Ron Rosenbaum, Writer

October 9, 2009

Haters: You Brought it on Yourselves. You Got Obama his Nobel

Filed under: Uncategorized — ronrosenbaumwriter @ 9:04 am

Sure, sure, there were “politics” involved and politics is petty, but that’s precisely the point. Consider the timing. On one level it might have been designed to influence the Afghan decision. In other words: Nobel Peace Prize Winner Calls For Troop Surge is going to look paradoxical to some, perhaps even the current “decider”.

On the other hand I wouldn’t down play the worldwide reaction to he sickening virulence of American Obama-haters. The worldwide web circulation of pictures of thuggish goons carrying guns (yes I know it’s legal, it’as also incredibly stupid), haters screaming down dissenters from their talking points at Townhalls, the kind of violence in the rhetoric of the anonymous cowards who spill their bile–behind their cowardly anonymity–in the comments section.

Finally I think it was the Hitler mustaches on the Obama posters. Norway is a nation that was invaded by and lived under Hitler’s rule. Sweden was threated into neutrality. I wouldn’t blame them for wanting to rebuke these hysterical whiners trivializing Nazism before they unleashed some nut with a gun who took their frothings seriously. (Of course they could just be jealous of the attention given to the Danes).

But all in all I think you can pat yourself on the back, haters, you’ve just won your man (you know you love him–you’re obsessed with him!) a Nobel Prize.

*And by the way I don’t think it matters when the voting took place the hate has been goin on since he became the frontrunner for the nomination. And it could always have changed, It ain’t over til the fat man squeals (you know who I men).

.

Advertisements

40 Comments »

  1. Is this satire? Sickening virulence is not a novel phenomenon. See the previous admin. Does that excuse the current actions, no it does not, but to claim that the current climate is novel is laughable.

    Also, Obama had to have been nominated before Feb First. Were the horrible posters in the first two weeks of the presidency? Or where they merely what took the president from being nominated to winning.

    Also, given your thesis, how come Bush never got a Nobel prize?

    Really take your least two paragraphs.

    “Finally I think it was the Hitler mustaches on the [Bush]posters. Norway is a nation that was invaded by and lived under Hitler’s rule. Sweden was threated into neutrality. I wouldn’t blame them for wanting to rebuke these hysterical whiners trivializing Nazism before they unleashed some nut with a gun who took their frothings seriously. (Of course they could just be jealous of the attention given to the Danes).

    But all in all I think you can pat yourself on the back, haters, you’ve just won your man (you know you love him–you’re obsessed with him!) a Nobel Prize.”

    Sure that’s drawing a “they did it too” equivalency. But that’s the point. Even the second paragraph about loving to hate fits.

    Or is trivializing Hitler and riling up “some nut” only worrisome now and not in the past?

    Comment by Jack — October 9, 2009 @ 9:15 am | Reply

  2. Obama totally deserves it. Considering past winners Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, Rigoberto Menchu, Le Duc Tho and Al Gore, I’d say he is in perfect company.

    Roger Kimball so aptly quoted Andy McCarthy:
    “I’m not all for Americans winning international prizes, especially the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I’m vigorously against it. The transnational progressives who pass out these accolades believe America is the problem in the world, the main threat to peace, the impediment to “progress,” etc. The award is a symbolic statement of opposition to American exceptionalism, American might, American capitalism, American self-determinism, and American pursuit of America’s interests in the world.”

    Or, in the words of the great Alfred Nobel, “dyn-o-mite!”

    Comment by J.J. Sefton — October 9, 2009 @ 9:19 am | Reply

  3. Lets assume your proposal is correct, it still makes the decision at the very least absurd. In this case the Nobel Peace prize is not used to celebrate results in diplomatically brining about peace, but as a way snub to uncivil vitriolic opponents. In short, it makes the prize a joke.

    As Sefton notes, perhaps the prize has been used in such ways before. However, that only diminishes the value of the prize.

    Comment by Jack — October 9, 2009 @ 9:29 am | Reply

  4. As usual, your ad hominem attacks are a perfect balance to the rather boring congency found elsewhere on PJM.

    Comment by Talnik — October 9, 2009 @ 9:53 am | Reply

  5. I suspect that if HATE = NOBEL PRIZE, Sarah Palin would have won and GWBush would have been runner up.

    I simply abhor the logic here. Allusions to dissent as hate. As if merely painting a Hilter moustache on a picture of Obama has to be racist hatred.

    So, Ron, for us dissenter’s what tactics would you recommend that would not be interpreted as hatred. I’d love to hear your solution.

    I think you’ve misread. The “dissenters” I refer to are th one who dare dissent from the howling haters.

    Comment by newguy40 — October 9, 2009 @ 10:03 am | Reply

  6. so why didn’t they give Bush the award for the many years of BushHitler hatred?

    Comment by bryan — October 9, 2009 @ 10:28 am | Reply

  7. I don’t think that Obama has done anything particularly great or terrible yet, but the howling and yowling about him is intense. I guess it comes with the territory, since he is essentially the only show in town right now. One downside to the howling could be that if he actually does screw up badly at some point, will anyone be able to hear an increase in the volume of the shrieking?

    I say that just as Obama’s glow could not last, the intensity of the criticism will also burn itself out for one cycle, let’s say health care. It may ramp up again over Afghanistan or…who knows, but the current critics may be shooting all their bolts…too soon.

    His job is to stay center-left, at which I think he has done reasonably well so far; the righty critics continually portray him as far left and try to kill all center-right support so that he must rely mostly on his folks on the far left. But I suppose that again…. I belabor the obvious.

    Comment by Dwight — October 9, 2009 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  8. Rosenbaum, are you trying to be as big a twit as the president. Haters? Dissent is the highest from of patriotism. Remember? Besides, this is comedy gold!

    If you can’t distinguish betwen dissent and digital lynch mobs, you’re part of the problem. If you think that thuggery and mob tactics are “dissent’ go back tothe dictionary.

    Comment by Thomas_L...... — October 9, 2009 @ 10:39 am | Reply

  9. Mr. Rosenbaum:
    “But all in all I think you can pat yourself on the back, haters, you’ve just won your man (you know you love him–you’re obsessed with him!) a Nobel Prize.’

    Thank you very much, and don’t mind if I do.

    Because now the Liberal Transnational Progressives, (they used to be called “Communists”), are going to spend their days having to defend and justify the Norwegians’ utterly ridiculous choice. And nothing makes Liberals more pissed off AT somebody than being embarrassed into having to defend that somebody.

    It is sweet! It is GOOD! It’s the nail in the coffin to Obama’s political career.

    Maybe he can write anti-semitic books like Jimmy Carter, or play guest teevee weatherman like Henry Kissinger, or do whatever the heck algore does with his empty days.

    And by the way, that courageous fellow in Zimbabwe, Tsanvigirai,(sp?), who stood forth on the hustings against Robert Mugabe?

    Do you remember him at all?

    Down your memory hole, too, eh?

    How about Mir Hussein Mousavi, who ran against your great and good would-be friend Ahmedinejad, and is now virtually a prisoner in his own home?

    No bells there, either, huh?

    Couldn’t have made a more perfect examle of derangement. You’ve done the haters proud. Did you read my Iran posts, by the way, or have them read to you?

    Comment by Bilgeman — October 9, 2009 @ 10:46 am | Reply

  10. So, Ron, for us dissenter’s what tactics would you recommend that would not be interpreted as hatred. I’d love to hear your solution.

    I think you’ve misread. The “dissenters” I refer to are th one who dare dissent from the howling haters.

    Ron – Answer the question I posed.

    I have commented on several other sites about Obama’s lack of credibility on the award of the NPP. I asked for specific accomplishments. Instead of a reasonable discourse, I am treated as a red neck racist thug.

    So… again… what is your suggestion for dissenters who previously had been in power when the tactics of the opposition are to be shouted down and politically corrected to death.

    Comment by newguy40 — October 9, 2009 @ 11:05 am | Reply

  11. Ron: If all you need to win a Nobel Peace Prize is people who hate you and posters with a Hitler mustache on your face, George W. Bush should have at least three of the things.

    Comment by DavidN — October 9, 2009 @ 11:15 am | Reply

  12. This post is just deranged. So racism and “the haters” are to blame for Obama’s international accolades, huh? Mr. Rosenbaum, you are a man obsessed. You can’t even marshall a decent argument for the merits you claim to believe your man possesses. If you think he deserves the prize, why not say so and say why? I’d still disagree with you, but at least you’d be comprehensible. Or if you think the award was undeserved, premature, whatever, why not just say that? Is it because you cannot really conceive of ANY criticism of Obama that isn’t motivated by racism?

    You and all the others who scream “racist” at any suggestion that Obama is less than perfect remind me of something I read about Jim Jones in Shiva Naipaul’s book “Journey to Nowhere” (pp. 236) ~

    “One can sense at a certain level his raging hatred for the blacks whose God he claimed to be; a hatred so deep-seated, so tormenting that, in its fury, it turned itself inside out and called itself Love.”

    Comment by marymcl — October 9, 2009 @ 11:19 am | Reply

  13. Oh c’mon!

    Comment by Delia — October 9, 2009 @ 11:59 am | Reply

  14. Intriguing.

    Mr. Rosenbaum will correct his post to include thoughts on when the decision was made and said relevance. Though I doubt the town-hall yowling and legal, if stupid, open carry took place before the election.

    However, despite a response that uses the delightfully excitable “digital lynch mobs” and another implying a technically anonymous commentator’s illiteracy, Mr. Rosenbaum has yet to address the distinction between the argument-ad-Hitlerum as applied to the current president and his predecessor.

    Was there something special about the deranged howling haters against the last resident of the oval office versus the current?

    Either the slurs leveled against Bush do not count, or the Nobel Committee made their choice on factors not limited to the disparagement of Obama.

    Also the point of the award’s devaluing is not addressed either. Mr. Rosenbaum your presumption is that the award was not given for relevant actions on Mr. Obama’s part. Performance of Obama’s critics aside do you feel that is appropriate?

    Comment by Jack — October 9, 2009 @ 12:07 pm | Reply

  15. He got it for his pinpoint use of the Predator Drone

    Comment by charlie finch — October 9, 2009 @ 12:15 pm | Reply

  16. Mr. Rosenbaum:
    “Couldn’t have made a more perfect examle of derangement. You’ve done the haters proud. Did you read my Iran posts, by the way, or have them read to you?”

    Have I now?
    If I for one minute thought that any criticism of Obama or the grovelling worshipfulness of his personality cult could be taken for anything OTHER than deranged racist hatred, I’d be offended.

    Since I’m NOT so inclined, I will take your rebuke as laudatory.

    Transformational politics, Mr. Rosenbaum. Barak Obama is a narcissistic clueless buffoon and his followers are deluded sheep and socialistic thugs…(here’s the “transformational” part: I don’t GAS if they call me a hateful racist for stating so)

    Obama is now free to jet to and fro wearing the Nobel Peace Prize around his neck like a latter day Flavor Flav and his alarm clock.

    I’m sure Ahmedinejad will be QUITE impressed with it.

    Maybe it might even save Israel from Iran’s nuclear weapons…but then again, maybe it won’t.
    And if it doesn’t, then that will relegate the Leftist “popularity contest” farce that the Nobel Peace prize now is to it’s rightful place of meaningless ignominy to which the Trustees of Nobel’s will have made of it.
    So there might be that small benefit from such a horrific price.

    And as to those two courageous men I pointed out who were forsaken by the Nobel committee, I hope that they live long enough to be recognized for their real sacrifice in their own lifetimes…by the departure, whether peaceful or not, of the tyrants who now enslave their nations.

    Comment by Bilgeman — October 9, 2009 @ 12:15 pm | Reply

  17. Allow me to disagree with your main point.

    But first, let me state that I have no sympathy for the rightist and ultrarightist opposition — neither for the way they think nor for the way they act. There is, doubtlessly, a dangerous angry and/or lunatic fringe that cannot be called really democratic nor conservative in the US, but rather fascistic, religiously fundamentalist and so on.

    However, the Norwegians that award the Prize have recently given it twice to persons who, among other things, clearly represented the anti-Bush: Carter and Gore. Now, in this sense, Obama is, from their point of view, the real thing, not only a symbolic opposition to what they hated in Bush.

    I think that’s the point: those who award the prize approve of a certain America and disapprove of another one. The America they disapprove of strongly is not only represented by the extreme and noisy right, but also by most conservatives, moderates, centrists. Coming to think of it, not even Clinton qualified for them, and it wasn’t because of Monica Lewinski.

    What’s their real trouble with a certain view of America? Well, America is not a social democratic welfare state. This, however, is not only the model they happen to prefer, but the only one they consider right, fair etc. But, since the US has managed to function well and even outperform them while rejecting their model, the American centre-right way contradicts and obsesses them. Besides, were it not for America’s success, a united Europe would be a much stronger and influential player in the world. Thus, whoever represents the right America and, in some way, fights the wrong one cannot but be seen with good eyes by them. Do you have any doubt that that’s the way they see Obama, that’s what they expect from him?

    Now, I really am as anti-Nazi as you are and I consider the American extremists despicable. I can understand if those Norwegians too despise and fear them. Open anti-semitism was one of real Nazism’s central characteristics. I’d really take their anti-nazism more seriously if they had given the prize to someone who actually fights Judeophobia in openly anti-semitic governments like the Iranian one. By the way: what are the chances of institutions like Yad Vashem or the ADL getting the prize?

    The American madmen and extremists are disgusting and wrong. But I think Obama would have been given the prize even if they didn’t exist. From the point of view of many ultraliberals, there’s no difference between these people and the Bush administration.

    Comment by nelson — October 9, 2009 @ 12:19 pm | Reply

  18. …right, blame or should I say play the victim.

    there is no plausible reason to give obuma the peace prize. so why do you think you can blame the opponents of obuma policies.

    he has increased the racial tension in the USA

    he has divided the entire nation deeper then it was.

    he has given Iran a pass on developing nucs.

    he has done nothing to promote peace in Iraq or Afganistan.

    he has divided the USA from it’s allies.

    sure the nobel prizes are often given to terrorists, so why didn’t William Ayers get one ?

    Comment by George S. — October 9, 2009 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  19. “Consider the timing. On one level it might have been designed to influence the Afghan decision.”

    No kidding. In all likelihood the framers of the Constitution had something of the sort in mind when they wrote Article 1, Section 9 (google it up yourself), which forbids any sitting president from accepting an award such as this.

    No doubt you’d prefer to think of that as the hate-filled machinations of a pre-emptive “digital lynch mob”. Go ahead, make the case. If anyone’s up to the task, you are.

    Comment by marymcl — October 9, 2009 @ 1:37 pm | Reply

  20. Rush isn’t fat.

    Comment by PM — October 9, 2009 @ 2:17 pm | Reply

  21. As what seems to becoming standard for Ron Rosenbaum he self contradicts and blames everyone for everything…

    “The worldwide web circulation of pictures of thuggish goons carrying guns (yes I know it’s legal, it’as also incredibly stupid)”

    Yes forbid anyone from using, displaying, enjoying or exercising they’re constitutional rights… I mean its not like thats something important or anything… and we all know your not talking about those fine upstanding citizens of obama “civilian police force” that were outside voter booths to ensure ppl voted correctly…

    I mean hell while were at banning and discouraging ppl from exercising they’re rights we should prevent them from speaking out against anything obama says or does… Speech after all is far more dangerous and deadly then any weapon one can carry on they’re person.

    “the kind of violence in the rhetoric of the anonymous cowards who spill their bile–behind their cowardly anonymity–in the comments section.”

    Well thats pretty standard for the left-wing… now us evil right-wingers we have no need to hide. I will gladly meet anyone on the field of battle and wield a range of weapons from knives(not those toothpick 8″ either were talking things like 13″ small fighting knives) to any ranges of projectile weapons.

