A Dissent on Prizefare

10 Comments so far ↓

• mycelf // Oct 9, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  Not only does he say that you have it all wrong, he supports the statement (to my mind somewhat convincingly).

  The whole reaction has been a bit depressing. In theory, the award of a Nobel Prize to a sitting US President SHOULD be somewhat of an honor to the American people (native and naturalized). Unfortunately, it has simply been one more partisan wonkfest.

  Does he “deserve” the award? Is it an attempt to coerce him? Who knows? Who cares? Seriously!

  Say “thank-you”, “congratulations”, or “that’s surprising” and go back to the issues that really do concern “the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.”

  Log in to Reply

• sinz54 // Oct 10, 2009 at 9:04 am

  mycelf: In theory, the award of a Nobel Prize to a sitting US President SHOULD be somewhat of an honor to the American people (native and naturalized).
  It might have been,
  IF the Nobel Committee had put even one sentence in their explanation about that.
  In their explanation of why they gave Obama the award, they didn’t mention that the American people had chosen him in a free and fair election to bring change. Instead, it was all about him, as if Obama were struggling in some totalitarian country like Nelson Mandela.

  Log in to Reply

• mlindroo // Oct 10, 2009 at 11:39 am

  > It might have been, IF the Nobel Committee had put even one sentence in their explanation about that.
  > In their explanation of why they gave Obama the award,
  > they didn’t mention that the American people had chosen him
  > in a free and fair election to bring change.

  Obama can make this explicit in his acceptance speech, although I doubt very much that specifically thanking the 52% of American voters that apparently share the “vision” of the Nobel Peace Prize will endear him to the GOP minority.
  —
  Anyway, Kevin Sullivan’s response to Frum’s comment is very good. You have to be a paranoid neocon to believe that Obama will put the wishes of the Nobel Committee ahead of his own pragmatic concerns as a politician facing reelection in 2012… He has SOME leeway, but his actions are largely constrained by factors outside his control.

  MARCU$

  Log in to Reply

• balconesfault // Oct 10, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  I think this cartoon does a good job of capturing what the right wing pundit class increasingly looks like to much of America.

  I wonder when people are going to start realizing that even right wing pundits … are members of “the elite”.

  Meanwhile … from the head of the Nobel committee: “Can someone tell me who did more than him this year? It is difficult to name a winner of the peace prize who is more in line with Alfred Nobel’s will.”

  What does that will say?

  “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

  You know what? Obama has clearly promoted fraternity between nations – much to your disgust, Sinz.

  He may not have reduced standing armies, but his agreement signed with Russia in June set a goal of cutting strategic nuclear arsenals by at least one-quarter.

  Obama may not have held peace conferences yet, but they’re close to announcing a new Israeli-Palestinian summit in the next few months … and clearly his presence at any international conference to date has been a positive to this date.

  Looking at this closer – it seems that perhaps the Nobel Committee was looking at the prize based on what Nobel called for it to be – rather than how it’s been often interpreted in the recent past.

  Log in to Reply

• sinz54 // Oct 11, 2009 at 10:16 am

  balconesfault: You know what? Obama has clearly promoted fraternity between nations – much to your disgust, Sinz.
  That’s a real cheap shot.

  I’m not against “fraternity between nations.” I don’t think anyone is.

  But I believe that for a President, his primary duties are spelled out in the Constitution. And so far at least, Obama has accomplished little for AMERICA. He has accomplished much for being personally liked by foreigners overseas.

  But they didn’t elect him.
  The American people did.
  And he works for us, not for them.

  Log in to Reply

• balconesfault // Oct 11, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  I’m not against “fraternity between nations.” I don’t think anyone is.

  But you regularly complain here about the way that Obama has promoted fraternity between nations.

  Many of us believe that America’s security, particularly when our economy is still in shambles and we’re trying to avoid depression at the same time worrying about the effects of a rapid plummet in the dollar – depends more than ever on true fraternity, and not coerced.

  And to that end, we see Obama as the man we now need … no current Republican candidate promised any way to move the world to being more aligned with American interests – for the most part, they all promise a return to the Bush Doctrine.

  Log in to Reply

• greg_barton // Oct 11, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  Sinz54:
  And he works for us, not for them.
  So, sinz, you’re saying that promoting fraternity between nations gives the American people zero benefit? Or, if he promotes it, he’s only benefiting those damn foreigners? Am I getting that right?

  Log in to Reply

• greg_barton // Oct 11, 2009 at 3:07 pm

  No, I get it, sinz isn’t against fraternity between nations between nations on it’s own, just when Obama promotes fraternity between nations.

  Now THAT makes sense.

  Log in to Reply

• balconesfault // Oct 12, 2009 at 9:30 am

  Clearly, the Sinz model is fraternity between all the OTHER nations on earth. The US gets paternity rights.

  Log in to Reply

• me // Oct 14, 2009 at 6:02 am

  You, Joe and C. Rich are not wrong about Obama, let alone this prize:

  http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/10/stuck-in-the-middle-with-you/

  Log in to Reply