Third Party & Independents Archives

October 09, 2009

Obama's Surprise: Nobel Prize

Obama awoke this morning to learn he was a Nobel Peace Prize winner and to receive 1 million dollars for his ideals and vision for the future of the world revealed in his candidacy for president and victory in the polls. (He was nominated during his first month in office). Pres. Obama immediately put together a humble and very honest speech to say he recognizes the prize is not for his accomplishments, but for the peaceful hopes of the people of the world which he shares. Republican National Committee Chairman Steele immediately set out a speech deriding the decision and Obama for having accomplished nothing; which, pretty much says it all.

Posted by David R. Remer at October 9, 2009 01:41 PM
Comments
Comment #289057

I’m surprised. Usually Nobel prizes are awarded decades after the accomplishment has occurred in order to verify its lasting impact. For example Jimmy Carter received the 2002 prize for negotiating a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1978. Watson, Crick and Wilkins won the 1962 Novel Prize in chemistry nine years after the deciphered the structure of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). The 2009 Novel Prize in physics went to people who did their work in 1969.

Officially, the Nobel Prize Committee said this.

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Oslo, October 9, 2009

I knew that Obama had spent a great deal of his time in the Senate working to reduce nuclear proliferation, but I would have preferred if they had waited to see how effective Obama’s new policies are at securing world peace.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 9, 2009 02:21 PM
Comment #289058

David,
Prohibiting use of torture, ordering the closing of Guantanamo, signing an executive order to close CIA secret prisons, resuming Global Warming participation, initiating new SALT treaty process with Russia, easing tensions with Cuba, and addressing the Muslim world in a speech extending an olive branch addressed. All that in less than one year!

Posted by: phx8 at October 9, 2009 02:22 PM
Comment #289060

Warped Reality:


I knew that Obama had spent a great deal of his time in the Senate working to reduce nuclear proliferation


Obama didn’t spend a whole lot of time in the Senate Period. His accomplishments in the Senate were small, because most of the time he was in the Senate he was running for President.

The Peace prize was not for what he has accomplished as it has been in the past. It was for hope in the future.

It’s time for Obama to actually do something. This will put additional pressure on him to have his accomplishments come more in line with his rhetoric. If that is the case, then it might be a good thing depending on ones point of view.

Obama is being crititized more and more for from the left and the right for talking big and doing little. To be fair it is still early.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 9, 2009 03:24 PM
Comment #289061

Warped Reality, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson also received the Nobel while in office.

Also, several candidates like Israel’s Rabin, have received the prize, not for what they accomplished, but, for their hope and vision of what can be accomplished, (e.g. Middle East Peace between Israel and Palestine in Rabin’s case, which still hasn’t materialized).

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2009 03:39 PM
Comment #289062

phx8, but his nomination was submitted in Jan of 2009, BEFORE ANY of that occurred.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2009 03:42 PM
Comment #289063

Craig, correct, it is early, and phx8 has already outlined many accomplishments, not to mention salvaging America’s and the World’s economies with follow through on Hank Paulson’s and Bernanke’s, banking and credit sector rescues. Not bad for 9 months in office, in my opinion. Must be why his approval ratings remain above 50% at this point while GW Bush’s and Clinton’s failed to do so at this same time in their first terms.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2009 03:45 PM
Comment #289064

“gasps of astonishment from journalists” I thought it was actually a hoax when I first heard it.

“he felt humbled and unworthy” for good reasons. It’s an insult to other Nobel Peace Prize winners, MLK and Mandella, besides JEC39. Hope for change is equally worthy with them? I hope he puts the 10 million SKR in a Swiss bank account.

“star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights”. Sounds right to me:

“Colombian peace broker Piedad Cordoba,
Afghan rights activist Sima Samar,
Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.
French-Colombian activist and ex-hostage Ingrid Betancourt,
Jordanian interfaith dialogue advocate Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad”

“Last year, Finn Martti Ahtisaari won for three decades of work to resolve numerous international conflicts. The prize was seen as a well-earned lifetime achievement award and did not appear have much impact on ongoing conflicts, critics say.”
from Reuters Oct.7

Betancourt was considered to be the favorite.

Also, Gitmo is still open, right, and we’re still gonna use some “enhanced interrogation techniques”, right? Is he planning on closing our bases in Iraq? Bombing targets near civilians in AFghanistan?

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2009 03:51 PM
Comment #289066

No pride in American awards and international recognition, eh, ohrealy? I am impressed with the volume of fermented grapes your partisan side has been able to drum up in just a few short hours. This prize is awarded as much to the American people for electing a person such as Obama, as Obama’s vision and hopes for our future. After GW Bush, the prize signifies a pat on America’s back for having gotten back on track with at least a vision and effort toward a more peaceful and humane world. I feel a sense of pride for having contributed to his election. Must explain our differing positions, in part.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2009 03:58 PM
Comment #289067

David,
“phx8, but his nomination was submitted in Jan of 2009, BEFORE ANY of that occurred.”

That was not up to Obama. Undoubtedly the original nomination was made based upon potential. Had Obama failed to garner the respect of the international community for his achievements, he would not have received the award. Criteria: it is to be given “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” (Wikipedia)

Posted by: phx8 at October 9, 2009 04:09 PM
Comment #289068

For some Obama will could never accomplish enough to “deserve” this award. And this idea that its an insult to other award recipients like MLK and Mandela. As if they are insulted, proud more like it. These sour grapes are beyond sour, they’ve turned to stone.

Posted by: codco at October 9, 2009 04:19 PM
Comment #289069

Mandela Foundation, Tutu, hail Obama’s Nobel Prize
(AFP) – 7 hours ago

JOHANNESBURG — The Nelson Mandela Foundation on Friday welcomed US President Barack Obama’s win of the Nobel Peace Prize, saying it hoped the honour will steel his resolve to promote peace and fight poverty.

“We trust that this award will strengthen his commitment, as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, to continue promoting peace and the eradication of poverty,” the foundation said in a statement.

Mandela, who was jailed for 27 years by South Africa’s apartheid state, was jointly awarded the prize in 1993 for his role in the peaceful transition to democratic rule.

In January, the iconic leader, who served as South Africa’s first black president between 1994 and 1999, likened Obama’s arrival as US president with the transition to democracy in South Africa.

“We believe that we are witnessing something truly historic not only in the political annals of your great nation, the United States of America, but of the world,” he wrote at the time.

“Your election to this high office has inspired people as few other events in recent times have done.”

South African archbishop Desmond Tutu, who won the prize in 1984 for his long battle for a non-violent end to South Africa’s apartheid system of racial segregation, called Obama a younger incarnation of Mandela on Friday.

“He is a younger Mandela who meant so much not just to us here, but the world,” Tutu told reporters in Cape Town.

“It is a very imaginative and somewhat surprising choice. It is wonderful,” he added.

“He has had a very significant impact. It (his presidency) has changed the temperature and almost everybody feels a little more hopeful about the world,” he said.

Mandela and Tutu are still considered voices of the nation’s conscience. Mandela, 91, has retired from public life, but Tutu remains active in promoting peace around the world.

Posted by: codco at October 9, 2009 04:29 PM
Comment #289070

The NPP to Obama is a joke. He is the joke of the whole world. He gets an award for being anti-american by an organization that is nothing more than an extension of the anti-american UN. IMHO Obama can continue to become more popular with the world and less popular with the american people, if that is what he wants to do, it only helps our side. But, on the other hand, if he had rejected the award on the grounds he did not deserve it, which he did say, it would have done more to help his approval. That would have been the smart thing to do, but Obama is not smart. Instead, he accepts the award because it is all about Obama. I have never seen a politician so into himself. What a crud.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 9, 2009 04:30 PM
Comment #289071

If Obama actually felt “humble” or “unworthy”, he should have asked that his name be withdrawn from nomination.

“American awards”, did you mean Swedish and Norwegian awards there? I do think Obama should be nominated for a daytime emmy though, and they would probably give it to him too. He’s definitely more worthy than Vincent Irizarry, Ron Moss, or Tony Geary.

His press scretary claims that that’s he’s going to donate the monetary part of the award to charity, so I hope he chooses a charity actually supported by one of the nominees that he has said are more worthy than him. Heck, Brad Pitt is more worthy of this award than him.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2009 04:34 PM
Comment #289072

He don’t deserve it IMO.

Posted by: KAP at October 9, 2009 04:48 PM
Comment #289073

Why do some right wing conservatives like Beretta over here keep talking like you know what the whole world feels like and as if that wasnt sad enough, you assume they all feel just like you. There are a lot more contries out there that support Obama that you will ever know about watching FOX news. FOX news and rush Limbaugh dont represent world views. Until this morning you probably didnt care who won the Nobel prize. But now that its Obama, you are all worried about what the other winners might think. Now thats real crud.

Posted by: codco at October 9, 2009 04:51 PM
Comment #289074

Someone stated today that the Obama Whitehouse is like watching a TV reality show. What a circus. He gets an award from a bunch of liberal America haters, simply because he is not Bush and of course his globe trotting apology (for the evils of America) tours did not hurt him any.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 9, 2009 04:53 PM
Comment #289075

Hey Beretta9, If the Nobel Peace prize is awarded by “a bunch of liberal america haters” as you put it then …
1-Why do you care if a liberal won a liberal award?
2-Why are you surprized then?
Or maybe your just bitter that people actually respect him.

Posted by: Codco at October 9, 2009 04:58 PM
Comment #289076

codco:

I don’t care who receives the NPP. The organization has proven themselves to be irrelevant many years ago. It is embarrassing for Obama to be given the NPP based on the first 12 days he held the office of president. What is more embarrassing is the fact that he would humbly accept it, even though he says he don’t deserve it. Again I say, what a crud.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 9, 2009 05:02 PM
Comment #289078

LOL,

I’m enjoying this.

I used to train new managers and team leaders. You would find some of them complaining that they weren’t getting the respect they expected. I always told them respect is earned, not something given to an individual.

The Republican whiners remind me of these people who never understood leadership. They were generally all about their own self serving narcissism, small mindedness, and completely unable to see the bigger picture. They failed as leaders. Perhaps Republicans need to go back to reading books on what leadership is about. I used to keep a copy of Moral Leadership (I don’t recall the author) on my desk. Someone stole it.

Posted by: gergle at October 9, 2009 05:23 PM
Comment #289080

There is a rumor that the Vatican is considering sainthood for the anointed one. No doubt this honor will be refused.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 9, 2009 06:17 PM
Comment #289081

I heard a different rumor, the scarecrow donated the brain the wizard gave him to the republican party to share amonst their members.

Posted by: Codco at October 9, 2009 06:24 PM
Comment #289082

Richard Feynman, on the Nobel. This is what humility actually looks like, from a very worthy person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2009 06:25 PM
Comment #289083

David:

You are pretty quick on the draw to attempt to put the right in a box on this.

Bottom line, it’s premature. He may deserve the award someday, but not now. Now it demeans the other winners who were recognized for lifetimes of achievement.

The award today says far more about the committee than it does about the committee.

So I must be a partsan racist because I don’t think he is as qualified as mother theresa, Mandela etc etc. Or even Carter.

So go ahead stick me in a box and attempt to dismiss. You are in a minority on this one.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 9, 2009 06:31 PM
Comment #289086

“October 23, 1964, Mr. Sartre expressed his regret that his refusal of the prize…he had sought by letter to prevent their choice falling upon him… the degree of happiness which an individual can hope to attain is governed by his willingness to take his stand in accordance with his ethos and to accept the consequences thereof; this is a more austere interpretation of a philosophy admirably expressed by Nobel’s contemporary, Ralph Waldo Emerson.”
from
http://nobelprize.org

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2009 07:07 PM
Comment #289087

I woke up to this news on the radio today, and figured I was still dreaming. Huh? I think the Nobel Committee was nuts to pass over many deserving folks to give this to someone that I HOPE someday will deserve it.

