Finally! The DNC grows some balls.

The BBQ Pit
121

Oh, wait, I get it, you’re being ironic. Translated, what you said means that you think that because the Republicans act like assholes, it’s perfectly fine for us to act like assholes as well.

Thanks for clearing that up, elucidator.

Can I force the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to honor Alfred Nobel’s will? No way, and neither can anyone. What on earth would give you the impression that I’m trying to force them to do anything??? All I can do is note that they are not following his will, and thus they have changed the Prize from an award for honorable deeds to an award for pretty words.

I am merely observing that their insistence that words have the same weight as actions and real accomplishments is why the prize is so devalued. When you stop doing what Nobel wanted, which was to award it to people who actually accomplished something, it becomes worthless. It becomes an award for giving impressive speeches. So now they have the power to give it to people who have done nothing but talk … oh, wait, they just did. No reduction in war yet under Obama, no increase in peace, he’s still killing people in Afghanistan and imprisoning people without habeas corpus in Baghram … but by gosh, he sure gives a mighty purty speech. In today’s world, I guess that’s plenty …

And yes, I have remained loyal despite the DNC deciding to adopt the Republicans’ execrable tactics … and your response is to insult me for that? That’s your idea of how to win elections? I rather suspect that others will not be as understanding as I am. Given your peculiar take on how to deal with people who have remained loyal, I sure hope you won’t be surprised when we lose big in the upcoming elections …

In a Democracy, insulting your opponents is stupid enough, and we should thank the Republicans daily for doing that. But insulting your friends and those who remain loyal to you is political suicide, and that is what the DNC is doing.

Good luck with that brilliant plan … you’ll need it.

122

Noticed? I voted for the man.

However, on my planet “He gave nice speeches and he’s not George Bush” is not a sufficiently noble accomplishment as to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Read the accomplishments of the other nominees. These are people who also were not George Bush, but in addition to that wonderful trait, actually accomplished something, often at great personal cost and risk. I wouldn’t care to be the one who had to break the news to them that somebody else won merely because he gave inspiring speeches and he wasn’t Bush.

I hope that Obama accomplishes something as well for world peace … but so far, little joy. As you pointed out, we elected him to the office* “from which he could put his ideas into action”*, and so far he hasn’t done much in that regard. Unless you think that increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan and continuing Bush’s nasty spying ways qualifies him for the Peace Prize.

Nice of you to have noticed that. I have mentioned Obamas actual record in Afghanistan and Baghram and regarding torture and spying several times, and people keep ignoring that and replying on the order of ‘But he gave inspiring speeches in 2008, plus he got elected’ … what, did he close Guantanamo and I didn’t get the memo or something?

123

I think there’s an important point to be made about the Democratic party’s statement about the Republican party aligning itself with parties, which is that, while we could argue all day about quite how bad its taste or how inappropriate it is or whether they’re insulting someone’s aged parents or not; it’s (as far as I can tell) just a throw-away twitting about a not-hugely-important issue. When they start attempting to convince people to support their policies on some issue by using the Republican party’s “known alignment with terrorists” or something like that, get back to me.

Until then, the fact that among the more prominent organizations complaining about the Nobel choice were The GOP and Al Qaeda is one of life’s beautiful little ironies. Pointing that out and glorying in it is VERY different from attempting to claim it actually means something and should persuade anyone of anything.

124

Intention:

Shit, man, with friends like you, who needs enemies?

125

Can’t quite remember, who was the guy who said that criticizing Bush made us the functional equivalent of terrorists?

Saying they do it too doesn’t justify anything, true enough. But it does make a difference. If the Pubbies had been wearing their goody two-shoes and communion dress lo, these many years, it would be different. But they haven’t, there is no mutual respect to be breached, they tore that up a long, long time ago.

Perhaps, some day, the grown ups will take over the Pubbies, and I dearly hope soon. But things being what they are, this rates nothing more than a “tsk, tsk”, and barely that. Maybe I’d fire the guy, that’s not what a Communications guy is supposed to do, but beyond that…feh!

126

And yet, you seem to dislike everything he does.

For the sixth time, the committee specifically noted his work for nuclear disarmament, which he’s been doing for years. Which work, by the way, spans the last five years, including this one. You didn’t hear about it because it’s not as interesting as tea parties, but it really happened.

127

Speaking only for myself, if Republicans are acting like assholes, Democrats would be damn fools not to. You will find any attempt to play to liberal guilt will fall on deaf ears, in my case at least. Pubbies had best get use to the smell of my patchouli-scented Birkenstock on their neck for the foreseeable future. If you are one of them, whining that it is unseemly for liberals to be so mean just won’t work anymore; if you are one of us, fish, cut bait, or stay out of the way of the rest of us who are not going to roll over every time a conservative feels the sting of their own tactics.

128

Forget about friends and enemies. Democrats need votes. Keep going and you won’t have many left.

I don’t think Obama deserved the Peace Prize, and suddenly I’m siding with the terrorists and I’m an enemy of the Democrats? What are you guys smoking, I want some, reality is getting really boring around here.

For verily, he hath spoken ill of the Obama, and for this he hath been cast into the outer darkness, and his name shall be allied with the terrorists until the end of days …

129

Liberal guilt? I said nothing about your guilt, liberal or otherwise. I make no attempt to play on your liberal guilt, I’ll leave that to you, as by all indications you seem to be doing so quite competently. I’m not talking about guilt.

I’m talking tactics here, my friend, tactics. Insulting your friends is very poor tactics, and that’s what the DNC is doing. So stuff your Birkenstocks up where only your proctologist will notice them, your chest beating macho man act is a sick joke. You’re so infatuated with your pathetic Rambo-wannabe self-image that you fail to notice that the DNC has told a lot of Democrats and Independents that they are siding with terrorists. That’s idiocy of the first order.

Being stupid is a condition. Being ignorant is an option. Not sure which one you have, but I hope it’s the latter, it’s curable.

130

Captain Carrot, thank you for stepping up to the plate. The Committee said:

So no, the Committee didn’t note his work for nuclear disarmament. They noted his “vision”. Which has been my point all along, lots of vision, but no action.

I suspect that I didn’t hear about Obama’s 2004 stance on nuclear disarmament because he didn’t articulate one back then, but a citation from you from 2004 would change my mind in a hurry.

I do find this:

In other words, lots of talk (in 2009, not 2004) … but no achievements. Or as the article says, an* “absence of progress.” *Which is what I’ve been saying all along. I ask you for things he accomplished, and you (and the Committee) give me his “vision”. I respect and admire his vision, but I keep hoping and waiting for the accomplishments. I’m sure you can see the difference. And so can others. From MSNBC:

Ignorant bitch, aligning herself with the terrorists like that. But soon, she will feel the dread weight of **Fear Itself’s **Birkenstock of Doom on her neck, and she’ll be sorry …

131

deleted.

132

Yes, because the Committee talked about vision, that means Obama hasn’t actually done anything. I know you’re not that fucking stupid, intention.

133

Y’know, re-reading this thread, people are claiming that the DNC was reacting to statements by “the Republican Party”.

I’d be interested in any citations to the statements by the Republican Party that the DNC was responding to. All I can find is the statement by Michael Steele, the head of the RNC:

I doubt that was the statement that so unhinged the DNC, however, although I suppose it’s possible.

All citations gladly accepted …

I was also curious about the DNC claim in the OP that “It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it’s an embarrassing label to claim.” Didn’t Obama only win by a few percentage points in the popular vote?

The latest figures I find are Democrats are 36% of voters, Republicans 27% of voters, and Independents 37% of voters. Seems the DNC is playing fast and loose with the numbers. And Independents beat out both parties, which I didn’t expect … maybe both “Democrat” and “Republican” are an “embarrassing label to claim” these days? Wouldn’t surprise me.

134

If he had actually accomplished something, the Committee would most likely have mentioned it, n’est-ce pas?

But perhaps not, I’m always willing to be proven wrong. Perhaps the Committee was just being shy. So if you know of something he accomplished in re: nuclear disarmament, bring it on. I’ve brought on a citation discussing his “absence of progress” in that field. So far, all you’ve brought is … well, the same as what the Committee brought.

I’m also waiting for citations regarding your claims about Obama’s laudable work in 2004 for nuclear disarmament. Or 2005. Or 2006. Near as I can tell, he hasn’t reduced the number of nuclear weapons by one single solitary nuclear warhead. You know, that curious thing we call actually achieving something in the nuclear disarmament arena. But perhaps I’m wrong. Let me know.

135

There are some areas of human endeavor wherein vision is accomplishment. As a species, we have a hard-wired deference to leaders, woe is us. We look to them to perform the impossible, to actually embody “the better angels of our nature”. We look to them so that we might believe that a very hard thing might actually be done. Vision.

Is that an “accomplishment”? Well, yes and no. Perhaps they exaggerate. But if they honor the man and, more importantly, honor the vision, if that is an error then its on the side of the angels. A good thing, in my estimation, even if it offends your rather prim sense of deserving.

Is Obama such a man? Ecce Homey? I don’t know, have yet to see any lepers cleansed or dead raised. Did walk on water, but that’s because he can’t swim.

136

How many times does the point have to be made that the NPP is given often for advocacy and being in a position to create change, and that this not new in the least?

137

Perhaps an example of when “vision” = accomplishment would be better than theory. If I have a vision of a world without war, for example, that is not the same as actually accomplishing the elimination of war from the world.

Or for a better example, Obama is lauded by the Committee for his vision of total nuclear disarmament. So far, he hasn’t decreased the number of warheads by even one.

Surely, in this case, vision is absolutely not accomplishment. He has the vision, but he has accomplished nothing to date. His vision may certainly lead to an accomplishment in this arena some day … and on that day, a prize might be appropriate.

So in general, I’d say that vision is vision, and accomplishment is accomplishment. Which may be why Nobel in his will said that the Peace Prize is for “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for …” rather than for “the person who shall have had the best vision of …”

Vision is cheap and easy, doing the most or the best work is hard … and they are not the same.

138

Well, no. It is not “given often” for advocacy, although it has happened. Obama, Gore, and … well, I can’t think of other Laureates whose advocacy was not accompanied by real achievements in the real world. And I know of no one who got the Nobel Peace Prize because they were “in a position to create change” … I’m not even sure what that means.

Who is on your list of people who got the prize for being in a position to create change? Name some names here, I’m not following you in the least.

Me, I follow Alfred in this matter. He did not say the prize was for the person with the best vision of peace. He said it was for the person who has done the most for peace. It is supposed to be for doing things, not for vision or advocacy. It has been given for advocacy, sure … but all that proves is that the Committee is not following the rules that the guy who donated the money laid down for the prize. So?

The Committee has gone off of the rails, and because you happen to agree with this year’s selection, you want to follow them and say that they are all wise … your choice, of course, but people all over the world, inside the US and outside the US, Obama supporters and opponents alike, are saing “What did Obama do to deserve this?”

That should tell you something about how badly the Committee has lost the plot. Yes, Obama is a great guy with a huge opportunity to change the world. So far, however, he has accomplished little. I think he will succeed and will accomplish great things, and I think it is far too early to judge the achievements of his administration.

But by the same token, it is also too early to be handing out prizes for doing things because … well, because to date he hasn’t done much.

139

The mainstream media will not let go the idea that some idiot somewhere represents Republicans (or Democrats) because fomenting outrage and debate over the slightest hiccup is their bread and butter. If you don’t pay attention to these people, they only preach to the people who are already convinced. Have people learned nothing from the Married with Children and the Last Temptation of Christ protests?

I very seriously doubt that the bulk of the party wants to be associated with those groups

Yep, ALL of them, everywhere, in unison, according to the secret meeting and plan

Face it, even Obama had to be shocked at getting this for “setting a tone”. Heck, I’m glad he set the tone, but even Arafat had to at least sign a treaty (not that it did much good in the long run) to get this award.

You’ve got a point, following GWB. But when you act like Beck or Limbaugh or Savage have real political clout or input, you only give them power.

Mind you, I have local radio hosts that I think do have political power, but they’re much more populist than politically loyal. After helping Schwarzenegger get elected, they’ve turned on him like record baby, right round right round. He won’t go on John and Ken (KFI) anymore, because they burn him with direct questions and a refusal to accept milquetoast answers.

140

I meant “Nice of you to have noticed that I gave an answer to the question in the earlier post – no wait, the other thing: NOT nice of you to have NOT noticed (or at least acknowledged) my answer in the earlier post.”

Perhaps. But I’ll note that you’re not a member of the Prize Committee, so it’s apparently not your standards that were consulted. However, the fact that he was so effective in his outspokenness that he was rewarded with what may be the most powerful position in the world, was an astonishing accomplishment. And it can be argued that his campaign and subsequent victory in and of themselves, did ceate a global environment of respect for the United States and of receptivity to the leadership of the United States in the task of forging a peaceful world. An environment that had not existed during the Bush years; and an environment which is ultimately indispensable if the task is ever to be accomplished.

I’ll be candid: I’m pretty sure that, had I been on the committee, I would have taken a lot of convincing to vote for the choice they made. I have a weakness for the fait accompli, myself.

But I truly feel that the most negative response to the committee’s action that is appropriate is bemusement; and that to castigate President Obama with terms such as “reprehensible”, “despicable”, “megalomaniacal idiocy”, “hypocrisy”, “theft”, is not the behavior of a a supporter who truly wants him to succeed. From what I’ve observed of your posts regarding the president during the past few weeks, I get the feeling that you’re so averse to being tarred with the “kool-aid drinker” brush that you swing way far in the opposite direction. You seem to bend over backwards to give the opposition the benefit of the doubt as being honest participants in the various debates. Good for you on that, by the way. President Obama is setting you a good example for being respectful of your opponents’ honestly held and expressed views, as I hope you’ll agree.

But in the world as it exists today, dishonesty and deceit and self-serving lies do exist in the political discourse. When they are coming from Democrats, it is right and proper that we, as Democrats, police our own, not only to deprive the Republicans of a weapon with which to bludgeon us, but because it allows us to stay true to our principles. And when they come from the Republicans, we have the right and obligation to recognize them for what they are, expose them, and deal with them separately from their honestly held and expressed contributions. I haven’t seen you demonstrate much willingness to do that to the Republicans, but you seem all too eager to do it to the Democrats.

I won’t defend the DNC spokesperson’s remarks; the past few days have shown them to have been over-the top, and ultimately unhelpful, however soul-satisfying they may have seemed when I first read them.