Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Will Be the Norm As World Warms




The Chain
Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Why Do Conservatives Hate America?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 12, 2009
White House / Pete Souza

Conservatives may not like Obama, but they ought to salute his achievement. It is, after all, an honor for the country as well as the man.

By Eugene Robinson

Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? Glenn Beck has a conniption fit and demands that the president not accept what may be the world’s most prestigious honor? The Republican National Committee issues a statement sarcastically mocking our nation’s leader—elected, you will recall, by a healthy majority—as unworthy of such recognition?

Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?

OK, I know, it’s just some conservatives who’ve been exhibiting what they, in a different context, surely would describe as “Hanoi Jane” behavior. Others who haven’t taken leave of their political senses—and are familiar with the concept of manners—responded to President Barack Obama’s unexpected award with equanimity and even grace. Sen. John McCain, for example, offered his good-natured congratulations.

Some of Obama’s most strident critics, however, just can’t give it a rest. They use words like farce and travesty, as if there were always universal agreement on the worthiness of the Nobel peace laureate. Does anyone remember the controversy over Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat or F.W. de Klerk?

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn’t possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended all hunger in the world, they’d accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they’d complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of “Kumbaya,” the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Let the rejectionists fulminate and sputter until they wear themselves out. Politically, they’re only bashing themselves. As Republican leaders—except RNC Chairman Michael Steele—are beginning to realize, “I’m With the Taliban Against America” is not likely to be a winning slogan.

More interesting, but no less goofy, is the recommendation—by otherwise sane commentators—that Obama should decline the award. This is ridiculous.

If the award just represented the political views of a handful of left-leaning, self-satisfied Norwegian Eurocrats, as some critics have charged, then it wouldn’t matter whether Obama won it or not. But of course it means much more. The Nobel Peace Prize, irrespective of the idiosyncratic process that selects its winner, is universally recognized as a stamp of the world’s approval. For an American president to reject such a token of approval would be absurdly counterproductive.

Obama has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from George W. Bush’s cowboy ethos toward a multilateral approach. He envisions, and has begun to implement, a different kind of U.S. leadership that I believe is more likely to succeed in an interconnected, multipolar world. That this shift is being noticed and recognized is to Obama’s credit—and to our country’s.

The peace prize comes as Obama is in the midst reviewing war strategy in Afghanistan. Some advocates for sending additional troops are complaining—and some advocates of a pullout are hoping—that the award may somehow limit the president’s options. But the prize is nothing more than an acknowledgment of what Obama has been saying and doing thus far. He hardly needs to be reminded of his philosophy of international relations—or that he once called Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” Threading that needle is not made any easier or harder by the Nobel committee’s decision.

What I really don’t understand is the view that somehow there’s a tremendous downside for Obama in the award. It raises expectations, these commentators say—as if expectations of any American president, and especially this one, were not already sky-high. Obama has taken on the rescue of the U.S. financial system and the long-term restructuring of the economy. He has launched historic initiatives to revolutionize health care, energy policy and the way we educate our children. He said flatly during the campaign that he wants to be remembered as a transformational president.

The only reasonable response is McCain’s: Congratulations. Nothing, not even the Nobel Peace Prize, can set the bar any higher for President Obama than he’s already set it for himself.
   
Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Adro, October 14, 2009 at 11:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just get over it and be happy we can complain about whose running the country

We all get so wrapped up in our bitterness,
o u can’t do this, ur full of that,
be happy u CAN without having ur head chopped

Report this

By Joe Mamma, October 14, 2009 at 10:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I read your headline on Digg and was instantly
disgusted.

Irrelevant of your opinion on whether Barack Obama
has done anything to warrant the Nobel prize, your
starting premise is flawed to an absurdity.

Limbaugh not liking the prize does not =
Conservatives hating America

It’s like saying Jack reads books so therefore you
like cheeseburgers.

It’s these sorts of non-sequitur BS arguments that
ruin any actual debate… On both sides. You think
your so different from those whom you label a pariah
but your actually exactly the same, in nature and
virtue. You deviate only in your superficial, and I
stress superficial, ideologies.

You should give some thought to finding a new hobby.

Report this

By Jeff, October 14, 2009 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The only real argument that should carry ANY weight on this topic is the following:

Obama was only the President for 12 days before the nomination period closed.  12 days.  He did NOTHING in those 12 days.

The award was given for things he MIGHT do in the future. THAT very point is what makes this a travesty, and undermines the true value of the Nobel Peace prize.

That is akin to giving a chef a cooking award for food he has not yet prepared.  Or for giving the Nobel Physics prize to an undergrad who hasn’t finished his undergrad degree simply because he MIGHT find something interesting when he works on his doctoral thesis.

So the real question is, why does President Obama deserve a Nobel Prize for things he HAS NOT DONE yet, while Ghandi was never recognized like this for things he did for MOST OF HIS LIFE?

Report this

By Billy T., October 14, 2009 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

some are lazy and some work hard and some get jealous
and blame,cry and complain. This award proves that
the world approves of communism because that is
oboma’s views. I understand why things are getting
worse because of the greatest eye witnessed, account
of events, ever recorded about in all of history
tells what happens in the end.You are either for
Jesus Christ or you are against him and you will be
judged by HIS standards at judgement,that is the
foundation in which this country was founded
upon.That is why there are conservatives who conserve
by knowing history and not straying from the truth.
Balance yourself with truth and not self
centeredness. while living here on earth there will
always be a conflict between Christ followers and non
christ followers and guess what!! we will grow fewer
in numbers and you will have appeared to have won but
you will have lost your soul…might as well given
the award to Adolph Hitler because he was all about
change and thought of as a great in the beginning!

Report this

By Dngrwill, October 14, 2009 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

losthills shows that there are morons on both sides. 
I especially like this part of his post:

>I’m on the left, and everyone I know on the left is sickened by this travesty.  Giving this award to a warmonger is an afront and an insult to everyone who is working for peace.

Yes, you are right, you know better than the Nobel Committee and the use of the term “travesty” and “warmonger” are right on, I don’t know anyone who would disagree with these terms.  Unless, of-course they had an IQ greater than a houseplant.

I think losthills just needs a better spot in the sun.

Report this

By AFriend, October 14, 2009 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land,

I say this with no ill intent of any kind.

I’m not sure you disagreed with me at all in your last post. You appear to have confirmed my point while lending more reasons for your admitted “bigotry”.

—-

And, as an aside, we disagree with the root causes of the financial troubles the world finds itself in today. You fault the “conservative” free market while over 90% of self proclaimed democrats support the free market. Your bias is indeed strong if you truly believe a free market is a “conservative” belief. It certainly is not.

The true trouble began in the summer of 2008 with the housing market and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two heavily regulated quasi-governmental agencies, unable to meet their obligations after regulations, specifically designed to overextend bad lending practices, fell apart.

I am no defender of President Bush. He can do that himself, however, if you’re looking to lump whole groups of people together then you understand that a fiscal conservative would have never gone along with how Fannie and Freddie were overextended WITH government control. Exactly as President Bush had warned four times in eight years.

Here’s the point. Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D), both holding oversight powers of Fannie and Freddie, told anyone who would listen that President Bush(R)was lying when he warned of the looming trouble in Fannie and Freddie. Bush, they claimed, was simply trying to scare people.

In your thinking, so it appears, “conservative free market philosophy” is to blame for the financial crunch. In reality it was government intrusion into the free market system that put the entire globe where it is today.

—-

Question: Why did AIG fall into trouble? Answer: The derivatives pushed through and supported by President Clinton. No harbinger of the “conservative right”. No, I am in no way blaming President Clinton. Just trying to drive my point.

Report this

By Conservative in California, October 14, 2009 at 9:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I didn’t vote for Obama, but as an American - I do support him. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with him, just as I didn’t agree with everything President Bush did. However, to answer your question… do you think if George Bush won the Nobel Peace Prize that liberals would *not* denounce this as well? You may as well ask why some people are still racist. Or ask why some poeple argue in favor of abortion. Or ponder whether or not capital punishment is “fair” - these types of things will always be the center of controversy. To have an opinion is a good thing, don’t you think?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 14, 2009 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

Conservatives want the world to STOP in its tracks. Regressives want to turn the clock back to a time of their choosing. Where they are on top and no one can change that. We are dealing with a core of Regressives with some Conservatives on the periphery.

The very rich have been clandestinely and and actively moving the country toward an imperial posture. Draining the coffers of the republic, which they disdain, to fuel their rising empire. The ultimate outcome is to destroy the republic and build upon it their Shining Citadel on the Hill of Skulls. Their Holy Corporate Empire to evangelized the earth by the sword, fire and marketing.

Report this

By dave aspen, October 14, 2009 at 9:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is the stupidest article I have read in quite some time. Limbaugh side with the Taliban? Conservatives hating America?

Talk about political slander.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

AFriend:

I must respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement.

Again, this is about group think. I do not believe there is anything bigoted about identifying a social movement that has proven itself time and agin to not only do harm, but to celebrate it. Real harm has been done by the conservative social movement. It is not wrong or bigoted to identify its use of fear to manipulate a majority of the population to temporatily support a destructive agenda. Friends and relatives of mine are dead now—killed in a war that we now know was based on false pretenses and justified after the fact by the aformentioned rationalizations is not bigotry. To ask where those rationalizations come from is not bigotry. The harm for those of us who have been directly affected by either their malice, incompetence, or willful ignorance is very, very real.

As defined by webster’s I suppose it is fair to say that I have become “intolerantly devoted to my prejudices.” I would argue that bigotry, at least in the connotation that you have applied it, has the added component of spurious association to it. If a dog bites me and I therefore conclude that all dogs are of the same ilk, then I have displayed the sort of spurious bigotry you accuse me of. However, if a pack of dogs attacks me and I naturally assume that the dogs from that same pack are likely to attack me again and I take action to prevent it, that is not bigotry. It’s self preservation. Nor is it bigotry to call them what they are: a pack of wild dogs.

Report this

By Greg, October 14, 2009 at 9:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think many would respectfully disagree with you. No not because they don’t
like President Obama (as they may or may not) and certainly not because they
hate America. I think many such as myself were shocked and deep
embarrassment because at this time in President Obama’s life such a prize is
not deserved. What other then talking about peace has he honestly
accomplished? A change in US polices rates the prize now? Certainly if that is
the cause then President Clinton should win as well. No at this point President
Obama has not done anything of note other then spanking the GOP (perhaps he
may in the future). Giving such a prize and speculating that he might do
something grand in the future really diminished achievements of all previous
winners.

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace
prize
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article686771
1.ece

Report this

By Cobra Commander, October 14, 2009 at 8:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It shames me to see my country so divided in thought over something so simple as political standing. In almost every case there is one side bashing the other for trivial ideals that mean nothing in the bigger picture. Why do you give a damn what left or right leaning news company’s tell you? It’s all yellow journalism and has been as far back as I can remember. Yes Fox News lies, as well as CNN, MSNBC etc. Why do people watch those channels? It caters to your viewpoint, no matter how skewed they make it.

Most of the comments and the article relay a message of extreme hatred to one side because some don’t believe Obama has done enough to merit such an award. I’ll admit I’m still skeptical of why he received such an award in the first place. At the same time I’m proud he has it because it shows the world has put faith in the man and are hoping for a turn around of what a disaster this world is in. Will he be the sole reason why our problems might go away, Hell no. It’ll take years and everyone’s will to commit to see it through.

But what really bugs me about this article and the way most of you talk about your equals is how biased your beliefs are. You’re all like someone who is in an argument for the sake of making someone else miserable. Both sides are brainwashed to believe that the other is dead wrong. And the truth of the matter is opinions are a 50/50 chance. It’s like a preacher who comes out to condemn girls as lesbians because they joined a sorority, or condemn boys because their best friend is a man and that makes them homosexual. Obviously most people are going to ignore that preacher, but for the ones he started taking down, wouldn’t you want to boost that person’s spirit? Show them that they may be different but they are equal to you?

I haven’t seen a political candidate from either side worthy of my vote for a long time. When I deem someone worthy of speaking on my behalf I’ll punch my card and watch as he/she either wins or loses. But for now I will respect the people around me regardless of their opinions and hopefully, they will give me the common courtesy of respecting mine. I would wish you all would do the same, but as hateful as the comments are I highly doubt that will happen. Just think about it.

For the record one of my buddies voted for Cobra Commander in the last election, hence the name.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

AFriend:

I respectfully disagree with your equally respectful disagreement. While I do not doubt or challenge the statisitcs you cite, nor did I ever claim that there wasn’t a strong conservative mindset in this country. I claimed that group think is a very real phenomenon.

And I will tell you why I am hence ‘bigoted,’ as you put it, with respect to this ideology. First and foremost the damage that many have felt from said ideology is very real. It has been real for the people involved in the wars that, as you astutely point out, a majority of this nation happily trotted into. The friends and relatives I have lost in Iraq were very real. The damage caused to people without healthcare, largely from a free market dogma, prevents rational discussion of realisitc solutions.

