As near as I can tell, Obama didn’t seek the prize. Today, he accepted it humbly and announced his intention to give the prize money to charity.
Upon hearing about Obama’s prize, we all knew what would happen next: many of his critics would behave like louts. And that's what's happened.
Just now, I perused the online news outlets, assuming I’d find stories about conservatives mocking Obama. Sure enough, I found lots of such stories, including one at ABC News:
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh called the committee’s decision a “bigger embarrassment than losing the Olympic bid”…. “Obama hasn’t done “diddly-squat,” said Limbaugh…. “This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama,” said Limbaugh…. “Our president has become a laughing stock,” said Limbaugh. “Everyone is laughing at him.”I’m an old Eagle Scout. I don’t like it when people gang up on someone. I don’t believe in kicking someone when they're down.
…
“One thing is certain—President Obama wont be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action,” write[s] [RNC Chairman Michael] Steele.
…
“If Obama had an ounce of real humility, he’d refuse to accept the award,” wrote [columnist Michelle] Malkin.
Mark Krikorian, a contributor to the conservative National Review, dubbed Obama’s award “not only premature, but embarrassing.”
And I don’t like people attacking a guy for others' praise of him.
Mr. Grayson is emerging as a hero. Who knows?
6 comments:
Neanderthals.
Grayson is cool.
You're right, Chunk; it was totally predictable.
What is weird to me is that the right-wing neanderthal contingent steadfastly ignores the rather important fact that WE ELECTED THE MAN. They are in the minority, and they just can't seem to bear it. They have handled it as badly as anyone ever could, by becoming uncivil, ugly, ridiculous jerks.
It's as if a substantial part of our population suddenly regressed to adolescence----and the adolescence of someone who was brought up badly.
Thanks for the post; it is something of a comfort simply to have these things pointed out clearly and thoughtfully.
MAH
So, how come no one is saying whether they agree with the award or not?
Also, I believe you gang up on and criticize someone even when they receive praise. I'm not saying that you shouldn't (you probably should), but this post just seems weird, when the entire purpose of your blog is dedicated toward criticizing a certain group of people (I thought you were an eagle scout!). I'm not sure what being predictable has to do with anything. If you know who should get an award or receive praise, I think we know what your response would be.
Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't complain about the complainers of Obama's award. It's just that the rationale behind your complaint is odd.
Oh, and 7:07, remember, we elected bush, so should I assume that you haven't criticized him at all? (I think he is deserving of criticism, but that's beside the point)
9:02, the point of my post was to note the astonishing behavior of many of Obama's critics, who once again conducted themselves like "uncivil, ugly, ridiculous jerks," to use 7:07's phrase. I find the question of whether Mr. Obama deserves this particular prize uninteresting, though I deny that his winning it is absurd.
I am a single writer, and I seldom join forces with my partners (the Reb, Red). So I honestly don't see how I can be said to "gang up" on anyone, unless you mean to say that I join others in the world in criticizing someone. But that in itself is not "ganging up." The particular ugliness that is "ganging up" is something I really want no part of and steer clear of. Indeed, I have occasionally defended my opponents in that spirit.
If you were to actually survey the content of this blog over any length of time, you will see that it means to do several things (e.g., informing), mostl flowing from the wider project of upholding particular familiar values (shared governance, openness, basic decency) and calling out those who (typically hypocritically) violate them.
The notion that an Eagle Scout would necessarily refrain from criticizing anyone is absurd. My stance is the same now as it was in 1968: one ought to challenge powerful and ruthless people who wrong others and do harm, even when doing so is personally risky.
One more thing: 7:07 was not arguing that one should not criticize a popular or elected leader. She does not oppose criticism; she opposes loutish criticism.
Yes, 9:02--though perhaps I didn't make that sufficiently clear. You are certainly right that just being elected doesn't give someone immunity to even severe critiques--far from it!
But the behavior of the loutish right seems so odd for me: suddenly they act (only a few months into Obama's administration) as if the world is coming to an end--that bizarre demonstration in Washington, objecting to a speech to schoolchildren that simply urged personal responsibility, flying flags upside down even though we are in a vastly better position, globally, than we were a few months ago, and so on.
But I didn't really make my meaning clear before.
MAH
Post a Comment