires."
That was one major reason for the MSM paranoia about him; what a popular conservative might do scared them, hence the obsessive quest to destroy him.
George W. Bush may have "averaged" 56% but keep in mind, he carried a 90% approval rating right after 9/11 and about a 25% on the way out the door.
This isn't baseball.
Dave said..."People forget Bush also had the highest approval ratings of any President after his decisive action to take down the Taliban and overrun the Al Qaeda training in the face of people calling Afghanistan "the graveyard of empires."
You're kidding, right?
No-one - including the ladies-in-waiting standing nearby - could believe their eyes. In 57 years, the Queen has never been seen to make that kind of gesture and it is certainly against all protocol to touch her.
'But she didn't seem to mind a bit and was smiling and joking throughout,' the eyewitness said.
Is the First Lady's popularity that important? Who real cares?
Now, she is smarter than her husband, she has more executive experience than her husband, and she is more competent than her husband. Maybe she should fire him or demand he resign and run the damn country herself. She could ony be an improvement.
"That was one major reason for the MSM paranoia about him; what a popular conservative might do scared them, hence the obsessive quest to destroy him."
And to obsessively explain away any drop in adulation for The Democratic One.
I'm with Palladian about the silly rule of not ever touching the Queen. On the other hand we don't let just anyone man handle the President either.
HOWEVER, the protocol on what to do and not to do when in another country should be followed or at least be known. We may think it unnecessary or foolish to do certain things....like....oh... say women being forced to cover their hair in public, but it is a part of some cultures.
Once again the State Department Diplomacy corp is either
1. Not being consulted
2. Being ignored
3. Withholding information
4. All of the above.
In anycase it makes us as a country look like a bunch of Bumpkins.
Actually, for those who keep track, it's very similar to baseball. Both can offer great opportunities for debate and discussion with their (sometimes ridiculous) attention to minutea and the often present strawmen.
As for Michelle and the touching controversy, does anyone know, did "You can't touch this" make to the iPod?
It probably was a minor faux pas, but I don’t think it is earthshaking. Nothing can ever compare to the horrid Jimmy Carter kissing the Queen Mother on the lips. Ewww. The Queen Mum made a statement to the effect of “No one since my late husband has ever had the effrontery to kiss me on my lips.” Effrontery is a good word to describe Jimmy Carter. So, all in all, I’m not sure Mrs. Obama’s faux pas was much more than a very minor gaucherie.
Jeremy,
Was this the Queen of New or Old England? : p
In all seriousness though whoop-dee-doo.
Who really cares?
If she starts pushing policy a la Hillary Clinton then I'll care about what people think of her. Until then I'll simply make remarks about the media's obsession with her toned arms.
"Labels: Michelle O, polls, Queen Elizabeth, UK"
Obama is like Bush?
Armstrong and Getty cover touching the Queen and general embarrassment about being an American, starting about six minutes in.
"Caviar and cigarettes
Well versed in etiquette
Extraordinarily nice" [-Queen.]
@Frodo, I wish people would steer clear of the "it was minor" line of thinking. No one disputes that. The UK won't start a trade war with us over Michele touching the queen. But the potential for something serious is present because of how and why this happened. I wouldn't care to have a fatwa declared against her just because no one told her about shoes and Arabs.
@DBQ, you are dead on the mark, as always.
Apparently our First Lady touched Queen Elizabeth, which is an absolute, carved in stone, prohibition.
Was it a fist bump?
Lets see, Brown gets DVDs that won't work in the UK and the Queen of England gets an Ipod.
Out of curiosity, is there anyone on Obama's protocol staff over the age of 23?
Impeach!
"'But she didn't seem to mind a bit and was smiling and joking throughout,' the eyewitness said."
That's because the Queen has better manners than the First Lady.
I've yet to read a single article or report that doesn't say Obama is doing a terrific job at the G20 Summit.
