President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
US President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last night. The award came too late for the morning newspapers, but the word is out. Of course there is polarization about this award, some say it is premature, and of course the antipatriots in the US are angry that such a prestigious award was given to a leader selected by the American people.
I have looked at a number of news reports on this, and will use the BBC as a source, representing an international viewpoint and not necessarily a partisan American one. Even so, they had mixed feelings about the award.
The message is clear. Under eight years of Republican rule, the United States had become the world's enemy. Our tradition of freedom and civil rights, once the gold standard for the world, had deteriorated into an embarrassing culture of fear and tyranny. Our relations with the other countries of the world had deteriorated into a web of policies designed to intimidate rather than negotiate. Our bluster, greed, and ignorance had alienated us from our neighbors on the planet.
All this has turned around. You might not like everything the President has done, it may be that he has fallen short of his campaign promises, but the fact is he has made a point of showing respect to American citizens and to citizens of the world we share. He took a once-powerful, fallen country and raised it up again, and the Nobel committee has recognized that and rewarded him for it.
The BBC article goes on to list the challenges facing the President. It is a sober and appreciative perspective on the honor bestowed on our President.
I have looked at a number of news reports on this, and will use the BBC as a source, representing an international viewpoint and not necessarily a partisan American one. Even so, they had mixed feelings about the award.
In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honouring his intentions more than his achievements.
After all he has been in office only just over eight months and he will presumably hope to serve eight years, so it is very early in his term to get this award.
The committee does not make any secret of its approach. It states that he is being given the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples."
This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image.
The committee "attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." But it also mentioned the UN, climate change and the "strengthening" of democracy and human rights.
The reference to democracy will be noted - perhaps wryly, perhaps with some resentment - by the neo-conservatives, as the spread of democracy, especially in the wider Middle East as they called it, (incorporating Afghanistan) was one of their rallying cries. The Norwegian committee was not impressed and it will probably be a case of vice versa. Obama gets reward for world view
The message is clear. Under eight years of Republican rule, the United States had become the world's enemy. Our tradition of freedom and civil rights, once the gold standard for the world, had deteriorated into an embarrassing culture of fear and tyranny. Our relations with the other countries of the world had deteriorated into a web of policies designed to intimidate rather than negotiate. Our bluster, greed, and ignorance had alienated us from our neighbors on the planet.
All this has turned around. You might not like everything the President has done, it may be that he has fallen short of his campaign promises, but the fact is he has made a point of showing respect to American citizens and to citizens of the world we share. He took a once-powerful, fallen country and raised it up again, and the Nobel committee has recognized that and rewarded him for it.
The BBC article goes on to list the challenges facing the President. It is a sober and appreciative perspective on the honor bestowed on our President.
posted by JimK at 8:58 AM
36 Comments:
"Of course there is polarization about this award,"
Not really.
Both the left and right are saying, in unison:
Huh?
"The message is clear. Under eight years of Republican rule, the United States had become the world's enemy."
Yes, the head of the selection committee in 2002 said they chose Jimmy Carter as a slap at Bush.
The expansion of the definition of peace to include cooler climates advocated by Al Gore was also anti-Bush.
Now this.
Unfortunately, by using the prize as a political tool, the committee has cheapened its meaning to any individual who receives it.
A loss for the world.
"Our tradition of freedom and civil rights, once the gold standard for the world, had deteriorated into an embarrassing culture of fear and tyranny."
I think Americans had more freedom and civil rights under Bush than at any other time in history.
Obama is moving in the opposite direction.
At least he wants to. Hasn't really accomplished anything yet.
"Our relations with the other countries of the world had deteriorated into a web of policies designed to intimidate rather than negotiate. Our bluster, greed, and ignorance had alienated us from our neighbors on the planet."
Not really. Leaders around the world are laughing at Obama.
"All this has turned around. You might not like everything the President has done, it may be that he has fallen short of his campaign promises, but the fact is he has made a point of showing respect to American citizens and to citizens of the world we share. He took a once-powerful, fallen country and raised it up again, and the Nobel committee has recognized that and rewarded him for it."
Wha? American influence declines daily under this President who even the French think is a wimp.
Deserting our Eastern Eurpopean allies, having a public debate about whether to abandon Afghanistan, refusing to meet the Dalai Lama to appease the Chinese...
if history is any indication, these will not lead to peace
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony
of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too."
