Hello Everyone:

Here is the link to a Gallup poll from October 23 titled "Americans’ Views on Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize" which says "The majority of Americans do not believe President Barack Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize (61%), but the public is split in its personal reaction to the announcement. Asked if they are "glad" Obama received the prize, 46% of Americans say yes and 47% say no...

Not surprisingly, reaction to the awarding of the prize is partisan, although support for Obama's receiving the prize among Democrats is perhaps not as large as might be expected:"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123851/Americans-Views-Obama-Nobel-Peace-Prize.aspx

October 23, 2009

Americans’ Views on Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Majority say it is not deserved, although about half are glad Obama received it

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- "The majority of Americans do not believe President Barack Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize (61%), but the public is split in its personal reaction to the announcement..."

I think that the answer to the question "Did Obama deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize?" is very subjective and that it will vary from person to person. There is no clear right or wrong answer to this question in my opinion.

From what I have seen so far, it is mainly what a person thinks about Bush, his Neoconservative "cowboy diplomacy" & "go-it-alone" foreign policy philosophy, and what their own personal views are about foreign policy that will determine if they think that Obama either deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize or if they are at least glad that he received it.

Someone who has pragmatic and anti-Neocon views about foreign policy will more than likely think that Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was a strong repudiation of Bush and his Neocon foreign policy. That is what I have seen from several commentators and it makes perfect sense to me:

1) John King of CNN:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/09/sitroom.01.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

President Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize; Pressure Mounts on Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel

Aired October 9, 2009 - 16:00 ET

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: "And if ever we needed a reminder that it doesn't matter what happens, it will quickly disintegrate into petty partisan politics, this was it.

The president won this award. A lot of conservatives are upset. They thought, A, they don't think President Obama has done enough to deserve it yet. But they found in the wording, the sometimes of the Nobel Committee, what they believe to be, as much as an embrace of President Obama, they see a repudiation, one last slap, if you will, at former President George W. Bush and his foreign policy. They think that is part of this..."

2) Fareed Zakaria of CNN:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/09/sitroom.03.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize; Democratic Congressman in Hot Water

Aired October 9, 2009 - 18:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "Fareed, you understand why the Nobel Peace Prize is going to President Obama?

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: Oh, sure.

It's a -- it's a thank you for the end of eight years of George Bush. It is meant to be a kind of reward to the United States, I think, more than to President Obama himself, for a kind of repudiation of those policies and most importantly for reengaging with the world.

I think for those of us who travel around the world, it really is true that there is a palpable shift in people's attitudes towards America. There's a real welcoming of the fact that the United States is reengaging with the world, talking differently, cooperating.

So, I think, for all these reasons, it's a kind of big moodal and tonal shift he's been given an award. It's a symbolic award. It's not on the basis of any specific achievement, but that has happened very often in the award's history. It's not always given to somebody who has achieved a programmatic plan of action.

This is a big symbolic gesture and as symbols go, I think it's a nice one for America..."

3) Keith Richburg of The Washington Post:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/09/ldt.01.html

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize; America in Decline; Health Funding Fight; Credit Card Rip-Off

Aired October 9, 2009 - 19:00 ET

LOU DOBBS, HOST: "Good to have you all with us. We've been talking about the Nobel Peace Prize. Keith, your reactions this morning when you first learned of it?

KEITH RICHBURG, WASHINGTON POST: First I thought it was a joke. I was really kind of stunned. You know, I tried to go back and look -- for preparation for this, go back and look at some of the past winners. They try to sometimes honor somebody for a body of work, clearly this was not the case. Other times they try to make a political statement and clearly that was in that category. They're trying to give it to somebody to make a political statement, repudiating the Bush policies and saying we like what this guy stands for..."

4) Lou Dobbs of CNN (in the same CNN transcript right above):

LOU DOBBS, HOST: "I think we're back to Mort, he's not George W. Bush, played a large part apparently in the selection..."

Someone who is a Neocon, who likes Bush, and who agrees with his Neoconservative "cowboy diplomacy" & "go-it-alone" foreign policy philosophy will think that Obama did not deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize:

1) John Bolton:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzZkNzg0MDVhMWJjNmI2YTc1NTZkZTJlNGM0NzI4NzA=#

Friday, October 09, 2009

Bolton: Decline It [Robert Costa]

"Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tells NRO that President Obama should decline the Nobel Peace Prize. “The Nobel committee is preaching at Americans, but they won’t be deceived,” says Bolton. “He should decline it and then ask to be considered again in three or four years when he has a record.”