I realize there are some who want to criticize his every move (his gift to the Queen?), but with the market UP over 20% in less than a month, the Russians open to limiting the nuclear arms race and an American approval rating of over 60% I think it's a waste of time and energy.
Out of curiosity, is there anyone on Obama's protocol staff over the age of 23?
I do not think he consults or listens to the staff. The Chosen One, the Messiah, the Savior, does what ever the hell he damn well pleases. Since he has gotten a free pass from the media from the day he started running and it is continuing, he can do anything without criticism.
The media will not criticize him and, since history and a legacy must be establsihed, no one else will without a shrieking match.
Critics will be destroyed.
Lets see, Brown gets DVDs that won't work in the UK and the Queen of England gets an Ipod.
S'okay. They can store them in the same are that they put the Jimmy Carter gifts of an 8 track tape player and those Beta Max tapes of Smokey and the Bandit.
Kidding.. But seriously, what kind of retarded gift is this. Giving the Queen of England an Ipod? Not like she couldn't buy one if she wanted to. AND.... Especially with it is loaded with stuff like this!
* Photos from the Queen’s 2007 White House State Visit
* Photos from the Queen’s 2007 Jamestown, Va., Visit
* Photos from the Queen’s 2007 Richmond, Va., Visit
* Video from the Queen’s 1957 Jamestown Visit
* Video from the Queen’s 2007 Jamestown Visit
* Video from the Queen’s 2007 Richmond Visit
* Photos from President Obama’s Inauguration
* Audio of then-state senator Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and
* Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration Address
Plus a bunch of show tunes. (where IS Titus anyway?)
Right. As an extra special gift from me to you, I'm gonna give you a bunch of pictures of yourself that you already have and lots of photos of Me ME ME!!!! and Me ME ME!! speaking/droning.
How very very special.
Queen to staff: "Please put this in an appropriate storage location"
Kahthump.... trash can.
Big Mike said Barack Obama has not yet appointed a Chief of Protocol and wasn't aware that the State Department has a whole office devoted to state visits.
Surely Desiree Rogers is accompanying the Obamas, as WH social secretary wouldn't she be a key part of the team briefing the Obamas?
Excerpts from the Feb 2009 Vogue Magazine article:
In Washington that same Saturday, Desirée Rogers, the woman who will be responsible for every social event and ceremony—from a tea for two to a peace-treaty signing for thousands—in the Obama White House, was visiting Letitia Baldrige prior to officially stepping into her new job as special assistant to the president and White House social secretary, a position Baldrige held during the Kennedy administration.
Shuttling between Chicago, Washington, and New York before the Inauguration, Rogers had already visited the White House, invited by Amy Zantzinger, the most recent social secretary for the Bush administration. Rogers—whose credentials include Wellesley College and a Harvard MBA—was delighted to meet Rear Admiral Stephen W. Rochon, the White House chief usher, who will be her closest East Wing ally. He got things off to a great start by presenting her with a package of pralines, a Louisiana specialty.
So smarter-than-whip Rogers has met a legendary WH social secretary, who set the standards, and authored etiquette books, Laura Bush's person and the chief usher, yet doesn't know the go-to for state protocol? Which one suspects is well documented in WH files, guides and fact books.
I rather doubt Hillary is aware of the State's protocol dept either as it's been widely reported that she's using her own team.
I'm far more concerned with the the committee overseeing GM than an empty WH Protocol slot.
A committee that is about remake one of our largest employers and a manufacturing sector that produces a significant percentage of our GDP, doesn't include anyone with industrial manufacturing or automotive industry experience.
Peter V. Bella said..."I do not think he consults or listens to the staff."
Which is it: Does Obama take too much time doing research into what is being asked before responding or is it that he never listens to anyone?
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this blog; that Obama doesn't "consult or listen" to his staff?
If you want to criticize his decisions that's one thing, but to insinuate he makes decisions without working with the people around him is just plain silly.
