Media figures call on Obama to turn down the Nobel Peace Prize
Following the news that President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, numerous media figures have called for him to "turn it down" or "give it back," often asserting that he has not accomplished enough to deserve the prize. On his radio show, Glenn Beck said Obama "has to turn it down. ... [I]t's the only way for him to make a win out of this"; Internet gossip Matt Drudge asked on his website, "Will he turn it down?"; and Michelle Malkin said, "[I]f Obama had an ounce of real humility, he'd refuse to accept the award."
Beck, media say Obama should "turn it down" or "give back" the Prize
Glenn Beck: "Obama has to turn it down. ... It's the only way for him make a win out of this." On his October 9 radio show, Beck said: "Let me give you my rundown on this Obama Nobel Prize. First of all, he has to turn it down -- because it is such a joke -- that he'll turn it down and it's the only way for him make a win out of this. Only his arrogance will stop him from doing it. But I can guarantee you that there are people that are saying right now, you got to turn it down, you got to turn it down, you got to turn it down. ... So I believe that's what he'll do. I mean -- I can't say -- his arrogance is so incredible." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 10/9/09]
Beck: "Nobel Peace Prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and given ... to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project." Also on his radio show, Beck said: "I really think this is a validation of all things. The Nobel Peace Prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and given ... to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project because -- because of the arrogance ... because of the arrogance of the progressives that thought no one would stand in their way, that he would be able to accomplish everything. Two weeks into his presidency, they nominated him for it and said, oh, this is going to be a slam dunk. And because of the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project people that stood in his way and stopped him from accomplishing the things that he thought -- please, I'm the messiah. I'll be able to accomplish that. We have now seen -- we are now pulling the curtain back and seeing, oh, wait a minute, he just got an award for doing things he couldn't get done. Hmm." [The Glenn Beck Program, 10/9/09]
Chip Reid: "Did he consider turning it down?" During an October 9 White House press briefing, CBS' Chip Reid asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs whether Obama "consider[ed] turning it down," after noting that "the president in his statement today said, 'I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of these transformative figures.' " In a follow-up question, Reid said: "I think the point a lot of your favorite people, pundits, have been making is that the response to this has been like this -- I mean, most Democrats have praised it and most Republicans have said, you have got to be kidding me. Ronald Reagan didn't get one, but Barack Obama, nominated 12 days after he was sworn in, gets a Nobel Peace Prize. And the fear among some, even some Democrats, is that this is going to widen the partisan divide and make things even more difficult to accomplish on every front." [MSNBC, 10/9/09]
Drudge: " 'For What'? Will He Turn It Down?" On October 9 as late at 9:58 a.m. ET, Matt Drudge linked to an Associated Press analysis headlined, "He won, but for what?" with the Drudge headline: " 'For What'? Will He Turn It Down?"
Malkin: "If Obama had an ounce of real humility, he'd refuse to accept the award." On her website, Michelle Malkin, after asserting that Obama received the prize "not for anything he's actually done, but for the symbolism of what he might possibly accomplish sometime way off in the future," wrote, "If Obama had an ounce of real humility, he'd refuse to accept the award." Malkin also wrote that he should "give it back" on her Twitter feed.
Mark Halperin: "I predict right now that he will find a way to basically turn it down. ... Because there is no upside." On MSNBC's Morning Joe, Time's Mark Halperin said, "I predict right now that he will find a way to basically turn it down. I share this with the world or whatever. I don't think he'll embrace this. Because there is no upside for him." [Huffington Post, 10/9/09]
NRO quotes John Bolton: "Decline It." In an October 9 post on National Review Online's blog, The Corner, Robert Costa quoted former United Nations ambassador John Bolton as saying, "He should decline it and then ask to be considered again in three or four years when he has a record." [National Review Online, 10/9/09]
NRO's Levin: "[R]ight response" includes "declining the prize." Yuval Levin wrote on The Corner that "[i]t's hard to know quite what the right response would be, but it would probably require a self-effacing show of humility (including declining the prize) that our president may not even be able to fake, let alone actually exhibit." [National Review Online, 10/9/09]
Mickey Kaus: "Turn it down! Politely decline." On Slate.com, Mickey Kaus wrote that Obama should, "Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory-and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it." [Slate.com, 10/9/09]
Weekly Standard's Ham: "I would heartily approve" of Obama declining award. Weekly Standard blogger Mary Katharine Ham wrote of Kaus' "great suggestion": "I think I would heartily approve of Obama's doing it, and I'm a rather tough audience for him. Could his ego allow it?" [Weekly Standard, 10/9/09]
Jeffery Goldberg: "It might be smart for Obama to turn this prize down, at least until he achieves peace somewhere." On his Twitter feed, The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg wrote that "[i]t might be smart for Obama to turn this prize down, at least until he achieves peace somewhere. Or trade for Olympics."
if they really want to know something obama did do, he did cancel that ridiculous anti missile shield system in poland. beside the fact that those systems are far from perfect and therefore useless, iran is not going to launch any missiles, for the same reason the soviet union didn't. they would get ten times over in return. i am for a strong defense, but not for every weapons system the military can dream up.
At that point, Europe gives up on us.
~~~Barack Obama (United Nations)
*
Btw, I hope by the end of this year to have a cure for cancer and AIDS. Can I be nominated too?
Here's an article published before his selection was announced about myths about the Nobel Peace Prize. And the last myth that's debunked?
_ 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.
We fear it won't.
That being said, I also have no problem with Obama getting the award. If it helps Obama with international negotiations and promotes America's standing in the world, I'm all for it. I do believe that Obama has done a great deal to restore the U.S.'s integrity abroad, and I hope he continues to do so.
He doesn't have to have accomplished anything tangible in order for the award to be very justified.
Oh, boy. I think you are getting your Nobel prizes mixed up. You may want to look at the different prizes. Thinking that even if you came up with a cure for cancer or AIDs that you would get the Peace Prize makes you look pretty silly.
Watch the 11 minute video to educate yourself. Or keep on with your Obama Derangement Syndrome. Rachel Maddow did a great job.
Btw, I'm not saying that he would never be worthy of an award, I think he's an extremely intelligent and motivated man whose heart is primarily in the right place, but I do wish that the committee would choose a recipient that has DONE a lot, not just SAID a lot.
From an October 7th article
Wanted - a peace maker or rights activist engaged in a current conflict whose influence would benefit greatly from winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
That is who Norway's Nobel Committee will choose for 2009 Peace Prize laureate if, as experts expect, it returns closer to Alfred Nobel's notion of peace.
"It's quite likely this committee will reward somebody who is engaged in current processes," said Kristian Berg Harpviken, head of the International Peace Institute in Oslo (PRIO).
"They want the prize to have an impact on things that are about to happen and want to affect events," he told Reuters.
And if you read the press release from the committee, you'll see that this is exactly why they did this. They said
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."
I am not saying Obama deserves it, but just name one another person.
I am neither happy or sad with the decision. The committee had their nominees, they could have given it anyone they wanted, they chose to give it to Obama. And they explained why they did it too.
Let's move on.
That is very strange. What did he do that was so overwhelming that it caused to you to not vote for him? It wasn't "slick advertisement" for Clinton to play the saxophone on television and call himself the "man from Hope"?
They said that they had problems with Obama because he was self-centered and aggressive and proud, and then admitted that all Presidents are exactly the same.
A different poster who thought that Obama deserved the award suggested that to further humilate those critical of Obama getting this prize, he should give the award money to a charity rather than just selfishly keeping it for himself. So, what does Atheist say in reply? Yeah, it's a good thing he's giving the money away since he didn't deserve the prize in the first place.
And then there are the multiple denials of being a wing nut, while all the while acting like one.
Do you even have a clue what "self-delusion" is? It's not something that's supported by outside news sources!
Surely at least ONE of the 205 nominees has actually done something to deserve the award, not just show promise of possibly being able to do good in the future.
He should donate the prize money to charities.
He actually did the next best thing to rejecting the award, he admitted he didn't deserve it.
Rejecting the award is unthinkable as it would be seen as an insult and rebuke to the Nobel prize committee. A few talking heads might think it's a good idea but any decent politician knows it would be STUPID. They have explained the reasoning behind the award. Rejecting the award, rejects their judgment and reasoning and devalues their efforts. That would be stupid.
But he did the next best thing, so it's not a disaster.
IMHO, it's thinking like this that causes other countries and nations to hate and/or laugh at "those" Americans. It's thinking like that which causes me to understand and empathise with Michelle Obama's statement about her pride of America that she was so smeared for.
You sure aren't very honest, are you? On the vaccine thread, you posted the minor and rare adverse reactions to the H1N1 vaccine, but you don't list the much-more common and deadly complications from the flu itself, and then you tried to claim that you weren't trying to scare/convince anyone to not get a flu shot.
You claimed that you had Guillain-Barre Syndrome-LIKE problems after getting the flu shot last year - was that even true? And you said that you were concerned about mandatory shots - do you even live in Florida, the only state where that's a concern of everyday citizens? I don't think I can believe a word you say! You've been very dishonest in this thread, that's for sure.
How about this? He humbly accepts it in the spirit in which it was awarded and states that he will seek to live up to its principles.
It was a PR nightmare. No matter what he did, he would be criticized. I still think he should have turned it down though, sent it back to the Nobel committee to pick a new winner. But now that I see some of the suspected other nominees, I'm not impressed. Accepting the award, stating that it was undeserved, and giving the prize money to charities is definitely the next best thing.
The idiocy of this statement burns thermonuclear.
Any candidate who runs for president (even the worst loser) MUST believe he is the best for the job or he is lying to his supporters and the entire country.
Why do you hate the constitution??????
The best person doesn't get to be president, dunderhead. Instead it's the one WE THE PEOPLE chose. Which we have done.
LOL! I just LOVE how arrogance is so often mistaken for intellect and/or intelligence. Most of my friends, acquaintances, co-workers and even myself from time-to-time often face down such "tagging," and we are some of the most self-effacing people you could ever meet.
Some day, I think we'll be looking up arrogance in the dictionary and find ourselves looking in the Limb .....'s for it.
Personally, I think they're full of sh*t.
Members, all of whom are former or serving deputies of the Storting, the Norwegian parliament, seek to reach a unanimous decision -- normally by mid-September -- but this has sometimes proved impossible and the choice is then made by a simple majority vote.
And we've explained countless times, as did the Nobel Peace Prize committee, exactly what he's done to qualify to win this prize. It's his leadership and his 180 from George Bush and it's his stated goals and his vision. That's what they were looking for!!!
What has Obama done to make a "180 from George Bush?" Specific examples please - if you list them, I'll concede that you're correct.
He's continued and expanded government spending.
He's continued and expanded the government.
He's continued Bush's actions of consolidating our currency and subverting us to international bankers.
He's expanded upon Bush's "faith based" initiatives.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/fait-f07.shtml
| 7 February 2009
| President Barack Obama Thursday unveiled his administration's
| plans to expand both the scope and power of the "faith-
| based" initiatives that were introduced eight years ago by
| the Bush White House.
...
|The failure to overturn the Bush administration's
|executive orders giving government sanction for
|faith-based discrimination in federally funded programs
|represents a repudiation of pledges made by Obama during
|the 2008 election campaign.
I love the way the liberal media has parroted the rightwing's talking points.
If "they've ignored that for decades" than they all mean nothing.
I think that [atheist] wishes for the awards to go to those who Alfred Nobel would have deemed to deserve them if he was still alive.
You're wrong, and you're pretending to not be an anti-Obama person, but it's clear you are.
If they've gone by different standards for decades, then, yeah, it's bogus to suddenly claim that Obama's selection is flawed.
Again, it's not his 'accomplishments' that they used to give him the prize - it's his vision and his inspiration.
You're wrong, and you're pretending to not be an anti-Obama person, but it's clear you are.
Ummm.... If you've read anything else I've posted on this site you would know that you're wrong there. Look, I already said that I have no problem with Obama getting the award, I just wouldn't have voted for him if I had a vote. That being said, I really don't care that much either way.
One of the things that I really appreciate about the left versus the right is that we seem to be more accepting of different viewpoints. Just because I disagree with you about whether or not Pres. Obama should have received the Nobel prize does not make me an "anti-Obama person". I had hoped for a more reasoned discussion on this topic.
The committee didn't vote contrary to Alfred Nobel's wishes. The comment in quotes above is NOT from his will. And the real comment in the will wasn't an explicit description of exactly what the qualifications were in any case, but the idea about what is the best way to reach the goals of Alfred Nobel have changed over the years, and for you to suggest that it's wrong to have that happen is ridiculous.
And if you don't like being called anti-Obama, then stop acting like you are.
So, tell me, you don't think that his description fits Obama to a tee?
Working towards encouraging fraternity between nations? Check - I can't think of another President who has done more both before and after the election. And top that off with the work he's tried to do inside our nation too to foster bipartisanship and understanding.
The abolition or reduction of standing armies? Well, that's an outmoded thought, but Obama has done the modern day version of that - conflict resolution is one of his administration's strengths! Working towards nuclear disarmament is the modern day equivalent - no recent President has done more.
And the holding or promotion of peace congresses? Again, both before and after his election. Plans to close Guantanamo asap, changed plans in Iraq and Afghanistan, working with N Korea and Iran, meetings with allies and enemies, reducing our sanctions against long-term foe Cuba, etc, etc.
Tell me again how he doesn't fit that idea in modern terms? Tell me again how you would justify a vote against him?
But we know that answer, don't we? You think there has to be tangible results upon which to judge someone, but that's not true. The committee has explained that they think (they, as in the committee's unanimous consensus, so if you were on that committee, you'd think so too) that inspirational aspirations are more important to foster rather than one actual accomplishment.
Did you vote for him?
Errrrrrrrrm, wasn't he also one of a handful who stood his ground AGAINST entering the war with Iraq?
Maybe you don't agree with his thoughts on the war with Afghanistan, but to many it is a truly warranted war due to the severe attack on America on 9/11.
I am not saying it is impossible, but I am saying it is going to be extremely difficult to achieve as well as difficult to tell what we actually achieved when it is all over. But, most importantly, we have to get out of there at some point. We are simply destroying our military and their familes with these constant deployments. I do not blame Obama for this, but it has to end sooner rather than later.
As far as the Peace Prize I think the reason so many of us, including myself, are more suprised than the rest of the world is because we always lack an international perspective in this country. We underestimate the damage that G-Dub and the neocons did to our international diplomatic name, as well as how far it pushed the concept of Americans as a peaceful people out of the minds of the rest of the world. When we speak and act as tyrants, that is what the world thinks of us. And, make no mistake, the world does look to us for leadership. I think the rest of the world has let out a huge sigh of relief to know that America has officially turned its back on the neocon nonsense.
What did Nobel's will REALLY say?
The Norwegian committee itself uses the broadest criteria in making its decisions. Alfred Nobel wrote in his will that the peace prize was to be given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
And someone who got the award previously is not unbiased, by the way.
The fact that they don't like it is just gravy.
Thanks. That's the best summary yet!
should "declining" their Jobs and give their pay checks, with humility to charity and stop shooting off their mouth
Maybe they could win a Nobel peace prize if they stop shooting off their mouth with all Bull that comes out of their hole.
“Bolster his image…” Really? Really, the prize was won to bolster HIS image? The right does have it right. You folks consider this man a god. He is the anointed one, isn’t he? Your defense of the blatant political nature of the peace prize is precious. May I remind you the nominations for the prize ended in February. And what exactly did Obama do that first month in office? Oh, that’s right, he wasn’t George Bush. Makes sense to me now.
Sure call those of us who appose Obama and take the democratic leadership to task on quadrupling of the deficit, the failed stimulus (remember the urgency to pass it before unemployment hit 8 percent, and where do we stand today – nearly 10! This too must be Bush’s fault, and now there’s talk of an other stimulus – simply amazing), the bait and switch shenanigans of Reid to push though a health care bill under the guise of a house tax bill (we don’t see much about that on this web site, do we?), and his ineptitude in dealing with Afghanistan (several weeks before a decision to send troops – why?) Yeah, we’re just racists, that’s it. There simply can be no other logical explanation.
By the way, I too am “a life long democrat….”
I especially enjoyed Rachel Maddow's take on the award. The president did bring honor to America.
This award is about hope. Every American should celebrate.
How ludicrous to expect him to decline the award. I see more hubrus in that type of action than by accepting it.
Idiots!
That said, they obviously have a defective gene, one without compassion, based solely on anger.
In every sense of the sentence.
Do you know why Arafat got one? Please educate yourself.
Jim Konstanty got an MVP award--does that mean that everyone who wins the award now is somehow tainted?
The Gong Show is actually more intellectual and classy than what is being performed by you and your cronies on the right.
It's not that we think he deserves it that's notable here - it's that you are dissing the committee's criteria. Silly people like us think that the group that makes the award gets to set the standards!