I voted for Obama enthusiastically last November, but he gets a mixed grade from me so far. He’s a wonderful speaker and a hard worker, but I think he’s been too timid on several fronts, reminding me often too much of Clinton and occasionally even a little bit of Bush 2.

Craig Holmes and I often disagree, but he’s right that it still is very early. The jury will and should be out on Obama’s legacy for quite some time.

As to Obama’s response to the award, he gets an A+ for that. There is simply no graceful way to decline such an award. Instead he acknowledged that his accomplishments fell short, but took it as a “Call to Action”, not just for him but for all of us. If the award can succeed in spurring positive future action, then perhaps the Nobel Committee will be seen in the future as visionary for this selection. Time will tell.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at October 9, 2009 07:28 PM
Comment #289088

Royal Flush:

“There is a rumor that the Vatican is considering sainthood for the anointed one. No doubt this honor will be refused.”

It will if it involves the word “christian”.

Codco:

“I heard a different rumor, the scarecrow donated the brain the wizard gave him to the republican party to share amonst their members.”

I heard one too, a man had a picture of Obama tatooed on his arm and his arm quit working.

gergle:

“The Republican whiners remind me of these people who never understood leadership. They were generally all about their own self serving narcissism…”

I believe republicans understand enough about leadership to know there is NONE coming out of the Whitehouse. There are a lot of people standing around waiting for a lot of decisions to be made and Obama has his face all over the TV, but no decisions. All the NPP has managed to do is grow Obama’s head to match his ears. You mention self-serving, and the name Obama comes to mind. Everything he does is to promote himself. Democrats have the majority and yet they are still blamming republicans, they can do anything they want. But there are divisions in the democratic party.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 9, 2009 07:32 PM
Comment #289089

WW:

I believe he should have declined the award. Simply for the reason it would have shown that not all things are about HIM. But he couldn’t do that and I’m glad he didn’t. Obama is eat up with himself.

The reason he can’t get anything done is because he’s still tryin to sell himself. He’s still in campaign mode and has been for the last 9 months. Obama wants the congressional democrats to stick their necks out and pass this crap that the american people don’t want. That way, when it fails, he can blame someone else. He don’t care about anyone but himself. He don’t care that democrats will loose their jobs come election time. It’s all about Obama.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 9, 2009 07:42 PM
Comment #289090

The bad thing here is that it’s difficult nowadays to imagine the Republicans being gracious about such things.

They should be. It shows that they’re more than just their politics, that they understand one basic fact about the rest of Americans who don’t agree with them: that we Americans are not enemies to one another, and aren’t supposed to be.

I mourn what it’s come to, in this day and age, and wonder what decent restraints are left on the Republican Party’s pursuit of victory. The irony is, it’s that heedless pursuit of victory, and the actions required to keep it up without reservation or second thought, which has brought people to, by and large, despise the Republican Party.

The Republicans used to be a party with a moderate wing. They used to be able to relate to folks who weren’t part of the base. And the base used to be a broader foundation of political ideology than this hardliner-dominated, power-jealous minority.

Republicans need to realize that when an international committee applauds President Obama after all the years of rancor between us and the rest of the world, that’s a good thing. That means people still want America’s leadership. What they hope is that it becomes more moderate. What they hope is that Obama can drag us out of the daydreams of empire, and back into our old, post-colonial sensibility of the value of international institutions.

The wars America wins most easily are the ones that are never fought, and never will have to be fought because of what we’ve done. Rather than just try and force peace, we’ve got to work to create the conditions for peace.

The Nobel committee hopes that Obama’s tendency to seek reconciliation, to seek peace, will bring about that international accord.

Given that this is what most Americans want, and wanted when they gave this rookie a chance.

I know Republicans will want to complain that Obama hasn’t done so much in office, but will the Republicans at least have the decency and honesty to admit that the lions share of their political activity these last few months has been trying to ensure just that outcome? It’s dishonest to criticize the factory owner for his machinery’s inactivity when you’re the fellow who threw his or her wooden shoe into the gears.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 9, 2009 08:09 PM
Comment #289091

ohrealy,
I think Feynman’s great, and I relate to the sentiment he expresses in that video, but Feynman’s statement is rambling and hardly eloquent, and such a response from Obama would have been disastrous, and completely inappropriate to his station, and I think you know it. Obama had no part in the decision about the award, and his response to it was about as good as any I can imagine. To those suggesting that he should have declined the award, that would have been an insult to both the Committee and to others who might otherwise have received it. Obama would have been truly skewered if he had done that.

List of all Nobel Prize winners, including the handful who actually declined the award.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at October 9, 2009 08:12 PM
Comment #289092

How thoughtless of the Nobel peace prize folks to not have consulted with top right wing leaders of America on who they think should win the a European Peace prize seeing how Republicans are so good at peacemaking. Maybe next time Rush is at an anti-Obama rally he can ask one of the members of the Taliban where Bin Laden is..

Posted by: codco at October 9, 2009 08:26 PM
Comment #289094

This award is not given so much for achievement as for what a person is fighting for. It is a political award given to make political statements.

For some reason my computer wont cut and paste right now, but I have a quote of the chairman of the committee saying just that.

Basically, you have a group of liberal Europeans voting for who they want most to succeed. They have been clearly using the Nobel Peace prize to protest the Bush administration and to voice their belief in a more liberal philosophy. They are free to do such a thing, but the rest of the world should take it as such.

I wonder what Clinton thinks. Since we now know that Democratic Presidents will routinely get the award, what is Clinton chopped liver?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 9, 2009 09:40 PM
Comment #289095

Now that I have read what the committee members have said, it’s not a big deal, it’s a slam dunk for every Democratic President from here on.

This isn’t the same as say a Mother Theresa which was for accomplishments. It’s more for having the same values and aspirations as the Nobel Prize Committee.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 9, 2009 09:43 PM
Comment #289096

It was a truly disgusting moment earlier today when I heard Rush side with the Taliban on the Obama NPP issue. I find it pathetic that conservatives cannot find it within themselves to see the bigger picture when it comes to the President receiving the NPP.

Beretta9, Why would you think peace is Un-American? Such a distorted view, much like the Taliban who as we know are Un-American. Dont you cons realize how small minded it is to think war is the answer to all of our problems?

Conservatives have made fools of themselves with this whining, much like they did when Gore received the Nobel a few years back. All because our president received the Nobel Peace Prize! It seems to me your conservative ideology has clouded your judgment when you side with the enemy against the president of our country because he was given a prestigious award.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 9, 2009 09:55 PM
Comment #289097

I have mixed feelings about my President winning this prize. There are three aspects to my thinking.

1. I am glad our President won. It should make us all proud, but…

2. I am conservative with the small c. I believe reward should come AFTER accomplishment. Obama’s achievements are still only aspirations. No nukes have been reduced; Guantanamo is still open; Iraq is working according to the same timeline as Bush would have done; Afghanistan is not solved. Maybe he will do these things, but it is easier to hope than to do.

My father told me that a man cannot make a reputation on what he says he is gonna do. I guess the old man was wrong.

3. I worry about expectations. American foreign policy is defined by some realities, as Obama himself has seen. All sorts of foreigners now have expectations, some mutually contradictory. It will be impossible to live up to the hope and a jilted lover is more vengeful than someone less involved.

I would also add that while it is great that Norway’s elite likes Barack Obama, they also liked Jimmy Carter, who no living president likes for good reason.

Posted by: Christine at October 9, 2009 10:03 PM
Comment #289098

Several people have suggested that Obama was accorded this honor simply because he wasn’t George W. Bush.

Yeah. So?

Bush was a puppet of warmongering neo-cons whose personal wealth was massively increased by the wars they got us into. He knew this and went along with it. America’s name has - rightly - been dragged through the dirt throughout his ‘presidency’ because we became a rogue nation (not forgetting Poland, of course). For years the world has stopped liking America because of the sinister, self-serving scumbags we allowed into office.

Now we have someone with integrity and an agenda (not a history, an agenda) for clearing our name and making us a force for good in the world instead of evil.

Why not reward that? I am surprised by the award, but not upset - I see it, as Obama said, as a call to action: deliver on your promises, sir, is what the world is saying to our President.

Hopefully this will motivate him to do so in a more timely fashion than planned, because his ideas and his plans will continue to keep America safer than Bush ever could. (Sheer math. When 5 billion people think America is the enemy, we’re a lot more likely to be attacked than when only the most radical Muslim minority does…)

Posted by: Jonathan Rice at October 9, 2009 10:09 PM
Comment #289099

Craig Holmes-
It’s interesting that you label these people as liberal Europeans. Nice that you can so section them off as being irrelevant to your thinking. But many of these people, in a saner time for your side of the political aisle, would be allies for your Republicans. You guys keep on talking about the Achievements of Reagan and the Elder Bush, and forget that in their time, they did not let the folks who are convinced that the UN is Satan’s tool for the Antichrist run the show.

There is a reason that folks like Joe Wilson (the Diplomat), Richard Clarke, and Jim Webb were comfortable working for Reagan and Bush, a reason why Colin Powell was once considered a likely candidate, one day, for the Republican nomination. There was a time when realists ruled the day, and international organizations were respected, not made out to be some kind of evil conspiracies.

The Republicans rabble-roused the far right of their party and made them the base at the cost of being addicted to this kind of foolish, bridge burning rhetoric. Republicans have to learn that if they’re too tough to make friends and persuade people, they’re too hostile to hold or really exercise real power correctly.

Christine-
I’m a believer in encouraging people with rewards at all stages of a game. If we only wait until some end point to offer people rewards, well, if things get tough, that point may never come, and the encouragement may never be there to get people past the morale sapping difficulties.

This was part of how the Republicans misread public support on the Iraq war. They felt they could tell the people that great things would happen one day if they stuck with it. But what happened was, people tired of sticking to something with no encouraging signs to boost folk’s faith in progress.

Notice how people are now far more hopeful about the outcome in Iraq? It’s not because Democrats got into power. It’s not because there was a surge. It’s not because of anything else than the fact that the trajectory of the war’s success finally headed in a positive direction. Something got done right.

I read Von Clausewitz, as part of my efforts to educate myself on the strategy of war. While the Republicans perpetually emphasized body counts and morale at home as what would win the war, they forgot something critical.

What is it that Von Clausewitz said? War is the extension of policy by other means. Meaning, we got things that we wanted to do, not just rack up kills like a video game.

There are objectives to any war, and the Republicans ignored, at their own peril, the fact that many of these objectives were failing in plain view of the public.

Ultimately, war has no other ideology than what can achieve a certain end. It doesn’t matter whether a policy is liberal, conservative, independent, Libertarian, or Natural Law. You could have Yogic Flyers for generals, for all that matters. What ultimately matters are the results. Without results, attempts to raise morale become more difficult. Even in the hallowed history of WWII, the pressure was often on, and rightly so, for our armed forces to win battles and turn the tide of the conflict.

Getting back to the subject after that long digression, here’s the point: in any complex effort, in dealing with people, it’s best to encourage and point out good efforts whenever you can. And it’s critical to get to work and keep at work, and not simply rest on your assumptions.

If I were to give Obama a piece of advice, it would be much like Tom Hanks from Saving Private Ryan:Earn this.

And I’d say to America: Everybody’s being given a second chance. Don’t quibble over whether your leader’s qualified. Earn this. Earn folk’s faith in you.

There are so many things American needs to lead in the world on, and peace is just one of them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 9, 2009 10:30 PM
Comment #289100

Stephen:

They are liberal Europeans. And they with their own words are saying that they are moving away from giving the award for acompishments. It is a political award, used to further world political aspirations. They are using the reputation of the Nobel Awards of the past to try to influence politics now and in the future.

For instance, I come to this current award confused. I think for instance of Mother Theresa. She worked in India for over 40 years helping the poor of calcutta.

Lech valenza is another example or Mandella or Martin Luther King. Wow these are incredible people. I don’t see Obama as in their league. He may be in the future, but I don’t think he yet deserves to have the same award. I think many in the world support this opinion. Judging by the old standard, I think Obama doesn’t qualify.

However what has happened is that the award has changed. Over the years the committee has changed the prize from awarding excellence to basically endorsing aspirations they admire. They are sort of putting their reputations behind people they want to support.

With this criteria, this nomination makes total sense. Obama embodies their values and ideals, and they want to endorse him and give him as big a boost as they can.

In essense they are now open to using the award to political activism. There is nothing wrong with this except that it diminishes the award. It makes it into a political tool, and in the future will be recognized as such.

In the future I expect every liberal democrat who becomes president to receive the award.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 9, 2009 10:55 PM
Comment #289101

beretta9:

I believe republicans understand enough about leadership to know there is NONE coming out of the Whitehouse. There are a lot of people standing around waiting for a lot of decisions to be made and Obama has his face all over the TV, but no decisions. All the NPP has managed to do is grow Obama’s head to match his ears. You mention self-serving, and the name Obama comes to mind. Everything he does is to promote himself. Democrats have the majority and yet they are still blamming republicans, they can do anything they want. But there are divisions in the democratic party.

It is quite clear what you believe, but the rest of your comment simply reaffirms my comment. Thanks.

Posted by: gergle at October 9, 2009 11:09 PM
Comment #289103

Christine,

I’m not quite sure what conservative with a small c means, I wasn’t aware of the Conservative Party in this country being a significant party. (for the record, I think it’s called the American Conservative Party.)

I actually like a lot of your comments at Watchblog, they are reasoned and centrist, but sometimes your comments bother me. They seem like something reasonable, but end up taking a huge swerve into the ditch.

We’re talking about a Noble Peace prize here, not a contract, commitment, or political policy. I’ve always found it more than a bit ironic that the guy that was known for explosives is somehow held in high esteem for a guilt assuaging prize. What some small c people can’t seem to admit, even if it is a “I’m not George Bush, the jingoist idiot child” prize, that Obama has accomplished at least one thing. Respect in international diplomacy.

Posted by: gergle at October 9, 2009 11:23 PM
Comment #289105

Clearly, this is just another affirmative action gift, from an elite foundation, IOW, the same as most of Obama’s other “achievements” in his life. The typical reaction from people first hearing about it was, he’s getting the Nobel Peace Prize, for what? He simply is not in the same league with the previous winners. His presidency is beginning to remind me of a fairy tale from Carlo Collodi.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2009 11:38 PM
Comment #289106

Christine:

gergle told you, “I actually like a lot of your comments at Watchblog, they are reasoned and centrist, but sometimes your comments bother me. They seem like something reasonable, but end up taking a huge swerve into the ditch.”

What he is telling you is as long as you agree with the left he likes your comments, but when you disagree with the left, you are a radical right winger. This is typical of the left. They don’t care if you are a republican, just don’t be a conservative republican. That’s the reason they HATE, with a passion, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and anyone else who is conservative. They can’t understand, why can’t republicans be like McCain,Snow, or some other moderate (which is code for liberal)?

Posted by: Beretta9 at October 10, 2009 12:12 AM
Comment #289107

Beretta9,

Of course, that is exactly what I said. Enjoying your conversation with yourself? Who won the argument you or you?

At least, your not in the least bit shy about distortion.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Posted by: gergle at October 10, 2009 12:26 AM
Comment #289108

You know, sometimes when a member of the opposition does something good, or even just has something good happen to them, the best response is ‘congratulations.’

Last year, Scola owned Aldridge, and the Rockets beat my Trailblazers in the play-offs. For the most part, people in Portland didn’t bad mouth the Rockets. They didn’t pretend the Rockets were undeserving, or the play-offs were some meaningless liberal postseason ripoff, or whatever. There was nothing but to congratulate the other team on a job well done.

The President of the United States won the most prestigious award in the world, the Nobel Peace Prize.

There is no point in claiming the award is a ripoff, or Obama is underserving, or whatever. Have some class. Every American benefited when Obama won such prestigious recognition. It is good for the country to have a leader who is respected to such a degree around the world. It doesn’t get much better. The proper response is ‘congratulations.’ Sour grapes do not diminish Obama; sour grapes paint all conservatives in a bad light.

Posted by: phx8 at October 10, 2009 12:33 AM
Comment #289109

beretta, Henry Kissinger was an American hating liberal? You must read different history books than I. If the NPP is what your inept comment claims it is, why is an army and Henry Kissinger on the list of Peace Prize winners? And why are Americans disproportionately represented as recipients of all Nobel prizes, if what your illogical claim is true.

Thanks for the opportunity to present some facts which discredit your comment’s claims. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts, however.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2009 05:14 AM
Comment #289110

phx8, true enough, if Obama had proven to be another GW Bush in the last 8 months, he likely would not have gotten the votes.

However, by words of some on the Committee, Obama got the votes for his vision and promise, not his achievements to date, and especially not his domestic achievements which bear little direct connection to peace in the world, yet.

He likely also got votes for proving to be UnGWBush. He also likely got some other votes as a political statement about the war in Afghanistan, which, for some, has ‘endless death. maiming, and destruction’ written all over it. Its a large committee voting, therefore, there were very likely a host of reasons he got the votes to get the prize, many or even most of them, having nothing to do with what he has accomplished to date 9 months into his presidency.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2009 05:20 AM
Comment #289111

Craig, I believe I referenced “some Republicans” or “conservatives”, not all. If the box fits however, reside in it. That’s for you to decide. I can’t know your mind, only what you relate here in your comments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2009 05:23 AM
Comment #289112

David:

You were pretty quick to jump on the political conclusions. Looks like many across the spectrum are scratching their heads on this nominations.

I think it’s a mistake. What happens now if Obama does well? What is the award if he accomplishes his agenda?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 10, 2009 06:32 AM
Comment #289113
I think it’s a mistake. What happens now if Obama does well? What is the award if he accomplishes his agenda?

A country on the right path, instead of nearly destroyed?

Posted by: gergle at October 10, 2009 07:26 AM
Comment #289114

Perhaps this best sums it up:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6868905.ece

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 08:53 AM
Comment #289115

Stephen

You make a good point, although maybe not the one you intended. The war in Iraq indeed had a significant problem of front-end loading about REPORTS of success. If you looked at the press releases, you would have thought it was done in 2004. Reality has a way of messing up talk. We seem to agree (which is why I am not sure you intended) about the success of the surge. The surge took great courage by President Bush. He did NOT go with the advice of his political advisors and he went against strong public opinion.

So the lesson of Iraq in this case is that aspiration is not enough. You don’t succeed until you show the courage to apply real world power and effort, what Bismarck would call blood and iron. I am surprised you have this idea, although you are right.


Re Obama - I keep thinking of an actor who plays kings, prophets, presidents and generals. The roles are impressive and he does them well. Obama has not YET earned the prize. I hope that the Norwegians are right and that the prize induces him to really earn it.
Re getting a SECOND chance – Obama doesn’t need a second chance. So far he has never been denied anything important. He is golden and privileged. I hope he does indeed use his celebrity to further the interests of our country.

Gergle

I mean conservative in temperament. I believe in the old fashioned values of prudence and probity. I believe people should strive to build their character and AFTER that they have earned a good reputation and a position of trust. I am not impressed by short-term success nor do I pay much attention to the shifting tides of popularity. That is what I mean.

As I wrote in my initial note, I am glad he won, but it is a dangerous opportunity. The old wisdom applies. The ancient Greeks warned about hubris and recognized that rapid success, especially when it comes unexpectedly, is a moral hazard that can lead to ruin.

Obama’s rise has been spectacular. I cannot think of any president – and very few important politicians in general - who rose so high so quickly & unexpectedly. He was extraordinarily lucky. Since we are not in an election, we don’t have to pretend or argue about his thin resume. If you read his background before the election, you would have been very surprised that this man could be elected president. Let’s say that he deserves his position because of his extraordinary personal power. This is EXACTLY the circumstances the Greeks warned about.

I hope he rises above it.

BTW - as a small c conservative, I would say that Clinton was also a victim of pride. He was elected too soon, before he had labored and been quickened enough. He was a good president in 1992. He may have been a great president had he grown up a little more, faced more challenges and perhaps spent a little time in the political wilderness.

All great leaders have gone through such challenges. Obama has never had a really tough time in his entire life. Sorry, growing up with a single mother and feeling an outside is way to common to count.

Posted by: Christine at October 10, 2009 10:20 AM
Comment #289116

Craig Holmes-
You know, the whole point of a prize like that is to encourage people to be peacemakers. The whole point of any prize is to persuade people to do things, to be an incentive.

And of course with peace, that is always a political question, as is war. And we have a faction in this country that committed itself and the nation to essentially never-ending war.

They don’t have to just honor past accomplishments. They can honor current efforts. The nominations may have closed out in February, back when Obama would have no efforts to speak of, but the vote, by necessity, must have taken place much more recently. How recently? According to TPM’s reporting on the matter:

…the committee “embarks on a thorough-going discussion of the most likely candidates.” They sometimes request more information, especially when, like Obama, candidates are involved in current affairs. The committee usually makes its decision by mid-September, but has been known to take until the final meeting in early October.

So they’ve had a chance to see Obama do more than just make campaign promises. They’ve had a chance to see how he actually conducts diplomacy, to see his conduct in dealing with the Israel/Palestine Peace efforts, to see him dealing with one international problem after another. They’ve seen him deal with the legacy of his predecessor, which most people, here and abroad, would agree is a pretty significant burden to Obama’s efforts.

They can talk about his principles in more than just the terms of his campaign promises, his talk.

As far as “Liberal” Europeans go? First, the term, as we understand it, doesn’t apply in Europe the same way. Second, the political positions can get mixed up in such a way to make comparisons problematic at best. Europe has its share of right and far right governments, governments and officials Bush was glad to deal with. On some issues, you’ll see them take stands that even conservatives here in America would find extremist. On other issues, their policies, policies they don’t bat an eye at, would be called socialist even by Democrats.

By labelling them, you oversimplify them. By oversimplifying them, you make the debate about their interests and their motivations problematic, less meaningful for the purposes of describing the real thing.

Too many folks use the Europeans as some sort of punching bag. To insult the legislation before Congress now, they spread fears of us becoming Like France, or like England, as if those two countries are piling the dead bodies on carts. Their economic policies were made out to be extremely socialist, but they were pro-business enough to make the same mistakes we did with credit and financial regulation.

As far as peace goes? Well, if Europe isn’t to hot to trot on wars, it’s because in the past century, they went through two devastating ones right through their homelands, and when crap gets stirred up in the Eastern Hemisphere, they’re the ones who often feel it first.

To us, it’s the Middle East. To them, it’s the Near East. What’s half a world away to us, is right in their backyard. We stir up trouble, we can much more safely withdraw across the pond to nurse our wounds. They’re stuck basically with the terrorists having a clear path to their cities.

Also, we engaged in diplomacy for the last century or so with the express intent on making Europe peaceful, with ending the interminable warfare that ultimately lead to WWI and II. We deliberately imposed a Pax Americana. The more aggressive countries we recruited for the “Coalition of the Willing” were mostly protectorates and former Eastern Bloc countries. “New Europe” in Bush’s terminology, rather than “Old Europe”, two phrases that must have mystified the folks over there, since civilization is pretty much ancient in those lands.

The divisive rhetoric from the right certainly did not make friends abroad. Whereas the last generation of Republican Politicians had their share of realists, this generation seems to think villifying other countries the same way you might villify an enemy in war makes some kind of sense.

The Right tends to vilify those now who don’t obey it’s dictates for what’s an appropriate political position to take. Activism is something others do, and it’s not positive. Nobody else can move things away from the status quo.

What this criticism is about is control. Republicans want to be the Kingmakers, the ones whose influence dominates. They don’t want “old” Europe or the Liberal Democrats doing that.

So they will criticize the Nobel Committee and criticize Obama for this award, because their politics dictates that they are entitled to keep all power, all giving of honors to themselves, if that power or that recognition is to be considered valid.

I think it’s a mistake. What happens now if Obama does well? What is the award if he accomplishes his agenda?

What happens if Obama successfully settles two wars? Successfully brings the Palestinians and Israelis to the table for productive talks?

What happens if Obama restores America’s power and prestige? If we rebuild the bridges between us and Europe, negotiate productive climate change treaties, and help mediate so many conflicts across the world, like we use to?

These are not bad things, Craig. These are not things that run counter to our interests. Your folk’s itchy trigger fingers did not do favor’s for America’s defense, did not bring greater prestige and power to our country. The Republicans diminished us, despite their fiercest promises of what would come of their efforts.

Ohrealy-

Clearly, this is just another affirmative action gift, from an elite foundation, IOW, the same as most of Obama’s other “achievements” in his life.

Glad you cleared up what your preconceptions of Obama are. Guess he never earned anything, was just handed everything. Word to the wise: you are not simply handed the Presidency. Nor the Democratic nomination, especially when Hillary Clinton is your opponent. You are not handed a top ten percent graduation from an Ivy-League Law School, nor are you given a teaching position at a top-tier laws school by affirmative action.

One of the reasons why I went with Obama is that I have heard all kinds of speech making in my time, but I have rarely seen somebody actually articulate new ideas, and not just rehash old political doctrines with old rhetoric Obama’s famed skill with speech-writing isn’t merely a superficial ability to perform, but a product of his ability to think things out.

That is what I sense. That is why my gut told me to support him, because my gut listens to my brain, and my brain tells me that the guy who articulate new ideas the way he can, can also rethink policies, and respond with a healthy relationship of feedback with the rest of the country.

As for the Pinocchio factor? I see much more dishonesty coming from his critics and detractors, people who pick up on putdowns without critically examining what they’re saying, or the facts behind their claims.

Berreta9-
The reason I strongly dislike Rush, Beck, and Sarah Palin is that they’re bullies. They are nasty people, and they can get away with it mostly because nobody, not even their audience, expects any better than them. They are a burden on our society, a shameful mark on their party and their movements.

As far as Republicans go? I would settle for people who would be realistic about elections, and actually take responsibility for their failures. I would settle for people who fact check their claims. I would settle for people who I could be friendly with, even after the fiercest arguments, because they acknowledge that half the other people in the country aren’t enemies of the state.

What the Republicans need are people who can accept losses. I don’t mean people who accept them, and never move on. I want competitors. But I want people who realize that you can’t win them all, and sometimes you shouldn’t. I want people who realize that the nations welfare comes first, not getting their ideal agenda through.

I want people in charge of the Republican Party who can produce policy, liberal, moderate or conservative, which have merit on greater than just the political level. You can always get a bunch of people to believe something. The key for the Republican Party’s recovery is making their proposals more acceptable to people beyond their Island of ideology.

In short, the Republicans have got to stop demanding that they get to keep American and its government and its policies all to themselves. That’s moderation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 10, 2009 10:53 AM
Comment #289118

SD:

“The reason I strongly dislike Rush, Beck, and Sarah Palin is that they’re bullies.”

So how do you feel about Pelosi and Reid, working behind the scenes to attach amendments to bills that have already passed and are in committee, while also denying debate? Would you consider the ramming of these laws down the throats of Americans, even though the majorities are against them, as being a bully? Or does that title only apply to Republicans?

If Limbaugh, Beck , and Palin have a following, who are you to condemn those who follow? If they have a following, do not the followers have a right to follow? You are a liberal of liberals, why should you have the right to tell a conservative who to follow, or who to listen to? This is typical of liberals, they look at anyone on the othr side as being stupid and in need of government to tell them what to believe, who to listen to, and how to live their lives. As you define “moderation”, thie is how I define “Socialism”.

“What the Republicans need are people who can accept losses. I don’t mean people who accept them, and never move on. I want competitors. But I want people who realize that you can’t win them all, and sometimes you shouldn’t. I want people who realize that the nations welfare comes first, not getting their ideal agenda through.”

I believe conservatives know they lost and I believe they know why they lost. Your side has the ball in their court, do something with it. The problem with the left is not the support of Republicans; it is the support of your own party. You believe that since we lost the election, it is now our duty to follow the miss-guided steps of the left; I don’t think so.

“I want people in charge of the Republican Party who can produce policy, liberal, moderate or conservative, which have merit on greater than just the political level. You can always get a bunch of people to believe something. The key for the Republican Party’s recovery is making their proposals more acceptable to people beyond their Island of ideology.
In short, the Republicans have got to stop demanding that they get to keep American and its government and its policies all to themselves. That’s moderation.”

You are living in a dream world; it’s ALL about politics, on both sides. Why would you as a liberal try to tell me how to be successful as a Republican? That doesn’t even make sense. As I explained to Christine earlier, it’s ok to be a Republican, as long as you think like a Democrat.

You say you want “competitors” on the other side. How can that be true, when you want everyone on your page?

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 01:06 PM
Comment #289119

Mr. Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize means about as much to me as AlGore winning an Oscar…absolutely nothing.

Heaping honors and awards on the undeserving is nothing unusual or worthy of note. It is nothing more than celebrity, quick to rise and quick to fall.

The Obama is now in a real box, hemmed in with unrealistic expectations by not only the American people but by people around the world.

True heroes are made from heroic actions. Awards of merit are made to those who have displayed meritorious action. Does the applause precede great oratory or follow its delivery?

Some have said the NPP has become a political award bestowed upon those with whom the grantors agree. I believe this is most likely. That a group of European liberals would honor Mr. Obama is not surprising. That the liberals on this site are exuberant with the recognition of their leader is to be expected. That these same like minded individuals would expect conservatives to be likewise enthralled is baffling.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 10, 2009 01:09 PM
Comment #289120

“Some have said the NPP has become a political award bestowed upon those with whom the grantors agree.”

So what?

All of this whining and gnashing of teeth over the fact that Obama won an award.

Again I say so what.

Theoretically America’s standing in the world has risen. The Nobel Committee has seen fit to give an award, possibly because of it, and the right sees this as a bad thing?

Amazing.

Bullies aren’t respected, they’re despised, regardless who follows them.

Sooner or later the bigger man stands up and says he’s wrong. The bigger man doesn’t bitch just because, deserving or not, someone wins an award.

It seems obvious to me that the bigger man isn’t going to come from the conservative side of the aisle.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 10, 2009 02:42 PM
Comment #289122

“If Limbaugh, Beck , and Palin have a following, who are you to condemn those who follow? If they have a following, do not the followers have a right to follow?”

Of course these extremist you mention have a right, the right to free speech just as all of us have a right to critique those far right extremist who use half truths, outright lies and misinformation to deceive their followers into braying the same mindless talking points the extremist themselves use to rope in the easily lead. Yesterday I had the honor of setting one of the mindless Limbaugh followers straight with facts regarding the NPP awarded to Obama. She had been subjected to, well free speech would be insulting to real free speech so lets call it what it is, freedom to lie and spew half truths by the far right crazies pounding the airwaves with this tripe. I felt I had the duty as well as the right to set her straight, who knows perhaps facts will change her mistaken attitude about the president. I don’t have a problem with free speech but when it is filled with lies and half truths it really isn’t free anymore, it costs us all, Beretta9.

“You are a liberal of liberals, why should you have the right to tell a conservative who to follow, or who to listen to?

Beretta9 even a conservative should know by now that we all, every American not just conservative Americans, have the same rights to free speech. Why would you think a liberal would not be able to point out the error of the far right extremist ways and the ways of the leaders in the conservative movement?

“This is typical of liberals, they look at anyone on the othr side as being stupid and in need of government to tell them what to believe, who to listen to, and how to live their lives.”

And this Beretta9 is a typical conservative response to a liberal questioning the misinformation perpetrated by your movement leaders. Why should we not point out the half truths, outright lies and misinformation being spewed, perhaps some of those that have been drinking the conservative cool-aid will see the true intentions of those movement leaders you seem to think should be so blindly followed.


” As you define “moderation”, thie is how I define “Socialism”.”

Boy ain’t that the truth Beretta9, that is exactly why so many of us consider your far right definitions as half truths and outright lies. It is because you change the actual definition of the words in your misguided frenzy that those of us not drinking the cool aid must be vigilant in pointing out the misinformation your conservative movement leaders spew over the airwaves to those that really want to see our nation do better.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 10, 2009 05:07 PM
Comment #289123

Rocky Marks, very well said. Obama was deferential and respectful of Pres. Bush while running his campaign, and has not directly named Bush for any criticism. That is character, confidence, and an absence of pettiness and self-centeredness.

Those on the Right, and there are growing exceptions like Bob Dole, who get an icky feeling when a non-Republican gets something they don’t, are very, very small people indeed.

In the Army, I disliked Nixon personally, but, I learned to respect his position as my commander in chief. This ability is lacking amongst many. And to denigrate ANY American’s international award is just petty and so self-centered as to have no patriotic connection with one’s nation. Just as refusal to critique one’s nation for the sake of improving her, as our Founding Fathers did, is a failure in love of country and her people. It’s as if many say with their actions, I was born here by accident and without choice, so, I don’t have to like anything here that doesn’t serve me personally.

Such folks should be required to serve their nation for a few years and bear witness to those who die for it in real time, or suffer in this nation through no fault of their own, so they can potentially receive the appropriate attitude adjustment called for. Empathy - it is an increasingly rare commodity, especially on the Right. No wonder the Right is calling for an endless history of death and maiming of other Americans and allied troops, in Afghanistan, to maintain the investment profit potential in the military industrial complex.

Obama opposes such motives for war. The international community agrees with Obama. Ergo, many on the Right oppose Obama and the international community in all their qualities and attributes. No integrity or character in that. Just plain self-centered, and unenlightened self interest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2009 05:17 PM
Comment #289124

Royal Flush said: “Mr. Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize means about as much to me as AlGore winning an Oscar…absolutely nothing. “

Winning 1 million dollars is meaningless to you? Hah! Thanks for the chuckle, there Royal Flush. You are just full of contradictions, unless you are going to reply that you would out of hand turn down a million dollar award if it came from the international community. In which case, I would have to consider your response the height of foolishness.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2009 05:20 PM
Comment #289125

Craig asked what is the award if he accomplishes his agenda? Ridiculous question. Same as the reward for all the other nominees who didn’t win the Peace Prize and never will. The satisfaction of knowing their effort effected some good for others. If someone does good in anticipation of being large monetary awards, they are probably a conservative.

Obama was as surprised as anyone else. Which clearly makes him a more liberal fellow.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2009 05:23 PM
Comment #289126

Mr. Remer wrote; “Winning 1 million dollars is meaningless to you? Hah! Thanks for the chuckle, there Royal Flush.”

Apparently Mr. Remer did not understand that I said; Mr. Obama winning meant nothing to me.

From my simple statement it was inferred that winning a million for myself would mean nothing. That’s the problem with many on this site. They are loose of lip and shoot from the hip. Did anyone else notice that Mr. Remer did not refute one word I said, but rather, attempted to make fun of me personally. It’s not an uncommon strategy for those who would argue with the messenger rather than the message.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 10, 2009 05:57 PM
Comment #289127

DRR:

“In the Army, I disliked Nixon personally, but, I learned to respect his position as my commander in chief.”

Let me ask you, was it respect for the office that led to the previous 8 years of hate speech from the left? Was it respect for the office that called for his death or impeachment? Liberals speak with forked tongue.

See, the difference is, you respect Bob Dole because he is willing to cave to liberals. It is for that very reason, conservatives have no confidence in him. It all goes back to the fact, a conservative is liked by the left if he is willing to forsake conservative thinking, but if he or she stands for what they believe, they are considered the scum of the earth. I don’t care how you spin it, it’s truth.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 06:01 PM
Comment #289128

Royal Flush, let me ask you a question. Do you believe Obama would have helped his credibility, with Americans, if he had refused the NPP on the grounds he was not worthy and it would have been better to go to someone who had actually accomplished something? The left is not qualified to answer this because they can’t look at anything about Obama objectively. They see him a a messiah and no matter what he does, they still worship him.

I believe a little humility would have helped Obama. But, I will also say, Obama is incapable of humility.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 06:08 PM
Comment #289129

Christine,

Thanks for the measured and reasoned responses. I’m not particularly worried about Obama becoming big headed. He just doesn’t strike me as the type, though I’m sure his ego is healthy. You don’t get where he is without some degree of ego.
But your criticism isn’t without merit.

As for Clinton, I think he simply lived up to his history. He’s a smart guy, but a little too slick and of easy virtue for his own good, much like Edwards, apparently.

Posted by: gergle at October 10, 2009 06:09 PM
Comment #289130

beretta9 asks; “Royal Flush, let me ask you a question. Do you believe Obama would have helped his credibility, with Americans, if he had refused the NPP on the grounds he was not worthy and it would have been better to go to someone who had actually accomplished something?”

That’s a tough question beretta9. I know from my own experience that whenever someone humbled themselves in public by virtue of their actual and honest humble act they have gained respect. It is a rare commodity, especially among the political class.

To be truly humble is not the natural state of mankind. One sees it for real in some of our great historical religious figures and rarely in politics or business.

I read an interesting tidbit about President Reagan in the book about the Secret Service that was written recently. It is not a political book and very interesting.

It seems that Mr. Reagan gave generously from his own pocket to those in need and used the SS to convey his personal check with the recipient asked not to reveal the source of the money.

Now, this kind of act relates more to modesty than humbleness but the idea is the same. To give willingly and anonymously is most worthy and to be emulated by those who can do likewise.

To humble ones self to provide others with a sense of self-worth or to encourage others to also be humble is honorable and to be highly praised. To give without reward or recognition or to be humble without expectancy of personal gain is very worthy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 10, 2009 06:28 PM
Comment #289131

Interesting link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6868905.ece

Even those in attendance at Oslo, could not believe their ears.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 06:29 PM
Comment #289132

RF:

I have read the same thing concerning President Reagan and it reveals to us something about the character of the man.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 06:36 PM
Comment #289133

Royal Flush

The reason I asked the question, is because I believe he would have helped his image by doing so. I know that free thinking conservatives are labeled “ditto heads”, but I had not heard anyone bring up this thought. I actually came up with the question all by myself:)

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 06:43 PM
Comment #289134

BHO: I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel committee.”
“Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments…”
from the weekend Redeye

SD: You are not handed …nor are you given a teaching position at a top-tier laws school by affirmative action.

Do you really believe that? Because it’s pretty naive. The guy that hired him at the UofC Law School was just on the news here yesterday. Also, didn’t I tell you last year to cut out that “tier” nonsense? I wasn’t particularly impressed with the U of C in my day. In my circle, it was mostly noted for Egyptology. They wanted you to get your appendix taken out to go anywhere.

SD: “Obama’s famed skill with speech-writing”?

Never heard of Jon Favreau or the others? The Strategy Group in Evanston? David Gepetto Axelrod?

SD: “dishonesty coming from his critics and detractors, people who pick up on putdowns without critically examining what they’re saying, or the facts behind their claims.”

Is this intended to be ironic or is it just another example of not paying attention to where your other fingers are pointing, or is last year just a fading memory for you? “pickup on putdowns” was nice though.

RushBeckPalin are destroying the Rpblcn party. Congratulations on that. Now we need 3 other fools to do it to the Dmcrts.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 10, 2009 06:52 PM
Comment #289135

I don’t know if I read this or imagined it. Is Mr. Obama planning on giving the money from the NPP to charity? If so, this would be a very honorable gesture worthy of praise.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 10, 2009 06:57 PM
Comment #289136

RF of course it is real the White House has confirmed that all of the prize money will be donated to charity.


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/09/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5374777.shtml

Posted by: j2t2 at October 10, 2009 07:28 PM
Comment #289137

Thanks j2t2…glad someone keeps up with this stuff. I will just take your word for it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 10, 2009 07:36 PM
Comment #289138

Is he giving the money to his favorite taxable/non-taxable organization, ACORN?

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 07:38 PM
Comment #289141

Royal you are welcome, it is a tough job to separate fact from fiction with the Limbaugh’s Becks and such spreading half truths and misinformation. Did Rush mention that Obama was nominated between September 08 and January 09 along with other nominees? The selection of Obama as the winner however wasn’t made until October 09. I know many thought the selection was made just after he took office due to the likes of Limbaugh and other extremist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obamas-nobel-prize-inspir_n_315167.html


http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

Posted by: j2t2 at October 10, 2009 08:13 PM
Comment #289142

beretta9-

So how do you feel about Pelosi and Reid, working behind the scenes to attach amendments to bills that have already passed and are in committee, while also denying debate? Would you consider the ramming of these laws down the throats of Americans, even though the majorities are against them, as being a bully? Or does that title only apply to Republicans?

You’re not changing the subject very wisely. It’s preposterous to claim that this bill is being considered abnormally, or that no debate has been allowed. We’ve been debating this all summer and much of fall. Your sources have misled you, so you are arguing here from a weak position.

What makes it weaker still is your assertion that somehow the Congress whose majority was strongly reaffirmed and strengthened in the last election is somehow not expressive of the will of the people. Nobody’s shoving this down people’s throats. Much of what is being proposed is what Obama proposed last year when the majority of Americans elected him president.

If you want to argue that somehow there’s this other mystical measure we should be using to determine what the will of the people is, then have at it, you’ll make my job easier. If voters don’t like what they see in terms of healthcare reform, your people will soon have a chance to correct that mistake on our part. Otherwise, we were elected on this platform, and we plan to see it carried out, just like most Americans want in one form or another.

Tell me, though: why is a barely sufficient minority in the Senate allowed to essentially dictate to the rest of us what we can and cannot change? If we were to look at legislative processes in terms of bullying, such anti-democratic tactics seem to me more like bullying than the majority rules process the Senate is supposed to operate by.

If Limbaugh, Beck , and Palin have a following, who are you to condemn those who follow?

This is not a very clever diversion. I can see your strategy a mile away. Limbaugh, Beck and Palin are my targets. If I offend their followers by taking on their reckless disregard for the truth, for fairness, for common sense, that’s their problem. I will not walk on eggshells to spare the sensitivities of those who find it oppressive for others to simply disagree with them.

This is typical of liberals, they look at anyone on the othr side as being stupid and in need of government to tell them what to believe, who to listen to, and how to live their lives. As you define “moderation”, thie is how I define “Socialism”.

I was educated by some rather smart conservatives, actually. I went to one of the most conservative colleges in the country. I saw there conservatives who embraced Darwinism, who embraced a separation of Church and State, yet were undoubtedly conservative, and undoubtedly Christian.

I oppose a strain of conservatism that is based on oppositional defiance of liberalism more than anything else.

I don’t believe in that insipid notion you attribute to me. I believe it works the other way around. I want a government that listens to what the experts out there have to say, and bases its legislation on effective studies of the circumstances and the situation.

You believe that since we lost the election, it is now our duty to follow the miss-guided steps of the left; I don’t think so.

BS. What should be followed is your business. But you’ve got to let us govern this country as the voters intended. Or, perhaps, you want to return whenever you do, and find the Democrats perpetually filibustering YOUR legislation. That would work, right?

What I want is for them to loosen their deathgrip on power, and trust the American people to moderate the Democratic Party, if that is necessary, if that is what they want.

You are living in a dream world; it’s ALL about politics, on both sides. Why would you as a liberal try to tell me how to be successful as a Republican? That doesn’t even make sense. As I explained to Christine earlier, it’s ok to be a Republican, as long as you think like a Democrat.

I’m going to be very blunt here.

I think that point’s moronic. Politics IS the dreamworld. It’s the world that Democracy has to bring back down to Earth. Politicians have a way of getting wrapped up in stuff that’s purely in their heads, while things in the real world fall apart.

All this ideology, all these political “realities” are just crap inside people’s brains. It’s the consequences of decisions, what people do and do not do out in the real world that matters.

We have accept that even our best ideas will face some friction as we try to apply them to the real world. As it may happen, some of those idea will just get torn apart by the mismatch between what people thought was true, and what turned out to be true.

That is what I mean by Republicans realizing that they can’t win them all, and sometimes shouldn’t. By trying to win so many of their political contests, despite the poor merits of their policies, despite the strained, exhausted condition of the Republican Party by the middle of the Bush term, the Republicans ensured a backlash against them, ensured that people would lose faith in their competence on policy matters, even in their core competencies of Defense and fiscal budgeting.

You guys think that if you just ditch Bush, you can get back to business, but really, his legacy will haunt the Republicans for some time to come, just as LBJ’s deficit spending and Vietnam escalation hamstrung the Democrats for a couple of generations afterwards.

As for competitors, I believe I have them whether I want them or not. I might as well try and win on my own merits, and if I don’t think I can do that, try something else.

The reason I asked the question, is because I believe he would have helped his image by doing so. I know that free thinking conservatives are labeled “ditto heads”, but I had not heard anyone bring up this thought. I actually came up with the question all by myself:)

Actually, “free-thinking” Republicans actually label themselves this. The Democrats just took their honest admission of unoriginality in thought, and ran with it.

Royal Flush-
We’re not asking you to be enthralled, we’re asking you guys to have some class, and not automatically dump on the whole thing and belittle it.

As for the money, I do believe he intends to donate the money to charity.

ohrealy-
You obviously want to put forward this kind of Svengali narrative. I don’t buy it. Bush and Rove, that’s Svengali. That’s a person coached within an inch of his life, who has to be.

I’ve heard Axelrod speak. That is not Obama’s source for articulate expression. I don’t know how many times during August his vagueness and imprecision of language caused the White House a headache.

Why can’t you recognize any of Obama’s acheivements as his own? A sockpuppet under this kind of pressure would have folded and gotten lost in the dryer by now. Like or not, Obama can get things done.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 10, 2009 08:51 PM
Comment #289146

SD

Let me be blunt, Obama is as lost as a sockpuppet in a dryer. He is in over his head. Anytime someone questions his moronic ideas, they are labeled racist. He either has absolutly no idea what he is doing, or he knows and is purposely trying to destroy the American economy and the American way of life.

Oh, by the way, ALL polls show the American people do not want to embrace his radical idealogy.

You stated:

“I want a government that listens to what the experts out there have to say, and bases its legislation on effective studies of the circumstances and the situation.”

Care to tell me what part the constituents play in the grand plan for legislation? I thought it was a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. You prove my point, liberals think the people are to stupid to run their own lives, they need a big government to make all the decisions. Your speech doth betray you.

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 10:37 PM
Comment #289147

SD said:
“It’s preposterous to claim that this bill is being considered abnormally, or that no debate has been allowed.”

Well, how about reading this link below and tell me how preposperous it sounds.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/The_unconvential_wisdom.html

Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 11:02 PM
Comment #289151

“Let me be blunt, Obama is as lost as a sockpuppet in a dryer. He is in over his head. Anytime someone questions his moronic ideas, they are labeled racist. He either has absolutly no idea what he is doing, or he knows and is purposely trying to destroy the American economy and the American way of life.”

Beretta9 where have you been hiding this past 10 years? The American economy was destroyed by conservative ideology and the compassionate conservative administration. Unfunded wars and tax cuts! Don’t you remember the Repub/conservative health care reform of Medicaid/medicare? Yeah the one where the the government couldn’t negotiate drug prices with the private sector. Deregulation, free markets, the invisible hand of the free market will solve all of our problems. Anything ring a bell? Obama was handed a destroyed economy, 2 unfunded wars and moronic conservative ideology that has infected many of our fellow Americans to the point they are in a deranged tizzy all because he has been awarded the peace prize. Despite this he has tried to work with conservatives in Congress, for that alone he deserves the NPP award.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 11, 2009 12:36 AM
Comment #289154

Beretta9,
You write about Obama: “he knows and is purposely trying to destroy the American economy and the American way of life.”