“I was nominated three years ago and I’m still waiting for the call,” laughs Bolton. “Today’s news is just another demonstration of how politicized the Nobel Peace Prize has become, from President Carter winning in 2002, to Al Gore in 2007, and President Obama in 2009.”

“When the award was given to President Carter, the chairman of the committee said that it was a ‘kick in the leg’ to the Bush administration,” recalls Bolton. “This is yet another ‘kick in the leg’ for the Bush administration.”

“Today’s prize, by the terms of the award itself, was made for President Obama’s ‘extraordinary efforts.’ The Nobel Peace Prize should be for achievement, not effort,” says Bolton..."

2) Dick Morris:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/10/10/the_nobel_prize_to_obama_europes_bid_to_re-colonize_america

"The Nobel Prize is really Obama's payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations. Europe wants to reverse the American Revolution and re-colonize us, and it sees in Obama a kindred spirit willing to do its bidding..."

3) Rush Limbaugh:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100909/content/01125106.guest.html

Our President is a Laughingstock: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

October 9, 2009

RUSH: "There aren't words for this. Well, there are, but it just… Can you imagine, folks, how big Obama's head is today? I didn't think it could get any bigger. But I think his head is now growing so big that his ears actually fit...

RUSH: George Bush liberates 50 million Muslims. Ronald Reagan liberates hundreds of millions of Europeans, saves parts of Latin America. Any awards? No. Just derision. Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it. This actually makes total sense when you look at who these Nobel people are, these elite Norwegians, Europeans. They love what Obama is doing. And this fully exposes, folks, the illusion that is Obama. This is a greater embarrassment than losing the Olympics bid was, and Obama got it right. He knows exactly why he was given this award. The elites of the world are urging him, a man of peace to not do the surge in Afghanistan, they are urging him not to take on Iran. If you want to get serious about this for a minute that is what this is really all about..."

4) William Kristol of The Weekly Standard (the premier Neocon magazine):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/kristol_liberalisms_gorbachev.asp

Kristol: Liberalism's Gorbachev?

Mikhail Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990. A year later, he was out of power and the Soviet Union had dissolved.

I don't mean to compare Barack Obama to Gorbachev, who was, whatever his faults, a truly historic and courageous figure. But let's hope the parallel extends this far: that a year from now the Democrats suffer a major electoral repudiation, and that the New Liberalism goes the way of Reform Communism. And that, beginning in 2013, Obama will have lots of free time to spend hobnobbing with Gorbachev on the international celebrity circuit.

Posted by William Kristol on October 9, 2009 10:10 AM

So I agree with the Gallup poll that says "Not surprisingly, reaction to the awarding of the prize is partisan" and with John King who said "And if ever we needed a reminder that it doesn't matter what happens, it will quickly disintegrate into petty partisan politics, this was it."

My own personal opinion is that I completely agree with Fareed Zakaria's analysis of this issue:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/11/fzgps.01.html

FAREED ZAKARIA GPS

Interview With Pakistani Ambassador to U.S.; Should Obama Send Moore Troops to Afghanistan?

Aired October 11, 2009 - 13:00 ET

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: "This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. The latest news of the week, of course, was the newest Nobel laureate for peace, Barack Obama. I think of this really as an award for America more than President Obama, to the country for re-engaging with the world.

Yes, it's probably premature, but it does show us that the world is desperate for an America that is more friendly, less bullying, more engaged on the great global issues of the day. There is a sea change in the feelings about America out there.

Now, has Obama succeeded in any of his new approaches? Not yet. But did Mother Teresa end poverty? Did Mohamed ElBaradei end nuclear proliferation? Did Woodrow Wilson end war, for that matter? The prize often goes for vision more than practical accomplishments.

People have often wished that the Nobel committee gave the award to have a practical impact, not just gold medals to good guys. Well, this one is clearly meant to encourage America along the road of international cooperation and multilateralism, which is, of course, what might be causing such heartburn in some quarters in the United States.

Anyway, Obama will get a second Nobel Prize if he can sort out Afghanistan..."

I especially like where Fareed Zakaria bluntly said "it does show us that the world is desperate for an America that is more friendly, less bullying, more engaged on the great global issues of the day. There is a sea change in the feelings about America out there" because he is absolutely right in my opinion!

I have credibly documented for years how arrogant that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were, how destructive that their Neocon foreign policy was, and how that they were despised by most of the free & civilized world:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12414

Bush & his Neocons are causing the world to have a "Diplomatic Heart Attack!"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 18, 2007 - 2:04pm.

These two posts talk about the few Republicans who asked Bush some tough questions, who have criticized Bush for various reasons, Republicans who turned against Bush, and the Bush Administration's abuse of power:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16242

How red state Democratic candidates can defeat GOP Bush rubber-stamp incumbents!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 7, 2008 - 4:10am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16552

Questions candidates should be asking to their GOP Bush rubber-stamp opponents!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 15, 2008 - 5:53am.

People in this country losing their confidence in Bush is the main reason why I think that the 2008 Presidential election started so early:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10819

ANALYSIS: Bush's ineffectiveness and why so many people are looking at 2008 now!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 1, 2007 - 5:22pm.

Even Republican strategist Ed Rollins publicly called Bush "a failure who destroyed his party" right after the 2008 election:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16923

Republican strategist Ed Rollins called Bush "a failure who destroyed his party"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 6, 2008 - 4:31pm.

The arrogance of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld knew no boundries in my opinion:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9447

ABC NEWS & VIDEO: Cheney: 'Full Speed Ahead' on Iraq & No Change in Iraq Policy

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 4, 2006 - 9:56am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5707

Sen. Chafee: 'Arrogance' Hurts Bush, Rumsfeld

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 24, 2006 - 1:41pm.

The Republican Party under Bush and Cheney was hijacked by Neocon ideologues and their main litmus test of who was truly "conservative" was whether or not they held to Neoconservative foreign policy:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9424#comment-148354

AL HAIG: "neocons that hijacked my party, the Republican Party"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 3, 2006 - 9:28am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11240

ANALYSIS: Division in the GOP over who is "conservative" based on foreign policy

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 28, 2007 - 5:46pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12716

ANALYSIS: Extreme right wing vs. right wing/Neoconservative vs. Conservative!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 19, 2007 - 9:07am.

That is why someone as conservative as former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was hated by most Republicans over just this one issue:

http://www.nationalreview.com/12aug02/miller081202.asp

August 19, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Sen. Skeptic (R., France)
Chuck Hagel is Bush’s #1 war critic in Congress.

By John J. Miller, from the August 12, 2002, issue of National Review

"Republicans wouldn't have let a Democrat get away with the finger-wagging lecture Sen. Chuck Hagel delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell last February. "Words have meaning. Symbols have meaning," warned Hagel at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He accused the Bush administration of harboring "a cavalier attitude" toward the rest of the world..."

As we enter the era of Presidential candidate Obama, President-Elect Obama, and President Obama; here is what was happening as far as Bush and foreign policy were concerned:

Dislike of Bush is the main reason why Presidential candidate Obama was so popular overseas:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16165

ANALYSIS: Dislike of Bush is the main reason why Obama was so popular overseas!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 28, 2008 - 2:14am.

Bush was truly despised by most of the free and civilized world during the time of President-Elect Obama:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17110

CNN VIDEO: Michael Ware explained the significance of shoes being thrown at Bush

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 15, 2008 - 12:50am.

President Obama was NOT "apologizing for America" as many Neocon ideologues accused him of doing but rather he was apologizing for Bush's policies and he promised to reverse Bush's Neocon foreign policy which was the right thing for him to do in my opinion in order to repair our relationships with our allies:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17523

My answer to Neocon GOP ideologues who accuse Obama of "apologizing for America"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 22, 2009 - 10:27pm.

So in conclusion, I do not think that Obama specifically did anything of such huge significance to actually earn winning the Nobel Peace Prize and being nominated for it after being in office for just 12 days:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html

Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'call to action'

updated 5:09 p.m. EDT, Fri October 9, 2009

"The decision appeared to catch most observers by surprise. Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1, only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September, two months before Obama was elected president..."

However I do not have any problem with Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, I completely understand the circumstances of what was happening at the time that he was nominated for it (most of the world was completely sick & tired of Bush after eight agonizing years of him, Obama gave a great speech in Berlin promising to reverse Bush's foreign policy, and Obama had just taken office), and I am glad that he did win it!

So I am not the least bit surprised that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, I am glad for him, I think that he will be expected by many people to live up to his winning it, and I really hope that he does succeed!

Mitch Dworkin

http://mitchdworkin.com/
Check out my political website!

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!