Oct 09
Let’s see…
- Yasser Arafat – terrorist, murderer, philanderer and corrupt politician
- Jimmy Carter - complete idiot
- Al Gore - overweight energy hog that uses fake science to advance socialism
- Mohamed ElBaradei – nuke checker who didn’t check for nukes.
All recent winners of the same ridiculous award. I had to go back to 1978 to find winners that actually did something – Sadat and Begin.
It seems to be not an award but a warning that people with really bad judgment think Obama swell.
I suspect the narcissists on the committee hoped that the narcissist in our White House would “see the light” on Afghanistan after receiving the award.
I take heart that all U.S. Presidents on the list were one termers.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.” – Sen John McCain, with a longer view of conflict and a sense of grace in a civilized society.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Sorry, I put my comment on this on the wrong blog, its on the one about the baseball game.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
McCain is a moron too.
Sense of grace… listen to you. This wasn’t graceful by the Nobel people. 12 days into office, they pick him? Silly and mean to anybody in the past that actually earned it.
I’m not proud of a kid that gets a ribbon for doing nothing. A President that does impresses me even less.
October 9th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
McCain is an idiot. To say something so trite about an obviously left-wing politicized garbage award is just being dumb.
I’m not proud. The award is a joke, and has been for years. There is nothing prestigious about it, and that’s even more true today. if Obama had any ethics he’s decline. He has no shame, so he will accept it.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I agree, giving this award to him right out of the gate is ridiculous. It’s basically the “Thank God You’re Not George Bush” prize.
When you look at the list of the other nominees and some of the harrowing things they’ve done and lived through it’s not only embarrassing, it’s insulting that they picked BHO. I like the idea that the President should have accepted specifically on behalf of the US military and their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that’s a fantasy with the current chief executive.
The Nobel Peace Prize lost its luster a long time ago, and unfortunately the fools that manage it are making the other Nobel Prizes (the real awards, in my opinion) look bad by association. Who cares what a bunch of Norwegians think about anything other than lutefisk anyway?
And, not to bum you out even more, Ken, but Woodrow Wilson served two terms as President.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Wilson… that dawned on me while I was driving this weekend. His wife ran his second term, so maybe he still counts…
October 12th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
More history facts: Teddy served 7.5 years as President, having served 3.5 years of McKinley’s second term and 4 years after his re-election. For more details, try Morgan’s “Theodore Rex.” Dee-lighted!
October 12th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Do you mean the book by Edmund Morris of that title? That is a wonderful book on TR; If so, I second your recommendation.
Interesting point, too: Is Teddy technically a one-termer? The 22nd Amendment obviously wasn’t in effect when he took over from McKinley, but he was only actually elected to the Presidency once, right?
There is thankfully little precedence to draw from in this matter. Truman was exempted specifically in the language of the amendment, and LBJ was eligible to run in ’68 because he completed less than two years for JFK.
If the 22nd had been in effect, TR would have been prohibited from running in 1908. Would that therefore mean he is considered a two-termer?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Yes, Edmund Morris on TR. Whether TR was a one-or two- termer for Ken’s purpose depends on Ken’s definition when he used the phrase.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Ken, who thinks TR AND Wilson were horrible presidents who led assaults on the Constitution wishes they’d been no-termers.