— Somerset Maugham, English playwright and novelist
Transcript of Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland's announcement of Obama as Peace Prize winner
"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. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
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.
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."
"Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."
The world will discover that when all nations feel they are on equal footing that conflict will increase.
Perfect example is Iran who can't grasp why they shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons when the U.S. has them.
The deadline for submitting nominations for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was....drum roll please....FEBRUARY 2009!!! I don't know about you, but every award deadline I've ever head of means that you must have met the award criteria BEFORE OR ON the award deadline!!
Rolling on the floor laughing...
typo correction to above -- meant to say "heard of"...
don't know why Americans would be proud of this award
Obama is anti-American, raised in various other countries, may not have been born here and is more popular elsewhere than here
the wisdom of the aged:
"many Americans were puzzled.
"It would be wonderful if I could think why he won," said Claire Sprague, 82, a retired English professor as she walked her dog in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. "They wanted to give him an honor I guess, but I can't think what for.""
"He took a once-powerful, fallen country and raised it up again, and the Nobel committee has recognized that and rewarded him for it."
He did all this after 12 days in office???? WOW!!
Oh, wow...we've apparently been invaded by those loony tea-baggers/birthers/deathers/Obama haters/rooters for America's failures ignoramuses:
"Obama is anti-American, raised in various other countries, may not have been born here and is more popular elsewhere than here". Is that crazy blather, or not?
Perhaps the CRC/G/?/ers are just a front for these lunatic doofuses.
Or maybe there is some connection between unbelievably stupid remarks like Moonlight's and the viral infection discussed by Jim in his previous post.
Hooray for America and President Obama!!
Obama won the prize. . .what was it? Oh, the Nothing Piece O'Crap Prize. His winning it is a laugh.
Gotta go throw up.
A FAMISHED FOX saw some clusters of ripe black grapes hanging from a trellised vine. She resorted to all her tricks to get at them, but wearied herself in vain, for she could not reach them. At last she turned away, hiding her disappointment and saying: "The Grapes are sour, and not ripe as I thought."
The prize did seem premature, although the Nobel Committee has often awarded the prize to those who had not yet achieved their goals -- like Albert Luthuli and Desmond Tutu, and the Irish moms.
The statement the President sent out was a very appropriate response. Here it is:
From: President Barack Obama
Date: Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Subject: A call to action
This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
Thank you,
Obama should have turned the award down.
Still, you have to feel sorry for the guy. What an ackward situation to be put in, to have these socialist Western Europeans blatantly politicking for him.
Suffice it to say the award was given for undermining American interests. Not why he was elected and he will be hurt by this.
General Petraeus, who brought a peace to Iraq that most said was impossible, should have won.
He accomplished peace instead of talking about it.
btw, Bill Clinton is fuming. He's the only Democratic President of the last forty years not to receive a Nobel Peace Prize.
I didn't want to say anything but now, with all the Nobel excitement, I've got to tell you guys:
I think I'm being considered for the Nobel prize for literature for my posts on TTF!
Quote of the day
State Department spokesman PJ Crowley, nodding at one of the reasons President Obama seems to have won the Nobel Peace Prize -- he's not former President George W. Bush -- and sticking his finger in Republicans' eyes at the same time:
Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.
Iraqi shoe thrower Muntazer al-Zaidi inundated with offers and gifts
Commentary's John Podhoretz wrote:
The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization's highest ideals.
He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than "the indispensable nation," as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.
My reaction when I heard the news? I laughed.
Hey Deluxe -- To win the award, you don't actually have to write posts on TTF. You simply have to say that you''ll write posts, and say it with a lot of feeling!
P.S. 'Cause remember...the 2009 Nobel prize is given for 2008 accomplishments. At that point, Obama had not even held the Beer Summit.
Perhaps the beer "summit" was to stimulate the economy - boost sales for the beer companies.
the 2009 Nobel prize is given for 2008 accomplishments
The history of the Nobel Peace Prizes given demonstrates that this statement is false. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded a number of times to those whose ideas show promise but have not yet resulted in achievements or accomplishments.
Joan Walsh at Salon points out:
"...In recent years the Nobel Peace Prize has more often honored promise and encouraged progress than it marked concrete, permanent achievements in the realm of world peace. So the prize went to President Carter's ultimately unsuccessful 1978 Middle East peace drive; and to the same still uncompleted effort by Yassir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994. In 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi won the prize in her jail cell, but the point was to support democracy in Burma (and 18 years later, she is still under house arrest). Thinking about the Northern Ireland Catholic and Protestant "Peace Mothers" who won the award in 1976, years before real peace accords, I suddenly saw Obama's win as strangely humble, and personal: One man trying to reverse the bloody tide of recent American history.
Obama's prize is a measure of how far the Bush administration pushed the United States, and the world, away from peace. So far that Obama's small but fervent efforts in the opposite direction -- new diplomacy on Israel, Palestine, Iran, Russia and North Korea; slow but steady withdrawal from Iraq and now a painful reappraisal of the increasingly bloody war in Afghanistan; a pledge to eliminate nuclear weapons; new initiatives to the Muslim world -- could win him this prize..."
The Nobel Committee itself reinforced this idea when announcing President Obama had won:
"...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. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened..."
President Obama has inspired hope in many people here at home (Obama's job approval rating just climbed again, this time to 52.3% in the latest RCP average) and around the world. It's too bad the remaining GOP core only "hopes" he fails.
Fortunately, plenty of other folks hope he succeeds. President Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize because he have given people hope and invited everyone to join with him to make the world a better place.
Yes we can!
Transcript of Representative Alan Grayson's most recent speech before the House of Representatives:
"Madame Speaker, I have words for both Democrats and Republicans tonight.
Let's start with the Democrats.
We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds of our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snow to vote for health care reform. I want to remind us all Olympia Snow was not elected President last year. Olympia Snow has no veto power in the Senate. Olympia Snow represents a state with one half of one percent of America's population.
What America wants is health care reform. America doesn't care if it gets 51 votes in the Senate, or 60 votes in the Senate, or 83 votes in the Senate. In fact America doesn't even care about that, it doesn't care about that at all.
What America cares about is this:
There are over 1 million Americans who go broke every single year trying to pay their health care bills. America cares a lot about that.
America cares about the fact that there are 44,780 Americans who die every single year on account of not having health care. That's 122 every day. America sure cares a lot about that.
America cares about that fact that if you have a pre-existing condition, even if you have health insurance, it's not covered. America cares about that a lot.
America cares about the fact that you can get all the health care you need as long as you don't need any. America cares about that a lot.
But America does not care about procedures, processes, personalities. America doesn't care about that at all.
So we have to remember that as Democrats. We have to remember that what's at stake here is life and death, enormous amounts of money, and people are counting upon us to move ahead.
America understands what's good for America. America cares about health care, America cares about jobs, America cares about education, about energy independence. America does not care about process or politicians or personalities or anything like that.
And I have a few words for my Republican friends tonight as well. I guess I do have some Republican friends.
Let me say this. Last week I held up this report here and I pointed out that in America, there's 44,789 Americans who die every year, according to this Harvard Report published in a peer-reviewed journal, because they have no health insurance. That's an extra 44,789 Americans who die, whose lives could be saved. And their response was to ask me for an apology. To ask me for an apology. That's right, to ask me for an apology.
Well, I'm telling you this: I will not apologize. I will not apologize. I will not apologize for a simple reason. America doesn't care about your feelings!
I violated no rules by calling this report to America's attention. I think a lot of people didn't know about it beforehand.
But America does care about health care in America. And if you're against it, then get out of the way! Just get out of the way. You can lead, you can follow, or you can get out of the way, and I'm telling you now to get out of the way.
America understands that there's one party in this country that's in favor of health care reform and one party that's against it, and they know why.
They understand that if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation.
They understand that if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they'd blame him for destroying the defense industry.
In fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon.
But that's not what America wants. America wants solutions to its problems and that begins with health care. And that's what I'm speaking for tonight. I yield the rest of my time."
Aunt Bea writes,
President Obama has inspired hope in many people here at home (Obama's job approval rating just climbed again, this time to 52.3% in the latest RCP average) and around the world.
As a Conservative republican I am glad that his approval is where it is and I hope that it improves. My motive? I do not want this Administration to have any excuse for failing to deliver on all the "hope" they have promised to those that put them in office. Besides, I thought it was bad form for the Democrats to be cheering for defeat in Iraq while Bush was President and I apply the same principle to the Republicans.
It's too bad the remaining GOP core only "hopes" he fails.
Sorry Aunt Bea, but Rush is an entertainer...much like Alec Baldwin, Leonardo di Caprio, and Mel Gibson are all entertainers. I understand...with the Republicans out of favor and power, it behooves the Angry Left and the Democrats to anoint Rush the de facto leader of the GOP because he helps Democrats maintain their majority. Problem is this: he has never...not once...run for election to any public office, and if he did he would be resoundingly defeated (just in case he did run and was by chance elected, I would register as an Independent). And besides, the context makes it clear (at least from the URL tag Aunt Bea posted) what Rush was referring to,
Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.
Of course Rush does not care; he does not have to face any voters. I would be clear what aspect of Messianic Obamaism I would like to see fail: the more centralized government. Put to me this way then I would say if that is what Obama represents and desires for the US then I too hope he fails.
Context does matter...
Fortunately, plenty of other folks hope he succeeds. President Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize because he have given people hope and invited everyone to join with him to make the world a better place.
Just as with the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, the award was given more as a rebuke to American voters than anything else. Frankly I could care less what Europeans think of Americans or the leaders we elect.
Yes we can!
"We can" what? This jingoism is getting old and really belongs in a country like North Korea where there is a real cult of personality, as opposed to the phony one we have here.
"We can" what?
You have to ask? Does that mean you're saying there's nothing that needs fixing and all is well with the nation and the world? IMHO there are plenty of things that need fixing that "we can" do.
Per the Nobel Committee, we can:
-work for a world without nuclear weapons
-work to create a new climate in international politics
-work to ensure dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts
-work to play a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.
Per President Obama, we can:
-be inspired by prior Nobel Peace Prize winners who've demonstrated a "courageous pursuit of peace."
-accept this award for our President as a call to action to confront the common challenges of the 21st century - poverty, war, famine, health, climate change to name a few.
-recommit to the important work that we've begun together - like fixing the economy while rebuilding our aging infrastructures, reforming health care so no Americans' health needs go unmet, restoring and protecting the environment, safely bringing American troops home, repealing and rewriting laws to recognize that all people are created equal with certain unalienable rights.
belongs in a country like North Korea where there is a real cult of personality
Just who do you think "we" is, Orin? IMHO "we" is all of us, Orin, all of us human beings. We can do just about anything if we put our minds to it and work together toward the goal.
Sorry Aunt Bea, but Rush is an entertainer.
I am well aware that Rush is a radio talk show host, but not all of Republicans see it like you do. For example, from a blog called The GOP Speaks:
Question: There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Answer: Thank God for letting Al Gore create the Internet. The rise of cable news and Internet sources of news are our salvation right now. Were it not for real men like Limbaugh, Beck, Levin and Hannity, we would wake up in America in the not-to-distant future wondering what happened to our Constitution and our God-given human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I guess by anon-B's thinking, Rachel Maddow is leader of the Democratic party
It's surely not our Nobel laureate who sits back and watches while Democrats do all the heavy lifting and he spends all his time on TV saying, well, nothing.
Did you catch his gay speech:
"WASHINGTON (Oct. 10) - President Barack Obama restated his campaign pledge to allow homosexual men and women to serve openly in the military, but left many in his audience of gay activists wondering when he would make good on the promise.
"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said Saturday night to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.
He offered no timetable or specifics and he acknowledged some may be growing impatient.
"I appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough," Obama said. "Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach."
Some advocates said they already have heard Obama's promises and now they want a timeline.
Cleve Jones, creator of the AIDS Memorial Quilt, said Obama's speech, "lacked the answer to our most pressing question, which is when."
"He repeated his promises that he's made to us before, but he did not indicate when he would accomplish these goals and we've been waiting for a while now," said Jones.
Aubrey Sarvis, said Obama's pledge was "an opportunity was missed tonight."
Obama expressed strong support for the gay agenda of ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people but stopped short of laying out a detailed plan for how to get there."
Let me translate for you guys: he won't veto any gay agenda bills he gets from Congress but he's not going to do a thing to get them there.
Oh, and he hopes you'll vote for him in November 2012.
"There are over 1 million Americans who go broke every single year trying to pay their health care bills. America cares a lot about that."
Since the new bill will increase our health care costs dramatically, we should expect this situation to get worse.
"America cares about the fact that there are 44,780 Americans who die every single year on account of not having health care. That's 122 every day. America sure cares a lot about that."
This is not just a lie.
It's a peer-reviewed Ivy League lie.
No one believes it.
"America cares about that fact that if you have a pre-existing condition, even if you have health insurance, it's not covered. America cares about that a lot."
You could fix that without all this other stuff.
"America cares about the fact that you can get all the health care you need as long as you don't need any. America cares about that a lot."
I don't thing anyone wants their "needs" defined by a debate in the most distrusted institution in America, the U.S. Congress.
Can we pass a one thousand page bill to make a health care mess in America worse?
Yes, we can!
Grayson should apogize to his constituents for running for Congress.
oops!
that last Nobel-worthy comment was a "deluxe" comment
I guess by anon-B's thinking, Rachel Maddow is leader of the Democratic party
You can't imagine how I think, detox, because I use reason and facts, which appear to be alien concepts to you.
President Barack Obama is the leader who speaks for the Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh, to quote another great Democratic leader who just started out, is a Big Fat Stupid Idiot who draws a daily audience consisting of the last remnants of the ever shrinking and increasingly despondent GOP base.
Let me translate for you guys: he won't veto any gay agenda bills he gets from Congress but he's not going to do a thing to get them there.
Anyone with any doubt that President Obama has not just given the biggest boost get ENDA passed as well as DOMA and DADT repealed need only listen to the full speech he gave yesterday, which HRC has posted here.
A transgender-inclusive ENDA has been introduced by House and in the Senate. President Barack Obama supports the bill's passage unlike Bush, who threatened to veto the measure. There is legislative support for passage in both the House and the Senate and yesterday President Obama said he'd sign it into law.
President Obama also said:
"...You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman..."
and
"...I am working with the Pentagon, its leadership and members of the House and Senate to end this policy. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That is my commitment to you..."
This [Harvard study finding 44,789 Americans die each year due to lack of health care] is not just a lie.
It's a peer-reviewed Ivy League lie.
No one believes it.
Is that what you believe, detox?
US News and World Report ranks Harvard Medical School number one in the nation.
If you think "no one believes" what Harvard researchers report in medical areas, you are sadly mistaken.
Grayson should apogize to his constituents for running for Congress.
Here's Grayson's answer to that:
"I will not apologize. I will not apologize. I will not apologize for a simple reason. America doesn't care about your feelings!
... You can lead, you can follow, or you can get out of the way, and I'm telling you now to get out of the way.
America understands that there's one party in this country that's in favor of health care reform and one party that's against it, and they know why.
...America wants solutions to its problems and that begins with health care..."
I just made an on-line contribution to the reelection campaign for this gutsy, no-nonsense Democratic Freshman Representative. For those who'd like to thank Rep. Grayson for standing up to the GOP bullies who are standing in the way to block health care reform for America, you can contribute to his reelection campaign here.
Aunt Bea replies,
I am well aware that Rush is a radio talk show host, but not all of Republicans see it like you do. For example, from a blog called The GOP Speaks:
And you send me to a blog with 6, yes SIX, followers???!!! Good grief, you are going to have to do better than that...try again. Good grief, I have as many sibs as that blog has those following whatever it says.
Sure Orin, here ya' go, but I thought you could handle "the google."
Maybe you'll remember some of these recent events:
Rush's First Televised Address to the Nation: Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Speech
GOP to Michael Steele: Quiet About Rush Limbaugh or You're Fired
Republican chief Michael Steele apologizes for Rush Limbaugh remarks
Bachmann: I’m comfortable with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck being the voices of the GOP
Do the head of the Republican National Committee and a GOP member of the US House of Representatives represent enough Republican let-Limbaugh-speak "followers" for you, Orin, or do you need more?
This is from the 3rd link, which makes it clear that Steele was told to stop the feud with Rush and bring the GOP together...
to shut up and focus on his job of organizing the party and raising money, not fighting with his own political kind. Several Republican advisers to Congress and the previous Bush administration told Whispers that they are worried that the war of words is fracturing the party when it should be healing the division between conservatives and moderates in the wake of the 2008 election.
So I would say you are half correct (in that the GOP is backing off a fight with any number of right-wing loud mouths) though I think for more practical reasons that fear of offending these same loud mouths. Time and energy are limited - picking one's battles and not getting distracted are important if goals are to be achieved.
Look, I did not vote for the GOP ticket last year, and having done that once, I am not afraid to do it again, given a good enough reason.
The quote you selected is from the second link, Whispers at US News and World Report. It was written in March, right after Limbaugh was the keynote speaker for CPAC. This reminds me of the CRW who brought in Anne Arundel County's Don Dwyer to be the keynote speaker at their hatefest because there were no elected officials in MoCo conservative enough for them. Apparently CPAC wanted a keynote speaker more conservative than the GOP could provide.
The conservative vs. moderate battle within the GOP continued in May when both Rush and Cheney decided to deride Colin Powell for his moderate remarks. We haven't heard much from GOP moderates since. But we hear from Limbaugh and the clowns at Fox every day.
Today Salon has posted an interesting article on this topic: Glenn Beck, Republican strategist: When the Fox News host pushes a crackpot theory, it doesn't take long for the GOP to run with it. A timeline
You should read it.
IMHO there are too many Republicans who say that "entertainers" like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck speak for them. I'm glad to know you don't agree, Orin, but you are apparently in the minority in your own party, a silent minority. While I don't know what goes on within the GOP, GOP moderates haven't spoken out very much since Colin Powell did -- and suffered the wrath of both Limbaugh the entertainer and Cheney the outgoing GOP Veep for doing so.
this arguing over whether Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the republican party is assinine
I personally am not aware of any position he takes that makes him some goblin but there's no more evidence he's a leader of Republicans than there is that Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are Democrat leaders
Let's face it: Democrats want to push the idea because of Limbaugh's personal appearance.
Why is bias against fat people considered a legitimate tool of the left, that claims it is so tolerant of others?
hypocrisy alert!
detox said...there's no more evidence [Limbaugh]'s a leader of Republicans than there is that Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are Democrat leaders
Sure there is lots more evidence that Rush speaks for the GOP than there is that some MSNBC show host speaks for the Dems.
A June 2009 Gallup poll of Americans found Rush was the #1 person selected as the "main person who speaks for the Republican Party today" and not a single "entertainer" was reported by Democrats as speaking for them. Rush indicates he'll be making more "televised addresses to the nation" because CPAC was his "first". And the Chairman of the RNC has apologized for calling Rush an "entertainer" (what Orin called him), was told by the GOP to "...be quiet about Rush or be fired," and said "...[Limbaugh] is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice..."
You won't find Democrats falling all over themselves sucking up to "entertainers" like that.
oh, I think the Democrats would have a similar reaction if Chris Van Hollen called Al Sharpton an entertainer. Ol' Al has a radio show and Rush helped him get it. It's not that Rush or Al are leaders, it's that they don't want take a chance alienating their listeners.
I think we'd need both a poll of Republicans not all Americans to establish leadership of the Republican Party and evidence people are following his lead.
There are neither.
I think we'd need both a poll of Republicans not all Americans to establish leadership of the Republican Party...
Oh so you're the Anon who has always been too lazy to click a link and go read the article.
If you followed my link to the June 2009 Gallup poll you'd have seen that Republicans and Democrats were polled separately as well as combined.
Among participants who called themselves Republican or Republican leaning, the persons they named who "speaks for the GOP" were:
1. No opinion, 27%
2. No one, 17%
3. Other, 14%
4. Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, tied at 10% each
These same GOP/GOP leaning respondents named the following people as the person "who speaks for the Democratic party:"
1. Barack Obama, 54%
2. Nancy Pelosi, 20%
3. No opinion, 13%
So over half of GOP and GOP leaning respondents could easily identify Obama as speaking for the Democratic Party, but over half of them could not name a person who spoke for the GOP. The two people they selected as speaking for the GOP have each been married three times and are not currently serving in elected office.
...and evidence people are following his lead.
According to Rush himself there's evidence Republicans do what he tells them to do:
"...On Bloomberg News last night, they reported that one in ten voters -- one in ten, 10%! Now, in terms of election numbers, this is a huge percentage.
One in ten voters say they changed party registration to vote in this year's Pennsylvania primary. Ten percent of the vote is huge. That would be five times the past high for a crossover vote with a closed primary. That's an absolutely huge number -- and once again, ladies and gentlemen, that is Operation Chaos.
According to Rush, 10% of the GOP lemmings in PA did his bidding for him to ensure that the GOP ticket would be up against Hillary, the candidate Rove had his architecture firm was ready to demolish.
Of course Operation Chaos, as successful as Rush thought it to be the day he said these things, didn't quite work out like Rove and Rush envisioned, did it?
just to start at the top with anon-B's "crazy as an old bat" post, when 10% of Republicans say Limbaugh speaks for them, that doesn't make him leader of the party
I don't think when she has said something so stupid that we need go further
I remember a chapter in Huck Finn where Twain says
"out of charity, let's close the curtain of this scene"
indeed
Post a Comment
<< Home