I have already made my thoughts on the Dear Leader, President Obama, being award the Nobel Peace Prize. So, I thought that I would link many of the reactions across the spectrum.
I will begin with this thought.
The awarding of the Nobel prize to the Dear Leader, President Obama, is a bridge too far for some of the staunchest defenders of the Dear Leader.
That would be the Obamawhore media.
Consider this little column by Peter Beinart, an intellectual Obamawhore if there ever was one. And the money quote? Here it is:
I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce.
As they say, read the whole thing.
Ruth Marcus is no right-winger. But her comments are biting. And accurate. And, Mrs. Marcus makes a point about the other two sitting American presidents to win the Nobel prize. They are Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Both were in their second terms and both had made a significant contribution to p e a c e.
Do you think that a writer for the left-wing Guardian newspaper in London, England is a right-winger? No, I do not think so either. But Michael Tomasky makes the case that the Dear Leader should not have accepted the Nobel prize. For the reason that most of us are wondering. What in the hell has he done to earn it?
Even the the ol' gray lady herself, The New York Times, leading print Obamawhore daily, couches its coverage with what can only be described as a "huh?"
But I am a blogger. And a conservative one. So, I am very interested in the reaction of those on my side of the aisle.
So, here are some links for you to go to and enjoy:
The Other McCain and his "Memo To Oslo" is an instant classic.
The Ace Of Spades gives this abomination the flaming skull treatment. And I kind of think it is too good for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Gateway Pundit has a wonderful headline and gets a double link for the latest posting on this dreaded subject
Rightwingsparkle notes the obvious. That even the left is stunned that the Dear Leader, who has done nothing, nothing, gets the Nobel prize.
Ed Morrissey notes what I note. That the left is wondering why the Dear Leader is being awarded a Nobel prize.
BTW, why do I not write Nobel Peace Prize? Because I think that one should do something concrete to earn such a prize. Not be a teleprompter dummy and speechifying platitudes. So, it can not be called a Nobel Peace Prize for a year. Until they get their act together next time around.
Prof. Donald Douglas over at American Power notes the obvious. One last slap in the face of The Liberator, former President George W. Bush. Liberating 50,000,000 people from the brutality of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is not really peaceworthy to the Nobel prize committee.
Leave it to Jim Geraghty over at The Campaign Spot to make a case for. . .Libya, and by extension Mohmmar Qaddafi to be awarded the Nobel prize! It falls into the read the whole thing category. And Mr. Geraghty links to the also-rans for the Nobel prize. Many, many more worthy than the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Oh, According To Nikki gives the award the proper name that it deserves. And while she is at it, she offers another potential candidate for maybe next year's Nobel prize. OUCH!
Hugh Hewitt offers some wishful thinking about the meaning of the Nobel award going to the Dear Leader. The Nobel prize is a double-down that the Dear Leader, President Obama will not send the 40,000 additional troops to stem the Taliban tide in Afghanistan.
There is so much more out there. I urge you to read both supporters and opponents of the Dear Leader, President Obama and their reactions. One common thread is "Why?" Why, indeed.