The Verdict Is In!

It's time to Break It Down!

Last Friday morning America and the world awoke to a startling announcement; President Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. A mere week earlier, the national pundits and especially critics had spent the weekend dissecting every aspect of the failure of the President’s impromptu visit to Copenhagen to salvage an ill-fated attempt by the City of Chicago to win the 2016 Olympics. They labored on about how it was his fault, or a sign of his waning influence, or an indication of his misplaced values, or simply a poor use of political capital.

What a difference a week makes. Well, perhaps not. Instead of viewing the President’s selection as a coup for this President, administration, and our nation, once again the media was abuzz. This time, as a result of the news from Oslo, story lines included assertions that the President has not produced any discernible accomplishments meritorious of consideration for the award, his selection was political, and bestowing the award on such an undeserving candidate cheapened the award, and reflected poorly on the process.

The howls of critics took over where the press left off. In a nod to Letterman’s Top 10 List, here are ten reactions from persons or groups who consistently oppose the President:

• Rush Limbaugh, radio personality, called the President “A world-
wide joke,” and noted further that he agreed with the Taliban and Iran, that
the President does not deserve the award.
• Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chair,
lampooned the decision, and asked for contributions to combat
“Democrats and their international leftist allies who want
America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and
control. Truly patriotic Americans like you and our
Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way.”
• Bill Kristol, neoconservative analyst, compared
President Obama to Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev.
Kristol argued the President will be ousted in 2012
, noting the Soviet Union collapsed the year after
Gorbachev won the Peace Prize.
• Glenn Beck, Fox News commentator, contends Obama
doesn’t deserve the prize; rather the Tea Party protesters do. He
credited them for creating an extraordinarily powerful progressive
network.
• Erick Erickson, RedState blogger, went straight to the heart of the
matter. He suggested President Obama won because the committee had
an affirmative action quota, and added the only responsible thing to do would
be to decline the prize.
• John Bolton, conservative member of several Republican
administrations, also suggested the President should turn the prize
down. Side note: Mr. Bolton failed to win Senate confirmation in his attempt
to transition from interim Ambassador to the United Nations
to Permanent US Representative.
• Andy McCarthy of the National Review simple contended the
award was damaged goods because Yasser Arafat once won it.
• Brian Kilmeade, Fox News Channel personality wondered
whether President Obama delayed a decision on sending
troops to Afghanistan in order to win the award.
• John Miller, the National Review,
opines, “Obama’s award is simply the projection of wishful
thinking.”
• The Taliban, in a statement said, “We have seen no change in his
strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan.”

I openly admit to mixed opinions about this contrivance of a controversy. It is certainly selling newspapers, magazines, and air time at a time when all three of these media formats struggle to move the dial on subscription and ad revenue. But it is more than a bit paradoxical for the erstwhile Country First phalanx to, on one hand, openly cheer the United States' failure to win an Olympic bid one week, and then 7 days later, alternately attack the leader of the Free World for being awarded one of the most prestigious awards known to mankind.

The Democratic National Committee took aim at the President’s critics and offered a terse assessment: “The GOP sides with terrorists.” While that may be a gross oversimplification, the tone deafness of Mr. Limbaugh’s admission that he agrees with the Taliban (and that “we all do”), should give pause to anyone who would dare take that possibility lightly.

There certainly have been alternative views, expressing support for President Obama receiving the award. I will not list ten, but one comment seemed to echo the committee’s sentiment:

• James J. Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute,
noted, “One shouldn’t ignore the change he has already delivered – in how
we deal with the world and how the world sees us. The rage that greets every
Obama move isn’t rational.”

The point is elegant in its simplicity. Somewhere along the way, civility and reason have been excluded from the discourse. What is left is an increasingly unpleasant conversation on every turn; incivility for the sake of incivility.

The last word on this question belongs to the normally secretive Nobel jury. Four members of the five-person panel spoke out on the issue yesterday. Not surprisingly, their take reaffirmed their initial action. In doing so, they underscored several points:

1. The decision was unanimous
2. President Obama’s selection was merited
3. World leaders have reacted positively to Obama’s award in most cases
4. There are only two groups who vociferously opposed the award:
a. The media
b. The President’s political opponents
5. The jury awarded the prized based on what President has done,
including specifically, his efforts to:
a. Heal the divide between the West and Muslims
b. Scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe
c. Strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change

Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland insisted the committee followed the guidelines set out by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist for whom the award is named. Nobel wrote in his will “The award should go to the person who has contributed most to peace in the previous year.”

So that’s it; “The Verdict Is In!” The Nobel jury, within whose province the decision fell, made an informed and unanimous decision to name President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. It is not the first time the validity of the award recipient has been challenged, and it will undoubtedly not be the last. I embrace the jury’s decision and congratulate President Obama.

I’m done; holla back!

PS. Just in case you thought I forgot about last week’s exam…no way. Here are the answers:

1. Leader of the Branch Davidian movement; responsible for the 1993 Waco
Siege
2. The Oklahoma City Bombing
3. An Islamist group believed to be responsible for the 9-11 attacks
4. Sunni Islamist religious and political movement; currently an
alternative government in Afghanistan
5. Leader of Al-Qaeda
6. Leader of the Taliban
7. President of Iran
8. Iranian reformist political candidate for President in 2009; last
Premier of Iran
9. The Ayatollah/Supreme Leader (Highest Official) of Iran, since 1989;
President from 1981-89
10. Leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution; Ayatollah/Supreme Commander until
his death in 1989

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com . A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33291989/ns/politics-white_house/

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910090029

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obama-nobel-prize-reactio_n_315690.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/conservatives-critics-blast-obamas-nobel-peace-prize/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obamas-nobel-prize-inspir_n_315167.html

http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/minor/2009/10/13/nobel-committee-defends-obamas-prize/

http://cbs4denver.com/national/nobel.jury.obama.2.1244916.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/13/world/main5381694.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEdkmyuKrU