That Nobel was not a gesture of Obama-worship by left-leaning Norwegians. It was the very opposite: It was a pre-emptive strike against Obama, an attempt to neutralize him. How can a Peace Nobelist strike Iranian nuclear plants? Or wage a protracted war in Afghanistan? Or tell the Palestinians, “Sorry, that’s the best offer, take it or leave it”? The hope of course is that he cannot.
We’ve heard a lot over the past few years about radicals trying to achieve their aims through “lawfare.” Here’s a new concept in asymmetric conflict: “prizefare.” The Nobel Committee was not rewarding Obama. It was attempting to geld him.
57 responses so far
1 dacookson // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:34 am
I think you are correct…
2 sinz54 // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:40 am
Yes, I thought the same thing: The purpose of this Nobel Peace Prize is to make sure that Obama doesn’t stray from his self-appointed role as humbler of America.
It’s not widely remembered that a few peace activists actually tried a similar ploy during the Bush Administration. In 2001, a couple of weeks after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, they said that if Bush managed to catch Osama bin Laden without war, he would qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize!
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=2758
But Bush cared more about his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief than winning a prize.
Let’s see if Obama does too.
3 DFL // Oct 9, 2009 at 10:02 am
Interesting angle.
4 mlindroo // Oct 9, 2009 at 10:06 am
*LAUGH*
I actually agree that the Nobel peace prize is, shall we say, more than a little bit premature and the Obama Administration probably has mixed feelings about it. But it will nonetheless be fun to see the orgy of Obama hatred/contempt this will provoke among the neocon base. This will be nothing compared to 2012, however, if there are no major international crises and if the situation in Iran/Iraq/Pakistan/Afghanistan/North Korea/Russia etc. actually is marginally better than today. Obama’s critics have made the argument that all this weak-kneed appeasement will cause massive problems across the globe. So we are essentially witnessing the second phase of the validation of the neoconservative ideology here. Phase one was 2000-08 and we all know how “great” this particular experiment turned out don’t we? Now, let’s see how Obama’s alternative approach works out… *IF* he succeeds, the current GOP orthodoxy on foreign policy will be assigned to the dustbin of history for at least one generation.
MARCU$
5 kdoren // Oct 9, 2009 at 10:08 am
I am a member of your loyal opposition, but I have to agree with your comment. The Nobel committee is giving Bush a dope slap while pushing Obama to live up to his rhetoric with action.
It is essentially a $1.4 million fee for giving a speech in Cairo. I wonder how much he’ll earn in speaking fees after his presidency is over? (His book advance will probably set an all time record, too.)
6 mlindroo // Oct 9, 2009 at 10:31 am
The international reaction (see for example http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/world-reaction-to-a-nobel-surprise/?src=twt&twt=thelede ) seems to be, at worst, ‘giving Obama the peace prize now is way premature but congrats anyway’. Ironically, the angriest response comes from Hamas and the Taliban. Republicans are furious too but we knew that already didn’t we? ( http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/conservatives-critics-blast-obamas-nobel-peace-prize/ )
MARCU$
7 ottovbvs // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:04 am
The uproar from the right was entirely predictable and is just going to reinforce the general public perception that even if Obama found a cure for cancer the Republicans would be against it(don’t believe me?…. look at Republican appro in all these polls instead of getting excited about whether Obama is at 52 or 54%) ……..A couple of days ago David you were telling us the world’s approbation of Obama was all phony…..apparently not…..I’m afraid that view was as wrongheaded as your rationalisation of the award today since it obviously came as a complete surprise to the white house who will of course continue to pursue pragmatic and realistic policies abroad .
sinz54 // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:40 am
“But Bush cared more about his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief than winning a prize.”
………And Sinz remains consistent in his inconsistency……one minute correctly pointing out Bush’s disastrous record in Iraq and elsewhere , and the next lauding his achievements……Funny really when people are so consumed with partisanship they can’t remember what wrote one week from the next.
8 sinz54 // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:07 am
mlindroo:
No.
Obama’s critics accept that parts of “the globe” are going to do quite well: China, for example.
I do predict that Obama’s weak-kneed appeasement is going to cause massive problems for AMERICA–within a few short years.
And I’m willing to go out on a limb with that prediction.
9 sinz54 // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:11 am
ottovbs:
Read what I wrote again.
Bush screwed up badly. That’s a fact.
But Bush never wanted to deliberately hurt the country. He wanted to see America succeed in the world. He was tragically wrong in the course he chose, though.
I’m not sure Obama wants to see America succeed in the world. I get the distinct impression he wants to fit America into a lesser role of just being one nation among all the other 190 or so.
The truth is, most of the liberal “netroots” don’t want America to be a superpower–and it looks like Obama doesn’t either.
They’re just too naive to realize what will happen to America–and the world–if America becomes a third-rate power.
10 atwclw // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:16 am
Great point!
Andrew W.
11 sinz54 // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:18 am
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because of his disgusting transnationalism.
I want an American president to care more about America than about the rest of the world. Because when push comes to shove–whether it’s the sacrifices needed for global warming or Iran or Afghanistan–an American President has to look out for America’s national interest.
We elected Obama, not “the world.” They may admire him. But he should never forget that he works for US, not for THEM.
And you liberals had better not forget that either.
12 wrs10 // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:56 am
Do not worry folks – the Peace Prize did not hold Yasser Arafat back! LOL!
13 mlindroo // Oct 9, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Sinz54:
> Bush never wanted to deliberately hurt the country.
>He wanted to see America succeed in the world.
> He was tragically wrong in the course he chose, though.
> I’m not sure Obama wants to see America succeed in the world.
Global politics does not necessarily have to be a zero-sum game. Obama (and liberals in general) seem much more confident in the existing awesome power (both hard and soft) that the U.S. already possesses whereas necons constantly seem to be afraid of some bugaboo rogue dictator or unlikely emerging threat somewhere. Is loud, bellicose swagger a la Bush & Rumsfeld really always necessary and are diplomacy and compromise always signs of indecision and weakness that only begets further attack? Obama thinks a more subtle approach might yield results considering how much stronger the U.S. military is compared to that of any of America’s rivals. The president/congress might slash military budgets by a factor of *TWO* and the United States would still be far ahead of the rest. When you listen to neoconservative hawks, you might believe the U.S. is still as weak and vulnerable to hostile foreign powers as it was back in 1776…
—
Obama is merely moving the scales towards diplomacy and away from military confrontation a bit. It’s silly to claim he has been an unmitigated disaster after only nine months, particularly considering the monumental screw-ups that occurred while Bush was president.
MARCU$
14 balconesfault // Oct 9, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I’m not sure Obama wants to see America succeed in the world.
That is clear. In fact, that way of thinking consumes all your otherwise rational thoughts at times, as Otto points out.
After all – he is the Other, right?
Funny enough, one could also hypothesize that Obama could fear that this Nobel Prize will be an attempt to shape his foreign policy, and react by putting more US troops in harms way, deploying more weapons systems.
Or Obama could use the Nobel Prize as a “get out of jail free card” and pursue an aggressive policy of intervention.
Or who knows … Obama might just keep on doing what he said he would do during his campaign, tempered with the perhaps too frequent need to accept the reality of some of the momentum caused by Bush’s worst decisions mixed with a “loyal opposition” dedicated to making sure that every action he takes is opposed.
15 Raider1 // Oct 9, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Good God David! I hope that a statue and some prize money from an institution that has rewarded communists and terrorists as “peacemakers” will not be enough to sway ANY president from acting in global matters in the way he sees best for the country that elected him!
If he has any issue at all with the headline: “Nobel Prize Winning President Orders Air Strikes Against Raving Mad Mullahs’ Nuclear Facilities” then he should get as far away from 1600 Penna Ave as possible!
16 Raider1 // Oct 9, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Sinz…the world has a very good idea of what it would look like with the neutering of American power. It is called the period from 1914 to 1945 better know as the beginning of World War I until the end of World War II.
It is also called North Korea. The Eastern Block. Etc.
17 DFL // Oct 9, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Obama has also won today the Heisman Trophy, the Stanley Cup, the Lombardi Trophy, the Calder Cup, the Davis Cup, the Hart Trophy and an Oscar for Best Actor. His friend Bill Ayers has won a Pulitzer Prize for fiction.
18 Reason60 // Oct 9, 2009 at 1:10 pm
OK, I agree the prize seems hasty, a blatant recognition of promise rather than achievement; it is also a clear endorsement of his policies and comportment, not goals met.
Having said that, the bigger issue for the party/ movement out of power is how to conduct themselves in front of the world.
Bluntly, is it asking to much to politely congratulate the President on behalf of the nation, while continuing to clearly articulate differing ideas?
The comments I am reading in Wingnuttia now don’t make the President look bad,they only make the commenters look churlish and spiteful, and filled with sour grapes.
19 Attractive Nuisance » Blog Archive » Perhaps Next They Can Give Him The Literature Nobel For “Dreams Of My Father” // Oct 9, 2009 at 1:18 pm
[...] the second-biggest tool in the right-wing firmament after Conor Freidersdorf. But I think he had an interesting take on this: That Nobel was not a gesture of Obama-worship by left-leaning Norwegians. It was the very [...]
20 Churl // Oct 9, 2009 at 1:24 pm
reason60: (#18) It would be right and proper to congratulate the president if he had done anything discernible to deserve the award. Since he hasn’t, one chuckles at the absurdity of the whole thing.
Wait for his Nobel speech. It will set a new gold standard for egocentric platitudinous vaporing.
21 balconesfault // Oct 9, 2009 at 1:26 pm
reason: The comments I am reading in Wingnuttia now don’t make the President look bad,they only make the commenters look churlish and spiteful, and filled with sour grapes.
Leading some to half-jestingly postulate that the Nobel Committee were acting like internet trolls – advocating a position (that Obama already deserves a Nobel Prize) only to make certain parties enraged enough to say really stupid things in response (I’m waiting for someone to go Godwin against the Nobel Committee…)
22 DFL // Oct 9, 2009 at 1:34 pm
If Barack Obama has such a magic touch with bringing peace to the world, why as a community organizer could he not bring peace to south Chicago?
23 Reason60 // Oct 9, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I just read Tim Pawlenty’s response, which was to politely offer congratulations.
He has just moved up a few notches in my book.
24 rbottoms // Oct 9, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The conservative ight in this country is consumed by a sickness.
Fortunately the searing summer of Death Panels and killing grandma has wised the White House up at exactly the right time to deal with the relentless a******s who will attack the president for this award, just as they would for anything else he did.
The Obama who was inaugurated in January would have just shrugged off the bile and hatred from the GOP. The new fire hardened Obama is going to hand you your ass.
Something even a peaceful man has to do sometimes.
25 Oneon1isto // Oct 9, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I am so confused by both Frum posts on Obama winning the Peace Prize. Frum, are you bipolar? They’re totally out of touch with eachother, and made within hours of eachother. Are you stewing and don’t know what to think?
26 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Limbaugh on the Nobel: They’re trying to get him to stand down in Afghanistan // Oct 9, 2009 at 5:26 pm
[...] crux of it. I noted this in the Nobel thread this morning but it bears repeating: For once, he and David Frum are in perfect sync. That Nobel was not a gesture of Obama-worship by left-leaning Norwegians. It [...]
27 sinz54 // Oct 9, 2009 at 5:41 pm
rbottoms:
Stop dreaming.
Jello cannot be fire-hardened.
28 President Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 102 - City-Data Forum // Oct 9, 2009 at 6:02 pm
[...] take; Some Prize [...]
29 Ashley71 // Oct 9, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Being a Republican in 2009: Up at arms when a sitting American President wins the Nobel Peace Prize and celebrating when America loses it’s bid to host the Olympics.
This is all that is wrong with our party. We will never have another majority as long as we behave like this.
30 agentprovocateur // Oct 9, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Speaking of Jello, I wonder where the Sour Grapes flavor can be purchased. Certainly enough of that flavor is being consumed around here.
31 The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Pre-Emptive Strike // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:50 pm
[...] comment by David Frum. That Nobel was not a gesture of Obama-worship by left-leaning Norwegians. It was [...]
32 anniemargret // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Sinz#11: “I want an American president to care more about America than about the rest of the world. Because when push comes to shove–whether it’s the sacrifices needed for global warming or Iran or Afghanistan–an American President has to look out for America’s national interest. We elected Obama, not “the world.” They may admire him. But he should never forget that he works for US, not for THEM.
And you liberals had better not forget that either.”
And We Liberals believe that there is strength in numbers. We Liberals believe that the American president will be stronger if there are more people in the world who support us, rather than hate us. The Bush/Cheney years should make any one of you stand up and pay attention. The world despised us. Their belligerent anger was palpable. Where did that get us, huh?
You Republicans can’t stop talking about Reagan. Why? Because you know he was strong, but he was also a diplomat – a man who was capable of enhancing America’s image. The strong-arm tactics that we all hear now ad nauseam from right-wing America will not work. Our military is depleted – remember that. It is quantifiable – not an inexhaustible resource. We have to be wise, not thuggish.
The American president can cultivate allies and support from nations while still carrying a big stick. We have the most intelligent and mighty military in the world, and largest capacity for nukes. We can bottom out any country if we wanted. This type of belligerent – you’re either with us or against us – nonsense will get us what we deserve. A military that will have to fight alone in every corner of the earth. As someone who lost someone in that 58,000 of Vietnam, I say Obama is doing the correct thing.
The law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head in every war in every century.
33 irir123 // Oct 9, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I dont know if giving the Nobel peace prize to Obama this early is correct, or, not. However, even if it was wrong/premature, Bush’s tainted image as an arrogant leader still remains the same. This does not set right what Bush did – the neoconservatives shd keep that in mind! when Mother Theresa won the Nobel peace prize, it was criticized on grounds that while she did laudable work, her group also abused their status to forcibly convert ppl into christianity – those who question the validity of the Nobel committee’s decision to award Obama with the peace prize, wud fall into the same category as above!
34 Geoff C // Oct 10, 2009 at 4:48 am
I disagree with your post David.
This is the simple case of giving an award out because you are in love with an ideal, not realistic achievements.
I’m a university student in Canada. They don’t give me awards based on the marks that I have potential to achieve. Why? because I haven’t achieved them yet. So why give the award to a President who hasn’t really achieved something yet.
To be fair, even Carter was more deserving than Obama. There is photographic proof of what he tried to do. Not so with Barack. The Nobel Committee has another 40 years to award him the prize. Why not wait until he truly deserves it.
35 Å kastrere en president « Dyade-bloggen // Oct 10, 2009 at 7:51 am
[...] Posted on 10. oktober, 2009 by Carl Henrik Grøndahl Den beste kommentaren kommer kanskje fra David Frum, den konservative ideologen som var rådgiver for George W. Bush i ett år. Nei, sier han, [...]
36 theod // Oct 10, 2009 at 10:46 am
Yes, let’s not forget how those same Nobel handcuffs radically changed Henry Kissinger and Yasar Arafat’s approach to world peace after they were so honored.
37 jcj // Oct 10, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I don’t agree with David. If the rationale was right, Dubbya Bush would have been awarded the Nobel Peace, Economic and Science awards in an attempt to force him to seek fraternity of nations, peace od congresses and reductions of armies, restrained spending and embryonic stwm cell research. Perhaps the offer wasn’t made in anticipation that he’d ask them to “shuv’it where sun no sh’aaan”.
The Peace Prize has been controversial before due to the actions and decisions taken by its recipients – not their wishes and desires. Wishing fervently for world peace may be factor considered by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, but it won’t land you or me an award. Being the political twin of Thorbjørn Jagland, the left wing Committee chairman, former Labour Party politician and Socialist International activist is perhaps a more defining factor.
For now, results driven pacifists need not apply.
38 Nobel Committee and William F. Buckley: Rhetoric Is the Principal Thing // Oct 10, 2009 at 11:24 pm
[...] whether it is simply the result of leftist Obama worship, or else an insidious attempt to “geld” Obama – that is, to dissuade him from striking Iran and surging in Afghanistan. I [...]
39 james968 // Oct 11, 2009 at 6:11 am
I doubt he will have the courage to use it, but the flip side is that he could use this and say “We tried everything possible, but Iran has been consistently dishonest and delaying. Our attack was the only way to solve it” (people would then have a Nobel Laureate saying ‘it was the only way’ and would be less likely to criticize. Remember the saying “Only Nixon can goto China”.
Again, I DOUBT HE IS CAPABLE of doing it PRE-EMPTIVELY. Though he does have that card to play, and I worry that he will be FORCED to play it as RETALIATION.
40 Etl World News | Can a Nobel Peace Prize make peace harder to achieve? // Oct 11, 2009 at 6:24 am
[...] David Frum suggests the Prize makes it harder for Obama to be hawkish. [...]
41 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 11, 2009 at 11:46 am
james968,
To my knowledge, no one has posited that an Iranian nuclear bomb would be a threat to the U.S., but only to Israel. Why should the U.S. preemptively attack Iran to prevent Iran from bombing Israel when Israel itself is perfectly capable of preemptively taking out Iran’s nuclear capability?
42 anniemargret // Oct 11, 2009 at 1:11 pm
And to add to spartacus’ well-reasoned argument….
….and why would the U.S. want to take out arsenals in Iran to protect Israel’s interests (or more to the point – to fulfill the neocons dreams of regime change and a Pax Americana in the Middle East), and then open a Pandora’s box of immense proportions of more death and destruction there?
An American strike would encourage the Iranians to take revenge by immediately putting our soldiers in Iraq at even more risk, by bombing the oil fields and the military routes of access in and out. Our soldiers there would be caught in a trap. Iranians would also bomb other strategic U.S. bases and embassies throughout the region, and encourage retaliation within the U.S. with associated terrorists and ‘Hamas’ type attacks here. It will also result in skyrocketing oil increases and prices here in the US – perhaps to over $10/gallon.
And because the US is already lagging far behind in renewable energy sources, and because Republicans by and large don’t want to get off the oil dependency, (China is already moving ahead in renewable energy), these scenarios would eventually play out, further deepening our economic abyss and further weakening our military.
Is it wise? Has it been thought through? Is it in the best overall interests of America? The same war hawks of the Bush administration and their cheerleaders are now still the same people now calling for strikes, all the while we are still trying to figure out how to get out of the morass that is now Iraq, with 140,000 of our troops mired there, and almost no-win situation now facing America with Afghanistan.
And the Republicans think Americans are going to fall for their ‘bomb first, ask questions later’ political ploys again in 2012? McCain was just on TV giving his ‘advice.’ The same guy who brought us Sarah Palin as the almost-President. The same man who supported the ‘war’ in Iraq and who has been wrong over and over again. He has NO credibility – none.
43 greg_barton // Oct 11, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Noooooo! Obama is the mesiiiiiiiiiiiiah! You just don’t seeeeeeeeee!
Just throwing red meat to any freepers present.
I also think that the Nobel going to Oabama was a bit premature. Funny that Obama himself says exactly the same thing and folks on the right just ignore that. Same old crap from them.
44 greg_barton // Oct 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Oh, sinz. For a time I thought you were rational, then you start spouting the “Obama wants us to fail” crap.
Or maybe you’re trying a bit of rhetorical flourish, turning around the right’s “we want Obama to fail” meme?
Silly me for being suckered into your game for a bit.
45 greg_barton // Oct 11, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Also it shows that you’re all talk in that you have to fall to the “Obama WANTS bad stuff for America” line. You need to fall back on ascribing internal motivations to him that you know ZERO about. You don’t know what he’s thinking. You don’t know what he wants. Are you psychic? No. So just the fact that you can only make weak assertions shows the flimsiness of your position.
46 greg_barton // Oct 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Churl:
Yes, I’m sure your proof of this will be his use of the word “I” in his speech…
Obama> I’d like to thank the committee…
Churl> My God. man! The EGO!
47 sdspringy // Oct 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Lets be real about the critics of the award, more from the Left than the Right:
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2009/10/what-is-the-point-of-the-nobel-peace-prize/
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2009/10/what-is-the-point-of-the-nobel-peace-prize/
http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-on-the-decision-to-award-obama-the-nobel-peace-prize/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize/story?id=8788973#
The results are from around the world, its a joke, a farce. Its a Noble Peace Prize with no accomplishment a mirror image to a President with no birth certificate.
Can’t wait for the next speech of “I”.
48 ottovbvs // Oct 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm
……….I’m afraid the vaporings from David and the usual suspects on Obama’s Nobel don’t really amount to a hill of beans……I see Gallup has him back at 56% after two full days of Republican griping…..the country understands fully Sinz…..if Obama found a cure for cancer, you and the Republicans would be against it…..we get it…..you hate the guy ……basically Obama’s approval ratings in a non political season are fluctuating between fairly popular and very popular……meanwhile Republicans get about the same level of approval as a sexually transmitted disease……if David and the voices from the right here think there’s a future is trashing the president over every little thing including this prize which is essentially a hell of national compliment go right ahead…….you’re shooting yourself in the foot……with an Uzi.
49 balconesfault // Oct 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I’m looking forward to the response next year if Hillary gets the prize …
50 agentprovocateur // Oct 11, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I’m looking forward to the response next year if Hillary gets the prize …
Are there enough trauma centers in the country to take care of all the heads that would explode?
51 sinz54 // Oct 12, 2009 at 10:27 am
ottovbvs:
I do NOT hate Obama.
I oppose Obama. And I would prefer that he not win a second term.
The right to oppose Obama is a right that you Obama supporters are increasingly desirous of denying to the rest of us. We must simply fall in line and nod.
NO THANK YOU.
52 anniemargret // Oct 12, 2009 at 11:36 am
sinz: “The right to oppose Obama is a right that you Obama supporters are increasingly desirous of denying to the rest of us. We must simply fall in line and nod.”
Sounds to me like the exact phrase we Democrats were using when Bush/Cheney ran their power bid for a unitary executive and when they sold a bill of goods to America to support their invasion of Iraq. I distinctly remember Neil Cavuto waving his finger in front of the camera warning any ‘liberals’ that if we didn’t get on board and shut up about Iraq we would be branded ‘anti-American’ or unpatriotic. Both O’Reilly and Limbaugh spewed the same stuff. Shut up and fall in line. We heard it. Loud and clear. Over and over…all over talk radio and TV and the Net. Maybe you don’t remember this? oh, yeah, you wouldn’t.
In truth, I greatly support your notion that you must oppose Obama’s progressive policies if you truly believe they are wrong. I also support the notion that the opposing team can disagree without calling those that oppose presidential policies as “un-American” or unpatriotic which were the smears leveled against the rest of us over and over again during the 8 disaster years of Bush/Cheney.
So oppose all you wish; it is your American right to do so.
However, you cannot disabuse those of us on the center left or left of your political views the firm unadulterated belief that this president was opposed with great hostility from the moment he stepped on the political stage, and from the moment he was sworn in. The hate is visceral, or perhaps it is possible you are not aware of it?
Unlike President Bush, who had over 90% approval ratings after the terrible event of 9/11, and when he had the American people and the world in the palm of his hands, he methodically changed public opinion. So much so that the point of last days he was down to 23% public approval. That is not hate, sir, that is deserved disrespect.
What we are seeing now is absolutist hate and fear-mongering because the Republican party cannot own up to their own miserable record of failure both domestic and foreign in the last 8 years. They cannot stomach the idea that the Democrats won both Congress and the Presidency.
Sour grapes. Sore losers. That’s about it and that’s why there is a concerted effort to bring this President down at all costs. The Republican party now is virtually a circle the wagons and hate and fear-monger their way back to the presidency…or so they hope. They offer very little in constructive ideas instead of blatant obstructionism.
Rep Grayson was right…if the President think a BLT is a great sandwich, the Republicans would try to ban bacon.
53 balconesfault // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Unlike President Bush, who had over 90% approval ratings after the terrible event of 9/11, and when he had the American people and the world in the palm of his hands, he methodically changed public opinion. So much so that the point of last days he was down to 23% public approval. That is not hate, sir, that is deserved disrespect.
Even more applicable – George Bush entered the Oval Office with the biggest questions over legitimacy since the 1800’s … and there was barely a mention of this in the media. You did not see news networks using his failure to win the popular vote as a platform for challenging his authority to push for major changes in the tax code, increases in military spending, and a reversal of our debt reduction program. In fact, there was no prominent comprehensive review of the path from Florida to the Supreme Court until Newsweek had a feature article – the week of 9/11/2001.
Undoubtably, from the beginning Bush received pushback from very partisan factions of the Democratic Party, particularly when his first moves upon entering office included immediately reversing one of the pledges that attracted many moderates to his campaign (that he would regulate CO2 as a pollutant), and cutting taxes for the wealthy with the long-disproved argument that it would create enough economic stimulus to eliminate the debt.
But the media, while it reported (occassionally) on some of this pushback, did not do challenging the very right of Bush to be President. And while people may claim that Dan Rather or the NY Times or others in the Corporate Media were partisan – you most certainly didn’t see anyone in the Corporate Media taking the lead in organizing major rallies and other forms of opposition to Bush’s policies.
What we see against Obama is very unique – and it echoes what we saw under Clinton, when people like Limbaugh were calling for impeachment from almost the moment he took office. It is is kind of pathetic to compare the assault on everything Obama has tried to do with the carping from the blogosphere that Bush took at the beginning of his term. Had, say, Ted Kennedy and other Dems refused to work with Bush on No Child Left Behind with the fear that giving him any legislative success would be bad for Democrats (consider Republicans now taking the lead on assaulting any attempts to impose cost-controls on Medicare, after decades of arguing that such cost-controls were absolutely necessary), and Bill Moyers been organizing rallies to label Bush’s tax cuts a looting of the Federal Treasury to benefit the wealthy, there might be a comparison that doesn’t just make the proponent look specious.
54 greg_barton // Oct 12, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Yeah, sinz is playing the “reasonable conservative” role, taking umbrage when anyone suggests that any conservative is irrational.
It’s just an act.
55 brandon // Oct 13, 2009 at 1:34 am
“They cannot stomach the idea that the Democrats won both Congress and the Presidency”
You are correct that is very hard for us to stomach. I understand why McCain lost and expected it. Bush was not a successful president.
At the same time, America elected an amateur with no experience for the most important job in the world. I’m not surprised he’s not accomplishing much so far as he has been all style and no substance his entire life.
Hopefully, enough people will wake up in 2010 to make Obama a lame duck and in 2012, we can put the grownups back in charge.
56 agentprovocateur // Oct 13, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Hopefully, enough people will wake up in 2010 to make Obama a lame duck and in 2012, we can put the grownups back in charge.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You mean “grownups” like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal? Yes, I’m sure a grateful nation will sleep much more soundly at nigh knowing that these “grownups” are in charge.
57 What’s in a Peace Prize » The HPRty // Jan 11, 2010 at 5:09 pm
[...] prizefare theory, as enunciated by David Frum, says pacifist [...]
You must log in to post a comment.