Credit/Blame Bush for Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize


U.S. President Barack Obama smiles after making remarks on regulatory reform in the East Room at the White House in Washington October 9, 2009. Earlier in the day, Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES POLITICS)

Apparently, SNL’s skit was premature. Maybe President Obama hasn’t actually accomplished the following:

1. Closing Gitmo (same as Bush)
2 Outlawing torture by revoking Bush’s EO that said much the same thing
3. Withdrawal from Iraq (thanks to Bush)
4. De-escalation of war in Afghanistan (campaigned that it was the necessary war and now dithers as more American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan this year, than in the previous 7 years)
5. peace between Israel and Palestine
6. Olympics in Chicago
7. Supporting democratic movement in Iran
8. Supporting democracy in Honduras
9. nuclear disarmament

But, hey, so what?! At least he’s now won the Nobel Peace Prize for non-accomplishment; and delivered a presidential promise to use this award as a rallying “call to action”. It’s the thought and rhetoric that counts, right? Basically, he’s being awarded for what he may accomplish in the future (Even supporters are questioning, “Why?”). If his pretty words actually inspires us to achieve peace, enhances international relations, then some day in the future, maybe the award will have been earned. Here’s a novel idea: Why not award the prize to him THEN?!

I’m not trying to be funny, here; I wouldn’t want to be accused of siding with the terrorists.

But seriously, folks…

WASHINGTON/OSLO (Reuters) – Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world.

The bestowal of one of the world’s top accolades on a president less than nine months in office, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.

Awww….they love him not for the leader he is, but for the leader he wants to be; for saying what they want to hear.

Kim Priestap writes:

“If just wanting world [peace], talking about world peace is enough to get the Nobel Peace Prize then every beauty pageant winner should have gotten one. “

Obama said he felt humbled and unworthy of being counted in the company of the “transformative figures” of history who had won the prize.

Maybe CNN and Wolf Blitzer would care to factcheck this one for actual accomplishments in the pursuit of peace? Even President Obama isn’t buying it. He doesn’t sound humbled; more like embarrassed.

“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership,” he said, speaking in the White House Rose Garden. “I will accept this award as a call to action.”

Kanye West, at this point had to interrupt the acceptance speech with the following:

“Hey, hey Barack, I’m really happy for you, I’mma let you finish, but I just want to say his teleprompter had one of the best bids of all time. OF ALL TIME.”

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” citing his fledgling push for nuclear disarmament and his outreach to the Muslim world.

What about Reagan’s push for nuclear disarmament?

What about Bush’s “outreach to the Muslim world”?

Just 12 days into his presidency, what had President Obama done thus far to join the ranks of Carter, Gore, and Arafat in garnering such a prestigious nomination as the highly credible Nobel Peace Prize?

1. He campaigned in 2008 to escalate the “necessary” war in Afghanistan
2. He campaigned in 2008 to invade a sovereign ally, Pakistan, to go after al Qaeda and out-Bush, Bush.

153+ were killed within the first week of of his peace presidency, including the continuation of Predator drone attacks in Pakistan.

Obama has been widely credited with improving America’s global image after the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, who alienated both friends and foes with go-it-alone policies like the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Bush alienated friends with “go-it-alone” policies? Really?!

So Bush can be credited for the Obama peace prize award.

President Obama campaigns in ’08 against President Bush; and goes around the world on his grand Apology Tour and wins acclaim.


But critics called the Nobel’s committee’s decision premature, given that Obama so far has made little tangible headway as he grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea.

The White House had no idea the Nobel announcement was coming. Obama, who got the news of the prize in a pre-dawn call from his press secretary, now also has the burden of living up to its expectations.

The first African-American to hold his country’s highest office, Obama, 48, has struggled with a slew of foreign policy problems bequeathed to him by Bush, while taking a more multilateral approach than his predecessor.

Despite troubles at home including a struggling economy that have eroded his once-lofty approval ratings, the Democratic U.S. president is still widely seen around the world as an inspirational figure.

How did President Bush not exercise diplomacy and multilateralism?

Yes. Bush’s fault.

Also blogging:
The Anchoress
Bottomline Upfront
Brutally Honest
Bookworm Room
Gateway Pundit
The Radio Patriot
Michelle Malkin

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Your posts are excellent Mata, but I fear you are wasting your time. Larry won’t even admit he was wrong about obama’s picks or governing like a moderate. Logic is not a factor in his support of obama.
When someone tries to tell you that a 1 trillion deficit created by dems and signed by a dem president aren’t to blame, they aren’t being rational.

Hard Right: When someone tries to tell you that a 1 trillion deficit created by dems and signed by a dem president aren’t to blame, they aren’t being rational.

dang… wish I’d said that. Woulda saved a boatload of typing! LOL

With respect to Obama governing as a moderate, it depends on one’s perspective.

I consider myself to be a moderate. I’m against gay marriage. I’m for 2nd amendment rights. I agree that McCain-Feingold is an assault on Free Speech. I was against both the Wall Street bailout and the “stimulus.” I am more conservative on economic policy than any of you. I believe in a balanced budget. I believe that the ONLY way to get a balanced budget is to INCREASE taxes to pay for 100% of what government spends — from welfare to war. You make people pay — in REAL TIME — and you’ll achieve what you really want to achieve — which is to tame the beast. I “believe” in the concept that the only war worth fighting is the war that everyone agrees is worth fighting. World War II was worth fighting. Every single war since World War II was not worth fighting. Save the Cold War. Declared by Truman. Containment works. It’s what we should have done with both Iraq and Afghanistan. An adolescent from Washington state shook hands with Bin Laden. A professional CIA agent could have killed Bin Laden. I think that the Soledad Cross should be left uncovered. I think the Mojave Desert Cross should be uncovered. I applaud the appointment of Roberts and Alito as being outstanding (I think that Sotomayor was also outstanding; I think that Clarence Thomas was a disgrace. I think that Bork would have been outstanding.). I consistently vote for GOP congresspeople, when there are Democratic Presidents. I could go on and on, but you get my drift. By real world standards, I’m a moderate. By Flopping Aces standards, I’m a communist.

Hard core liberals are almost as angry with Obama as hard core conservatives.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

I agree with most of what you said, Larry… save this:

I believe in a balanced budget. I believe that the ONLY way to get a balanced budget is to INCREASE taxes to pay for 100% of what government spends — from welfare to war.

Here I side with Hard Right. You say “you make people pay – in REAL TIME”. I’m confused as to why the taxpayer should pay for Congressional irresponsibility. Your analogy is akin to the Mom and Dad just increasing the credit limit on their spoiled kid’s Bloomingdale’s card instead of cutting the credit limit for her to spend.

We should be forcing Congress to tighten their belts and knock off the welfare crap. Let us handle our cash and take responsibility for mishandling it. History has proven over and over that when you leave the cash in the earner’s pocket, most invest and create more wealth… which translates to more revenue despite the lower tax rates.

No, it DOES NOT depend on one’s perspective. Reality is not subjective so don’t try that with me. Obama has chosen radical leftists for many positions, especially Czar positions.
His economic and social policies are straight from the hardcore socialist and even marxist handbook. That is not moderate unless your definition of moderate is stalin, hitler, or pol pot.
It’s no accident when you see who he chose to associate and work with. He is a devout leftist.

“I believe that the ONLY way to get a balanced budget is to INCREASE taxes to pay for 100% of what government spends.”

Last I checked Larry, being fiscally Conservative meant cutting govt. spending AND taxes.

I “believe” in the concept that the only war worth fighting is the war that everyone agrees is worth fighting.

Everyone couldn’t agree that WWII was worth fighting. That is an unrealistic standard and I’m not surprised you stand by that.

Containment works. It’s what we should have done with both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please define what you mean by containment? Because our efforts to “contain” Iraq were failing badly. Or have you forgot the “food”-for oil scandal? Or hussein’s terrorist links…including the agents we arrested inside the U.S.?
Afghanistan? Contain them? We saw what happened when a terrorist regime was in charge. We should leave them intact so they can export terror elsewhere? Not to mention containing Afghanistan is hardly as simple as you make it sound.

Sotomayer was a good pick? Riiiiight. Thomas a disgrace? Ummm, yeaaahhhhh. Whatever.

Larry, I might take your claims about being a “true Conservative” fiscally a little more seriously IF you didn’t excuse MASSIVE dem spending and cheer the govt. takeover of industries (or perhaps one in particular).
When it comes to the word Conservative, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Let me first state that I think that President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was odd in that there seems to be little accomplishment on his part up to this point to support a nomination, much less the award. But does anyone else agree with Bill O’reilly in that Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is good for America on the global stage? Is anyone at least proud that our president is being recognized and therefore we too are being recognized worldwide for advocation of Peace?

Re: #60 Poster Child:

O Reilly went completely off the rails tonight. Laura was just about to walk off the show after he said that the prize was good for America on the Global Stage. I damn near broke my TV after hearing that. It’s good to be a second rate country, on a par with the European cowards? I think not. Awards for doing NOTHING are shallow at best and this was an embarrassment for both the U.S. and Zero.

Proud to be recognized for WHAT?? Exactly WHAT is it that he’s done? Oh, “recognized for advocation of peace”? No thanks. Peace is attained through the application of overwhelming force. I’d rather we were recognized as the nation that YOU DO NOT WANT TO FUCK WITH. PERIOD.

And as far as Zero being “recognized”……How in Hell can he NOT be recognized? You can’t turn on a television without seeing his jug-eared face on it.

The Nobel Committee is just as corrupt as this government is. AlGore over Irena Sendler?


Here’s your Nobel Committee at work


I don’t think President Obama deserved to be nominated much less win it all. I think the dopes in Oslo have no bloody clue what Alfred Nobel’s original intent was. It is a joke that President Obama wins it for being all-eloquence-no-execution.

Give Larry a break. He did not say that Obama deserved the award. He merely mentioned that Nobel is sometimes awarded to people/groups to encourage them towards their stated goal. He also acknowledged that some of the previous winners haven’t gone onto accomplish all they had set out to. Larry does not sound like the typical lunatic from the left. He has been much too civilized (to be a liberal lunatic) through out this long discussion even when he was attacked unfairly (by Aye).

You should have seen one of the posters on Seattle Post Intelligencer’s website. All day, he has been telling all of us (who did not think President Obama deserved the award) that we were on the same side as Taliban and Al-Qaida and hence belonged in Gitmo. The idiot posted 30/40 times today and had said the same two or three sentences (mixing in a reference here and there to 9/11, USS Cole bombing and Embassy bombings in Africa etal). Now that is who I would call a lunatic from the left. This darned city that I live in (Seattle) is so full of them.

I don’t agree that you belong in Gitmo, but your Conservative Leader, the man to whom no elected Conservative will speak poorly of without having to bow and scrape for forgiveness, the “all knowing and all seeing” Conservative leader who is right 99.89% of the time and has his talent directly connected to and on loan from God (so you know he has moral authority as well as “wisdom”) has thrown his lot in with the Taliban on this issue:

So, you must now adjust your talking points and defend Almighty Rush, who now sees the Taliban as an ally against Barack Hussein Obama..Mmmmmmm Mmmmmm MMmmm

No way Conservatives will go on record opposing Rush, so this will go from a Lefty talking point that is stupid and condemned by Conservatives to one that Rush supports and is defended by Conservatives I predict. If Rush says turn on a dime, Conservative masses will comply without a whimper.

Any serious Conservative who knows what is good for the country, his party and his own good standing with American voters would not scumbag Obama for winning the Peace Prize, but congratulate him, and there appears to be only two so far: John McCain, and Tim Pawlenty:,0,1210860.story

I wonder if Rush will scumbag Pawlenty and if he does, will Pawlenty call into Rush’s show and say he is sorry?

I see moose poo has decided to take blasted’s role as troll.

C’mon, guys! President Obama IS a peace maker! He really DID a great deed in the name of peaceful relations between peoples! The Nobel prize committee surely saw the magnificent peace-maker in action when he ACTUALLY brought Harvard Professor “skippy” Gates and Cambridge Police officer Crowley together for a BEER! No less on the White House lawn in fact! A greater act of peacemaking has never been accomplished in the history of humankind! Nobody is more deserving of the Nobel Peace prize than our very own Uber Messiah! When everyone world-wide now has a beer, they can propose a toast and hold up their mugs and say,”Heil OBAMA! the peacemaker”


Glad you cleared that up. Reading through sOP’s post immediately reminded me of your earlier comments, now I can be assured that you weren’t the one posting over at Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Oh, and interesting that you included MMmmmm, MMmmmm, MMmmmm in your rant against Rush Limbaugh and conservatives who listen to him. Just mind numbing isn’t it. The impression I get from this second bitter post of yours is that you buy into the mind numbed robot thing, rest assured it’s not the case. But, including the mmm, mmm, mmm,— now, that was due to educational systems in our country–post Obama— indoctrinating very young children, several more have been exposed since. Perhaps your concerns are misplaced.

Having posted exclusively on conservative boards, let me tell you that even though conservatives listen, they don’t always agree with Rush, they don’t always agree with Malkin, Coulter, Hannity, etc. and a host of other conservative talking heads. Funny bunch they can be.

Now, with your hang up over the taliban agreeing with conservatives, I’ve read that liberals were more offended than conservatives, they view it as a threat to an institution they want to believe in in a dire sort of way. So, are liberals……taliban lite because of their opinion, or equal to Rush types of conservatives?

BTW, you do know that Syria cheered the award. IMHO, I don’t think the cheering was as much for the award as it was for Obama signing off on a Bush policy that sanctioned Syria for the Hirari assasination and providing support for attacks on Israel, but, that’s just me. Now Europe is free to pump over $7 billion into Syria’s economy, what’s not to like.

Missy: The MMmmm MMmmm MMmmmm thing was just for laughs, it is probably not funny when Kids do it in school, but to watch and hear Rush do it cracks me up, so it was meant as humor.

I realize that normal Conservatives have different opinions, and believe it or not, I agree with many of them. My point was that ELECTED Conservatives dare not cross Rush, lest they get a zillion phone calls and a Primary challenge come election time, so they have to either agree or remain silent, unless they want Rush beatin’ them up on his show.

As for the Taliban thing, I posted a comment about that yesterday morning, and was referred to as a shill for the Liberal DNC. Then when Rush came out and said the Taliban and himself were in agreement on Obama getting the peace prize, exactly what I had said, it struck me as a Twilight Zone type of thing. I still don’t believe any elected Conservative will call Rush out on that.

As the comment about posting bitter posts here, I have tried to be civil and respectful initially upon coming here, only to have many trash me out and accuse me of many unsavory things, at some point I realized I might as well give as good as I get it here, if folks can dish it out, then they should be able to take it. But thank you for your civil and reasoned reply, a breath of fresh air to disagree without demeaning the other folks you may disagree with.

As for some Liberals, some of them are out to lunch, just like some on the far right, most people don’t live on the far edge extreme, so I can’t speak for or justify other folks nutty behavior, I can barely justify my own sometimes.


He has been much too civilized (to be a liberal lunatic) through out this long discussion even when he was attacked unfairly (by Aye).

Larry was “attacked unfairly” by moi?


Show me please.

I’ve reviewed the back and forth and found nothing in there is even remotely unfair.

Larry posted a claim. I asked for the factual backing.

Larry posted a falsehood and I called him out on it.

What’s unfair about that?

I eagerly await your efforts toward enlightening me.


I rarely listen to Rush, we have XM in our home so the only time I hear him is while traveling, then it’s cross word puzzle time, focus is not on a lot of what he says. But in the past I remember him being very critical of conservatives in Congress who he considered weak, do we know if his comments did anything to prevent their re-election? I”m doubting his power is massive enough to instigate a primary challenge. What we’ve seen in the past two elections is the power of the main stream media and left-wing blogs. You may have noticed who is controlling Congress in spite of Limbaugh’s program.

I don’t think the majority of Congressional conservatives pay much attention to his daily program, hopefully because they are working. If they did speak out, letters from constituents most likey would be answered with one of the maddening form letters. Calls? “I’ll let the Senator/Congressman know.” But, would that be enough for those voters to stay home or vote for a left-wing candidate or a third party candidate? During the three years I was campaign coordinator for my Congressman, he never made reference to him, he definately did not have time to listen, some probably do, some probably agree, they aren’t all carbon copies.

The left has MoveOn, Maddow, Matthews, Olbermann, Shultz, Randi Rhodes(bullet in Bush head segment) etc. and Michael Moore— terrorists are minute men and…..Farenheit 911. That opening was well attended by prominant democrats, MM was also gifted with a seat next to Carter at the 04 convention. Then the vicious attacks on, Petraeous, President Bush the Nazi, Sarah and baby Trigg Palin’s whole family and the racist attacks on Michael Steele, Justice Thomas and Condi Rice immediately come to mind. Repudiation?

Instead of dem leaders repudiating MoveOn, they speak at their convention and have their own pages at that site. The rest mentioned above are also ignored by their members of Congress.

@ Mata

Here I side with Hard Right. You say “you make people pay – in REAL TIME”. I’m confused as to why the taxpayer should pay for Congressional irresponsibility. Your analogy is akin to the Mom and Dad just increasing the credit limit on their spoiled kid’s Bloomingdale’s card instead of cutting the credit limit for her to spend.

I’ve check myself for a fever three times and I’ve scheduled an appointment with my doc. I actually agree with Larry on this. You left out the part where Larry said:

You make people pay — in REAL TIME — and you’ll achieve what you really want to achieve — which is to tame the beast.
Emphasis mine.

If congress proposed a bill to increase welfare spending and immediately had to inform the public that this would result in an across the board tax increase of 3%, that would be real-time. There have been many conservatives promote this idea, and I think it is a great idea. It moves to Larry’s point that this would “achieve what you really want to achieve — which is to tame the beast.” The public would revolt. Congress would have no choice except to pay for their programs by cuts in other areas or abandon the increase in spending altogether.

OK, I’m going to get a cold compress and lie down now.

Caught in sweet home spamabama.

@Aye (#70):

Larry posted a falsehood and I called him out on it. What’s unfair about that?

Let’s look at this claim in detail:

I posted a link to a Snopes story about the GW Bush Nobel nomination. I initially misread the linked article. It said that Bush got his nomination 11 days after his inauguration. But Snopes couldn’t confirm this and said that there was stronger evidence (albeit from anonymous sources) that Bush received a nomination in 2002, which, of course, was more than a year after his inauguration. I MYSELF caught my mistake and edited/changed my comment within about 5 minutes of the time I initially posted it. I made this correction BEFORE a “gotcha” post, by Aye, pointing out my error. This can probably be confirmed by those who have access to the inner workings of the FA host server.

I explained this previously. In spite of this, Aye is now stating — not simply that I made an honest mistake, which I immediately corrected — that I “posted a falsehood,” which is only a slightly more polite way of stating that I lied, which is an utterly outrageous charge against me which he’s made in the past. It’s frankly disgusting abuse of language.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

My response to Aye’s #70 went to spam.

P.S. #73: Thanks for adding the explanation/clarification. I’d also like to add that the principle also applies to declarations and support of wars. When Lyndon Johnson escalated the Vietnam War, he raised taxes to pay for it. This certainly contributed to the turning of public opinion against the war. In contrast, President Bush declared war in Iraq and simultaneously reduced our taxes. Had our taxes gone up, more of us would have paid attention much earlier. One definition of a war worth fighting is a war worth a tax increase to pay for it.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@Aye (#70),

I was referring to you insistently calling on Larry to prove his ‘falsehood’. I will let Larry comment on that (which he did). I was slightly taken aback by aggressive tone on your part. I was merely stating that Larry was civilized and polite and hence did not deserve such treatment. Once again, it is my perception. Feel free to ridicule me for it. I, along with a ton of others, had spent an entire day (yesterday) dealing with lunatics (one in particular) on Seattle PI’s website.

About the other statement by Larry, that sometimes Nobel is handed out to encourage people with their stated lofty goals, his statement sounded subjective to me. But then the entire Peace Prize is highly subjective. We can not expect him to explain himself anymore than we can expect the Committee to explain their final decision.

Like I said, I don’t think President Obama did not deserve it. I took solace from the fact that Gandhi never won it while Arafat won. I thought giving it to Gore and Carter was ridiculous too…in their cases, they at least did something…even if I didn’t think their deeds deserved such a prestigious award.

SOP, Larry blatantly justifies why obama won the award. He was nominated 12 days in and HAS SINCE ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING.

Yet you don’t think he didn’t deserve it?

Did you mistype?
Do you think wishful thinking is a good reason to win it? Seriously, I want to understand what you intended to say.

I also notice you are unfamilliar with larry’s hyper-partisan support of obama.

Here’s a little backround. Early on, Larry insisted that obama would pick moderates for his govt. and govern from the center. It’s not even debateable that he was wrong. Yet he cannot and will not admit he was wrong. Not long ago he even stated that we may be watching the creation of a legend before our very eyes. Larry meant that he would be a positive legend instead of the legendarilly BAD president he will likely be.

And Larry, tying war policy to taxes tells me that your real reason is not to prevent “unecessary wars”, but to stop war period. Hardly a realistic or smart way to go. Rather Ron Paulian. No I don’t like that phony either.

@Hard Right,

It was a typo. I meant to say “I don’t think President Obama deserved it”. Sorry about the confusion. I have only recently started posting here. I do not know much about what Larry posts elsewhere on this site. My comments were strictly based on his posts in this thread.

Aqua, as usual you always give me a grin.

I did leave out the rest of Larry’s sentence since I didn’t take the “tame the beast” analogy the same way you did. So let me say that – since we’re both making appointments for fevers induced by close cyber contact with the O’infected (just kiddin’… sorta… Larry) – together you and Larry complete a thought.

I will, however, take exception to that combined thought on methods of “taming the beast”. I can only say this is analogous to addressing terrorism as law enforcement (post dastardly deed) to doing preventative maintenance (pre’emption).

Yes… let Congress spend enough for a notable (3% is a low that would never happen…) tax increase across the board and you will have public mutiny.

ADDED: But wait… isn’t that what the “crazy” people in the tea party are protesting??? snark…

But try and undo a tax increase with our Congress. Can you say “too little, too late”? They portray them as radical crazy uncaring racists (witness the tea party reception, i.e.) and carry on with biz as usual.

Good idea, both of you… but impractical in practice.


SickofPartisanship: First let me say welcome. You are, like most everyone, a mixture of the left and right, Dem and Republican, conservative and liberal. Your voice, as far as I’m concerned, is appreciated. And your siding with Larry is not unusual as a lot of us – Obama and Larry’s faith in his potential aside – find common ground in the fiscal basics. I think, when it comes to forum battles with Larry, it has to do with speculation and predictions. Larry thinks Obama will take us where all of us want to go (health care aside, on that one… Larry is “Mr. France” on that topic). Many of us disagree. On that aspect, we can only wait out Father Time.

But just a note to you. Larry’s a big boy, and handles what he deems important well on this forum. Many of us go head to head with Larry. And I dare say all of us admire Larry’s genuine quest in life, which is “curing cancer”…. literally.

Just a suggestion to you… let Larry speak up for himself when he’s annoyed. He’s gracious, eloquent, and when he needs someone on the forum to “have his back”, he will speak up. Otherwise your concern for him is admirable, but highly unnecessary. We all have a history here. And we are still blessed with his presence, commentary, and medical insight… even when we disagree.

I only say this to you: get past the “play nice” admonitions to everyone, and get to the nitty gritty for your own bad self. Okay?


Hard Right, what it will take for Larry to “admit” error in judgment is time that has not passed sufficiently. I’d say look for mea culpas anywhere for 18 to 26 months from now. By then what Obama has wrought will potentially be visable on the market and economic conditions. Other than that, we… like economists… are predicting the effect of policy several years out. Larry is as convinced I am wrong in my predictions as I am he is wrong in his. However until time passes, all we have is history as a guide. It’s not on Larry’s side, but then every moment in time is unique.

I suspect Larry… in the position he is… is quite man enough to cop to mea culpas as deserved. And INRE the “appoint moderates”… I guess that comes down to what one considers “moderate”.

And on that note, here’s my comment to you, Larry. You want to say you are “more conservative” or “as conservative” as some of us here on FA. But then you can’t claim that, and assume that Obama’s appointments are “moderate”… using our supposed common conservative guidelines as a measure.

So perhaps you’d like to weigh in on the Obama czar party, and let us know how “moderate” or “conservative” you think any of them are, yes?


“I only say this to you: get past the “play nice” admonitions to everyone, and get to the nitty gritty for your own bad self. Okay?”

Coming from one of the authors of this website…I really feel ‘welcome’ around here now.

Don’t know you, SOP… was that sarcasm? Or real?

Ms Missy… admirable you’d deal with Moosemeat on Rush Limbaugh. But anyone one foolish enough to bite on the liberal talking point that Rush is the “head” of the Republican party doesn’t deserve that much attention.

Rush is another conservative public voice. He’s no more a “head” of anything than Michael Moore is over the liberal party. He speaks. People listen (a LOT of them) and then form their own opinion. You do not have to take prozac to listen to Rush… unlike Air America or Olbermann.

Moose? Lay off the pharmaceuticals. It’s showing lately, guy. You used to have a better grip.

I suspect that the Nobel Peace prize was given to Obama to send a message… to whom and for what purpose, who knows

So Larry considers himself a moderate, along with the Messiah, and he claims that the hard core liberals are as angry with Obama as hard core conservatives. As far as I can tell, the right dislikes Obama for the promises he makes. The left dislike him for the promises he breaks. Does that make him a moderate? I don’t think so.

This decision by the Nobel Foundation exposes them as nothing more than just another political front for the international progressive movement. They have lost all credibility.

Then again, maybe Blogojevich and the Chicago political machine twisted some viking arms and made a few payoffs in Oslo.


I was trying to be sarcastic. I am too thick skinned to be offended easily. Being a moderate in Seattle does that to you.

“maybe Blogojevich and the Chicago political machine twisted some viking arms and made a few payoffs in Oslo”
You may be on to something….their thinking to buy BHO 4 more years in the White House??

Mayor Daley seemed to become very active in ‘promoting’ Obama in careers outside of Chicago once BHO announced, years ago, he wanted to be mayor of Chicago someday…..

Ok SOP, that’s why I asked. It didn’t sound quite right.
Also, I recounted Larry’s psycohphantic defense of obama to give you some perspective.

Mata, I must agree to disagree on the moderate issue. While I see you are giving Larry the benefit of the doubt, it’s pretty clear that obama is not governing from the center and his picks are from the far left. It is most certainly decided. It’s just more denial on the part of the obama worshippers.

I know that most readers here are not particularly fond of the New York Times or of Thomas Friedman, but his op-ed column today does reflect at least some of the sentiments expressed on this thread by Wordsmith:

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Friedman’s wish won’t be granted. The speech doesn’t have enough “I”s and “my”s. It doesn’t have even a single reference to MEchelle (as in “I and MEchelle would like to…”). It doesn’t blame Bush nor does it apologize on behalf of America.


As for the Taliban thing, I posted a comment about that yesterday morning, and was referred to as a shill for the Liberal DNC.

Struck a nerve, eh? That’s good to know.

You and I both know that you’re not capable of creating a comparison between the Taliban and the RNC on this issue on your own.

Furthermore, the time line on the commentary gives you away and points firmly in the direction of regurgitation.

The DNC released their statement prior to 10:24am EST as reflected in this post on the Politico:

View at

Your response:

So, Conservatives now find themselves aligned with the Taliban who came out and condemned the award to the President.

9:18am PST (12:18pm EST)

Coincidence? No, I don’t think so.

You had nearly two hours in which to fully ingest what was being fed to you and then splatter it onto the pages here.

Aye said: You and I both know that you’re not capable of creating a comparison between the Taliban and the RNC on this issue on your own.

Whatever dude, when political back and forth devolves into what people are or are not capable of…..I think that is territory that you can have for yourself if that is the method you employ to score “points” in a discussion and is the best argument you can present. It probably makes you feel better to win a few battles that way, since Republicans, having lost control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, have already lost the war. So now, not only the majority of American voters last November, but polling across Europe shows that we, and they as well do like this President:

It was not a hard leap to make, and hardly worth arguing about who in fact had an original thought. There is little argument however, that not only this country, but most of the world gives a thumbs up to Obama, and a thumbs down to Bush, including if you recall, the Republican Party of the 2008 campaign season.

As for striking a nerve, not really, only a strange and weird thing to see Rush and the DNC on the same page by the end of the day, and Rush further proves the truth of my posting you quoted me on. Rush isn’t ashamed of agreeing with the Taliban regarding Obama, are you?

@Hard Right:

it’s pretty clear that obama is not governing from the center and his picks are from the far left.

Ah yes, his picks:

Oops, in the filter. P&T

Gee, it seems if you inspire someone you can win the Nobel Peace Prize? Guess the following all deserves one:
Mr. Rogers – He inspires a whole neighborhood.
Hugh Hefner – He inspires girls to take off their clothes.
Tom Cruise – He inspires Katie Holmes.
Barack Obama – He inspires me to PUKE!

Says a lot about who really deserves a Peace Prize. Once it had been given to Jimmy Carter, it lost it’s illustrious value.
Guess we can plan on it going to the Hollywood industry next. They inspire total unAmerican ways of life.

I think the Nobel Prize is an honor for the President, he was very gracious about accepting it.

Well now, SOP. My “welcome” was genuinely extended/ My suggestion that you spend less time trying to defend Larry (who does seriously fine holding his own) and more time trying to make your own points was also genuine. None of which was delivered with a ‘tude.

It also became ironic since you accused Aye, another FA author, of unfairly picking on Larry, then came back with your snark response saying you felt much “better” hearing a welcome from me, an FA author.

So sorry you felt my genuine “welcome” was worthy of a sarcastic and defensive response from you. Frankly, I don’t know how to take that based on my comments, as little warranted that. Strikes me as you’re a bit short tempered, and misread intents, with too many. That’s a personal characteristic that I won’t lose much sleep over, but will keep in mind should I peruse your future comments.

Seattle actually allows “moderates”? Go no…


Hard Right, I wasn’t disputing your observations of Larry’s erroneous call on Obama being, or selecting “moderates”. As I said, it all depends upon what Larry thinks is a moderate. And if you’ll also notice, I did ask Larry to weigh in on the Obama czar picks right after addressing you… since “moderate” is not an apt description of any of them, IMHO. So you and I aren’t in disagreement there.

Where I give Larry the benefit of the doubt is some of his comment #57 laundry list of conservative traits. He was against the TARP and stimulus, and is on record saying so here. With that I agree.

But if you want specifics on others where Larry and I agree, or disagree…

Agree that gay marriage should not be legal, but don’t have a problem with benefits via civil unions. Agree on the 2nd amendment rights and also agree with him that McCain-Feingold is an assault on Free Speech. And of course I agree that both the Soledad and Mojave Desert crosses should be displayed. I agree with the Alito and Roberts SCOTUS selection, but disagree with his opinions on Sotomayor, and Thomas as a disgrace.

However that’s quite a bit in common to start.

I disagree with Larry that war should be declared only via a poll of public opinion. We citizens are not privvy to intel, nor the threads that connect events and plots. And as I said earlier, I disagree that to “tame” the Congressional beast, we let them spend until the citizens mutiny. Trying to undo that damage is nigh on impossible.

From all I’ve read of Larry, he is a moderate who’s largest flaws are giving Obama too much benefit of the doubt, and favoring a French style health system that I still believe is fiscally unsustainable. Additionally the American proposals are not the French system. It empowers the government with too much data collection on medical records, and too much power to decide who gets treatment, and how much to pay medical professionals. In short, Larry believes the medical profession should be non-profit. I don’t. It is not non-profits that make the lionshare of medical breakthroughs.

So disagree with much? Yup… but there’s far more here in the nation that are considerably more left than Larry.

Lisa, Post #97 – I sympathize with you if you really do feel that way. The selection of Obama was not an accolade. It was an insult. Even the idiots in Norway know Obama is the biggest liar to ever be elected (or bought) and he can’t do anything on his own. He hires thugs for everything. Look at his Czars and Cabinet members. Most are either Communist, or criminals, or tax evaders. Do you really think he deserves a peace award of any kind? Think hard.

I explained this previously. In spite of this, Aye is now stating — not simply that I made an honest mistake, which I immediately corrected — that I “posted a falsehood,” which is only a slightly more polite way of stating that I lied, which is an utterly outrageous charge against me which he’s made in the past. It’s frankly disgusting abuse of language.

Gosh…again with the thin skinned, poor pitiful me routine.

Larry, I didn’t say that the falsehood was yours….I said you posted it. I have no problem calling you out and applying the appropriate words to you, as well as your posts, when you are purveying myths.

You should know that by now.

The Snopes page that you linked clearly said that there was “no substantive evidence” to support the “rumor that circulated late in 2001” yet you posted it anyway going on to expound that the supposed nomination of President Bush happened 11 days after his first Inauguration.

The attempt at a clever wording change in your PS in #6 doesn’t change the fact that you are still putting forth a claim that has “no substantive evidence”.


I was referring to you insistently calling on Larry to prove his ‘falsehood’.

Just to clarify things for you a bit.

Larry posted a claim in #1 above in which he stated:

The Nobel Peace prize has very often been awarded in the cause of furthering peace — giving a boost to someone who is trying to bring about some sort of meritorious transformation, rather than solely being an award for some type of achievement

I asked him in #2 to back that claim up with a list of Nobel Peace Prize recipients which fit that description.

He provided a list of multiple names in #3 which proved to be laughable upon a minimal amount of fact checking.

I then asked him several more times to tell me, specifically, which of the people/organizations he listed were awarded the NPP based solely on good intentions rather than accomplishments.

You’ll notice, there has been no answer.

You see SOP, you’re at a bit of a disadvantage here. Your rather recent arrival deprives you of an understanding of prior, and ongoing, debates between the various names on these pages.

Larry, while appearing reasonable, is an established, proven purveyor of myths. When unchallenged, myths tend to become commonly held beliefs which, in turn, leads to even greater levels of misinformation.

SOP, once you’re here for a bit, you will begin to see patterns emerge. You will begin to see discussion styles more clearly.

You will discover that I fill my posts and my comments with a mixture of sarcasm, humor, factual analysis, and, yes, in your face confrontation. For that I do not apologize. I aggressively seek, defend, and protect the truth and unabashedly pursue/confront those who attempt to pass off information that cannot be factually supported.

I hope that helps you to understand why I challenged Larry on the things that he posted in this thread. At times, he just throws things up on the board that don’t make good sense and I choose to not let it go unchallenged.

I sincerely hope that you will stay awhile. You’ll find a wealth of information here as well as some of the best discussions on the Interwebz.

We have a lot of fun. Sometimes we needle one another…..and, when necessary, we bludgeon.

Don’t let your first impression color your entire opinion. Stick around. Based on the comments you’ve left so far, you’re going to fit right in.

@Aye (#100, 101)

Once again, here’s the chronology:

I wasn’t defending the award to Obama; I was merely explaining it in the context of the history of the Nobel Peace Prize. All the other Nobels are awarded for achievement. The peace prize has often been awarded, at least partially, as a means to encourage and assist the recipient in his goals. I provided a partial list of awardees (e.g. climate change commission; Arafat/Peres; and others) who illustrated this. In a later comment, I readily conceded that Obama’s award represented an extreme example of this.

Now, as another matter, people were incredulous that Obama should be nominated only 12 days after having being inaugurated. I thought that I remembered that President Bush had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. A quick and dirty Google search brought up a Snopes post, in which the (bold letter) conclusion was “TRUE.” The first paragraph of the description stated that Bush was allegedly nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001, only 11 days after taking office; so I “went” with this. However, right after posting, I read over my post and then checked the link, to make sure that I’d gotten it right. This was simply a mechanical check, to make sure that the link worked. I normally do this.

I was surprised to see that the headline conclusion had been changed, from “True” to “Mixed.” Whoops, I said, I’d better read this again. Only upon this second, more careful reading, did I learn the following:

#1. There is NO official list of Nobel Prize nominees. So we don’t know if Bush was nominated in 2001 or 2002 or never or any year after that.

#2. To the extent that any evidence exists that Bush was nominated, the evidence is stronger for 2002 than for 2001.

#3. Nominations for Nobel Peace Prizes don’t mean much. There are in excess of 100 nominations every year, many obviously trivial. So the fact that Obama was nominated only 12 days after his inauguration really isn’t all that remarkable, no matter when, if ever, Bush was nominated.

After a more careful reading of the Snopes post, I went back and revised/corrected my earlier post. Note that I did this less than 5 minutes after the original posting, and I did this before Aye posted his “gotcha” response.

Yes, I made a mistake. A purely honest mistake, which arose out of haste and carelessness in my reading of the original Snopes article. But I caught and corrected the mistake on my own and there was certainly no intent to post a “falsehood.”

With regard to me being “thin skinned” and being a “proven purveyor of myths,” well, I think that this thread is a great, illustrative example of my relationship with Aye, ever since he and I first started communicating on this blog.

The irony is that I really didn’t think that there was anything all that controversial about what I was writing. I was simply making a very simple point, which I think is something widely acknowledged, which is that the Nobel Peace Prize has often been used as a device to encourage certain individuals and movements, as opposed to simply being a reward for a job already completed. I wasn’t defending anything or anyone and I stated, in follow up comments, that the award was given for political purposes. I don’t see any substantive disagreement between my own interpretation of this and the interpretation of most others active on this blogpost, save for the fact that I made my comments without heaping layers of scorn over President Obama, whom I think has “handled” the news of this award with considerable grace.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

P.S. You guys might enjoy this one, from a perhaps surprising source:

The NY Times (shock) wrote an op ed on N!bama’s prze acceptance. . .to me, this would have been the way to have most gracefully dealt with the award. . .

“This was Barack Obama’s chance.”

Also, was it just by chance that N!bama’s schedule was left wide open the entire day —
tge day of the announcement? Perhaps he had knowledge of what was going on? Is the
NPPC going to give him one every year to bend his thinking?

Here’s an editorial which reflects my own points of view (as described earlier) about the Nobel Peace Prize. It discusses the many Peace Prize winners who were “goodists,” defined as mainly writing and talking about how peace is such a good thing. The editorial makes the point that President Obama is not at all an atypical Nobel Peace Prize winner, which was my original point.

Typical of the laments about Mr. Obama’s Nobel is that he’s done nothing yet to deserve it. But what, really, did most of the other Goodists do before they won their prizes? Mr. Obama, at least, got himself elected president, the first man to do so on explicitly Goodist terms: hope, change, diplomacy, disarmament, internationalism. He is, so to speak, the son Alfred Nobel never had (minus the dynamite fortune), the best and most significant spokesman for everything the Peace Prize has stood for these 108 years.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@ Larry

Well Larry, every other communist in the world has embraced him. The Castro boys love him. Chavez said there was no more smell of sulfur at the UN podium, instead he smelled hope. Why shouldn’t the a bunch of Socialists in Norway be any different.