    “Finally I think it was the Hitler mustaches on the Obama posters. Norway is a nation that was invaded by and lived under Hitler’s rule. Sweden was threatened into neutrality.

    Yeah… history is just not your friend. Sweden accepted neutrality by choice… they could have fought but like the UK, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Lux, Belgium and others. They did everything they could like every other country on that list to find a “peaceful” solution to the Hitler “problem”.

    “I wouldn’t blame them for wanting to rebuke these hysterical whiners trivializing Nazism”

    I’m not seeing much “rebuking” here. Hitler was well known for being a man of peace. Only those poorly educated in history believe otherwise. In fact it is very surprising that Hitler didn’t win the peace prize. He of course got the Olympics… so I guess it evens out. Their is also little doubt that Nazism is trivialized today. If Hitler were to run on the similar platform as he did back in his day its likely he would win the democrat party without any problem and likely the White House. To call a Nazi a Nazi or a Communist a Communist is borderline taboo in today’s world. In fact many run on such platform with great success in both the US and Europe.

    “before they unleashed some nut with a gun who took their frothing seriously.”

    Well it is well known the Left likes they’re lone gunmen… they also love to target anyone who even leans to the right. Which is why I don’t understand the whole argument… the chance that “President” Obama would be killed by anyone illegally is pretty slim. Now should it turn out that obama is not president well then yeah he’s got things to worry about… but if he’s not president then he won’t be killed as a president so the whole argument is moot. The chance of a right winger killing a president of the US is near 0 and since obama is left wing you don’t have to worry about left wingers targeting him who have attacked and killed or tried to kill many presidents in history.

    I also must agree that comparing Hitler to obama is a bit much… Hitler after all fought in WW1 and won awards for bravery… obama dodged the draft and has proven to be insanely cowardly and spineless. Another major difference was that Hitler loved Germany and thought it was great… obama hates the US.

    So the arguments that Hitler is anything like obama in many respects are wrong… now if we just stuck to say economic, social, health care, racist, anti-jew, anti-capitalism, elitist ideology then yeah they are pretty much the same… but who really judges ppl based on THOSE things anymore… a quick view of the color of ones skin is all thats needed to learn who the victimized are and who the oppresses are.

    Comment by robotech master — October 9, 2009 @ 2:21 pm | Reply

  22. At the end of his diatribe, Robotech master wrote:
    I also must agree that comparing Hitler to obama is a bit much… Hitler after all fought in WW1 and won awards for bravery… obama dodged the draft and has proven to be insanely cowardly and spineless. Another major difference was that Hitler loved Germany and thought it was great… obama hates the US.

    So the arguments that Hitler is anything like obama in many respects are wrong… now if we just stuck to say economic, social, health care, racist, anti-jew, anti-capitalism, elitist ideology then yeah they are pretty much the same… but who really judges ppl based on THOSE things anymore… a quick view of the color of ones skin is all thats needed to learn who the victimized are and who the oppresses are.

    Hmmmmm, is any of the criticism of Obama over the top? Well, you decide.

    Comment by Dwight — October 9, 2009 @ 3:57 pm | Reply

  23. To 20. Dwight

    “Hmmmmm, is any of the criticism of Obama over the top? Well, you decide.”

    I already put this in there for ppl just like you… maybe you missed it…

    “To call a Nazi a Nazi or a Communist a Communist is borderline taboo in today’s world.”

    Comment by robotech master — October 9, 2009 @ 4:23 pm | Reply

  24. RTM wrote;
    I already put this in there for ppl just like you… maybe you missed it…

    “To call a Nazi a Nazi or a Communist a Communist is borderline taboo in today’s world.”

    And THAT explains and justifies everything you said, eh? If you can’t see that the wacky attacks on Obama actually win him more support overall from reasonable people, then what else can I say?

    Comment by Dwight — October 9, 2009 @ 5:17 pm | Reply

  25. By your logic, Rosie O’Donnell’s metalurgy expertise serving to attack Bush should have put the world at his feet. Do you really believe that the rest of the world engages with our part of the blogosphere? Good heavens, they might be contaminated by an idea.

    Comment by vb — October 9, 2009 @ 7:01 pm | Reply

  26. To 22. Dwight

    Need I say it again since clearly you are very poorly educated….

    “To call a Nazi a Nazi or a Communist a Communist is borderline taboo in today’s world.”

    I really wonder if you understand what a “reasonable person” is…

    Comment by robotech master — October 9, 2009 @ 8:23 pm | Reply

  27. “To call a Nazi a Nazi or a Communist a Communist is borderline taboo in today’s world.”

    The problem is, most Americans are clueless on this subject and really have no idea what a Nazi or Communist really is.

    Like the people who called Bush a Nazi a few years back.

    And the people who are calling Obama a communist today.

    Comment by Dave 2 — October 9, 2009 @ 9:33 pm | Reply

  28. robo master wrote “obama dodged the draft”

    What world do you live in? Obama was born August 4, 1961. The draft ended in 1973. So Obama was a draft dodger at age 12? Lol.

    Could you possibly have Obama confused with Bush or Cheney?

    Comment by Dave 2 — October 9, 2009 @ 9:39 pm | Reply

  29. “If you can’t see that the wacky attacks on Obama actually win him more support overall from reasonable people,…”

    Let me get this straight. A reasonable person would be more supportive of someone because someone else has said bad things about that person? This is your definition of reasonable?

    I do tire of Mr. Rosenbaum’s obsession with those who don’t use their real names on the internet. There are many and varied reasons why people don’t use their real names. I won’t go into them all, but some are good and valid reasons. None of us can be sure anyone is even using their own real names even if they’re using a real name. But hey, I don’t have to keep coming here and read this blog. I choose to come here. I figure someday maybe I’ll understand why it’s okay for him to snarl and sneer with the same vehemence he bemoans simply because he’s using his real name.

    Some here have it right though. Mr. Rosenbaum’s premise here is flawed. If it were the Hitler mustaches that pushed Norway into selecting Obama then George Bush should have won a Nobel eight years straight.

    The Nobel prize lost it’s shine many years ago. I’d say right about the time it was awarded to Arafat. It means squat now. My only reaction when hearing about it yesterday morning was, “Meh.” If my favorite person in the world won it, I’d lose respect for them if they didn’t refuse it.

    Comment by J Milam — October 10, 2009 @ 3:26 am | Reply

  30. Good point concerning the role the right wing haters played in getting Obama his prize, but I worry the prize will impact Obama’s Afghanistan quagmire policies in quite the opposite way you imagine here. Obama has surrounded himself with advisers telling him to increase troops and the prize allows him to fantasize that when he increases COIN operations in Afghanistan, that he is somehow fighting for peace.

    Comment by doug t — October 10, 2009 @ 5:46 am | Reply

  31. Ron, has it occurred to you that your fixation on hate, your constant use of the word, is more a reflection on you then those you criticize. It is Ron, the spew of your own hate which may be boiling the remnants of your brain. You really seem to be going psycho, not much else to say but do try a change of pace, of approach, of that famous liberal tolerance which seems to have disappeared.

    Comment by johnt — October 10, 2009 @ 7:29 am | Reply

  32. I’m bewildered by the award and impressed by Obama’s speech. Mickey Kaus on Slate argues that Obama needn’t have accepted the award, and perhaps that would have been the most honorable thing to do, considering the Nobel committee didn’t give a reason for their decision. To Obama’s credit, his speech is gentlemanly and modest–“I accept this award as a call to action”–and even manages to make a little sense from the committee’s decision by floating it in the efforts of “all those who fight for dignity and justice.” Still, while the ferocity of some of his enemies is bemusing (isn’t the contention not that he’s enacted leftist policies, but that he hasn’t really done much yet?), I think it’s stretch to say that the uninhibited and sometimes violent rudeness of right-wingers prompted the choice. It might rather be seen as kind of knighting, like the gift of the Garter or the Fleur-de-lis, to cement, or propose, an alliance based on shared values, i.e. “Mr. Obama, we trust you. Do the right thing.”

    Comment by Zach Hunter — October 10, 2009 @ 12:02 pm | Reply

  33. I have to defend Obama’s honor (lol) against the charge of draft dodging. Obama did register with the Selective Service as required by law, and he was not drafted because there was no draft by the time he turned 18 (in 1977). His ass would have been bounced out of any branch of the military if he had tried to join on account of drug use, but he’s no draft dodger.

    Comment by myth buster — October 10, 2009 @ 3:52 pm | Reply

  34. Doesn’t the timing after the Copenhagen rejections seem odd? Did the Nobel Committee just decide last week, and was shoring up Obama the real reason he got the prize? And all this “we didn’t know it was coming stuff ” seem a little fraudulent? I think everything Obama does is manufactured by his team. There is no evidence that he ever deliberates on policy. His statement early in his Presidency that most decisions are made before they reached his desk seemed fanciful, but look who’s tweaking the health care bill behind closed doors: Harry Reid, not Obama? Looks who’s jousting in public over Afghanistan: General McChrystal (right out of a Keith Moon routine for those cpnversant with the Who box set) speaks ad hoc in London. Doughboy Jim Jones refutes him on “Meet the Press” and then, a day after his prostate troubles are revealed and articles describe the devolution of his public role, Genereal Petraeus gives a tour de force speech in front of a US Army private institution that summarizes the security state of the world. Where’s Obama? Listening to his wife talk about her family life in Denmark, a speech which sealed the deal for Rio. Obama looks authentic but the day may come when people see that he may be entirely canned.

    Comment by charlie finch — October 10, 2009 @ 4:11 pm | Reply

  35. I just watched the clip of Mark Halperin on “Morning Joe” comparing Obama’s Nobel to Marisa Tomei’s Oscar win (when supposedly the wrong winner was read) right after it was announced, followed by Rahm Emmanual emailing the idiot Scarborough that he is an “a-hole” which the sexy newreader reads off the computer while Zbig’s daughter watches. You know it’s all a set up, especially the Nobel, and we are the suckers, giving our “opinions” about David Letterman

    Comment by charlie finch — October 10, 2009 @ 5:31 pm | Reply

  36. If the Obama-haters are the reason why the Nobel committee gave Obama the Nobel prize, then why is it that Bush didn’t win one himself? After all, Bush, was referred to (and in many different forms) as Hitler, his haters foamed at the mouth (and on more occasions than can be mentioned for many different reasons) in public, and his haters hid behind anonymity.

    Your argument simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    Comment by turfmonster — October 10, 2009 @ 6:17 pm | Reply

  37. If Obama’s award was achieved in a political vacuum you’d have a stronger case, Ron. But it comes in the wake of Jimmy Carter’s win in 2003, and Al Gore’s victory in 2007.

    Carter won at the same time he was a major critic of George W. Bush’s War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq, even though the award was not ostensibly for that. Al Gore won at the same time he was a major critic of Bush’s foreign policy and economic and environmental policies. And Obama won on Friday because he was seen as the channel by which Bush’s policies would be reversed.

    The Nobel committee didn’t look at any guns, or hate speech, or even Fred Arimsen’s Saturday Night Live skit a week ago and decide “Golly, that’s pretty mean to Mr. Obama, especially after the Olympic Committee snub. Let’s give him the Peace Prize.” They would have done it anyway, because over the past six years the award had already morphed into the Nobush Peace Prize.

    Comment by John — October 10, 2009 @ 7:28 pm | Reply

  38. To 27. myth buster

    There is some doubt as to if obama really did sign his selective service form when he turned 18 vs when he ran for senate.

    Comment by robotech master — October 10, 2009 @ 8:35 pm | Reply

  39. This is the funniest column I’ve read in quite some time. What hate? The right is DELIGHTED with this award. What better way to highlight and lampoon the vapid president that is Barak Obama? We are laughing our asses off!

    Comment by Kate Ludlow — October 11, 2009 @ 4:42 am | Reply

  40. If you think Europeans follow American politics this closely, you may be just as provincial and uneducated as you accuse conservatives to be. The world does not revolve around the latest obsessions in Washington.

    Comment by El Gordo — October 18, 2009 @ 4:20 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: