It's true, you are dumb, Halloween book burners.
CJSD: Top Ten Reasons We Should Reject Our Nobel Peace Prize
Skippy: Self-Described Troublemaker Whines because People think he's a Troublemaker
PourMeCoffee: Michael Steele Accuses Democrats of Treason, in Writing, and No One Even Blinks Anymore
Ben Varkentine: Looking for something serious to read this weekend?
Guest posted by Blue Gal.
I realize that there has to be a little more latitude given to op-eds than to straight news reporting, but it seems to me that there has to be a certain level of fact-checking for even editorials for the sake of the credibility of the paper. But then again, maybe WaPo is so deep into their Obama Derangement that they no longer are able to care about credibility.
People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson's work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama's award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months -- questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.
Like how the authors gloss over that two other sitting Presidents have received the Nobel Peace Prize, pretty much obliterating their theory on the constitutionality of awarding such a prize? Boneheads, they blow their own argument out of the water. Their choice of laureate: Iranian election martyr Neda Agha-Soltan, which of course, violates the Oslo committee's rules on bestowing the award to a living person. But hey, if you're going to employ poor syllogism to explain why Obama doesn't deserve it, why worry about things like rules?
Adam Blickstein points out a problem with their thinking:
One problem: the hero of the first Gulf War, Gen. Normon Schwarzkopf, received an honorary Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth (which technically makes him a "Knight of the British Empire") in May of 1991 while still on active duty. According to Rotunda and Pham's argument, this violated all kinds of constitutional constraints, Emolument Clause notwithstanding. He retired at the end of August 1991, meaning the General was clearly a foreign agent for the British Empire for approximately 3 months, because how can you be a Knight and an American General at the same time? Where would his loyalty really be? Under this Op-Ed's logic, Schwarzkopf's retirement South should have sent him to the Naval Brig at Charleston, not the golf courses of Florida.
Another government luminary who should have fallen victim to the Emolument Clause as the authors of the Op-Ed envision it? Alan Greenspan, who received his Honorary British Knighthood in 2002 while still serving as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. How could President George Bush sit there idly as the Chairman overseeing America's treasury was more a servant of Britain's Queen Elizabeth than the Commander-in-Chief of the United States? I'm shocked that the entirety of America's money supply didn't end up alongside the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London. But apparently, there was concern in Conservative circles over the legality of Greenspan's ascension in the British Empire. According to Newsmax, the Federal Reserve's General Counsel cleared Greenspan under the Emolument Clause[..].
Even Conservatives acquiesced that a Knighthood was not in violation of the Emolument Clause. I assume the same logic applies to a Nobel Prize.
Is it possible for Conservatives to offer even one well-reasoned argument? Or is it too difficult because, as Colbert says, facts have a liberal bias? Shame on WaPo's editorial board for being so eager to feed their Obama haters. (h/t Ambinder)
(Teddy Roosevelt - aside from National Parks, also attributed to coining the phrases: Speak Softly and Carry A Big Stick and Good To The Last Drop)
Continuing with the other Nobel Peace Prize recipient who was also a sitting President, Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (1901, assuming office on the assassination of William McKinley - 1908) received his prize in 1906.
During the election of 1912 he ran as a third party candidate of the Bull Moose Party, losing to Woodrow Wilson (the other Nobel recipient).
Here is a campaign speech he recorded during the 1912 campaign.
Teddy Roosevelt: “The other day in a speech at Sioux Falls, Mister Wilson stated his position when he said the history of government, the history of liberty was the history of the limitation of governmental power. This is true as an academic stigma of history in the past. It is not true as a statement affecting the present.”
(Woodrow Wilson - Last sitting President to get the Peace Prize)
When the Nobel Peace Prize was recently announced, and the recipient was none other than President Obama, people ran to their history books trying to figure out who was the last sitting President to receive such an honor.
It was Woodrow Wilson, 27th President (even though Wikipedia says 28) (1913-1920), oversaw our involvement in World War 1 and championed The League Of Nations.
If you've never heard him speak (and I suspect a lot of you haven't), here is a campaign address from the 1912 election, when he ran against the third party candidate Teddy Roosevelt (the other Peace Prize recipient - coming up shortly). He's speaking about the role of Labor.
Now you know.
Everyone (except Shep Smith) at Fox News, including various reporters, spent the day yesterday whining about how mean the White House was being to them, telling everyone that they're a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Guess the truth hurts. (More on that in a bit.)
It's funny they should say that. Because that same day, every single one of Fox's prime-time "opinion show" anchors devoted time and energy to running down President Obama -- and the Nobel committee -- for his just-announced Peace Prize.
Sean Hannity was so worked up, he devoted two whole segments to the subject, featuring the gnome who lives under the bridge Dick Morris and Mark Steyn. (You'll love Hannity's definition of "peace.") Bernie Goldberg ran through their comparable records of non-accomplishment and announced that he would win the prize next year. But the real corker, of course, came from Glenn Beck, who was able to figure out just what Obama's Nobel Peace Prize really meant:
It may be more revealing on how Europe and the rest of the world views Obama. He [Obama] is dismantling the United States one piece at a time.
And doing so, evidently, at the behest of his European masters. (But wait! I thought he was born in Kenya!)
This really is getting unseemly. A little carping could be expected, but for God's sake, can't any of these people get some perspective? The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the world's great honors, and it's an honor for it to go to an American.
Hannity, for instance, harps on the fact that Obama's nomination came only 12 days after he was inaugurated. But the committee keeps reviewing nominees -- including their current activities -- up until the final vote, which took place not long ago. So Hannity's point is a nonsequitur.
What never seems to occur to any of them is the obvious, simple and clear reason that Obama won the Nobel: He won the Presidency of the United States -- and in so doing, ended conservative-movement rule in America.
The entire world could see that the Bush administration, enabled by a Republican Congress, and fueled by an increasingly bellicose and irrational talk-show was the greatest threat to global peace since the fall of the Berlin Wall -- outpacing even the terrorist disturbances of Al Qaeda, particularly in lives lost. Nor would conservatives give up their hold on power readily; defeating them was no mean feat.
Entertaining such thoughts, though, would paralyze any well-trained right-winger in a fit of cognitive dissonance, so it never comes up on places like Fox.
Michael Moore may have put it best:
The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man -- a man who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning -- offered to end the insanity. The world has stood by in utter horror for the past eight years as they watched the descendants of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson light the fuse of our own self-destruction. We flipped off the nations on this planet by abandoning Kyoto and then proceeded to melt eight more years worth of the polar ice caps. We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad.
And if all that wasn't enough, the outgoing Joker presided over the worst global financial collapse since the Great Depression.
So, yeah, at precisely 11:00pm ET on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. And the 66 million people who voted for him won it, too. By the time he took the stage at midnight ET in the Grant Park Historic Hippie Battlefield in downtown Chicago, billions of people around the globe were already breathing a huge sigh of relief. It was as if, in that instant, one man did bring the promise of peace to the world -- and most were ready to go wherever he wanted to go to achieve that end. Never before had the election of one man made every other nation feel like they had won, too. When you've got billions of people ready, willing and able to join a cause like this, well, a prize in Oslo is the least that you deserve.
It's also worth noting that the Peace Prize historically has gone to those -- like Martin Luther King -- who have produced important transformative steps in the furtherance of civil rights and the healing of the racial divide, which has produced so much misery and inflicted so much violence in America alone. Obama's election as the first African-American president represents just such a moment, and he deserves recognition for that alone as well.
The Fox folks need to get a grip. And if they wonder why the White House sees them as reflexively opposed to everything and anything Obama does, they should just play the above video as a reminder.
Bob Dole was told to keep his trap shut by non other than the odious Mitch McConnell, the man who has as an approval rating as low as Dick Cheney's.
The GOP’s 1996 candidate for president said he was asked by current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., not to issue a bipartisan statement calling for passage of health care reform legislation.
“We’re already hearing from some high-ranking Republicans that we shouldn’t do that — that’s helping the president,” Dole said. He later specified that the people he referred to included one “very prominent Republican, who happens to be the Republican leader of the Senate,” according to The Kansas City Star .Dole was also quoted as saying that partisanship by his own GOP was behind the delay in reaching agreement on a final health care bill..
I don't expect Dole to suddenly go on the air and rip into his party, but the fact that this much got out says a lot. The republicans have no plan for health care reform so any words that come from older republicans on the hot topic carries a sting to it.
Mitch will be on Face the Nation today and I wonder if Bob Schieffer will bring it up or read a David Brooks column. Maybe they'll just want to talk about the Nobel Peace prize. What do you think?
Do ya think? Not only did Anita Dunn take a really strong stand for President Obama over the Roger Ailes run FOX Noise Propaganda Network, she also called out the conservative-teabagger movement in its entirety.
Dunn: A week ago many conservative commentators had been rejoicing in the fact, celebrating in the fact that the United States didn't get the Olympics, one week later they seem to be somewhat bitter at the fact that an American President was awarded the Nobel peace prize. So I think people will draw their own conclusions abut the reflexive negativity on the part of some commentators regardless of what happens...
Dunn held back no punches and stated fact. That's nice to see.
Howard Kurtz was pretty comical with his questions, but he was trying to provide some pushback, I guess.
KURTZ: You were quoted this week in Time Magazine as saying of Fox News, it's opinion journalism masquerading as news. What do you mean, "masquerading"?
See what I mean? But he did have to ask that.
DUNN: Well, you know, Howie, I think if we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that, you know, it was a time that this country was in two wars, that we'd had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest story, the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called Acorn, when the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.
Yep, that sums up FOX Noise. Then she delivered the knockout punch.
Last month, President Obama appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows, including Univision’s Al Punto. He rejected Fox, however. Dunn revealed this morning that Obama did not appear on Fox because of its reflexive, partisan opposition to Obama. Obama will go on Fox in the future, Dunn said, but when he goes on, “he’s going on to debate the opposition.”
And then after Kurtz asked her if the president would go on FOX ever again, she said this too:
Dunn: That when he goes on FOX, he understands he's not going on, it really isn't a news network at this point, he's going to debate the opposition and that's fine.
The opposition, I loved that.
Howard asked someone from FOX to appear on Reliable Sources, but they refused and instead issued their usual statement. They'd rather have BillO speak to his audience than have anybody debate the facts -- especially, of course, on another network. FOX gives their usual argument that while they do have news, people really rely on their opinion programs. That's stunning really. MSNBC has their lefty hosts too, but during the day, you'll hear all the news and not MSNBC's opinion version of the news.
Kurtz did his best to find a few reporters that he thought weren't corrupted by Ailes so he mentioned Major Garrett. Do you think he's fair...Please say he's fair...Oh please oh please oh please. And Anita then calmly explained why they didn't go on Chris Wallace. Good for her.
And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show -- something I've never seen a Sunday show do. And, Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks' guests, and I'd be happy to see those. We asked Chris, for an example, where he had done that to anybody besides somebody from the administration in the year 2009. And we're still waiting to hear from him.
She didn't stop there.
Dunn: Let's be realistic here, Howie. They are widely viewed as, you know, a part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put them on the air. Take their opposition research, put them on the air, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network they way CNN is.
Kurtz did his best to try and get her to differentiate between the Beck's show and their little news nuggets, and she wouldn't back down. Where's the John Ensign coverage? she asks Howie. Hmmm, you won't see it much -- if at all -- on FOX. And that's only one example out of thousands.
SNL's Bill Hader spoofed James Carville responding to Rush Limbaugh's attack on President Barack Obama after he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Rush Limbaugh, now how does a fellow like that have fans? Don't worry, he's mean and fat. How are you going to call him Rush? that's a terrible name for a slow fat man, Seth. only place he's rushing to is Quiznos. Free double meat and wave some coupon he made on a home computer. He should win the Nobel piece of pie.
Rachel Maddow does an excellent job explaining how the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded in the past and why President Obama deserved to receive the award. The most stark example being this portion comparing then candidate Obama’s view of diplomacy compared with that of John McCain.
Maddow: The Nobel Peace Prize not always, but often awards effort. It recognizes people trying in big ways to get the world on a more peaceful path. The deadline for nomination for the prize is February first of the year in which it's awarded.
President Obama's critics say that by February first he should not have been nominated. He'd done nothing by then and by the way he's done nothing since to deserve it.
Obama: We need a fundamental change if we’re going to dig ourselves out of the hole that George Bush has placed us in and that’s going to require the kind of aggressive diplomacy— preparation yes—but aggressive diplomacy, personal diplomacy of the next president to transform how the world sees us. That is ultimately going to make us safer.
Maddow: Before he was nominated for the Nobel, Mr. Obama had persuaded the people of the most powerful nation on earth to choose him and his vision of strength through diplomacy—instead of the vision offered by his rival for the presidency.
McCain: You know that old, uh, that old Beach Boys song, bomb Iran? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb… anyway…
Rachel goes on to contrast President Obama’s words to those of John Bolton, President Bush’s choice to be our representative at the United Nations. Another stark reminder of just what we finally rid ourselves of with the end of the Bush administration.
The entire segment is well worth spending the eleven minutes or so of your time to watch. Rachel wrapped it up with this.
Maddow: President Obama’s critics railed today that winning the Nobel Peace Prize is somehow an insult. That international encouragement and hope for success for an American president is something to be ashamed of. I never thought that I would quote Charles Krauthammer, but Obama derangement syndrome appears to be upon us. The American president just won the Nobel Peace Prize. By any reasonable measure, all Americans should be proud.
The new winner of the Nobel Peace Prize walked out of his house just after 11 a.m., dressed handsomely in a dark suit and a classic blue tie. He descended a marble staircase into a manicured garden, flowers in full bloom, and stepped up to a podium on a perfect autumn day. After making a joke about the lightheartedness of children, he said he was "surprised and humbled" by the award. Then he asked the world to unite by providing all people with opportunity, dignity and freedom from violence and disease.
All told, Barack Obama spoke for six minutes Friday. He said little concrete, nothing controversial, nothing contentious. And yet, once he walked back into his house, contention dominated the day.
This is how it has always gone with Obama: His latest coronation, this time as Nobel Peace Prize winner, inspired a dozen different reactions that were similar only in their intensity.
It's very odd, that a person can win the Nobel Peace Prize and set off a public opinion war. We saw something similar a few years back when Al Gore won and the right-wing machine kicked into high gear. It was easier to dismiss the uproar back then, because Gore has so clearly devoted decades to environmental activism.
People are looking at this and saying, "Huh?"
But Obama has actually done a few things that give me, yes, hope. One is that he is is reducing nuclear stockpiles and pulling other nations along. The other is that he's taking a distinctly different direction in Israel policy by opposing the expansion of West Bank settlements. So an Obama presidency will eventually have its good points.
I was thinking about how vehement and relentless the attacks against him are (again, keeping in mind my own objections to his policies). And what I've concluded is that much of America is caught up in a giant stadium "wave" of media manipulation. As soon as one wave completes itself, the media creates another one.
And of course, we're supporting different home teams.
God knows how many of us there are, but there's a substantial percentage of the public who are, for lack of a better word, hyper-informed. (I hate to use the word "informed" because it indicates actual understanding, and I mean it more in the sense of over-consumption of information.)
We over-consume via 24-hour news channels, talk radio, print media and blogs, in something akin to the binge-and-purge cycle of bulimics.
The thing is, media manipulation is ultimately about selling soap. The soap might be dish detergent, a candidate or an economic philosophy, but someone's trying to sell something. And the more media we consume, the more we're willing to buy.
Media manipulation is so pervasive, so insidious that even people like me who identify it for a living are occasionally distracted from the real point.
All these emotional highs and lows are the results of hypervigilance, brought on by media overconsumption. (Look at your typical Beck fan. I rest my case.) Yes, there really are bad things happening - but probably not as many as you think.
Unfortunately for bloggers, it's our lot in life to play political Paul Revere. In order to protect and warn the village, we must constantly scan the horizon. But you? You don't have to.
The more life experience you have, the more diversity of people and places, the less susceptible you are to media hypnosis. So do step away from the computer occasionally.
When news came that Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I looked at my husband and said, "just watch, the wingnuts will lose it over this." And sure enough, I was right. But what threw me for a loop was how nakedly partisan CBS's Chip Reid was in attacking Obama for having the audacity to win the Nobel Prize, something even the great St. Ronnie didn't do:
REID: I mean, most Democrats have praised it, and most Republicans have said, you have got to be kidding me -- Ronald Reagan didn't get one, but Barack Obama, nominated 12 days after he was sworn in, gets a Nobel Peace Prize. And the fear among some, even some Democrats, is that this is going to widen the partisan divide and make things even more difficult to accomplish on every front.
Really? Even more difficult than reflexively fighting *every* *single* Obama agenda item now? How is that possible?
It's touching, isn't it, to hear Chip Reid's concern that this will widen the partisan divide? After all, past winners have included Al Gore and Jimmy Carter...obviously the Nobel committee loves them some Democrats.
But here's the thing that all these insulated Beltway Villagers continually forget: Outside of DC, life is more than Republican vs. Democrat, something that Gibbs gently tries to suggest to Reid:
GIBBS: I'll leave the pundicizing to the pundits. The notion that somehow this is going to more greatly divide America, you know, I think it should be mandatory that pundits spend a certain amount of their days each year outside of the friendly confines of the viewership of the Washington, D.C., media market.
Of course, that goes right over Reid's head. For Reid, this is all about dismissing the Nobel committee -- in Norway, mind you, and not subject to the mind-numbing partisan reduction that Reid seems to breathe as oxygen -- as some liberal organization. He just can't get his head wrapped around the fact the Ronald Reagan -- the man who ended the Cold War! -- was never awarded the Peace Prize. As my friend, Steve Benen says:
A few thoughts here. First, when White House correspondents from major news outlets start sounding like members of Grover Norquist's "We Love Reagan" fan club, it's not a positive development.
Second, the notion that Reagan "helped bring the Cold War to an end" is, at best, a dubious proposition.
Actually, I think Chip Reid is unintentionally letting us into his psyche more than he realizes. He's continually been a go-to guy for Republican talking points for years. He routinely criticizes Democrats for things he lets pass by Republicans and uncritically passes on Republican attacks without context or fact-checking. And here again, he mouths the GOP mentality.
But think about it: if the Nobel Peace Prize only supports liberal causes, isn't Chip Reid admitting that peace is liberal? Then we need never look to conservatives again, because they will never bring peace. Right, Chip?
Transcript below the fold
Sally Field's 1985 Oscar acceptance speech
Wouldn't it have been great to live in a country that celebrates the achievements of its members? One where we could all tear up at realizing that the world likes us, right now, it likes us again?
Alas, 'tis not to be. We're too busy tearing people down--Obama doesn't deserve the NPP, there are still people dying in Afghanistan (never mind that there are still people dying in Israel and Palestine, some 15 years after Arafat, Peres and Rabin jointly won; or that people were still dying in Vietnam when Kissinger won 1973; or that South Africa still had 10 more years of apartheid after Tutu won in 1984.) I'm not sure why our collective memories are so short that we have forgotten (or maybe the media just doesn't want us to remember) that the Nobel Peace Prize is rarely awarded for results, but to congratulate a person who has suggested a new path towards world peace and strengthen international diplomacy.
Those paths don't always come to fruition--see Arafat, et al., above...or Wilson's award for creating the League of Nations, but it is the intent, the choice not to do business the same old way that gets credit with the Nobel committee.
Obama's Nobel is sure to be a major topic on all the shows. As is foreign policy, which makes sense, given the reasoning behind Obama's award. We also have a brand new Sunday show debuting on CNN: Amanpour, with Christiane Amanpour (2:00 pm Eastern/11:00 am Pacific). She's landed some seriously big names for her first program: Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. McCain Mini-Me Lindsey Graham is on Meet the Press, along with Gen. Barry McCaffrey. Gosh, I wonder what they're going to advocate. DiFi and Saxby Chambliss are on This Week, to discuss Afghanistan and how extremely disconcerting it is to have a POTUS who actually thinks first and decides later. Don't miss the round table, which will feature Arianna Huffington and Nicole Wallace. I guess TW's Exec. Producer listened to me about getting on a liberal blogger. And finally, I don't want anyone to worry that they're going to miss John McCain on a Sunday show. Mr. Also-Ran is on State of the Union, alongside Debbie Stabenow and Bob Casey.
ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.; retired Army Gen. Jack Keane.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Jack Reed, D-R.I.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C.; retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey; retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Clarence Page, Gloria Borger, Andrea Mitchell and David Ignatius. Topics: Has Obama stalled in his ability to achieve major accomplishments this year? What does the David Letterman case say about what is scandalous nowadays? Meter Question: Is concern that President Obama has stalled more perception than reality? YES: 8 NO: 4.
CNN's "State of the Union" - Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and Bob Casey, D-Pa.; Anita Dunn, White House communications director; Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - 8 years of war in Afghanistan - what are President Obama's options? Fareed speaks with an expert panel and the Pakistani ambassador to the U-S. Plus, does the diamond business deserve its dirty reputation?
CNN's "Amanpour" - "Power & Persuasion" U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates join Christiane Amanpour for an exclusive roundtable discussion, looking at global challenges.
"Fox News Sunday" - Wynn Resorts Ltd. CEO Steve Wynn; Govs. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., and Mitch Daniels, R-Ind.
So, what's catching your eye this morning?
When I woke up and opened my email box, I have to admit I first thought it was some sort of Onion spoof – Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize? Oh c’mon, where’s the punchline? But less than a half a cup of coffee later, I realized, bloody hell, this actually has happened!
Barack Obama, with less than a year in office, has won the Nobel Peace Prize, only the fourth US president to win it, after Teddy Roosevelt (1906), Woodrow Wilson (1919), and Jimmy Carter (2002), and the first sitting president since Wilson. Ostensibly, Obama has won it for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” and specifically in recognition of his efforts to work toward a nuclear weapons-free world…
Well, obviously, they had to give it to him for a specific reason, and there’s certainly a lot of validity in the ones the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided on. But the Nobel Prize has always been political, which leaves it open to many who have complained about certain recipients in the past – Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger probably the most notable of controversial winners. However, Arafat’s and Kissinger’s detractors were their already sworn enemies, primarily Israel, so no real surprise there. But the instant denunciation of Obama’s worthiness has been, astonishingly enough, our own people. Our fellow Americans. Citizens of the United States who should be thrilled to bits Obama has won this incredible distinction and at a time when it is so crucial for America’s battered standing in the world community.
Larisa Alexandrovna, in her blog article, “Republicanistan - A country of its own” gives a great run-down on the scale of venomous spewing from the right, from Malkin’s spittle flecked incoherence to Limbaugh’s OxyContin and Viagra fuelled rage, along with all those who cheered when Chicago lost the Olympics, who have openly expressed the hope Obama’s policies will fail, regardless of how much that would hurt the country, those flag-waving, gun-toting patriots who have called for a military coup – a military coup! – to oust a legitimate and democratically elected leader of our own country. They must destroy the village to save the village. Their war on Obama takes no prisoners, even if the entire country itself should end up as a fatality.
Yet I would suggest that is it exactly these people – yes, these hate-mongering, stark raving loony-toon seething cabal of gibbering wingnuts at the head of the marching moronic army of stoopid peepul – who are directly responsible for Obama’s surprising win.
More of Rep. Alan Grayson speaking some truth to power. From The Ed Schultz Show Oct. 9, 2009. When asked what he thinks of the Republicans being so negative about the President winning the Nobel Peace Prize, he responds:
Grayson: I think I understand their disappointment. They're not going to be winning the Nobel Peace Prize themselves anytime soon. They probably wish there a Nobel Prize for fear, a Nobel Prize for hatred, a Nobel prize for racism. You know, then they'd be in the running, but I don't think they're going to be winning a Nobel Peace Prize soon.
You all remember how the wingnuts exploded in joy at the news that Chicago had been denied its bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Rather typically, our RedState pal Erick Erickson crowed:
So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O. Maybe now perhaps we can hope he will mature a bit on the issues of foreign affairs. But I doubt it.
Well, now their heads are exploding at the news that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Here's what Erickson tweeted in response:
(Via ThinkProgress.)
Then there was Fox News. As you can see from the video above, it was like Scanners on steroids on Fox & Friends this morning, with Brian Kilmeade noting that this was the third honoree whose name was not George W. Bush. (Maybe those Swedes' "pure genes" got the better of them, eh?)
Even Michael Steele and the Republican National Committee got into the act:
“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain – President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”
Congratulations? Perish the thought!
Blue Texan at Firedoglake has a nice roundup from around the wingnutosphere.
Meanwhile, Media Matters has compiled a handy video of the early reaction:
