by Mark Silva
President Barack Obama did not deserve to win the Nobel Prize for Peace, the way most Americans surveyed view the surprise prize -- only the third Peace Prize for a sitting president of the United States.
Yet a lot of people are glad he did: 46 percent.
A strong majority surveyed by the Gallup Poll -- 61 percent -- say the president does not deserve the prize that he will travel to Oslo to pick up on Dec. 10. The Nobel Committee said it was awarding the prize to Obama for creating a new environment in international affairs, placing diplomacy ahead of conflict and seeking global nuclear disarmament and control over climate change.
""Not surprisingly, reaction to the awarding of the prize is partisan, although support for Obama's receiving the prize among Democrats is perhaps not as large as might be expected,'' writes Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll.
Obama himself said that he did not deseve a prize that placed him in the company of so many "transformative'' figures in world history, but would accept it as a "call to action.'' He has vowed to donate the $1.4 million that comes with the prize to charity.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted about a week after the announcement on Oct. 9 did not ask Americans whether they believe that the award may ultimately be deserved, or whether it was appropriately given in anticipation of the potential of the Obama administration's peace efforts. The question was whether Obama "deserved" the award. Americans said no, by a roughly two-to-one margin.
As partisan as the divide in opinion of the prize is, just 59 percent of the Democrats surveyed said the award is deserved, compared with the 84 percent of Democrats who in the same survey approve of Obama's job performance. Independents and, in particular, Republicans are highly likely to say Obama did not deserve to win the prize.
Obama's overall job approval in the latest Gallup Poll daily track reported today stands at 54 percent, a few points up from a low of 50 that he reached earlier this week and three times before since late August. The president had gotten a bit of a "speed bump'' from the prize, his approval reaching 56 percent in the days following its award.
The prize findings come from a survey of 1,521 adults conducted Oct. 16-19, with a possible margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.
(President Barack Obama is pictured above in the Oval Office on Oct. 9 before stepping out to the Rose Garden to address the winning of the Nobel Prize for Peace. (AP Photo by Alex Brandon)
Comments
"A strong majority surveyed by the Gallup Poll -- 61 percent -- say the president does not deserve the prize"
Thus the gasps of stunned disbelief from the press corps when the announcement was made.
Posted by: This is news? | October 23, 2009 4:17 PM
Who cares. It was widely cheered by Europeans and intelligent leaders of other foreign nations whose citizens are educated enough to embrace attempts for restoration of peace, respect and diplomacy. As it stands, GOP resentment of this prize is on par with that of the Taliban, whose members denounced the prize the second it was announced. Hardly the company Republicans should want to find themselves in.
Posted by: Pedro Calderón de la Barca | October 23, 2009 4:18 PM
Funny.....so did Obama. So?
Posted by: bill r. | October 23, 2009 4:20 PM
I think we need to create a Limbaugh War Prize and award it to individual who shall have done the most or the best work for Violence between nations, for the enlargement of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of Wars. Clearly the first winner would be George W. Bush for his great dedication to the institution of war around the workld. Every American would be proud to see a former President honored for his promotion of war and militarism and his rejection of the dangerous and evil notion of Peace.
Posted by: former Republican | October 23, 2009 4:21 PM
Whether it's cheering over America losing out on the Olympics or boorishness over Obama's Nobel Prize, or "just say no" over health reform, one party (Democrats) looks like adults in the midst of dealing with difficult problems and the other (Republicans) are acting like petulant children with pencils in their ears so they don't hear anything they don't want to.
Posted by: Victoria S | October 23, 2009 4:25 PM
CHEERS to wingnut whiplash. What's that little saying about he who laughs last? Gee, I forget. But this I know: Republicans are wandering around aimlessly in stony disbelief, having learned that, while he didn’t win the Olympics for us (and does anybody really think Rio wasn't going to get it?), Barack Obama did become the first sitting United States President since Woodrow Wilson to win the Nobel Peace Prize this week.
Congratulations, Mr. President and congratulations, America!
And if it makes you feel any better, Li'l Republicans, if the committee ever gives out a Nobel War Prize, you'll win in a walk. (You guys should start a petition...or hold a Tabagger protest!)
Posted by: I wanna be a Republican idiot | October 23, 2009 4:44 PM
When asked by the public who they preferred to have their life spared between Christ & Babarrus, the crowd chose Babarrus and so he was set free and Christ went to the Cross for our sins and our salvation!
Posted by: angellight | October 23, 2009 5:24 PM
Must be for all the peace he brought to the Chicago South Side you know where he did his best work. Bwaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaaa
Posted by: Corey | October 23, 2009 5:38 PM
Mr. President, I appreciate your efforts to promote peace and goodwill with our foreign neighbors. Congratulations on receiving the prestigious Nobel Prize. You go Mr. President!!!
Posted by: Kim Johnson | October 23, 2009 10:51 PM
i believe the achievement made is with respect of their vision to peace ahead, and obama's visionary move to reconstruct America's image towards a new pave is somehow a fresh strategy never carried out by the last few presidents of US.
Posted by: Nibras | October 24, 2009 2:44 AM
Therefore 39 percent of the people believed he did deserve it - that's a lot of Kool-Aid
Posted by: Terry | October 24, 2009 8:37 AM
"Therefore 39 percent of the people believed he did deserve it - that's a lot of Kool-Aid"
The public is so dumb they deserve another 8 years of the Republicans to help them go into a Depression. Obama is trying hard to fix the economy, healthcare, and to make Americans better. But, they rather focus on crumbs. They do not even realize without Obama, we would be in a Depression right now. We may still be in one in a few years but at least it is delayed. People do not realize if we go into a severe Depression, history tells us there will be major violence. Of course, I'm not promoting violence; I'm just telling you what would likely happen.
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | October 24, 2009 12:16 PM
Rodney,
They derserve an economy that had 73 months of growth - 5th longest economic expansion in U.S. history. A period of low interest rates and low unemployment, until the hosuing market collapsed - the doing of the democrats by forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them.
Even BO's economic advisor, Christina Romer, says the stimulus is done working. That viloence you speak of will occur mainly in major cities - generally run by democrats.
Posted by: Terry | October 24, 2009 5:06 PM
Obama's right. He didn't deserve it. He, Carter and Gore got their awards for one reason only: They're not George Bush. The Norwegian chair of the selection committee also served as head of Norway's far left socialist party. He's made a joke of a once-prestigious award.
Posted by: Bonita | October 24, 2009 5:07 PM
He did not deserve the award...,period. He really
received the award to kissing
a whole lot of European Ass.
If he ever does anything that
might warrant the award I'll be
the first to congratulate him.
Posted by: Paul | October 24, 2009 6:24 PM
"They derserve an economy that had 73 months of growth - 5th longest economic expansion in U.S. history. A period of low interest rates and low unemployment, until the hosuing market collapsed - the doing of the democrats by forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them."
As usual, some people prefer to live in the past. Most of us have moved on. . . but continue to live in the past if you wish- for that is your passion. It's just not mine. I live in the present and look to the future.
"That viloence you speak of will occur mainly in major cities - generally run by democrats. "
Big Cities are a testamonial that usually belongs to a nation with economic power as well as a the concept of being civilized. Afterall, most big cities are made up of millions of residents. If millions of people can co-exist peacefully in such large environment, we can say that we are fairly civilized. If not so, then why is China building skyscrappers like there is no tomorrow? Isn't it to showcase an advancement in their civilization? So, this concept of violence happening in large cities controlled by Democrats is a fallacy. It is only your mere opinion based on your dislike of the Democrats or their policies. We have seen the fare share of violence in the big cities, and small rural towns back in the '60's. We've seen plenty of violence back in the Civil War. It wasn't just limited to the big cities as you've described. For, as you recall history: General Sherman marched across the South pillaging every small towns in its path. Truthfully, violence does not spare race, wealth, or where you live. Unless, you live in a bubble, then nobody can help you realize reality. We only blind ourselves when we live in the past and not learn from the past. We will wake up one day, and find there is another nation in the rising and ours falling. For we believe what every Roman Citizen use to believe in: that Rome was far invincible. Rome lasted a thousand years. Ours is merely a few hundred years. A young nation indeed; but, following the same old path. . .of the old empires.
Posted by: hmongrodneykling | October 26, 2009 1:40 AM
HMK,
Talk about living in the past. You quote rural violence from the Civil War and even back to Rome. Alll I did waas quote economic growth of two years ago.
Compare the murder rate of Chicago - about 1/2 the population of Illinois to the rest of Illinois. Which do you think is higher?
Posted by: Terry | October 26, 2009 1:35 PM
"Talk about living in the past. You quote rural violence from the Civil War and even back to Rome. Alll I did waas quote economic growth of two years ago."
Once, again, you are the king of tongue twisters. Putting words into my mouth. The difference is that you want to live like two years ago. I never claim that I wanted to live like two years ago, 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. Therefore, I do not live in the past nor do I want to go back to those awful times. I was merely telling you how History unfolds. That cities and small towns are not immune to violence since you believe it is isolated to the city life during uprisings. I cited a few examples of unfortunate events in history of violence that followed during the breakdown of civilized nations to back up the point that no place is immune to violence.
But, you are certainly entitled to you opinion. Afterall, we still do have people who believe the world is flat. But, that's OK, if that makes them happy, who am I to tell them what to believe? hahaha. . .
Chicago's murder rate is about 15 per 100,000. Peoria is about 12 per 100,000 based on census 2005. I would say it ain't much different if it is based on ratio. And your point being??? Because, you are going off subject. I don't know how Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Topic became a blog on crime on the street.
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | October 26, 2009 9:10 PM
HMK,
We got to "crime on the street" thru this quote "People do not realize if we go into a severe Depression, history tells us there will be major violence."
BTW, that's only 25% higher - not much at all - unless you are one of the 25%.
Posted by: Terry | October 27, 2009 10:40 PM
"BTW, that's only 25% higher - not much at all - unless you are one of the 25%."
Correct. when comparing low ratio numbers such as 1 of 2 is already 50%. The difference is 15-12= 3 or 30%. That amounts to about a drop in the bucket. Which is nothing compare to cancer deaths which is about 500,000 per 300,000,000. Yet, it less than 1% of the population. So, it is not safer in Peoria or in Chicago. They are virtually the same depending if you use inches or foot to measure. hahaha
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | October 28, 2009 7:37 PM