About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

CBS' Chip Reid asks Gibbs whether Obama "consider[ed] turning" Nobel Prize "down," suggests award is "a partisan thing" and Nobel Committee "supports liberal causes"

October 09, 2009 1:15 pm ET

From the October 9 White House press briefing, as aired on MSNBC:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dmhack (October 09, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
      7  
      Yes, the award and the committee are clearly partisan---they are on the side of peace.

      The Peace Prize is not a lifetime achievement award as some people seem to believe. It's an award that promotes the ideal of peace. If that's a liberal cause, then what's the conservative cause... hate and war?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 09, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
        1  
        "what's the conservative cause... hate and war?


        Well, David Brooks did once describe some on the right as, "pro-life, pro-war." That one made my head spin, but I guess I'm an inferior mind, bugabooed by foolish consistancy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kfraz43 (October 09, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
          2  
          "A human life is a precious thing. Right up until the birth."

          It's such a bizarre dichotomy that you would think some of them would have caught on to it by now, but the "war filter" creates a strange vacuum:

          - American military deaths are not real deaths
          - military personnel are assets, not real people
          - money spent on the military is not real money
          - deficits incurred by war are not real deficits
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Sharpe (October 09, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
          1  
          The GOP an be defined by the three G's - anti-Gay, pro-Guns, pro-God and they use those 3 to figure the rest out as it comes up by picking which one works best - mainly god but not always. War is pro-guns and religion in political discourse and war has gotten so twisted that somehow fighting whoever the "enemies" are seems to be some kind of we are doing what god would want us to do garbage even though I think jesus would have fainted if he heard that one. Pro-life can be because of pro-god obviously. anti-global warming i think is the same as pro-creationism, they warped the bible into preaching that the environment is fine. Then, reagan added the whole tiny government so capitalism which is based on greed can run free and rampant and the rich can get as rich as possible. And I think thats that - every other talking point is just utter nonsense and garbage, playing on fears to try to obtain party consensus and fitting something above into whatever the current party line is - like tax reform could have been seen as tax cuts but Bush made them cuts and for the rich so it went along the line of decreased taxes and supporting the richest in the country.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sharpe (October 09, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
            1  
            And spending to support war and a new branch of security is fine because it trumps the hatred for government spending if they really sell it well which is one thing they do well - when they lie, damn do they lie - wmds/al queda/9-11 and Iraq were probably said in the same sentence in some combination thousands upon thousands of times each year bush was in office. But healthcare reform - shut down because too much spending which is like a drop in the bucket compared to two wars, tax cuts and homeland security. wall street reform - we cannot take away capitalism at all no matter how greedy they get because then, we will be the USSR under stalin over night. Reagan just took like 5 talking points, fit them with anything he wanted to do and the republicans are using the exact same lines today except with a little more insane throw in for good measure.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (October 09, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
              2  
              Exactly. We could have paid for health care for YEARS if we didn't occupy Iraq AND we'd have 5,000 fewer unnecessary war deaths and 220,000 fewer unnecessary deaths due to lack of available health care.

              Who's really the party of life?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by stefiz (October 09, 2009 2:23 pm ET)
          2
        yes, that is exactly what the conservative cause has always been!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (October 09, 2009 10:50 pm ET)
          1  
          Neocons, please.

          I know of no current Conservatives (at least who make the "knews")
          Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (October 09, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
      5  
      Well, Chip may have a point, it will be seen as a negative thing by the rednecks who hate the phrase "citizen of the world", but I find them embarrassing. If President Obama had turned down the Nobel Peace Prize, he would have been seen as an arrogant American who spit in the face of the world.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (October 09, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
      5  
      Oh chip what a dip you are.
      if you think that the committed supports libreals cause. well think about that>>>> it is a PEACE Prize after all so i guess it would be liberal.

      But where did you come up with that question. I hope Gibbs just laugh at you and moved on.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (October 09, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
      4  
      Of course a "peace prize" is a liberal thing. I'm sure when they finally recognize aggression and give prizes for it, the right will be rewarded and not the left.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mikelartist (October 09, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
      2  
      Seriously, where to they find idiots like this? You have to wonder if some of these journalists have been up drinking all night because they couldn't be that uniformed. Could they?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by thundavolt (October 09, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
      1  
      What roof do they have that he was nominated just before he was sworn in? He cold have been nominated last year for all we know. Is that just a way to compare him to Presidents?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (October 09, 2009 1:55 pm ET)
      2  
      This is a perfect example along with Guthries(MSNBC) of the "liberal" media bending over backward to whatever the right says. I can't begin to express the outrage I have of these overpaid so called journalist. "This will widen the partisan divide?" I guess the birthers, the tenthers,the tea-baggers or whatever nut of the day who comes out in oppostion to the president will never have to worry about their motives being questioned it's always the "left" that polarizes and divides. MMFA characterized the MSM perfectly when it said whenever the right wing say jump the MSM say how high.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 09, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
        1  
        Old newsroom saw: "If it bleeds, it leads." Reasoned discourse doesn't televise well. The more idiotic you are, the more likely you are to get your agenda covered.

        Even Edward R. Murrow did that embarrassing, Person to Person show.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mwjarv (October 09, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
      4  
      What answers did Reid think he was going to get? I was unaware that CBS was into bringing oppositional talking points into the White House Press Room.

      The 24 hour news cycle is not helping this country. It slowly cages everyone in and leaves no room for thought and reflection.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (October 09, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
        1
      The USSR collapsing does not mean that whoever was in power at the time gets the credit. Plus, the economic collapse is not something that should result in rewarding the enemy of that country - not seeing that at all.

      I wish obama would give it away to someone that has passed away or dedicate the prize in their honor because he really hasnt done anything to get it yet. This will just end up being another thing that he will now somehow have to prove worthy of getting. I think there is enough pressure on the right side without adding that whole thing to their arsenal but im sure we will be hearing about this every day for i don't know 2 years or so.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (October 09, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
      3  
      I'm sorry, but when idiotic people start interjecting our country's RIDICULOUS "us v. them" debate into the international realm . . . GIVE ME A BREAK! The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by the Nobel Committee . . . a SWEDISH/NORWEGIAN organization. It has nothing to do with the STUPID political clubs of this country and does not CARE.

      stupid, stupid, stupid people.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 09, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
        3  
        Rush has come full circle in just a couple of hours. First of all, Obama didn't deserve the award (Rush siding with the Taliban and Hamas, as has been noted); now it's a sinister plot by those elite Norweigians (radios going off all over Minnesota) to "motivate him to keep doing what he's doing." So, he does deserve it after all.

        How long does it take the MMFA interns, or whatever, who have to listen to Rush's whole program, to burn out? I wouldn't last a day.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jmille426471 (October 09, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
      1  
      I didn't know the democratic party had so much support in Norway...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (October 10, 2009 1:50 am ET)
      2  
      To begin with, what kind of a self-respecting journalist answers to such an annoyingly preppie name as chip?

      All the Chipster did here was spout reich wing talking points in the barely disguised for of questions. Who is he, the corespondent from the RNC? And then he quickly devolves into concern troll, as he frets about mythical Democrats being upset at Obamas Nobel recognition.

      Chip, once again, has demonstrated what a dishonest yuppie putz he really is.
      Report Abuse