Friday, October 09, 2009

Overflight Fight

At first I was struck by the almost bizarre bitterness and derision on the far Right about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (questioning it is certainly justified). Then I realized: How likely is it for a recent Nobel winner to order or sanction an attack on Iran?


Anonymous evie said...

Utterly unrelated. If he does, which I do not believe he would do unilaterally, the committee could say they misjudged him.

10/09/2009 4:28 PM  
Anonymous judyo said...

As Alan Grayson so aptly put it, it Obama was a BLT, the right would want to outlaw bacon.

10/09/2009 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Bill in SoCal said...

The prize probably should have been awarded to the American people. I think it was given in recognition of the fact that McCain wasn't elected.

10/09/2009 6:43 PM  
Blogger Vijay said...

Why should one's standard of what is correct be dependent on what the political right thinks? The political right has been intellectually bankrupt for decades. But just because they take a position reflexively for political reasons, does not mean that position is devoid of substantive reasons to believe it correct.

I mean who except an Obama idalater could think he deserves a Nobel Prize... for PEACE! Does it not matter that his promise of exiting Iraq was as much a blatant lie as Bush's WMD propaganda?

This what I always find most troubling about the most ardent supporters of newly elected leaders: they're willing to defenestrate their principles as soon as it's politically expedient. I don't hear anyone on the left talking about the War anymore, not the patriot act.

10/09/2009 8:03 PM  
Anonymous Thomas Daulton said...

I had the unfortunate privilege of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News on a long drive with my parents today, and they have been extremely explicit about this. Agreeing with TCR's analysis. Rush is all over the airwaves saying that the "global elites" in Stockholm are sending precisely that message to Obama: do not "surge" in Afghanistan, and do not do anything hostile to Iran. According to Rush, the global elites in Europe want to "emasculate" America by ordering Obama to make concessions to our deadly enemies, and Obama's acceptance of the prize means that he agrees completely.

Listening to Rush, Sean and Fox so that you don't have to!

10/09/2009 10:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting point, CR. Interesting (and gratifying) that Limbaugh's hyperventilating about the same thing.

But even though Obama's been a disappointment so far, I've never read him as being hot to crank up a fresh disaster in Iran. Of course, one has to hope that he has the stones to tell our wonderful Israeli friends where to stuff it. Meaning, I hope he is emphatically and explicitly willing to scramble our fighters against any Israeli planes bound for Iran. A big question, that.

But there are some odd grounds for hope there. I've read (no link, sorry) that, in the second half of his term, even Bush the Lesser brushed off Israeli attempts to sucker us into an Iranian war. So even the Idiot Prince could learn, given five or six years of cascading mistakes. If nothing else, Obama seems to be a quicker study.
-- sglover

10/09/2009 11:34 PM  
Blogger Fel said...

Bill in SoCal - yes, thanks for not electing McCain and thanks for saying NO MORE BUSH louder than ever seemed possible a few short years ago

Amazing how quickly we make the extraordinary ordinary in this culture. C’est la vie.

10/10/2009 12:03 AM  
Anonymous Tom Shubnell said...

I was be less inclined to be upset about the Nobel prize for Obama, until I found that the nomination was made just two weeks into his presidency. Those two weeks were hardly notable for any actions which would constitute support for a prize of this stature.

10/10/2009 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Thomas Daulton said...

I agree with Tom Shubnell... Obama hasn't done anything notable in nine months, let alone two weeks... as Michael Moore said, "Congratulations, Mr. President -- now please earn it!"

But the reaction from the Right is simply over the top. For example... Hey Rush, could you make it a little less obvious? Last time somebody expounded on the theory that "global [financial] elites" were conspiring to "emasculate" the century's superpower, the project really didn't end well for anyone involved.

10/10/2009 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the record, while the nomination was in February, they did not start working on their choice until September.

At some level I can't help think the decision was made to stick it in the eye of the last eight years.

However, if you go back through history, there are many examples of the prize being given be before accomplishments happened, and in some cases the prize winner NEVER accomplished what they wanted to, even after getting the prize.

However, why let a few historical facts get in the way of covering the right wing rant machine in this country.

Just saying.


10/10/2009 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Cecelia said...

I'd note that when ML King got his Peace Prize segregation and racism were still violent and rampant in the US. Same for the woman in N Ireland who got it. The award is often more a carrot - to encourage and support future behavior.

Obama is the head of the most powerful nation on earth - he has called for complete nuclear disarnament - that is a biggie. I suspect his willingness to even try to go down that path as well as his emphasis on working with other nations is the behavior they wish to encourage - hence the Prize.

It could also just be a huge sigh of relief that the US is going in a different direction

So yes - let's hope he earns it!

10/10/2009 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But the reaction from the Right is simply over the top.

Ummm..... Compared to what? Right-wingers have been so frothingly batshit crazy for so long that nothing they say surprises me any more.

(Please note that I use "right-winger" to mean movement apparatchiks like Limbaugh, little Davey Brooks, the Heritage Foundation, and whatever's left of the Republican Party, now. I recognize that folks like CR, Daniel Larison, and Andrew Bacevich are more properly described as "conservative" -- and do that label credit.)
-- sglover

10/10/2009 9:33 PM  
Blogger Montag said...

The question "How likely is it for a recent Nobel winner...?" is justified.

Personally, I often ask myself, when the Nobels are announced, whether or not the scholars named may do something..."oxymoronic" in the next few months: whether a Physicist might become a flat-earther, or whether an Astronomer might return to the Ptolemaic system.

Consider the case of the Oscars: how many times - Meryl Streep excluded - have you watched a favorite gather in the gold, and then for the next 12 years star in nothing but trash?

Awards are a chaotic system fraught with danger. I hope the Nobels know they are playing with fire.

10/11/2009 7:03 AM  
Blogger Montag said...

On a serious note, the nomination was made 2 weeks into Obama's presidency...

What went on in the minds of the awards committee?

There is a point when the pent up demand of dreams, aspirations, and desires for peace become more tangible currency than the scrip of wars, deceit, and stratagems.

10/11/2009 7:18 AM  
Blogger Cecile said...

TCR's comment on how likely a recent winner will sanction an attack on Iran is somewhat specious given not many sitting heads of state win the prize. I don't agree with the nomination, but I also don't believe it's baseless. One accomplishment not seen mentioned in all the backlash is what Obama achieved by being elected as the first black U.S. President. That alone was a huge step toward mending race relations in this country, and lifted opinions around the globe. If you watched election night coverage, especially non-U.S. based coverage, the world was ecstatic by our selection. We live in our media bubble, generally unaware of what occurs outside our borders.

10/11/2009 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the reaction been in Israel to the award?

10/11/2009 11:41 AM  
Blogger Cheryl said...

I think of it as an award given to our president but meant for us, who didn't elect another good ole boy whose entire policy toward other countries was to bomb the ones run by brown people.

10/11/2009 5:50 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

A lot of the criticism is misguided in its target and is leading to up or down opinions of Barack Obama, a man who didn't ask for the prize and for all intents and purposes admitted that he didn't deserve it. (A point on which I strongly agree)

The result I would have expected and that I've not seen in as much force as i would like is the further marginalization of this already dubious award. After Al Gore and Arafat win a prize for peace, does it really carry any weight anymore? Particularly a prize given by a group of people who, on issues other than peace, have basically zero values in common with the majority of the US?

I think deep down Barack Obama and his team are regretting this whole situation. His approval ratings are already not stellar, a good portion of the country is already suspicious of him as someone who wants (and actually believes that he can!!) save or in some way reverse the fortunes of the world. Piling on top of that a premature (at best) award for peace (with two active military engagements still ongoing!!) is the last thing he needs.

10/12/2009 10:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home