I don’t think you understand. The American economy underwent a catstrophic collapse last year. With the exception of Goldman Sachs, the entire investment banking industry failed. Only massive government intervention prevented the failures of the rest of the commercial banks. Capitalism failed.

The past year has been economic triage. Geithner has merely stabilized what’s left of the finanical sector. Eventually changes will have to be made.

Trillions upon trillions have been lost, virtually all of it in the form of mortgage-related securities. Your ‘American way of life’ ended last year. It has been lost, perhaps beyond recovery. We’ll go on, of course; but we will never be able to go back, because too much damage has already been done.

Posted by: phx8 at October 11, 2009 01:06 AM
Comment #289156
With the exception of Goldman Sachs, the entire investment banking industry failed

You know, you make an astute observation here that would help direct you to more information, if you want to search a little deeper…

Just putting it out there, do with it as you wish.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 11, 2009 01:30 AM
Comment #289157

Do you mean the front running of the stock markets during the first half of this year? Goldman Sachs accounted for half of the program trading volume. That is pretty shocking in and of itself. The economy is like a zombie, or a wounded animal. As bad as it is with unemployment and failing business and all, most people are still unaware…

Posted by: phx8 at October 11, 2009 01:43 AM
Comment #289158

Beretta asked: ” was it respect for the office that led to the previous 8 years of hate speech from the left?”

I can’t speak for the Left. But, it is important to segregate Hate speech from critique and disapproval by the public. There is a chasmic difference. I engaged in critique and sometimes disapproval, (as well as occasional approval) of Bush’s and Republicans governance. I rather think you may be lumping any negative critique toward Republicans into the category of Hate speech.

There certainly was Hate Speech aimed at Bush/Cheney by some on the Left especially in the blogosphere. And the same can now be witnessed by the likes of Michelle Bachman, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck toward Obama. But, you know, Hate Speech lacks a factual or empirical basis, which is why I ignore it when I come across it. It is the product of emotions (ergo: Hate speech), and not intelligent, objective assessment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2009 05:23 AM
Comment #289165

Not entirely sure why I’m commenting. I never gave much creedence to the whold Nobel thing. Its merely political. Obama did absolutly noting to in the first two weeks of his administration ( the cut off date for nomination ) to earn such lofty recognition. I think what gets me the most is that some people here think that he has accomplished a lot of good in nine months. What a joke. Lets see,.. how about a dose of reality. It is a fact that he kept the “evil” Bush wire taps in place. In fact, he expanded it some-what. But I dont here the left screaming about it now. If you believe that closing GTMO without a proper plan on what to do with those people is a good idea, then you need some more meds. It still isnt closed out, by the way. Oh yeah,.. Wasnt it Obama who said that the intelligence estimate during Bush’s last year, declaring that a second Iranian nuclear facility could not be verified, and that Bush was making things up to justify his position against Iran. Wel… Well.. Well.. During the disgraceful UN appearances, Iran announces and admits that the second facility has IN FACT been operating for quite some time. Hmmmm… Guess the Bamster was wrong about that. How about the fact that Obama has required that terrorist suspects be read miranda rights, as if they somehow have the same American Constitutional rights as you and I. Or how about the fact that the Geneva Convention specifically does not give any rights under it, to enemy combatants who do not represent a specific government or nation state, and specifically who does not participate. Yet here we are, making attempts to give them rights they are not qualified for, and mirandizing them. I guess a terrorist will take that as a sign of peace and love from king Obama and decide to quit his murderous lifestyle. Or how about the fact that the Obama administration has made a factual effort to convince some states correctional institutions to house these terrorist murderers. Perhaps in one of your states, and with possible parole elegibility. Boy, I feel real safe now. I could go on, but we all get the point.
I also find it ironic that one of the founding leaders of the Nobel commitee has a family dynasty who has earned a huge fortune off of the sale of ammunitions. One of the largest ammunition manufactureres in the world. Who by the way, provided ammunition to the Nazi war machine, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and others who have used it over the years, to invade countries, torture its people, or provide it to terrorist networks. I guess thats a real peaceful industry huh ??

Posted by: Ron at October 11, 2009 11:43 AM
Comment #289168

beretta9-

Let me be blunt, Obama is as lost as a sockpuppet in a dryer. He is in over his head. Anytime someone questions his moronic ideas, they are labeled racist. He either has absolutly no idea what he is doing, or he knows and is purposely trying to destroy the American economy and the American way of life.

Lost how?

Let me review for you what the Republicans did last year, since you forgot.

Going into the election, the fundamentals of the economy were sound according to the Republicans. AIG reaches the breaking point, and the Bush administration bails it out. It also mediates the sell off of Bear Stearns. Concerned, though, about the appearance of being too liberal, or God forbid, socialist, though, the Bush Administration lets Lehman Brothers goes down.

The economy cracks, starts to go down. Then the Republicans, once again concerned that they might look socialistic if they bail out the banks, decide that they are going to vote against this measure virtually without exception.

The economy breaks, or if you go by the numbers in the stock market, it falls off the motherblanking cliff.

It’s no surprise the Republicans fall off with it.

Yet next year arrives, and they oppose any meaningful stimulus. Once again, the best they have to offer is tax cuts, which is what worked soooo well in propping up the economy during the Bush administration, the first in a long time to see a net job loss, even before last fall’s economic disaster. Republicans also opposed the bailout and bankruptcy reorganization on partisan grounds as well. They submitted that the failure of these companies would be the best thing, despite the effects that all would have.

If we look at the actions of the Republican Party, they are the ones who, well-intentioned or not, have done the most to destroy our economy, and ruin our way of life. The thing of it is, you folks won’t even let Obama fail in real life, before you declare his policies failures.

All that matters is what you think will work, but if we go by what the Republicans have done in the last year, it becomes obvious that it is your people who either don’t know or don’t care how things actually work.

The Republicans are willing to inflict a great deal of harm on the American economy in order to ensure the purity of American markets, it seems.

You ignore the costs that would be heaped on the average person in order to do this, and the fact that history doesn’t see quick, prosperous recoveries from that kind of extreme failure of the markets without government intervention.

All poll do no show the opposition that you claim, or at least they don’t show them before your people come in and start fearmongering. You start spreading lies, slandering people as communists, and get people tied in knots. But do you have a practical alternative? No.

As for constituents? My speech doth not betray me. You’re just looking for a cheap opening. Unfortunately, the costs up, and I’ll tell you why. Go back through my archives. I’ve always favored an informed, involved electorate. The experts can advise the rest of us just as well as they can advise our President and Congress. It’s certainly a much more truly egalitarian system than just the political parties sitting there and dropping political propaganda on people who are just supposed to passively trust it.

My liberalism is about free thought and free interaction between the people and their government. Yes, I favor more government power in certain respects, but not without the people to check the government where it strays from what they want.

As for your link, that is a strategy that our leaders might pursue, but it’s not the one they are pursuing. They’re doing things the normal way, which means plenty of opportunity for debate and negotiation, which your folks could take advantage of if they were actually intending on voting for anything that came through the Senate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2009 12:09 PM
Comment #289169

Ron-
Obama’s got Iran’s people hopeful once again about America’s power being used to good ends. I know this strikes you as terrible, but for those who remember America’s glory days as those where it did not fear the rest of the world, where it led on policy, where it had international support and cooperation, and where we didn’t undermine all that to further a unilateral foreign policy that’s a beautiful thing to see again.

You folks had your chance to make things work your way, and they didn’t. You multiplied our enemies, disgraced this country and undermined its reputation. You got us into two long-term wars we’ll be stuck trying to extricate ourselves for quite a while.

As for Gitmo, if you think America demonstrates its strength by being nervous nellies about our ability to convict and keep incarcerated our terrorist enemies, you’re sadly mistaken. Just how does that make us look stronger? Your politicization of the topic aside, we show our strength in our ability to do what we’ve always done with criminals like them (they’re not superhuman, they’re not soldiers, they’re just lawbreakers), and not otherwise show a ripples worth of difference.

Your foreign policy freak-out both demonstrated weakness and created more of it.

As for this?

I also find it ironic that one of the founding leaders of the Nobel commitee has a family dynasty who has earned a huge fortune off of the sale of ammunitions. One of the largest ammunition manufactureres in the world. Who by the way, provided ammunition to the Nazi war machine, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and others who have used it over the years, to invade countries, torture its people, or provide it to terrorist networks. I guess thats a real peaceful industry huh ??

That’s not ironic, that’s the reason he created the award in the first place. What’s ironic is that people like you were once trying to nominate Bush for the Nobel Peace prize. I guess the grapes are sweeter when they’re in Republican hands, than in Obama’s.

Do yourselves a favor. Get over your Obama hatred.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2009 12:32 PM
Comment #289173

Ron,

You might want to crack open a history book. There you’ll find that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, a vast improvement on nitroglycerin, he also owned Bofors, which has been in existence for more than 350 years, from 1894 until his death in 1896. Bofors manufactured many weapons including the Bofors Gun, which was used by both sides during WW2.


From wikipedia;

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

“In his will, it was declared that a Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Apparently those of you on the right don’t feel that Obama has done much work on the “fraternity between nations”.

beretta9,
(cute name, perhaps I shall call myself Glock 19 from now on…… then again perhaps not)

“Care to tell me what part the constituents play in the grand plan for legislation? I thought it was a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.”

From this statement I can only assume that you didn’t vote in the last election, and therefore you believe you have no representation in Washington.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 11, 2009 01:34 PM
Comment #289177

Bretta9 posted:

SD said: “It’s preposterous to claim that this bill is being considered abnormally, or that no debate has been allowed.”

Well, how about reading this link below and tell me how preposperous it sounds.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1009/The_unconvential_wisdom.html
Posted by: beretta9 at October 10, 2009 11:02 PM

From your link I read this:

But what if reform could skip conference on the way to the president’s desk?

It wasn’t a question I’d considered until a former House and Senate leadership aide sent an email sketching out another route to passage.

So a former aide says its possible to skip the joint-conference committee.

No mention of words coming from anyone actually employed in the legislative process that they are thinking of taking this route.

In any case, one must remember that the only reason for a joint-conference committee is to clear any inconsistencies between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The “idea” floated by the former aide is that the two chambers pass bills with identical language the first time around, thereby eliminating the need for a joint-conference committee.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 11, 2009 04:31 PM
Comment #289179

I also wanted to dispute the contention that the Nobel Peace Prize is exclusively a liberal exercise.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which picks the Nobel Peace Prize recipients, is composed of five people chosen by the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament. Apparently, two of the members come from right-wing parties and three from left wing parties. This reflects the fact that since 2005 the left wing parties have controlled the Storting through the Red-Green Coalition. Before 2005, right wing parties controlled the Storting, and they also held three of the five places on the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

List of Members of the Nobel Committee


Nevertheless, I stand by the opinion I posted earlier. I think the Norwegian Prize Committee should not have awarded the prize this year. It would have been better to wait a few years to see if he can live up to his words. That way, one could point to more concrete achievements other than his senate work against nuclear proliferation and

Posted by: Warped Realtiy at October 11, 2009 05:20 PM
Comment #289186

Sorry for the triple post, but I found one more piece of Nobel Trivia.

The Nobel Prizes in Medicine/Physiology for both 1926 and 1927 were given to people who’s ideas turned out to be very wrong.

Some Nobel Prizes have gone to discoveries that turned out to be wrong. The 1926 Nobel Prize in medicine went to Johannes Fibiger, for discovering that roundworms caused cancer (they don’t). A year later, psychiatrist Julius Wagner-Jauregg won for injecting patients with malaria to treat syphilitic dementia (not a good idea).
Posted by: Warped Reality at October 11, 2009 09:27 PM
Comment #289187
Going into the election, the fundamentals of the economy were sound according to the Republicans

And the Democrats running the show in the House and Senate, Stephen. Do you need reminding of who was saying that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound less than a month before they needed bailed out?

