RedState's Erickson smears Obama's Nobel Peace Prize as "an affirmative action quota"
October 09, 2009 8:53 am ET by Media Matters staff
From Erickson's October 9 RedState.com blog post:
Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: He's Becoming Jimmy Carter Faster Than Jimmy Carter Did.
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Friday, October 9th at 8:22AM EDT
6 Comments
I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news.
Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
The deadline for nominations was two weeks after he was sworn in as President.
So in less than two weeks of entering office, Obama did something to qualify. What was it? Not closing Gitmo? Continuing the Bush administration's policies in the War on Terror but no longer using the name? Or pronouncing a policy of abject American capitulation to our enemies?
The Peace Prize reaffirms it s a joke. But now a sad joke.
Somewhere Bill Clinton's head just exploded.
Beck hates them all. (Most neocons only hate the last three.)
Awarding Pres.Obama the prize is "like awarding a student an "A" grade for studying for the test...without actually having to take the test".
That pretty well sums up the career of Obama...a great big hat and durn few cattle.
Grow up . . . just because your "team captains" Rush, Sean, et al, are telling you that you have to hate this man because he's on the wrong team doesn't mean that you should hate our country.
He has accomplished little in his career but win a few elections and give great speeches that are long on promise and short on delivery.
Reminds me of the dog that chased the same car that passed in front of his yard for years and then one day caught it...and was faced with the sobering thought...now what the heck do I do with it?
Awarding Pres.Obama...like giving the same award to Arafat...just points out the impotence and irrelevancy of the Nobel group. It's their award and they can do as they deem fit...my criticism of their award has nothing to do with hating anyone.
This is why he won. Has nothing to do with his accomplishments to date. Understand the reasoning.
For the record, Obama was just as surprised as most folks.
Oh, and Wesley, I've read your posts. His policies are very moderate . . . you hate the policies that your heroes are telling you are radical . . . they are not. Admit it . . . you hate Obama for who he is. A black Democrat in the White House.
He won based upon things he has done.
And do you really think that the only time that he's being judged upon is since he was inaugurated? That nothing he said during the campaign might have influenced the decision?
Again, you're delusional at best.
That's just it. In your first comment you didn't criticize the award you criticized the MAN(President Obama). Don't attempt to change your stance now that you've just noticed the error of your criticism.
I have plenty of criticism for Pres.Obama and the Nobel group.
Pres.Obama is undeserving and the award has become a farce...and neither criticism has anything to do with hate...and everything to do with a my dislike for their agendas.
From their announcement
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.
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.
-----------------------------
;)
:-)
But it's fun to watch. :-)
This is but stupid and racist. Plain and simple and I'll explain why.
Obviously this awarding of this prize IS purely political. There no question, and the committee admitted as much, that this was NOT for anything that Obama has accomplished thus far. No one is in disagreement there.
But their motivation had nothing at all to do with race. And to suggest it did, ignores the far more obvious political motivation of making this decision: It is a clear repudiation of the Bush administration and their unilateral anti-diplomatic policies. You can question that judgement all you want, but what you can't do is argue it on the basis of race.
That's just dumb.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your text to link here...Just my take.
This is a man of hope and peace and all they can say "there is no upside [to winning the Nobel Prize for President Obama]. They want us to believe this is an Affirmative Action and there is no upside? What the hell are they talking about? Better yet, on what planet do they spend most of their time on? The Nobel Peace Prize is a world honor and recognition and has 1 million dollars attached to it. These idiots are envious and mad that Obama is nothing like they define him.
They claim Obama is this and that, but Obama defines himself. He said he was a man of peace. Now he has the Nobel Peace Prize to booster his position. It’s the idiots on Talk TV and Radio who calls Obama naive, but how often are they right? I submit to you that they are wrong most of the time. This is another example.
What has Obama done to win the Nobel Peace Prize? Here's what:
--within a few weeks of taking office, he met personally with leaders in the Middle East and gave several public speeches that affirmed the U.S. was not on a Christian crusade
--he began pulling troops out of Iraq
--he persuaded European nations to start helping out in the war on terror, or whatever they're calling it now
--at the 2009 G-8 summit he signalled that the U.S. is willing to start working on the problem of climate change, and he openly admitted that the political climate here at home was going to make his chore very difficult indeed
--he persuaded the European nations, many of which were highly reluctant, to help shore up the financial system so that we weren't the only ones spending money on that problem
--he hosted the recent G-20 summit during which he persuaded the heads of various nuclear nations to start working toward a nuclear-free world.
Your list is dotted with "gave public speeches"..."start working on"..."start working toward". While I don't expect Pres.Obama to cure cancer or invoke world peace in 9 months or even 4 years...his track record suggests that he won't actually finish any of the "accomplishments" that you cite.
But the previous poster was wrong. It's really wasn't given based upon much of anything that Obama has done while in office. It was given to him as a proactive award to encourage behavior like his. They believe that his vision of a better world is the important part!
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-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.
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.
This is the reason he was chosen. BTW, you are aware that since taking office, all of his efforts to work with Republicans, as he promised, have been met with "No." It is their intent, as stated by several Republican members of Congress, to "bring him down." He has accomplished much more than the media and folks like you want to give him credit for . . . the Nobel Committee sees promise in his attempts to get rid of the level of hatred and distrust among nations down to more manageable levels. There will always be strife, but under the last administration, it was racheted up to extremely dangerous levels.
Wesley, you hate the man for what he is, a black Democrat in the White House. His policies are not radical and they are not from the "far left." Do I agree with him on everything . . . not even close, but I also know that he doesn't have horns and a tail like he is being portrayed by your heroes on Fox and hate talk radio.
What you expect in unrealishtic and stupid. The Nobel Peace Prize is in recognition to Obama's approach to peace in the world, unlike that demon Bush, who stood for war. As far as Obama being a "weak finisher", I'm sure you don't realize how stupid that sounds. Obama has dedicated his life to peace, and he is not even half way through his first term in office. The fact is Obama has done more to bring about peace than any other President in modern history. Other President wanted to be bullies. Bullies are not peaceful people.
Fox News is making idiots out of the people who watch them.
Very true, but he will get none of it from Republicans, Fox "News," or talk radio.
Wes, your point here is totally undermined by your other point that he really HAS no track record!
I'm fine with the "too soon" people - I would have prefered that this award come in 4-8 years as a reward for accomplishments, rather than goals.
But the fact is that the goals (and his tactics to achieve them) are 180 degrees truned around from the goals and tactics of his predeccessor. And changing the DIRECTION of a country as big and powerful as the US is, in and of itself, an accomplishment.
I think that Obama supporters (including the man himself) who are a bit suprised, and maybe even a bit embarrassed by this have a point. I thnk his critics are just whining like they alwasy do whenever someone points out that they're all a bunch of lying, greedy, cowardly jackassasses.
Waaah! The MEDIA's biased! Waaah! ACADEMIA's biased!Waaah! The SCIENTISTS are biased! Waaah! The NOBEL COMMITTEE's biased!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you ever stop to think that the reason the whole world is against you guys is not because their biased, but rather that you're just WRONG?!
"But the fact is that the goals (and his tactics to achieve them) are 180 degrees truned around from the goals and tactics of his predeccessor. And changing the DIRECTION of a country as big and powerful as the US is, in and of itself, an accomplishment."
Exactly. Because we cause more death and destruction than just about everybody else combined.
Just as importantly, it truly is what the committee bases it's decision on. From their myth busting list posted here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibu-kfROlVhexdt7vLCBR7KGa1gwD9B7CB282
_ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.
More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.
Teddy Rosevelt, the 1906 winner of the Peace Prize said:
"Any man can withstand adversity, if you really want to test a man's character, give him power."
Obama has shown he has the character to handle the power given to him. Those of us who voted for him cannot expect success without continued grassroots support.
So, now Obama is already finished? Yeah, that's a reasonable analysis.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/09/world/AP-EU-Nobel-Peace-Citation.html?_r=1
This is why they made their decision. I think that you are the very first person I've ever seen claim that working for PEACE is a "lefty" value.
Give the false ACORN story a rest, could you? Your hero Bill broke the law by sexually harassing Andrea Makris . . . does that mean that Fox is a criminal group for continuing to allow him to work for them? Get a life, fairliberal . . . walk AWAY from your television. There's a real world out there and it's NOTHING like the one that they describe to you on Fox 24/7. Go get some fresh air . . . sitting on the couch watch Fox 24/7 is not healthy for either the mind or body.
ACORN'S call to arms seems to be the phrase "social justice," ( a phrase coined by Karl Marx by the way)but exactly how has that worked out for the poor. The people who get the most "help" from the federal government are blacks and Native Americans. Look at what they have done to those communities with their "help."
Please provide a link or two in support of all this. I don't believe your statistics.
To these far right loons, that IS criminal activity.
If you're going to bring up ACORN, remember that it is an acronym, and should be all caps. Also, unless there have been convictions that I am not aware of, calling them criminal is a lie.
So what? How else would you work towards world peace, OTHER than politically?
Dropping bombs on everyone who doesn't worship you? We tried that. Didn't work out to well, did it?
Why do you always come here with NOTHING?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll give you credit though, Fair... You do keep coming back. You're like a naked firefighter: woefully underequipped, but you can't help but admire the enthusiasm.
Once again President Obama has done himself proud. I travel the world a lot and it is clear that the people of the world appreciate and respect President Obama for his integrity, intelligence, unselfishness and genuine desire to make the world a better place and form a more perfect union. And now the Nobel Committee validates his commitment to a better world.
What surprises me is that the Republicans hate this man so much. Even though he tries to include them in the process and the discussions we are having, they have to vilify him. It strikes me that President Obama should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to strengthen national diplomacy and form a more perfect union.
But the zombie Republicans march on with only one purpose - to oppose everything Barack Obama tries to accomplish, even if it is in their best interest. The zombie Republicans fail to realize that in their irrational opposition to President Obama they are putting themselves on the wrong side of the issues that threaten to destroy the world and therefore have become not only the enemies of America, but of the world.
This is why he won.
One has to be a leading voice to help resolve conflict in the world. That's a substantial action.
He has energized the world community in a way that seemed unlikely after Bush did so much damage and lost so much goodwill capital because of his actions.
Read the Committee's reasoning for his selection.
And, yes, you hate his guts.
BTW, just because you disagree with the selections doesn't make THEM the joke. Just saying.
_ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.
More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.
Obama was rewarded because of his vision and his attitude.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibu-kfROlVhexdt7vLCBR7KGa1gwD9B7CB282
Oh, and this was a story online hours before Obama's award was announced.
Cheers!
As for the Nobel Peace Prize, you do understand that he was nominated after his election because whoever nominated him thought he might prove himself worthy of the award by the time it came to hand it out, right? He wasn't nominated based on what he had already done, but on his campaign, and on what he pledged to do. That he has followed through, and reached out to the international community, in nuclear arms reduction among many other things, only shows that whoever nominated him was right to do so. The Nobel Committee is hoping to encourage President Obama in his stated goals, and I for one stand with him.
This is like the strawman argument that since Obama hasn't been able to force the Republicans to act in a bipartisan way that he has failed. The failure is on the part of the Republicans, and all that we can expect of Obama is to do whatever he can to foster bipartisanship, which he clearly has done. He has shown that he will be a leading voice to help resolve conflict. That's what they are rewarding here.
This is why he won. I don't know anyone who worships Barack Obama . . . that scenario is a fiction of Fox and the hate talk radio disc jockeys. Come out into the real world, stalker . . er, starkcr.
And, I will say again, just because someone disagrees with your phony conservatism doesn't mean they are liberal, just means that they recognize your phony conservatism and disagree with it. Also, neither "liberal" nor "conservative" are pejorative or conversely, complimentary, words and for you to constantly use them as such shows how uninformed you are.
Personally, I'm sick of phony conservatives constantly attacking anyone who loves their country enough to accept it for what it is, warts and all. Pretending that it is perfect does not elevate it to perfection and sets it up for absolute failure.
Our Founders also abhorred the thought of 20th and 21st century America's distibutive(collectivist, socialistic)naure. They warned of the citizenry using the treasury to loot their fellow citizens. Whether it be rich stealing from poor or vice versa. This is Obama's vision though. The founders favored private charity, markets, local communities, and civil society as instituions to help those in need. They rejected the coercion of the state in these matters. They were classical liberals as opposed to state- worshipping modern liberals.
The Old Republic has been dead for a long time. We have only the last vestiges of it. Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville and others warned that if the federal government alone( whether it be the executive, legislative, or judicial,) decided what was constituional, that the federal branch would inevitably justify consolidation of power into the federal branch. They warned that the constitution would just be a revered relic that would be, in effect, a blank sheet of paper. That is exactly what has happened.
Leftist intellectuals sometimes like to crow that we live under a shadow constitution in their journals( They would never openly explain this to the rubes though, of course.) They are sadly right. The constitutional law studied and taught today in most classrooms has everything to do with precedent (often precedent of judges hostile to the limitations placed on the federal government by our original constitution), and case law, and has almost nothing to do with the original intent of our founding document.
In a time when it took months, not minutes, to travel all the way around the world. A time when surgeons and barbers were equivalent. A time when cannon and sail still ruled the sea. A time when powered flight, let alone travel to the moon, was a fantasy. A time when news traveled very slowly, and things changed very slowly. A time before the industrial revolution.
The principles are the founding fathers believed in, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been expanded. They have become more inclusive. Not all the founding fathers even recognized slaves as people, as fellow human beings.
They balanced three arms of the federal government against each other, trying to prevent the very thing the Bush/Cheney administration was intent on: vesting power solely in one branch. The vote has been extended to men and women of every color who are citizens, whether by birth or adoption. I think America grows better over time, and our best days are yet ahead of us.
Your ability to understand is very, very weak. Your ability to take comments out of context is superb.
And can you provide an example of an actual insult to our country? There has to be a way of criticizing policy without insulting the country, surely.
They have budgeted over $700 billion in economic stimulus, and have spent around 10% of it. Your efforts to re-write history and move the goal are what's hilarious, starkcr31.
The economic stimulus didn't have unnecessary pork in it for the most part. It was all economic stimulus and only projects that could be justified by people other than the districts in which those projects were going to happen were approved. That's the exact opposite of pork.
Again, the projects were not pork and were the opposite of pork.
And the gang tattoo removal wasn't in the stimulus bill, and helping people get paying jobs by removing gang tattoos is going to help the economy. Every person with a paying job spends that money at local businesses, who then spend their profits at local businesses and it goes on and on.
It's an anti-crime bill - I thought you righty's all thought that any anti-crime bill was good?
But, as usual, nuance escapes you. That's what happens when one is delusional I guess. It was pretty simple for me to do the research and debunk this smear - why didn't you do it before you threw out the smear? Delusional to the end.
If you had to borrow $100 today from a friend to pay a bill, and pay back $110 next week when you got your paycheck, or you waited until next week, and had to pay $125 for that same bill, which would be better for your pocketbook? Borrowing money today to play the bill would clearly be better. Borrowing money to stimulate the economy to stop us from having a depression was well-spent money.
And when they estimated that the unemployment rate would stay under 10%, it was before they had seen the horrible numbers from the last quarter of 2008. Their estimates were accurate given the info they had, and it's clear that given those poor results from the end of 2008, it's amazing how well the stimulus has done to keep the unemployment rate as low as it is.
And when one thinks that we almost had a depression, and now we're hearing that the recession likely ended this summer, that's a pretty fast recovery, considering! The stimulus clearly did a lot of good, and since we almost had a depression, we still need that ongoing stimulus funding, so no, we don't stop it now and crash back down.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/09/world/AP-EU-Nobel-Peace-Citation.html?_r=1
But I agree with you on one point, GWB had a problem with spending too. It doesn't get BHO off of the hook...he's in charge now.
If our economy had been allowed to go from recession to depression, it would have cost our economy hugely. Lost jobs, lost profits, losses through foreclosure and bankruptcy much worse than they are today.
There is necessary spending, like this stimulus bill, and there is unnecessary spending, like what Bush did.
Remember, Bush gave tax cuts we could ill afford, and then after our economy entered a recession after 9/11, he pushed another round when it was clear that it would cause deficit spending. He wanted to make those tax cuts permanent, for cripes sake! He wanted to cripple government.
Obama, on the other hand, has clearly stated that he wants to cut the amt that the govt spends and get us back on firmer financial footing. He is pushing healthcare reform for that very reason!
It's going to take a while to undo the damage that Bush did, yet you want to call him a failure when he's just now introduced his first budget!
And yeah, the cost to our economy for the stimulus package is much less than the cost to our economy would have been if we had had a depression!!!! We will all save in the future because we didn't have a depression. As I explained elsewhere, if you have a bill that's coming due, and you borrow $100 to pay it, and then pay it back with $110 the next week when you get a paycheck, that's less than waiting to pay it with your next paycheck and having to pay $125 with a late-payment penalty. That's what would have happened if we'd been penny-wise and pound-foolish with regard to economic stimulus spending! We would have had a much greater cost to our economy, in the long run, had the stimulus (and TARP I and II) not been passed.
On top of that, the first Obama budget had much less reckless spending than Bush's last budget, and according to what I've read, actually is lower than Bush's if one adds in the war expenditures tht Bush dishonestly left off the prior budgets he did.
Your argument has been demolished.
This is not rocket science. It made economic sense in the short term and the long term to prevent a Depression!
What Hatriots these knuckle-walking Reich Wingers are.
It's really sad that there's a righty who thinks that cooperation with others is a bad thing, but then again, we had Josh Bolton as the UN Ambassador that Bush forced into the post.
It's amazing and wonderful that Obama won. Just terrific.
I gave you the reasons cited by the Committee above.
They want to promote this attitude.
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."
And I haven't even mentioned the rhetoric coming out of the Mr. Obama's State Department and Pentagon in regard to Iran's threat to our national security. That country has 1 percent of our annual defence budget and they want me to believe that they are a threat to us? Really?? ( As an aside, has the Patriot Act been repealed? Where is the outrage?)
The only thing positive done of any real substance on the foreign policy front was the decision to reign in the missile defense shield in Europe. That doesn't outweigh his expansion of the warfare state. It seems many of you are willing to overlook and apologize for much of this because the president has a D in front of his name. Mr. Obama's rhetoric is sweeter and much less bellicose than the last Warmonger-in-Chief, but his actions are another matter entirely.
I have read most of the other posts and I would like to say that this site is doubleplusgood. Mr. Orwell would be proud from a strictly predictive view. Instead of his "two minutes of hate" though, we have a "two minutes of phony peace." Mr. Obama will graciously take his bows and the warfare state will continue apace.
Cheers!
And in Iraq? There's a mandate from Iraq to get the US servicemen out - and Obama is doing it faster than he had to do it.
His vision is what is being rewarded here with this award.
Our current presence in Afghanistan is a peacekeeping effort. Withdrawing from Afghanistan would be as dangerous as prematurely withdrawing from Iraq would have been - the country would be plunged into a bloody civil war that would probably result in the violent Taliban or a similar group taking power once again.
Any "belligerence" occurred when we invaded in the first place, which certainly did not occur under the current president's watch. Some, such as myself, would argue that the "belligerence" was both justified and necessary but that is neither here nor there. "Reality", as you put it, dictates that violence in the region will go off the charts if we withdraw.
That's why the continued presence of our troops is characteristic of a "peacekeeping effort." I'd argue that, during the time they were needed, our efforts in Iraq over the past 5 or 6 years were much the same.
Why, Erickson? Actually, just look around the blogosphere and the rest of the media. Why, just look at the comments above. Whose heads are exploding? Wesley, fairliberal, stark, etc. It's the people on your side whose heads are exploding.
Clinton's head and ours are doing just fine, thanks.