You must be able to come up with something better than this.
Michelle's touching Queen Elizabeth would have been a major faux pas had the Queen made something of it, which she could have done with just the slightest gesture. The Queen, being the Queen and knowing that she will be the Queen no matter what Michelle Obama does, gave it a complete pass. This is called class.
I love the picture of the Queen and Mrs. Obama side by side. They both are comfortable in their space. It's just that Michelle takes up about twice the space as the Queen.
Long live the Queen! (She already has.) For that matter long live Michelle!
Nice to have a little grace in our crass world.
I've yet to read a single article or report that doesn't say Obama is doing a terrific job at the G20 Summit.
Hardly insightful considering he received nothing but fawning praise in the media since he stepped on the national stage. The day the media actually takes a critical look at the man is the day Satan builds his first snowman.
I realize there are some who want to criticize his every move (his gift to the Queen?), but with the market UP over 20% in less than a month,
Thanks for pointing that out because we were constantly told that when it was down 40% it was all Bush's fault and Obama had only been in office for 60 days.
the Russians open to limiting the nuclear arms race
Was anyone else aware that the Russians and ourselves were back to the arms race? I thought that ended like 20 years ago. Anyway I'm glad we're really focusing on the Russian nuclear weapons rather than the Iranians and NORKs.
I'm also heartened that 60% of the nation approves of his massive spending program that will triple the national debt in ten years.
I constantly hear people saying they could care less what the British, French or other European countries think about America, yet today, I read comment after comment relating to how horrible the Obama's treating the Queen?
Isn't this rather sudden? (Does anybody remember Bush giving German Chancellor Angela Merkel a shoulder rub?)
The President is doing a very good job and Americans should be proud of how he's representing our country.
I'm with Rachel on her main point -- if George and Laura and Condi had suffered these gaffes (minor though they be) we'd be hearing about it for the next couple years on CNN and MSNBC, and the New York Times and Washington Post would run it in page 1, above the fold
Well giving Angela Merkle a shoulder massage was waaaaay over the top. I can't watch that video without squirming. Man, that was bad.
I thought the Queen's gift to the Obamas was also strange: Autographed photos of her Majesty and Prince Philip.
constantly hear people saying they could care less what the British, French or other European countries think about America, yet today, I read comment after comment relating to how horrible the Obama's treating the Queen?
You evidently miss the point. There's not worrying about what Britain thinks of us and then there's ignoring protocol.
But hey, if it's ok for Obama that's fine. Let's just be consistent and remember the bar for diplomatic protocol is optional for subsequent presidents.
The President is doing a very good job and Americans should be proud of how he's representing our country.
Well as long as he doesn't piss off the Chinese we can breath easy. We'll need them to pay for Obama's trillion dollar deficit.
Hoosier Daddy said..."I'm also heartened that 60% of the nation approves of his massive spending program that will triple the national debt in ten years."
Can I assume you're not aware of what the national debt was when George W. Bush took office?
As to the "fawning praise in the media since he stepped on the national stage," it isn't just the American media who gives him high marks, it's the "worldwide press."
Bush carried a very high approval rating, with all Americans, all the way up until things began to turn sour in Iraq, and of course with the economy.
Why, with American facing so many problems, can't you give Obama some time to see what he can or cannot do, before heaping such criticism on him and his administration?
Hoosier - As to your being up in arms over Michaelle Obama's lack of proper "protocol" for touching the Queen:
"Another defense for Michelle Obama, of course, is that she is not a subject of the Queen. (Australians, despite referendums attempting to turn themselves into a republic, still recognize the Queen as their head of state.) The First Lady of the United States is not required to curtsey before her or any other crowned head. In any case, the touch lasted just a second or two, and the Queen did not seem particularly perturbed -- though she appeared slightly surprised as she drew away."
"The President is doing a very good job and Americans should be proud of how he's representing our country."
I'm sure anyone who's ever longed to pucker up to the ass of Tehran's mad mullahs feels very well repesented by the President.
And now the Royal Press Office at Buckingham Palace has officially clarified that there was no breach of protocol. But what the hell do they know? It's clear that the real expert on Crown protocol is the Althouse commentariat, especially Hoosier Daddy.
Jeremy,
I've yet to read any article saying that he's done anything great. Ignoring the Ipod kerfuffle I have seen criticism of his press conference performance (the one he actually made it to). But seeing as how that's all rather superficial let's look at your examples of his success so far:
-The Russians always pretend they're open to decreasing nukes. It's better to look at what they do and what they are doing is putting bombers in Venezuela and attempting to talk down the dollar (with help from Geithner and China). Remember they still view us as an enemy (Putin's KGB).
-Merkel has effectively killed Obama's plan for a "Global bailout". And Europe has been decidedly cool towards the whole "spending your way out of debt" plan.
-He may be popular amongst Europe's citizens but Obama has been rather unsuccessful in getting our NATO allies to commit more resources and men to Afghanistan.
-As for the stock market if you haven't noticed it still has roughly 900-1000 points to rise before it gets back to the 9000 it was at before the introduction of Geithner's bank plan (the 2nd not the 3rd).
All that said the G20 ain't over yet; they still have time to actually accomplish something. But given the current atmosphere I'm not hopeful.
Also if the news reports are correct the recent stock gains are going to depend heavily on the upcoming employment report.
I'm still amazed that anyone can think that "Bush had a huge deficit" is some sort of justification for Obama quadrupling it.
Bush lost the fiscal conservatives because of his reckless spending. Find anyone here who said that they approved of Bush's deficits.
jayne_cobb said..."I'm still amazed that anyone can think that "Bush had a huge deficit" is some sort of justification for Obama quadrupling it."
How do you or does anybody here know what the deficit will be in 2-4-6-8 years?
Did you know the deficit via Bush would be what is was the day he left office...three months after he took office?
This is all nothing more than conjecture, based on things no one can predict.
Did you also know the stock market would go up almost 25% over the past three weeks? Did you invest?
jeremy said "This is all nothing more than conjecture, based on things no one can predict."
Ah, the idiocracy. We can spend as many trillions of dollars as we want on as many new government programs as we can dream up, but we have no idea how it's all gonna turn out so let's not criticize the spending before it happens.
jayne_cobb said..."Jeremy, I've yet to read any article saying that he's done anything great."
Jayne, the man has been President for about 70 days.
It's difficult to imagine any President or world leader being described as "great" after such a short period of time.
Can I assume you're not interested in giving him any chance at all?
Diamondhead - YOU already know what's going to happen over the next 4-8 years?
Based on what?
And if you do, are you buying up stock options in all of the stocks that you already know are going up or down?
Get real.
jayne - "Also if the news reports are correct the recent stock gains are going to depend heavily on the upcoming employment report."
The employment report came out a few days ago.
"Diamondhead - YOU already know what's going to happen over the next 4-8 years?
Based on what?"
It's not rocket science. These people want to spend and they have the checkbook.
The CBO has analyzed Obama's budget plans and estimated the result will be massive deficits for the foreseeable future.
Did you invest?
Yes.
@BJM, Rachel linked to Hot Air, which linked in turn to a Newsweek article. The link is here.
@Jeremy, as a matter of fact yes, I did invest (what little I have left over from taxes). It's called dollar cost averaging. But I cleverly deduced that the Congressional Budget Office, which is reporting back to a Democrat-controlled Congress has out-year estimates that are more apt to be understated than overstated. Not looking ahead leaves you like the optimistic sky-diver who discovered that he left his parachute back on the plane. "Well, so far I'm okay."
But seriously, what kind of retarded gift is this. Giving the Queen of England an Ipod?
I just can’t believe how ridiculous these gifts are. I mean, come on! Show tunes? Obama at the DNC?
I’m surprised Obama doesn’t just start giving out autographed pictures of himself like Gilderoy Lockhart.
Can I assume you're not aware of what the national debt was when George W. Bush took office?
You can assume anything you wish. I'm a fiscal conservative above all and was just as irate over GOP spending money we don't have as I am Dem spending money we don't have.
As to the "fawning praise in the media since he stepped on the national stage," it isn't just the American media who gives him high marks, it's the "worldwide press."
Again, not a shocker there.
Bush carried a very high approval rating, with all Americans, all the way up until things began to turn sour in Iraq, and of course with the economy.
Which tends to support the theory that the voter is a fickle animal.
Why, with American facing so many problems, can't you give Obama some time to see what he can or cannot do, before heaping such criticism on him and his administration?
Well lets see, he's been in office 60+ days and is set on tripling the national debt. That is what has me criticizing him. I think his cluelessness in giving Brown dvds that don't work and the Queen an Ipod is simply humorous.
Yes.
Ditto.
I'm still amazed that anyone can think that "Bush had a huge deficit" is some sort of justification for Obama quadrupling it.
Yep. Apparently “Bush did this horrible thing, so let’s do that times 1000” is considered a good argument by some instead of completely illogical.
This is all nothing more than conjecture, based on things no one can predict.
Actually, it’s based on Math.
As far as protocol gaffes go, it's innocent. It's impossible for the new guys to not to make a gaffe around the Queen - that's what happens when you have a zillion year old archaic system. Tony Blair apparently made a million.
@Christy I agree. It would be very bad form for heads of a sovereign nation to curtsy. They're representing their people (us) after all. Even the thought of it makes me gag. If it's not already, that should be part of our protocol.
Just think what fun it will be when they go to China and Japan.
"but with the market UP over 20% in less than a month"
-Yup, it has almost recovered from what it lost in the face of Obama and Timmeh!'s earlier idiocy.
Shanna - "Actually, it’s based on Math."
What "math" are you talking about?
Everything being published is based on nothing more than projections that relate to future employment, real estate, consumer spending and debt.
But nobody knows what will happen over the next 4-8 years.
Can you give me an example of this "math" that tells us what will happen in the future...I have some stock prices I'd love to see a few months and years in advance.
I guess Michelle Obama has made the decision to be a celebrity rather than a co-president. Good idea for her sake.
I have a theory that First Ladies serve much the same purpose in the US as constitutional (that is to say, powerless) monarchs do in Europe. They are inoffensive goodwill ambassadors that everyone can like. I think that a First Man could do the same thing.
If I need a laugh, I think of how much fun Teresa Heinz-Kerry would have been. Such a lost opportunity.
Big Mike: "Not looking ahead leaves you like the optimistic sky-diver who discovered that he left his parachute back on the plane."
I never said anything about "not looking ahead."
I said it's impossible to accurately predict what will be, good or bad.
I invest in stocks and options and have stakes in many companies that have plummeted to their decade lows, all in the hopes of the economy picking up and a return to profitability.
I also moved all of our investment in pensions, etc. into Government bonds and a credit union months ago and have avoided all kinds of losses experienced by most of my friends. I would estimate most have lost between 20-40% of their portfolios that are in Mutuals so all I was interest in was stemming the tide and holding what we already have. Not much that could be done about real estate, short of selling before the fall.
As far as protocol gaffes go, it's innocent.
Of course it's innocent. But the point that many are making is that if it was a GOP President, it wouldn't be an innocent gaffe but an insult to our closet ally.
If anyone doesn't think Bush would not have been crucified in the media for the same 'transgressions' then denial is just a river in Egypt for those folks.
But nobody knows what will happen over the next 4-8 years.
Except of course when it comes to global warming. The debate is over, the science settled.
Jeremy,
The best time to criticize excessive government spending is at the beginning, before it entrenches itself permanently.
Everything being published is based on nothing more than projections that relate to future employment, real estate, consumer spending and debt.
You mean just like Clinton's projected budget surpluses?
Ofc. Krupke said..."Jeremy, The best time to criticize excessive government spending is at the beginning, before it entrenches itself permanently."
I agree, and I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't be criticizing some of the spending, but this is unique economic situation and there are things we might consider today that would make little sense at another time.
My argument is in the belief by many here that we "already know" what will happen.
We don't, and I think it's in our best interest to at least give the new administration a chance to succeed before believing they've already failed.
Bunny - "You mean just like Clinton's projected budget surpluses?"
Exactly, but the government's projections are expected.
Blog site predictions are not quite the same.
Part of the problem is that the administration is basing its deficit projections by assuming a 4% growth rate starting next year.
They are the only people predicting that.
Exactly, but the government's projections are expected
Too bad, because the Government isn't known for living up to its own expectations. Quite the contrary. If they say they project X you can pretty much take it to the bank that it will be -X or even Y.
I expect to win the lottery next week!!! Think I should go buy a Corvette today?
Yes. A red one.
Ofc. Krupke said..."Part of the problem is that the administration is basing its deficit projections by assuming a 4% growth rate starting next year. They are the only people predicting that."
I'm not familiar with their exact GDP projections, but 4% seems high to me.
Take a look at these projections for 2009 / 2010:
The Administraion: (-1.2% - 3.2%)
Here's the Blue Chip Consensus -
A forecast is a summary of a number of private forecasts. It was released on January 10, 2009. The January survey only covered 2009 and 2010. (-1.3 / 3.7)
Congressional Budget Office
(-0.9 / 2.6)
Macroeconomic Advisers
Macroeconomic Advisers is a respected private forecaster reported in the Blue Chip Consensus. Their comparable forecast was released on December 24, 2009. (-1.3 / 3.7)
Sorry, the Administrations projection for 2010 was +3.2%
The link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/Economic-Projections-and-the-Budge-Outlook/
Comments:
Sources: Obama Plays Peacemaker in French-Chinese Smackdown Over Tax Havens
April 02, 2009 11:15 AM
According to sources inside the room, President Obama just played peacemaker in a spat between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China.
In the finaly plenary session among the G-20 leaders, Sarkozy and Hu were having a heated disagreement about tax havens.
France and other European nations have been pushing for rules and regulations to apply to various tax havens; Germany's Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck has said "these tax havens are also places where unregulated financial market deals are made."
But Chinese leaders fear a crackdown would hurt banking centers in Macao, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Other countries agree, though they are less outspoken publicly.
The exchange between Sarkozy and Hu got so heated, said a source -- who is not a member of the Obama administration -- it was threatening the unity of the G-20 leaders' meeting.
"They were going through the revised draft," a senior Obama administration official said.
The issue: Sarko wanted "a list of non-compliant jurisdictions," tones that allow tax havens, he senior official said. "Other countries wanted it too, but (Sarkozy) was the most outspoken."
Sarkozy specifically was pushing for a list from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to be included in the G-20 Leaders' Statement.
Headquartered in Paris, the OECD has 30 member countries -- all capitalist democracies.
China opposed any such list being included in the final Leaders' Statement.
"China tends to have a problem endorsing the documents of organizations like the OECD that they're not a party to," the senior administration official said.
But Mr. Obama, according to this account, stepped between the two men, urging them to try to find consensus, and giving them a "pep talk" about the importance of working together.
The senior adminstration official said that Mr. Obama pulled Mr. Sarkozy aside, took him to a corner, "and discussed possible alternatives," the senior official said.
Once they arrived at one, President Obama "sent a message to the Chinese" that a counter-offer was on the table. The Chinese spent some time considering the offer. But they took a few minutes.
So Mr. Obama, with the assistance of translators, suggested that he and Mr. Hu have a conversation as well. They, too went to the corner to talk. After a few minutes, Mr. Obama called upon Mr. Sarkozy to join them.
"Translators and sherpas in tow, they reached an agreement," the official said. "There was a multiple shaking of hands."
Hitchens just said the Queen hasn't had a good "squeeze" in quite some time and he approves.
The article does not at all prove their headline. I don't see any fever, I see polite remarks from the few people she met. But I think the Beeb's fever pre-dated the visit.
But Obama's own budget forecasts the recession will continue through this year but with a relatively shallow 1.2 percent decline in the gross domestic product.
Then, the budget predicts solid 3.2 percent growth for 2010, followed by three years of more than 4 percent growth each year.
I mis-stated it slightly. It's 3.2% for next year, then 4% each year after.
Given that the bulk of the stimulus doesn't take effect until 2011 or so, these numbers seem a bit unrealistic. To say nothing of the President's assertion that he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.
Oops, forgot the link for that quote above.
I've a deal for ya Jeremy:
I'll refrain from criticizing O if you refrain from breathlessly reporting he "got people to shake hands"
Yeah, he's accomplished a lot, trillions spent, and wanting to spend another trillion internationally.
Since no government program creates wealth, it is a mathematical certainty that the deficits will remain deficits.
fewwiggle said..."I've a deal for ya Jeremy: I'll refrain from criticizing O if you refrain from breathlessly reporting he "got people to shake hands"
It wasn't my report and it wasn't "breathless. (It was a report filed by the Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper.) I would think Americans would be pleased that our President is trying to keep things under control
But there are always those who don't care.
Well, everybody The Times Online says not to worry about Michele touching the queen.
I'm still worried that the Obamas are not being well-prepared for international protocol. Sorry. Can't help it.
Oh, Jeremy, cut it out. You're not funny anymore.
Barack is a Democrat from the City of Chicago. Lying for him is as reflexive as breathing. I hope he doesn't screw up the economy, but if based on everything I see that's the direction the US is heading. I hope I'm wrong.
In particular I can forsee that efforts to "rein in exhorbitant executive salaries" is likely to decrease the level of entrepreneur as the risk/reward equation changes. I'm personally not sorry that lousy executives still make exhorbitant salaries when (1) there are star athletes that make big money to drop wide open passes or miss wide open receivers or blow free throws or sit on the bench and (2) Hollywood stars like Jim Carey make millions of dollars to crank out a dog of a picture.
Big Mike: "Barack is a Democrat from the City of Chicago. Lying for him is as reflexive as breathing."
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Who is "lying" for Obama?
@Jeremy, you're cute when you deliberately act dense. Too bad I'm straight. Try an alternate wording: For Barack Obama the act of lying is as automatic as breathing.
Big Mike said..."Jeremy, you're cute when you deliberately act dense. Too bad I'm straight. Try an alternate wording: For Barack Obama the act of lying is as automatic as breathing."
Thought that might get you going.
But your comment is still pretty weak. (He IS a politician.)
Quaint
But your comment is still pretty weak. (He IS a politician.)
Well, I do have to agree with that.
All politicians are gas bag liars who would run over their grandmother to get votes so they can retain power and access to money.
We really need to have some term limits on poltical offices. At least we might limit the graft and corruption a bit. It probably takes about 6 months into the "job" to know how to really start pulling in the dough at our expense. After 10 to 20 years...these guys are real pros that put the Chicago Mob to shame for shake downs and kickbacks.
If anyone doesn't think Bush would not have been crucified in the media for the same 'transgressions' then denial is just a river in Egypt for those folks
It seems to me the media is going on and on about Michelle's gaffe as they did about the Bush/Merkle gaffe. I don't get your argument.
Jeff with one F:
"The only number that matters is how popular he was with the media class."
Media class? Who? Drudge? Peggy Noonan? Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? Michelle Malkin? Reynolds? These are all part of the "media class" today and can no longer be considered underdogs.
Not picking on you personally, but we really need a new phraseology to describe the media/commentariat/punditocracy. Expressions like "media class" or "journalist elite" or even MSM with their implicit baggage suggesting an ideologically leftist elite hostile to the values of the American public are no longer accurate or meaningful. Just my pet peeve for today.
Peter V. Bella said...
Is the First Lady's popularity that important? Who real cares?
Now, she is smarter than her husband, she has more executive experience than her husband, and she is more competent than her husband. Maybe she should fire him or demand he resign and run the damn country herself. She could ony be an improvement.
Agree with your 1st Point. Who exactly cares about the spouse of the Senator, the Army General, the CEO? Or some celebrities? Do we make a fetish out of them? What drives this is around the time of Eleanor Roosevelt and the ability of mass media to give us next day newsreels of her handing out Easter eggs to unfortunate Negro children....advertisers realized there was a "royalistic hunger" in women to have their own American queen. And that hunger sold soap.
Hence the augmentation of the "1st Lady of the Land" since then. Not on merit, just getting the numbers to sell features of the 1st Lady to advertisers.
On your points of Michelle Obama being smarter, more executive, and more popular than Barry O - wrong on each point.
1. She was an average student in HS, got into Princeton because she was black and more importantly, her brother was the Star Basketball Player and getting sis in on virtually a free ride was an excellent way of rewarding him in a way that skirted all the NCAA rules. At Harvard Law, she was a middling student in the bottom 20%. She did graduate to her credit, but then failed the Bar exam once, possibly twice...and then dropped her law license after 4 years to become a Diversity Queen/Enforcer apparachnik with Chicago Gov't then U of Chicago.
(2)Her 'executive experience' sounds more like a sinecure given as a favor to Obama - who was being cultivated by 3 billionaire families who controlled U of Chicago for bigger and better things.
She was an executive - by accounts - that was only part-time, showing up sometimes for a few hours there, a full day now and then - as she raised children or accompanied Brack on Crown and Pritzker Family functions. With only one subordinate - an office assistant - who reported to her.
(3)Popularity is hard to assess when it is parasitic in nature. That in "parasitic, or reflected, popularity" - you only become well known and popular through the agencies and efforts of another person. Popularity through nothing but exposure from the position you gain through the efforts of The Other.
Big Mike, you are right that there are implications of how and why the touching occurred. DBQ also makes some excellent points. However, remember I did use the words “faux pas” and “gaucherie,” so it’s not like I was giving Mrs. Obama a complete pass. I just believe it does not even BEGIN to compare with Jimmy Carter’s brutish invasion of the Queen Mother’s personal space. Once upon a time, that quite literally might have been a pretext for war.
To be fair, as several have pointed out, Bush’s back rub of Merkel was a decidedly cringe-inducing moment, so W comes in a respectable second in the “How much can I humiliate America sweepstakes.”
But as long as we are talking outrageous behavior, have you seen the picture of President Obama bowing to a Saudi? No American, least of all the President, should EVER bow to a Saudi. To me, this is far more egregious than Mrs. Obama touching the Queen—especially since the Queen touched her first.
Sorry I've been off this thread. I have to finish up a paper I'm giving in May and I'm already overdue and stretching the kindness of the program committee. Also missed Bones and CSI so the pain is extreme.
@Frodo, I don't think he really bowed. I think he started to, and caught himself. I'll give him a partial pass.
@DBQ and @good ol' Jeremy, there are liars and then there are damned liars.
You must be kidding!? Bush had an AVERAGE approval rating of 56% because following 9/11 the predictable patriotic reaction to being attacked drove his ratings through the roof. He spent the next 7 years bumbling his way to lowest ratings in history. And your reaction... "Gee, a 56% average, he really did O.K." That's like saying "I had a million dollars now I have one... that's an average of $500,000! I must have done something right!"
Post a Comment