You’re one sided fairytale I’m sure goes great on your progressives blogging but lacks a tie to anything real. And while you continue to spout partisan crap, you are going to find it hard to get people who aren’t already on your side to come along.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 11, 2009 10:41 PM
Comment #289191

Beretta said: “See, the difference is, you respect Bob Dole because he is willing to cave to liberals.”

Every time you attempt to mind read others, Beretta, your comment will look absolutely foolish.

The reason I respect Bob Dole is because he advocates putting the needs of the nation ahead of partisan politics. He spoke to this very thing. Any other prejudgments you would like to share with us?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2009 01:46 AM
Comment #289192

Whatever else is said, those claiming Obama has accomplished nothing might just as well claim Plato, Adam Smith, or Solzhenitzen (Sp?) accomplished nothing. They are only known for their words afterall. Yet, their words inspired and motivated others toward better possibilities for large numbers of people.

The Nobel Committee awarded this prize to Obama based on the only thing he was notable for, his vision and ideas about American governance which won him the election in 2008. Obama’s words were obviously deemed by the Nobel Prize Committee as representing ideas worth pursuing and following. Obama was awarded the prize for something he accomplished, the words, speeches, and ideas incorporated in those, since he began running for president.

Those arguing otherwise are apparently incapable of understanding the power and importance of words, which is why they don’t sit on a prestigious Committee like of the Nobel Awards Committees. Our very ideas are formed by words in our minds. All actions and ideals begin with words. Writing the right combination of words which inspires others, is one of mankind’s most laudable actions.

And yes, it does remain to be seen whether Obama as president, can and will live up his eloquent words, but, it must be also said, failure is not necessarily to be laid at his feet, anymore than Christ’s failure to elevate mankind can be laid at Christ’s feet. As we have seen in the comments here, there are many who can’t rest until they see Obama defeated and out of office on any grounds and for any reasons, whatsoever, which they work diligently in their small minds to create.

Great periods in America are defined by great numbers of Americans supporting the great ideas of the nation’s leaders. And the opposite is also true, when great numbers of Americans support the small and fearful leadership of the likes of Sen. McCarthy in the 1950’s, or the KKK in the 1950’s and ‘60’s, or GW Bush and Dick Cheney between 2000 and 2008. Such times only end up costing our nation greatly to put back on track again.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2009 02:52 AM
Comment #289194

David,

I still don’t think the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded on the basis of words alone. That’s the job for the Nobel Prize in literature.

Last year during the campaign season, I was inspired by the speeches Obama gave and I remember thinking that there is a good chance he would go down in history for being a champion of peace around the world. I could easily have seen a Nobel Peace Prize for Obama in 2012 or during his second term after he had stabilized Afghanistan and reduced nuclear armaments worldwide (including implementing a nuclear free Middle East and East Asia (except the PRC). I think both of these things are extremely likely to happen.

Although I would not have made the same decision as the Norwegian Storting did, I am glad Obama won the prize. Hopefully it will be useful when it comes to negotiating with other countries, especially our Western European friends who constantly drag their feet when it comes to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Decades from now, no one will probably notice that this award was given out what some say is a few years too early. By then, Obama’s accomplishments will hopefully have done a great deal of good for the world.


Lastly, I’d like to mention that if I were one of the Storting’s appointees to the Norewegian Prize Committee, I’d probably award the Nobel Peace Prize to Morgan Tsvangirai, who has worked to end the brutality of Robert Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe. If not Tsvangirai, then maybe someone connected to the demonstrations in Iran last summer over the fraudulent election or maybe someone involved with Darfur or the rebuilding of areas impacted by the Second Congolese War (the deadliest conflict since the second world war).

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 12, 2009 06:17 AM
Comment #289195

Rhinehold-
Do you know what the phrase Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc means? It’s the title of a fallacy, a failure of logic, which essentially says, After this, therefore because of this.

In your case, you’re saying that because the Democrats happened to be in charge at the time, they share blame because of that.

Now if you argue that those who helped pass “reforms” that helped put us in that position share responsibility, yes, they do! And that is actually a logical, valid, sound argument. However, those “reforms” were part and parcel of what Republicans promoted in their ideological ascendance.

Did the Republicans not place a greater emphasis, a more strident emphasis on deregulation, and business friendly regulation? Did they not make that a hallmark of their legislative agenda? Was it not, for the longest time, and still is today, one of their tradmark planks in the platform?

And doesn’t the failure of all that merit people turning somewhere else, to folks with other ideas? It doesn’t have to be Democrats, it can be liberal, moderate, or free-thinking Republicans willing to consider alternate paradigms of legislation.

You’re pulling the same equating trick again. Most people, when they point to the FMs are trying to take the focus off of Wall Street. The trick of things is that while they could have done with better management, and better regulation, they were not the cause of the mess themselves. Their fall into conservatorship didn’t help things, but the reason they fell that way was because the whole market for secondary debt basically froze up. They didn’t cause that themselves, the irresponsble, predatory lenders and refinancers did that. The FMs actually had minimum standards they had to follow, so they couldn’t buy up much of the garbage like the other secondary market purchasers did.

In short, blaming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is misdirection. And more specifically, it’s partisan misdirection, meant to take the emphasis off of the stock market and convince the base that they weren’t wrong to support years worth of deregulation with breathless zeal.

It’s the Republicans trying to scapegoat somebody else for their mistakes. And you’re buying into it.

My narrative, which has the banks, the brokerages, the hedge funds, the non-bank lenders all getting the economy twisted up with their fancy money-making machinery actually has factual backup. You can trace the downfall of our economy through them, and explain many of the features of the failure, and why it was critical, in the long run, that the point of failure was brokerages and insurance companies, rather than the housing market.

The Democrats weren’t as wrong as the Republicans, and they aren’t committed to keeping the country doing the wrong things. Even if some of them helped make this problem possible through their actions, they are the only major political party actually willing and able to buck the dogmas that keep the current system in place.

And if they aren’t able? Then Liberal bloggers like myself will help get people elected who are actually willing to fix things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2009 08:47 AM
Comment #289196

Warped Reality said: “I still don’t think the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded on the basis of words alone.”

There is a difference between a fiction writer or history writer winning the Literature prize, and a world leader expounding an approach to international relations and human rights issues which the majority in the world find inspiring. Obama wasn’t writing a novel, he was proposing a way forward for the most influential nation on earth besides China. And a Peace oriented one at that. Ergo, the Peace Prize was very appropriate. And the literature prize wholly inappropriate as Obama doesn’t write books. He writes speeches to garner the following of millions and millions of people toward a more peaceful way of conducting an enormous nation’s affairs. And peace is all about nations, politics, and governance.

I am curious why this is not obvious to so many. What did Martin Luther King have to offer but words? What did Mahatma Gandhi have to offer but words in both S. Africa and India? I think you overestimate just what so many Peace Prize winners offer. Most leadership in most areas of our societies wield little more than words, and from those words great horrors or benefit may come.

Adam Smith provided volumes of words and changed the entire world as we know it today. Great words do not always result in great accomplishments. Should those great words go unrewarded, or awarded and therefore promoted for following or aspiring to?

Should great words aimed at great intentions be exempt from award? Fortunately, the Nobel Prize Committees don’t think so. I say fortunately, because many recipients of great words would never have had their words known by the public had the Nobel prize not been affixed to those words.

Can any one person be singled out for having personally and alone forced PEACE upon people’s and nations? Of course not. Was Wilson solely responsible for the ending of WW I? Was he alone in crafting and forcing the hand of the signatories of the League of Nations which led to the United Nations? NO! Absolutely not. So many gave up so much more to bring that war to an end and Wilson was by no means the first to raise the potential of peace through unity between nations.

In a very real sense, Wilson’s receipt of the award was symbolic award to all those whose words, lives, and efforts were given to bring that horrible war to an end. Obama understands this, and said as much in his initial words about being informed of the prize. Gandhi sacrificed far more of his personal life for Peace than Woodrow Wilson. Does this mean the prize should never have been awarded to Wilson? I don’t think that is what is intended at all. The prize is a promotion of Peace via persons who aspire to, or contribute to, Peace.

No one can honestly say Obama’s campaign was not overtly Peace oriented, or that Obama is not a a most capable person in selling the ideas of Peace as goal and objective. He was afterall, elected by a majority. Should this not be awarded and raised to the level of public attention which garners the attention of the entire world to Obama’s focus on diplomacy and invasion of nations and war as a last resort or defense against imminent harm? It is the Obama doctrine, and one which the entire world should adopt, most people would agree. Ergo, Obama was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for these reasons, and certainly others, as well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2009 09:26 AM
Comment #289198

BTW, who in their right mind would believe RNC Chairman Steele wouldn’t be defending Pres. John McCain’s receipt of the award at the same time had McCain been elected instead of Obama? That is just the pedestrian politics of the issue of the award. And not worth spending any credible time on, whatsoever.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2009 10:05 AM
Comment #289206

Mr. Remer wrote; “And yes, it does remain to be seen whether Obama as president, can and will live up his eloquent words, but, it must be also said, failure is not necessarily to be laid at his feet, anymore than Christ’s failure to elevate mankind can be laid at Christ’s feet.”

I can swallow nearly anything Mr. Remer writes about politics and political figures. I draw the line when he attempts to disparage the affect our Savior has had on our world. There are minds that fail to understand the significance of the teachings of Jesus Christ. But for anyone to write that Christ failed to elevate mankind is merely revealing a hatred of, or total disregard for, the many billions of humans who have followed Christ.

One must feel sad for those who do not know the blessings of following what Christ said and promised His believers. That thousands of early Christians were martyred rather than denounce Christ is certainly proof positive of His enormous influence on the lives of believers. And, that influence continues to thrive and grow even today.

Certainly Mr. Remer believes what he writes and therefore it can be logically assumed that he fails to understand that mankind has been elevated thru the life, words, and continuing influence of Christ.

I would never attack Mr. Remer’s belief or non-belief in a deity. I would hope that he would respect mine. Surely he could have made his point without this reference to Jesus Christ. The intentionality of his use of Christ in this way is very revealing of his character and motives.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2009 12:53 PM
Comment #289209

“Obama doesn’t write books”

I thought he wrote three books. I still agree with your analysis that it would be even less of a fit to award Obama with the Nobel prize in literature.

In any case, the past Peace Prizes that were based mainly on the recipient’s words were given after these words had impacted the world in a way that brought great changes to the world. MLK received his prize after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. Gandhi was never awarded the prize during his lifetime because it wasn’t until 1947 that India finally achieved independence. Gandhi was on track to receive the prize in 1948, unfortunately he was assassinated and Nobel’s will forbids posthumous awards.

As I said before, this will likely become a moot point. Obama’s words are very likely to achieve a great deal of good for the world. For example, I wouldn’t be surprised if in 2016 Afghanistan finally has a stable democratic government.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 12, 2009 01:54 PM
Comment #289210

Royal Flush-
I believe he meant that he would not blame Jesus for people not being pure and without sin after he came around. Human beings have free choice, and even knowing of God’s will, still sin. Would you say this is not the case?

Would you then say it’s God’s fault that this happens?

If God’s intentions for man do not come to full blossom, why should the intentions and works of man necessarily be more fruitful?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2009 02:06 PM
Comment #289211

Flush,

“The intentionality of his use of Christ in this way is very revealing of his character and motives.”

So what you’re saying here is that Remer isn’t entitled to his opinion because it offends you?

Oh please…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 12, 2009 02:14 PM
Comment #289213

Not at all Rocky…using someones cherished religious beliefs to make a political point should be avoided.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2009 02:56 PM
Comment #289216

Flush,

Surely you don’t think that David’s intentions were to deride your faith.

I am not a Christian, though I do hold to some “Christian” tenets, however, I don’t find that using Christ as an example of man’s inhumanity to man is beyond the pale.
Christ’s teachings were those of an “enlightened” man, yet for those that claim to follow his teachings enlightenment seems hardly a virtue.
I would submit that most commit the same sins day after day, yet although feeling cleansed when asking for forgiveness, they go out and commit those same sins again.

Hardly an enlightened process.

Whether or not Christ failed man is between you and your God.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 12, 2009 03:20 PM
Comment #289219

Royal Flush, the facts contradict your commentary and support mine. America is the most religious nation of all the modern industrialized nations and hosts the largest per capita enrollment of its citizens in its penal system of any other nation, including that atheistic government of China with 4 times as many people.

Surely, if your argument were correct, America with its vast Christian base would be able to demonstrate one of the lowest per capita enrollments in the penal system, if Christ’s objective was to elevate human behavior toward the morality of the 10 commandments, and mutual social respect, charity, and mercy. I argue it is not Christ’s fault that such a large Christian nation produces so great a population of criminals of every kind from murderers and child predators to shop lifters and fences of stolen property.

You apparently entirely missed the clearly stated argument I put forth. I clearly laid down an argument relieving Christ of the responsibility for the individual immoral choices those exposed to his word make for themselves. In the same way I argued that Obama may not be held responsible for failures in moving the nation to achieve the ideals and vision voters voted for in 2008, in light of so determined a minority to subvert Obama’s ideals and vision which a majority voted for.

You’ve intentionally or mistakenly created a straw man to argue over. I neither critiqued Christ nor Christianity. In fact, I made the case that Christ is not responsible for the immoral decisions Christians or other religious people’s make. Your response will determine whether the straw man was intentional or mistaken.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2009 03:39 PM
Comment #289220

Rocky wrote; “Whether or not Christ failed man is between you and your God.”

Hardly…evidence abounds in the past and in the present of Christ at work in man. Man can fail…not Christ. If one has any knowledge and belief of Christianity he/she would know the truth of what I say. There can be no gray area…one is a believer in Christ or not. That others choose a different belief, or none at all, is their choice.

One can not argue that for those who believe that Christ is the son of God know for certain that he can’t fail the very object of His love and reason for His birth and death.

Unbelivers who deny Christ as the Son of God should at least respect the beliefs of others. To write that Christ has failed man is proof positive of unbelief. That’s fine for them. Just don’t use my Savior to prove a political point.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2009 03:42 PM
Comment #289221

Warped Reality said: “I thought he wrote three books.” May be. But, his books were not what got him his Nobel Prize, or he would have been awarded The Nobel Prize in Literature, not Peace, don’t you think?

From what I gather from the news on the Committee’s decision, it was his rise to the presidency with an international agenda of diplomacy and peace which he elevated to the office of President along with himself, and into the world public view, that was the Peace Prize determinant. Not his books which few have read and are even aware of.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2009 03:48 PM
Comment #289223

Mr. Remer writes a very clever, but false argument. He wrote; “failure is not necessarily to be laid at his feet, anymore than Christ’s failure to elevate mankind can be laid at Christ’s feet.”

Were there no sinners there would have been no need for Christ’s birth and death. Remer would measure Christ’s success by the absence of sin. Christ didn’t say those who followed him would not sin. He did say that those who followed him would have everlasting life with him by virtue of their belief, not their actions…good or bad.

He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and those that believe in me shall have life everlasting.

Christ measures men’s souls and Mr. Remer measures men’s actions. I don’t doubt that Mr. Remer doesn’t know the difference. His yardstick is man’s.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2009 03:55 PM
Comment #289224

Flush,

“If one has any knowledge and belief of Christianity he/she would know the truth of what I say. There can be no gray area…one is a believer in Christ or not. That others choose a different belief, or none at all, is their choice.”

You talk of billions of folks that are “true believers”, yet from my experience, and I do have some, I would submit that less than one in ten of those billions are true believers, that actually are Christlike, in their attitudes and how they treat people in their day to day lives.

Like I said…..

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 12, 2009 03:57 PM
Comment #289225

Flush,

I would add that within this very thread are perfect examples of those that say they adhere to Christ’s teachings yet apparently haven’t listened to a word he said.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 12, 2009 04:01 PM
Comment #289230

You may be right Rocky…I am unable to read people’s hearts. But, I know someone who can.

I know this may be a difficult concept for some to follow, but sinners are saved thru faith by Christ’s offer of salvation and the acceptance of it. If the requirement was to be Christlike…none would enter His kingdom.

Like Mr. Remer…Rocky you are using your measurement of man’s worth by judging deeds.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2009 05:10 PM
Comment #289232

Flush,

“I am unable to read people’s hearts. But, I know someone who can.”

Wasn’t it Bush that said “”The more I get to know President Putin, the more I get to see his heart and soul, and the more I know we can work together in a positive way.”

Probably not who you were refering to, but we all know how that one worked out.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 12, 2009 05:26 PM
Comment #289239

Rocky, only God can read people’s hearts. That is way above a president’s level of ability.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 12, 2009 07:02 PM
Comment #289248
America is the most religious nation of all the modern industrialized nations and hosts the largest per capita enrollment of its citizens in its penal system of any other nation, including that atheistic government of China with 4 times as many people.

And article I wrote that backs this up…

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/002772.html

I started finding that basically, the more people believed in God in the western world, the worse off the society was in numerous aspects. For example, the United States again is the only prosperous democracy where religion is really popular and we’re the only nation among prosperous democracies to have really high murder rates.

We also have the highest juvenile mortality rates. We have pretty much the shortest life spans. We have the highest abortion rates among democracies where abortion is legal. We have the highest sexually transmitted disease infection rates. We have the highest teen pregnancy rates, pretty much across the board we have real, serious social issues that other nations don’t seem to be suffering from.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 12, 2009 08:44 PM
Comment #289291

Royal Flush said: “Christ measures men’s souls and Mr. Remer measures men’s actions.”

Don’t know Christ, never met the man. But, yes, I do measure people by their actions. Finally, an accurate statement to respond to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2009 04:37 PM
Comment #289293

WatchBlog is a political debate web site, NOT a religious debate web site. Religion as a political topic is relevant to this web site’s focus. The veracity or merits of religion or its teachings is in keeping with the focus of this web site, nor, is the religious attributes of any of its participants.

Those wanting to discuss the merits or failings of a particular religion or its teachings are cautioned to do so elsewhere, not here at WatchBlog.

Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at October 13, 2009 04:43 PM
Comment #289294

Rhinehold, and an appropriate correlation to raise in the discussion of the state of our union. Though correlations cannot establish causes. Most of the direct myriad causes for our extremely high penal system population have everything to do with our legal system and little to do with our nation’s religions. That said, the correlation suggests indirect connections, like the conflict in our nation between secular and religious education as a political and legal issue which has seen a resurgence since the 1980’s RNC embrace of Christian fundamentalism.

These indirect connections continue to be dealt with in a somewhat indirect way via legal and judicial review, as in the case of the Cross memorial in the Mojave Desert, brought by a person of faith and adherent to the rule of law. I cannot think of a more relevant representative of the tension between religious belief and belief in the rule of law. Clearly however, this person represents the fact of our nation’s design as a nation of laws crafted by its citizens and Constitution, as opposed to a theological design like that of Iran implemented by clerics with differing and variable views and interpretations depending which cleric is in the seat of government power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2009 05:00 PM
Comment #289358

Looks like this original topic got a little de-railed. As for me, a few earlier comments were directed my way. So here go’s and then enough is enough on this topic for me.

( Rocky )
I HAVE ” cracked the history books.” I’m well aware of Alfred Nobel’s innovations and contributions to the explosives industry. I’m well aware of the Bofor’s guns ( particullarly the 40mm ) used by both sides during the WWII conflict. I pointed out simply that his dynasty which lives on and supports the prize, works and proffits by an industry of non-peaceful means. Some of these things also find their way into the hands of terrorist maniacs. I was simply pointing out the irony. To show that the award is not some all valuable and independant praise, bestowed by very peace loving and independant non-partisans. Thats all my point was.

I also stand by my opinion. I dont believe that when a person gets this type of recognition ( regardless of who it is ) it should be for what he says, thinks, and feels. Obama’s speeches are no different than any other power hungry polititian. Full of peace, love, ideas, platitudes, etc.. Just words. Not actions. I disagree with Remer’s comments as well. His words and peaceful demenor seem to be what you guage the man by. Anyone who points out his hypocracies is labeled a hater, racist, right winger, who is small minded and wants to destroy Obama. Thats ( in a nutshell ) what you guys are saying. Its absolute ” B.S.” Obama is no different than any other power hungry dishonest polititan that you guys seem to have no problem pointing out.

Also, if the peace award was so meaningful and really was for someone who wanted to make a difference in bringing peace to the world ( wheather now or much latter is achived ) then a vast number of people across the world deserve this award. Like it or not GWB liberated millions of oppressed muslims. He wanted a peaceful government in place of the ones who held the power. One was to bring peaceful governing ( at some point ) to the middle east and one was to get those governments to stop sponsoring terrorism and giving these maniacs safe harbor. Now PLEASE dont start labeling me a Bush lover and right wing delusional. I’m only using this to help make a point. GWB had peace in his heart. He spoke some very great words. He sent troops in to liberate millions of oppressed people. So, even thought he may have botched the job, does his future intention give him rise to deserve such an award? Many people agrue he does. Many argue he does not. I dont believe he does. But thats my opinion. Just like I dont believe Obama has done anything worthy of being honored to that degree yet. Thats all I was saying.

There is pleanty of EVIDENCE to show that Obama is as dishonest and politically calculated as anyone ever accused Bush of being. With that said I’m getting sick and tired of the whole ugly thing. We need new leadership and new rules for that leadership, from top to bottom !

Posted by: Ron at October 14, 2009 07:40 PM
Comment #289377

Ron,

“I pointed out simply that his dynasty which lives on and supports the prize, works and proffits by an industry of non-peaceful means.

His dynasty?

Alfred Nobel was, first and foremost, a chemist, and an inventor. At the time of his death he held 355 patents. The explosives he manufactured were used primarily for construction, not war.

Nobel had owned Bofors for less than two years before he died, and Bofors had already been in existence, in one form or another, for two hundred years before Nobel was born.

In his last will and testament, his estate was used to establish a trust to award the Prize.

http://swedishwire.com/general/1070-last-will-and-testament-of-alfred-nobel

“As a result, after Nobel died in San Remo, Italy, in 1896, some 31.5 million Swedish kronor, or about 1.5 billion kronor (214 million dollars, 155 million euros) in today’s money, were used to create the Nobel Foundation.”

http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/org_structure.html

“Who finances the Nobel Prize?
The Nobel Prize is financed by the Nobel Foundation, a private institution established in 1900 based on the will of Alfred Nobel. The main task of the Nobel Foundation is thus to manage the assets made available through the will for the awarding of the Nobel Prizes.”


“GWB had peace in his heart.”

Sorry, Bush had revenge and money in his heart. As far as the Iraqi war went he was a fool that made one poor decision after another.
Most of the initial invasion of Iraq was done well, up to the taking of Baghdad, then everything went to hell. We did not have enough personnel to establish control from the beginning.

The rebuilding of Iraq should have been done with Iraqi companies. The second greatest export Iraq had after oil was cement, yet we used imported cement to rebuild Iraq.

As far as Obama goes, we will see. Obama was handed a pile of crap and has been expected to make ice cream out of it.
That is not to say that he hasn’t raised expectations, and perhaps he has raised them too high.
If Obama fails it will, IMHO, be because he has been too ambitious.

As far as the Nobel Prize goes, you and I don’t get to vote, and while you are entitled to your opinion I am quite sure it is meaningless to the Nobel Committee.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 15, 2009 01:27 AM
Post a comment