Is it so impossible to believe that a group-think mentality could ever happen in this country? Because a temporary majority support something, we are not allowed to be critical of that opinion, or how and why it was derived? We are disallowed to identify social movements that rise to the highest levels of power in this nation only to wreak havoc on the very country and democracy they pay lip-service to?

According websters a ‘bigot’ is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

I suppose under that definition, you are correct. I am bigoted. That said, I would argue that bigotry has another component that sets it apart from the what I would term the rejection of a social movement that has done us harm. Bigotry, IMO, is not neccessarily based on fact. It is a conclusion based on spurious associations—not on opposition to a majority opinion. For example, a black person commits a crime, therefore all black people are criminals.

I however, am addressing a social movement that has clearly proven itself harmful. It is a social movement that justified its actions with aformentioned rationalization I addressed and proudly proclaims those rationalizations with singular voice. To ask why that social movement believes as it does and where those beliefs come from is not bigoted. And to oppose a social movement that has already demonstrated its direct capacity, and dare I say yearning, to cause physical harm is not spurious bigotry. It is self preservation.

Report this

By this guy said it, October 14, 2009 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think your dead wrong and making assumptions in this paragraph:

“If Obama ended all hunger in the world, they’d accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they’d complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of “Kumbaya,” the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune”

Actually, if he were to do any of those things, I think he would deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. The problem his apologists seem to want to overlook is the fact that he hasn’t done anything significant enough to warrant the honor. Give him a few years in office and we can see if he does. If he does, that’s just good for all of us. A truly great leader would say “hold onto that until I deserve it, but, make no mistake, I will be back for it”, and then they would go out and make it happen.

But, you do realize they give those out to “Ex” terrorists, don’t you?

Report this
JohnMcD's avatar

By JohnMcD, October 14, 2009 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

Well, I don’t personally feel like Obama has done enough for the cause of peace.  Its bad enough that it would take so long to end our half-cooked imperial adventures, but another escalation in “the graveyard of empires” is the opposite of what I thought we voted for. 

Does that make me an Obama rejectionist?  An America-hater?  Terrorist lover?  Whatever.  I just sat through 8 years of Republicans calling me those kinds of juvenile names.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 14, 2009 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

I will admit that it is an unfortunate American trait to act in an unpolite manner, feel superior and to be loud about it.  That is well known.

But no mainstream American feels joy at a terrorist attack or a mushroom cloud.  The absolute fringes may harbor those feelings, but not mainstream.  it is the fringe elements on the right and left that make most of the noise.  The rest of us only get angry when you try to take away something we have worked long and hard to achieve, like our paychecks or our country. 

Take a poll, this is where most Americans are coming from.  They do not have the time or energy to harbor extreme feelings on most subjects.  But when they are significantly aroused, all hell breaks loose.  That is probably what is happending now.  I don’t make apologies for it.  It is the way America works, like it or leave it. 

It really is too bad that the fringes get all the publicity because it makes it look like America is not in control of itself.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We have let some things slide too far lately, but the backlash is coming when people of all political persuasions demand to have the country back at the extreme peril of those who have taken it while we were trying to raise our families.

Report this
JohnMcD's avatar

By JohnMcD, October 14, 2009 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

Meh, I don’t think Obama has done enough for peace.  Its bad enough that it would take so long to unwind our ill-advised adventured, but another escalation in Afghanistan is the opposite direction of what I thought we voted for. 

Does that make me a rejectionist?  An America-hater?  Whatever.  I just sat through 8 years of Republicans calling me those kinds of childish names.  Don’t tell me we’re going to go ‘round that ride again…

Report this
JohnMcD's avatar

By JohnMcD, October 14, 2009 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

Meh, I don’t think Obama has done enough for peace.  Its bad enough that it would take so long to unwind our ill-advised adventured, but another escalation in Afghanistan is the opposite direction of what I thought we voted for. 

Does that make me a rejectionist?  An America-hater?  Whatever.  I just sat through 8 years of Republicans calling me those kinds of childish names.  Don’t tell me we’re going to go ‘round that ride again.

Report this

By Adam, October 14, 2009 at 8:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m a conservative and I love this Country.  What I hate is liberals who distort what we are all about.  If you patsies in the left wing media would take the time to actually listen to Limbaugh or Beck you would understand that we conservatives are patriots who love this Country and our freedoms.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 14, 2009 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

I will admit that it is a unfortunate American trait to act in and unpolite manner, feel superior and to be loud about it.

But no mainstream American feels joy at a terrorist attack or a mushroom cloud.  The absolute fringes may harbor those feelings, but not mainstream.  it is the fringe elements on the right and left that make most of the noise.  The rest of us only get angry when you try to take away something we have worked long and hard to achieve, like our paychecks or our country. 

Take a poll, this is where most Americans are coming from.  They do not have the time or energy to harbor extreme feelings on most subjects.  But when they are significantly aroused, all hell breaks loose.  That is probably what is happending now.  I don’t make apologies for it.  It is the way America works, like it or hate it.

Report this

By AFriend, October 14, 2009 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

No_Man’s_Land,

I respectfully disagree. Your observations are full of stereotypical inaccuracies. Roughly half the nation is evenly split between two main political parties, however,....

78% of Americans supported using the military to remove Saddam Hussein in February. 2003.
82% of democrats are self described Christians. Over 92% of Americans claim to believe in God.
62-73% of Americans support “enhanced interrogations”.

Huge numbers of individuals here on TruthDig have clearly written on how “real Americans” are the open minded, all inclusive (but not any conservative thinking please), democrats.

Nobody here could begin to count the declarations of superiority over “the others” on this single Web site.— Look back in this single set of posts and you’ll witness it time and time again.

By my count the majority of posts on this one subject displays an overwhelming and unforgiving bigotry toward half the nation. And why? Because there are others that simply don’t believe as they do.

It’s called bigotry.

Report this

By DaveZx3, October 14, 2009 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

I have been a fiscal conservative all my life, and if you are insinuating that I, and/or any other American conservative, enjoys seeing people killed by terrorist attack or mushroom clouds, then you are severely overstepping any humane level of political discourse. 

You have no right to judge, categorize or analyze me and an American mainstream movement in that way.  If conservatives have a different idea about how to govern and serve the people, they have that right to have those ideas.  Just as Obama has the right to have his ideas. 

When any political movement progresses too far to the fringe, the very intelligent, but often lazy, American electorate will act with determinatiion and finality.  That is our history and the rock on which our freedom rests.  Though we do have left and right ideas, the give and take balance is what makes us great.  99% of Americans are not evil, they just have different ideas, which is our right and our strength.  But do not deviate too much, or you will be slapped back with a very firm slap by a very large, smart, well-informed majority from all persuasions.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 14, 2009 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

AFriend:

While you are absoltuley correct in your observation that party affiliation does not necessarily determine personal politics, nor should assume that group-think is a figment of our imaginations. A great number of people prefer merely to regurgitate unqualified or unsubstantiated information. What sets one group apart from the other, and I prefer not to define it in terms of politcal party, but rather of political philosophy, is either an empathy or an apathy to our common humanity. Both philosopihes will rationalize their points of view, but the difference is in the desired end state.

Their is a reason that a vast majority of conservatives, now closely affiliated with the Republican party, tossed their convictions out the window to rationalize such things as preemptive war, torture and the surveillance state. There is a reason they polarized this nation into two categories: ‘Real Americans’ and everyone else. There is a reason they cling tightly to their survival-of-the fittest economic philosophy. There is a reason they blame the people of New Orleans for drowning, contracting disease and dying of dehydration. There is a reason they walk around knocking on doors to spread Christian doctrine. There is a reason they have decalred science ‘wrong.’ There is a reason they travel to far off lands on chruch missions to convert vulnerable people under the guise of helping the least among us. There is a reason they claim to be in a religious war and that the final ressurection of ‘believers’ is at hand.

Simply put, they have been convinced of their inherent superiority in this world. To embrace a other than a position which challenges that notion is more terrifying to them than any terrorist attack or mushroom cloud they can imagine. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that they secretly enjoy such events as they represent yet another chance to prove themselves superior.

Report this
Magginkat's avatar

By Magginkat, October 14, 2009 at 5:39 am Link to this comment

Funny that Mr. Robinson closes with, “The only reasonable response is McCain’s”.  I saw McCain being interviewed several times about this award and each time he seemed to be enjoying the hell out of the uproar. 

Since I am naturally suspicious of anything remotely nice coming from a Republican and at about the same time learned that the nominations were secret I could not help but wonder if McCain was the one who nominated him!!!  smile

Hey it makes as much sense as anything else going on these days.

Report this

By AFriend, October 14, 2009 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

It’s difficult to decide who’s the ugliest small minded bigot here.

How is it possible there are still people who believe a political party affiliation, in any way, makes one set of humans different from another?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 13, 2009 at 11:36 pm Link to this comment

Actually it is not a matter of hate, it is a matter of LOVE—— Love of Money——sociopathic Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS love money flowing to their revenue streams into their coffers and have no loyalty to any country, only the money flow.  Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMIST Capitalists are like Rupert Murdoch, who has bought a home in China and will just pick up and move after the United States is sucked dry of capital, as will all the other sociopathic, jingoistic, unpatriotic, Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS money-loving big capitalists; leaving the 70% MAJORITY Common Population to suffer the consequences of their outrageous behavior of bankrupting our country.  It is difficult to understand how anyone could be proud to be a Conservative after what Conservatives have done to the United States and the World to destroy the people’s livelihood.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 13, 2009 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

The Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS are JEALOUS of President Obama, as any one of them would have gladly accepted the honor, except that the Right-Wing Conservative EXTREMISTS are not peace loving at all, but are the war mongering imperialists that got the United States into these occupations to acquire resources for the military industrial complex, while deliberately destroying the economy of the United States and the World, which President Obama is trying to repair, and for his efforts has received the Nobel Peace Prize and he has changed the political scene world wide and actually deserves the award.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 13, 2009 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment

Political Color Spectrum

(Page 1 of 2)

The Political Color Spectrum is horizontal, but listed here diagonally from Left to Right:

The LEFT, Liberals = 90% of the Nation’s Population = Democratic Party:

YELLOW   - LEFT Liberal EXTREME

GREEN   - LEFT Moderate Centrist
——————————————————-
BLUE     - LEFT Conservative (Neo-Con R-W EXTREMISTS)

***Center Point Not a Position***

The RIGHT, Conservatives =10% of the Nation’s Population = Republican Party:

TURQUOISE - RIGHT Liberal (none)

ORANGE   - RIGHT Moderate Centrist (1)?

RED     - RIGHT Conservative EXTREME (ALL)

The Political Left, Liberals, and the Political Right, Conservatives, can be represented on a line graph with NO Center Point, only a dividing line between LEFT and RIGHT, as above.

The ——-line between GREEN and BLUE shows that the Corporate Conservative Right controls the Conservative Left.  The entire RIGHT is hard core Corporate Conservative EXTREMISTS, which puts the political scale off balance; exception, Olympia Snowe, moderate?

The Political LEFT is divided with its own Center Point, with Liberal to the left and Conservative to the right; and the Political RIGHT is divided with its own Center Point, with Liberal to the left and Conservative to the Right, there are NO OTHER Center Points.

United States Political Terminology is determined from a Political Line Graph as described above and originated with the French National Assembly of 1789.  In that assembly, Nobles took the HONORED SEATS to the King’s RIGHT.  In the first French Legislature, after the French Revolution, the Liberal Deputies, representatives of the people were seated to the LEFT of the Speaker.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, October 13, 2009 at 9:52 pm Link to this comment

Political Color Spectrum (cont.)

(Page 2 of 2)

Establishing Government:

LEFT - YELLOW - Liberal - Establishes a FREE Democratic Republic—Working People allowed to keep most of their money with lenient benefits from government and smaller government. Money in the people’s pockets.

LEFT - GREEN - Moderate - Establishes a FREE Democratic Republic—Working People allowed to keep a little less of their money with lenient benefits from government and a little larger government. Money in the people’s pockets.

LEFT - BLUE - Conservative - Establishes a FREE Democratic Republic—Working People allowed to keep some of their money, mildly lenient benefits from government, and a moderate amount of the peoples money will be taken to support government and domestic/foreign imperialism. Less money in the peoples pockets. Few laws changed to route money and benefits away from the people.

RIGHT - TURQUOISE - Liberal - Establishes an Aristocratic Non-democratic Republic.  A larger amount of the peoples money will be taken to support government and domestic/foreign imperialism. Working people retain less of the benefit of their labor and less benefits from their government. Much less money in the peoples pockets. Laws changed to route more money and benefits away from the people.

RIGHT - ORANGE - Moderate - Establishes an Aristocratic Non-democratic Republic. An even larger amount of the peoples money will be taken to support government and domestic/foreign imperialism. Working people retain very little money from the benefit of their labor and government benefits are cut.  There is very little money in the peoples pockets. Laws are changed to route even more money away from the people.

RIGHT - RED - Conservative - Establishes an Aristocratic Non-democratic Republic.  Most of the people’s money will be taken to support government and domestic/foreign imperialism.  Government benefits to the people cut out entirely.  No money in the peoples pockets.  Times are extremely hard for working people.  Laws are changed to route all the nations wealth away from the people.


Politics is Leadership of constituents in their best interest and non-constituents AGAINST their best interest.


Right-Wing Politicians lead constituents of the Political Right in the Political Right’s best interest and lead non-constituents,constituents of the Political Left, AGAINST the Political Left’s best interest the best way they can.

Left-Wing Politician lead constituents of the Political Left in the Political Left’s best interest and lead non-constituents, constituents of the Political Right, AGAINST the Political Right’s best interest the best way they can.

Report this

By P. T., October 13, 2009 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment

Whenever the right wing does not get what it wants, it turns on the American people, and the “liberal media” (which supposedly brainwashes the citizenry).

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 13, 2009 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment

“On this I disagree with you 100%.  I don’t believe today’s “conservatives” share the common tableau that we all have the right to express our opinions, that we all are equal under the law, or that the law needs to be fair in its enforcement.

I don’t believe they are “conservative” but that they are radical reactionary racists—and that’s as un-American as it gets.”

Couldn’t agree with you more. Conservative used to mean “isolationist” and cautious spending. Now it means preemptive intervention at the first opportunity. They are patriots of convenience who would see this country turned into a Christian caliphate. They have purged their party of the sanity of moderation and openly accept the conscious, methodical indoctrination of their young into a pseudo politico-religious movement that the adults themselves scarcely comprehend—or care to. They are the very personification of self celebration in the extreme and the annexation of the United States into a state of despotic anarchy.

Lincoln, T.R. and Eisenhower would be so proud.

Report this
no mans land's avatar

By no mans land, October 13, 2009 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

I just want to when we can start rolling over our Fox and Friends coffee mugs with our tractors and burning Limbaugh in effigy? Been a while since we had a good dixie chic rally in this country.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 13, 2009 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

Seph,

I’ll back off—being in a hospital is bad enough but to have endure that level of brain-pureeing noise would be close to Dante’s 7th circle of Hell!

Those Faux Noise denizens are a blight on our nation and freedoms, which they constantly attack.  Fox, of course, is the baby of Rupert Murdoch, an Australian known for the lowering news standards and only became an American citizen for the tax and political advantages it afforded him.  As Hearst a century ago used his papers to MAKE news and change things to suit himself, so does Murdoch.

As I listen to his paid storm crows caw, I think back to the hateful and constant stream of lies that spewed from Mussolini’s crew as they attacked Italian democracy, then the same from Hitler’s and Franco’s followers—and tney all sounded like Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity and Coulter-Geist, seeking ways to bring their masters to power.

TRUE respecters of freedom when they are wielding power are very, very rare.

Report this

By Sepharad, October 13, 2009 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment

Inherit, I guess my definition of “conservative” is more general than yours. I’d include Olympia Snowe and McCain in the conservative ranks, but not the Newsmax bunch—and NOT Sarah Palin, by the way—all of whom I’d describe as the radical right, more akin to fascists than what any reasonable person would define as pro-American. My political spectrum—from moderate to fanatic—is not linear, with far left at one end and far right at the other—but a circle with violent radicals at one point and moderates, both liberal and conservative, 180 degrees on the other side. Communist Stalin and Fascist Hitler, both totalitarians, for example, would be cheek-to-cheek on the violent radical point. Obama and Bill Clinton would be 180 degrees away from the fascists, right on the middle, with Snowe and Schwartzenegger next to Bill and FDR next to Obama, etc etc.

By the way, I was exposed to Fox TV for the first time in my life last week, for about five days in the hospital with a roommate who watched soaps all day and Fox all night on high volume, often yakking on the phone at the same time. Had never seen O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, Beck et al, and was shocked. Seeing and listening to them is a wildly different experience from just reading about them. Asked my doc for five pairs of heavy-duty earplugs, which he happily provided. When I got tired of the sight as well as the sound, just put in earplugs and pulled blanket over my head and tried to slleep. But it was definitely educational. Those people seem to me to be light-years away from being “conservative”, at least as I’d define that term.

I think my party of choice would be best described as “muddlers”—muddling ahead carefully, making changes toward the side of the angels carefully, attempting to achieve as broad and principled a concensus as possible to ensure the strongest and longest-lasting changes. Communism and socialism still seem to be fine ideas to me—it’s the real-life application that is tricky.

Report this

By Jason, October 13, 2009 at 5:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After almost 10 months of having a new President, it seems reasonable to believe that, in general, conservatives hate America only when they are no longer the dominant party.  Conservatives have basically ran the USA from federal on down for about thirty years - some would argue even longer.  Also too it seems that most conservatives are have difficulty handling their minority status - even after a mere ten months!  Personally, I find that quite pathetic.  Conservatives ought to be greatful after all the BS they put the USA through for YEARS that it is not been worse for them thus far.

It should be noted that the USA federal government has not had real leftist governance for 90 years, if ever.  The Democrats are center-right, while Republicans are basically extreme right.  There is no left-wing anything in the USA - not by my standards.  Yet, you hear paranoid conservatives (as they are now a minor political force) claim that President Obama is a socialist.  Some conservatives even tried to carry guns in a building where President Obama spoke.  Now, what would have happened if someone brought a gun at a place where George W. Bush spoke between 2000 and 2009?  Today, conservatives just need to take now what they dished back then - lest they be called un-American and un-patriotic.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 13, 2009 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

Sepharad,
On this I disagree with you 100%.  I don’t believe today’s “conservatives” share the common tableau that we all have the right to express our opinions, that we all are equal under the law, or that the law needs to be fair in its enforcement.

I don’t believe they are “conservative” but that they are radical reactionary racists—and that’s as un-American as it gets.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 13, 2009 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment

erthbot, October 13 at 12:33 pm #

Also why all this name-calling? This type of reactive approach to criticism is what is tearing this country apart.

“Gene,
They hate America because they hate freedom and democracy. They are brothers and sisters to Hitler’s Nazis, Mussolini’s Fascists, Franco’s Phalangists, and the myriad supporters of Pinochet, Mugabe, Putin and every other @$$#ole who thinks they are gonna get rich and powerful at someone else’s expense.”

Wow. So much hate and confusion here.
********************************************

You bet.  These were the people who were rolling out the Patriot Act two minutes after 9/11—they had it ready.

Think about it: They COMPLETELY ignored vivid importance evidence of the terrorism that culminated in 9/11, which they could have and SHOULD have prevented, yet at the same time were preparing the greatest attack on our freedoms in two generations.  Hate them?  Damn straight!

It’s not that I believe ALL Republicans hate America or American ideals, not by any means.  I can point IMMEDIATELY to Olympia Snowe and Arnold Schwarzeneggar as two that I see as patriotic.  I even see John McCain as a patriot, just an idiot who has an incredible knack for ALWAYS being wrong.

But yes, I believe Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter-Geist, John Kyl, Dick Cheney, James Imhofe, Antonin Scalia and many, many others hate America because they do NOT believe in what America stands for: What George Will calls “The Contract”. To be an American you must do one thing: embrace “The Contract”. I do, most TDrs do, even my pal FT does. 

But these people do NOT.  They want to redefine “The Contract” as something that allows THEM to always be on top, and to shut anybody up who disagrees.  To me, if you don’t believe in “The Contract”, you are not American.

Of course, “The Contract” is expressed, mostly, in the US Constitution.

Report this

By Jean Gerard, October 13, 2009 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The question might better be:  “Why do Conservatives Hate Europe?”  (Remember the “French Fry Flap?”) Americans in general seem to be more provincial than Europeans, due to a number of historical factors. The U.S. was built on a wilderness stolen from ancient hunter-gatherer societies in an attempt to form a “new world” that left Europe behind.  Our development was rapid and largely unplanned.  Early colonizers came for religious and political freedom; later immigrants came for economic advantages. All were fleeing from situations they did not want to return to.  Fear and resentment of Europe is “in our bones.”  Traits like frontier courage, middle-class taste, belief in the virtues of small towns, “rugged individualism” etc., are all evidence of anti-elitism.  Protests against the Nobel given to Obama reflect these animosities and resentments and seem to submerge other “American values” such as pride in individual accomplishment and “e pluribus unum.” Like most quarrels, the root is misusnderstanding and misinterpretation. At least that’s my take.

Report this

By frank1569, October 13, 2009 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here’s the thing:

Imagine you’re an R-nut - everything you’ve believed in for 8 years has turned out to be either a complete lie or completely wrong or some combo of the two.

Every day, you read about how those you revered stole all of your money, liquidated your jobs, killed and maimed millions of innocents, locked up and tortured thousands more innocents, shredded the Constitution, etc.

IOW, it’s as if the R-nuts’ God has been revealed to be Satan - and there’s just no way to avoid that ugly truth anymore.

You’d blow a few fuses and gaskets, too…

And, to all those equating Bush ‘hating’ and BO ‘hating’ - there’s a huge difference between ‘hating’ Bush for, say, illegally invading Iraq based on lies, and ‘hating’ BO for at least acting like he’s trying to help more citizens receive affordable health care… One of those isn’t insane…

Report this

By the worm, October 13, 2009 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

Why do conservatives hate America?
On the down side: America is no longer all white. There are no longer slaves.
Lower income citizens still have a vote.  Pseudo-Christians for all their self-
righteousness are losing the guilt and scream contest. The financial industry
might actually be regulated. A non-white woman has been appointed to the
Supreme Court. A black intellectual has been elected President. Elected officials
are intimating they may tax wealthier Americans.
On the up side: America is taxes on the wealthy have been deflected. The
conservative hold on the media is fanning a pseudo-populist pseudo-movement
to hate America.
While there are positive and negatives, all in all, conservatives hate America right
now, because the continuing concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a
few privileged individuals is being threatened.

Report this

By AFriend, October 13, 2009 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Fascinating, Mr. Robinson.

In the Carter years there were those who wondered aloud why conservatives hate America. In the Reagan years the question was why liberals hate America. The very same phenomena was witnessed in the Bush, Clinton and Bush years.

In each of these examples the first thing that takes place is the question of legitimacy of the man in office. Yet this year you were one of the first to suggest a racial explanation for this generations old phenomena.

This may simply be evidence that history is destined to repeat itself and, humans are human.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 13, 2009 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

ardee:
’... Except that much criticism of Obama comes from the left, and rightly so I think. ...’

The official line of the Democratic party is apparently going to be that all criticism of Mr. O comes from the Right, and that it is driven entirely by racism, or, in a few cases, pure craziness.  There have also been a few allusions to the VRWC (vast right-wing conspiracy) although so far they haven’t been followed up with anything resembling evidence.

Thus, no criticism whatever of Mr. O is legitimate or reasonable.

I don’t think this is going to work, but I guess one could appreciate the chutzpah.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 13, 2009 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

NO the reich wing hate the policies they claim he is for. Not the ones he is supporting. Like rendition, war, torture and keeping the gov’t as opaque as possible. That they do not talk about. Now why?

“Well if every side disagrees with him, he must be right!” Is wrong once you dig deeper to see what exactly the complaints are. On the hysterical reich they call and claim he is a socialist et al and is taking over business. Not what has been happening and still is even now of the businesses gaining more power. Remember Wall St.?

The attack is sophisticated and their enemy tends to think in the shallow end of the brain pool. The few who do not aren’t listened to by enough to matter. Just as they have planned.

Report this

By Sepharad, October 13, 2009 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

The strangest thing about this article and some of the comments is the fact that the conservatives obviously “hate” Obama’s policies, not America. They are not that different than we liberals and progressives who say we “hate” Bush policies but claim that to do so is true patriotism, true love of America. Both conservatives and liberals reject the notion of “My country right or wrong”. I would say that puts them and us—conservative and liberal—on the same footing. We disagree on issues. So what else is new?

Report this

By ardee, October 13, 2009 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

Hulk2008, October 13 at 10:55 am #


Face it.  The sturm and drang over ANYthing related to Obama is just sour grapes and sore-asses left over from conservatives having lost so many seats in Congress and the Presidency during the last two elections.

Except that much criticism of Obama comes from the left, and rightly so I think.

At some point Obama will be to blame for something - maybe his campaign position on Afghanistan, maybe his lack of details on health care.

Obama has made decision that I am very critical of, early ones including the appointment of Gates and Summers, later ones including the refusal to end rendition and torture,the no-strings giveaway to those who caused the economic brouhaha, and latest ones like an increase in troops to Afghanistan, the retention of fifty thousand of our children in Iraq, as well as his refusal to lead on health care reform.

Criticism is the duty of all citizens when they honestly believe an elected official is on the wrong track.

Report this

By Tim, October 13, 2009 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Conservatives don’t hate America, so long as it’s all Rich, White and Evangelical.

Report this

By Michelle T, October 13, 2009 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I like Obama a great deal because of the policies he has been fighting for, but I am disgusted with the headline of this article.

To use Karl Rove’s tactics to smear your enemies as America-haters or unpatriotic because they disagree with you is wrong.  And two wrongs don’t ever make a right.  Please stop.

Report this

By rollzone, October 13, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

hello. i was not aware of Dijon on burger. i find that Pouponish. when i think of peace, i think of Gandhi. i do not know that much about the man’s violence, but that is the image i get of someone deserving consideration for a peace prize. perhaps there was a short list. our interconnected, multi polar American Muslim savior of climate change and socialized medicine and nuclear proliferation does not make me sleep any easier. he could bring the troops home. he could stop deficit spending. he could change America for the better by opening offshore oil drilling. we could hope he has the dignity to feel indignation for accepting an award for a promise to give it the old Harvard try.

Report this

By Random Items, October 13, 2009 at 10:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

They act like America is a girl who rejected them.

Report this

By Carl Spackler, October 13, 2009 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

Those who are criticizing the President over this Nobel Peace Prize need to return to focusing on more important issues like his eating dijon mustard on a hamburger.

Report this

By erthbot, October 13, 2009 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

Also why all this name-calling? This type of reactive approach to criticism is what is tearing this country apart.

“Gene,
They hate America because they hate freedom and democracy. They are brothers and sisters to Hitler’s Nazis, Mussolini’s Fascists, Franco’s Phalangists, and the myriad supporters of Pinochet, Mugabe, Putin and every other @$$#ole who thinks they are gonna get rich and powerful at someone else’s expense.”

Wow. So much hate and confusion here.

Report this

By fredmoz, October 13, 2009 at 9:30 am Link to this comment

I am flabbergasted. On one hand ER correctly bundles right wing nuts with Taliban and Al Qaeda on the other hand ER align himself with the most hoggish senator. This deserves another Pulitzer prize.

Report this

By erthbot, October 13, 2009 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

So, even though people on all sides expressed surprise at the award, even our President, you feel it’s necessary to claim now that conservatives hate America.

Please explain how this advances any type of dialog.

Report this

By proudLiberal1947, October 13, 2009 at 9:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is truly amazing how thee right does Hate America, I could accept their remarks and some of the content if it was presented with out bias and Hate. I have listen to and read no articles by the right that has presented a true argument, there have been comparisons to the War Criminal bush, then their saint regean, but no true analysis of why not.

Remember the handwriting was on the wall last year when the right challenged then Senator Obama to go to Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan and Europe and what happened the right was not prepared for the World saw Hope the re establishment of commitment of America to its old ideals, a sense of order and concern that they had not seen in the previous 8 years. Remember the last president walk across the World stage just a few months before his step down and wasn’t even acknowledged.

You ask why the world see a Future and most of all Hope, for 8 long hard miserable years they heard Americans Colonialism, Spread of Democracy, war, war, and more war.

They are hearing and seeing HOPE and CHANGE they are seeing a President that wants to work with its people and the people of the world to make us and them safer and more secure, the People of the World are seeing a Vision their Vision of Peace through negotiation rather than the threat of War.

They understand not everything can be accomplished but do realize that once it is put out there it will take on a life of its own, Remember if it is Comprehensible by the Human Mind it is just a matter of the Right Time and place for it to become a reality.

You now have a President that is offering self accountability and Transparency to himself and office, I believe the American people and the people of the World see this as strong indicators of this Country returning to its rightful place as a True World Leader, not the secrecy, hatred, lies and deceptions we have had to endure for 8 long miserable years, then left with the WORSE National and World economic economy in present time with the present President left holding the bag and trying to find solutions while the detractors try to find ways to make it as hard as possible for him and these same detractors rather then being part of the solution become part of the problem.

I say he asked us to go for change and i believe that change is here and the more the detractors attack the strong my support grows for him, as you see he has offered something we haven’t had HOPE.

So for those of you that believe he should give back the award I strongly suggest you be Honest with yourself and look at the last 8 long miserable years and what that Administration left when they left office and compare it to the the true efforts being put forth in this great country and the world.

No on the short performance of what he has done and the merits of what he is trying to do I do believe he should do as he sees fit because I do not think I could walk in this mans shoes and NOT fall down.

Report this

By walt, October 13, 2009 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

melpol. so there are NO racists in cities? in condos? on farms? on campuses?

Report this

By melpol, October 13, 2009 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

It cannot be denied that there are many Americans that hate the president
because he is black. It is difficult to find out what their number is. Most will not
admit that they are racists. The best way to estimate the number of racists in
America is to count how many live in gated white communities and double that
number.

Report this

By AmericanDream, October 13, 2009 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

LostHills is correct on this matter.  This should be a non-partisan argument, instead of babbling on about how conservatives hate America (although at times this seems to have some basis). 

Bottom line is that a Peace Prize was given to the leader of the largest army in the world.  This leader has escalated the AfPak war which has resulted in thousands of more deaths including civillians.  Awarding Obama this award is absurd and offensive to those that actually dedicate their lives to bringing about peace.

The most likely cause of this award is to pressure Obama to remain peaceful with Iran.  The Power in the US is chomping at the bit to get some of this war/oil action.  I think the committee that gave Obama the award is hoping to influence his actions.  Otherwise this pretty much renders the Nobel Peace Prize a meaningless political tool, and nothing more.

By all means, complain about the Right.  Call them neocons, America haters, whatever.  I just question why you are using this situation to bring about these claims.  There are obviously much larger stakes than the usual Republican/Conservative rhetoric.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, October 13, 2009 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

I don’t think convervatives hate America, just Americans.

Especially those American’s, that aren’t conservative, and threaten their sense of privledge and self importance.

They resent having to pay one penny in taxes, and are extremely anal when it comes to money.

They are confused when it comes to concepts like, Free as in on sale, with Free meaning not in bondage to a slave holder, for them money is much more important than people.

Report this

By mlb, October 13, 2009 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

Sometimes the Nobel prize committee awards the peace prize for what the recipient has accomplished, and sometimes they award it for what they hope the recipient will accomplish.  Obama openly acknowledged in his acceptance speech that in his case it’s the latter.

One might disagree with such politicization, but I can’t share the view of those who profess shock.  The Nobel committee’s aims still strike me as noble, even if their tactics are questionable.  The danger of this approach of course is that they’ll make choices that are so bad they’ll destroy the prestige of the prize.  In 1938, for instance, they apparently came close to awarding the peace prize to Adolf Hitler.

The Right’s complaints about Obama getting the prize are as silly as Glen Beck’s “Obama hates white people” idiocy.  The Right loves war and killing and deplores peace.  They should just keep their hypocritical mouths shut on this one.


All the thousands of times Republicans accused the Left of “hating America” during the Bush years, I never heard anyone ask or explain what it was supposed to mean.  Hate what, exactly?  Hate the scenery, hate the restaurants, hate the way people dress?  Or is it that we hate the cult of selfishness, the money-is-everything attitude, hate that we’ve turned from a democratic republic into a crypto-fascist state (where corporations and the military run the country, mostly from behind the scenes)?  The real explanation for “the Left hates America” epithet is that they had no rational defense for Bush or GOP policy, and name calling and insults were the best they could come up with.

I was about to write what Inherit the Wind said, plain as day:  the Republicans hate freedom and democracy.  They hate the core values embodied in our Constitution and everything our country is supposed to stand for.  They can’t admit that, of course, so they constantly tell us that the opposite is the case.  They profess their patriotism.  Scalia promotes the lie that he’s a constitutional “constructionist” when in fact he holds our Constitution in deepest contempt.  The Right wing Court pushes corporate control over politicians as “free speech” when in fact it’s “speech for sale.”  And on and on…  Republicans hate dissent, debate, empathy, compassion, fairness, and reason.  Their approach is authoritarian and barbaric - to make the world as they would have it by force and subterfuge.

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, October 13, 2009 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

Face it.  The sturm and drang over ANYthing related to Obama is just sour grapes and sore-asses left over from conservatives having lost so many seats in Congress and the Presidency during the last two elections.  But conservatives are not satisfied with just preparing for the next election - they stir up all these ridiculous “issues” - phony conspiracy plots, nitpicking press releases, overblowing congressional dealings, and, of course, literally making up stuff like death panels.
  There would be no wars for Obama to shut down except that the neo-coms started two unfunded wars during the prior administration.  If W and Condi and Rummy had paid attention to intelligence memos instead of W’s golf game, there might not have been a 9/11 to avenge.  There should not have been an UNfunded Med Part D.  Conservatives were literally piling on in the stock market, real estate and its offshoots to deregulate everything but the dogcatcher in prior years - and we are now suffering through a major recession for their greed.
    At some point Obama will be to blame for something - maybe his campaign position on Afghanistan, maybe his lack of details on health care. 
  But when one is up to one’s anus in alligators, it’s hard to remember the original intent to drain the swamp.

Report this

By Mike, October 13, 2009 at 7:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A better question might be, why do some on the left insist on backing Obama no matter what? This is exactly the same attitude that conservatives had regarding George Bush. In fact, if you’ll remember, they said leftists hated America when we criticized GWB. And now Eugene Robinson is continuing this divisive, counterproductive strategy. It is NEVER unpatriotic to offer genuine criticism of our government (including the president), and I would have thought all leftists knew that.

Obama won this prize despite escalating the unnecessary war in Afghanistan. Simply put, he does not deserve it. We do a disservice to the cause of peace by claiming that he does deserve it. And moreover, we do a disservice to the cause of bringing Americans together if we say half of them “hate America.” This kind of rhetoric only drives more people to Limbaugh’s side. We should be better than that.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, October 13, 2009 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

How much better is it if Obama gets others to engage in the USA’s criminal acts? The first War with Iraq was too and they had to lie and finagle to get others on board in 1990. How was that better when it was wrong in the first place? It wasn’t so Robinson‘s premise needs to be rethought.

Those arrayed against us are against the very founding of this nation they claim they support. They really liked the authoritarianism of the theocracies of the 17th century. The dictatorships of the corporations of the Guilded Age. That is their utopia. It just isn’t ours.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, October 13, 2009 at 6:35 am Link to this comment

It’s all about politics and power; all’s fair in love and war, right? And as Mao put it, “Politics is war without bloodshed; war is politics with bloodshed.” The Repubs want control of Congress and the White House back—the quicker the better. In the meantime, they will say and do anything to gain an advantage, no matter how small.

And if they DO regain the whole enchilada by January 20, 2013, how much you wanna bet they’ll call the Demos “unpatriotic” and “haters of America” at the slightest provocation?

Report this

By Big B, October 13, 2009 at 5:29 am Link to this comment

The fact that Barry did not deserve the Nobel aside, the repugs simply hate any version of america that does not have them in absolute control. You must hand it to the conservatives around america though, for even after 40 years of abject failure in the policy leadership of the US, they still think all of our ills can be solved by giving “trickle down” just a little more time. By giving deregulation another chance. They still have this vision of some utopian america where major corporations will provide any and all services currently being paid for taxation. They think that de-regulation and a lack of taxation will somehow compell the corporations to magically begin providing life long healthcare to employees and their families, a decent retirement plan, humane working conditions, a 40 hour workweek, and to make enough money to provide a decent life to people in america. The corporations have had over 100 years to prove that they can create this utopia. And now, depite 40 years of de-regulation and “business friendly” administrations, it has become abundantly clear that this repug Shangri-la exists only on the other side of the looking glass.

Report this

By Mick, October 13, 2009 at 5:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ugh, yet another pontless opinion piece.  One could ask “Why do liberals hate America?” and fluff it up with nonsense.  Simple fact: Obama got an award for being “present”, that is it.  No acomplishment, no achievment other then just getting elected.  Nine months into his presidency and he still has acomplished nothing.

And Inherit the Wind, you need to brush up on your history, just a bit.  I think you might find “Liberal Facisim” a good read, that is if you are able to accept facts rather then rhetoric.  You precious little liberals have more in common with Mr. Hitler than any conservative ever did, sorry to burst your bubble.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 13, 2009 at 5:21 am Link to this comment

Eugene Robinson:
‘Somebody explain this to me: The president of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and Rush Limbaugh joins with the Taliban in bitterly denouncing the award? ...’

Along with a lot of leftists, like Howard Zinn and Gleen Greenwald, who said the story seemed to have come from The Onion, and our own Mr. Fish and many of those who post comments here.  If Eugene Robinson is going to carry out his mission of obscuring and deflecting leftist thought and leftist voices, he needs to study (this part of) his audience a bit more carefully.

Report this

By ardee, October 13, 2009 at 4:51 am Link to this comment

bogi666, October 13 at 7:17 am #


The Obama detractors about him receiving the Prize would have complained about Hitler not getting the prize in 1938 had they been around then.

Perhaps you might elaborate?

Report this

By bogi666, October 13, 2009 at 4:17 am Link to this comment

The Obama detractors about him receiving the Prize would have complained about Hitler not getting the prize in 1938 had they been around then.

Report this

By Shift, October 13, 2009 at 4:15 am Link to this comment

At best, Obama is an aspirational gasbag.  The unfortunate reality is that he is the water boy for the oligarchs. The oligarchs are simply rewarding him for his good service, and he will not fight the Republicans so the Peace Prize is appropriate.

Report this

By walt, October 13, 2009 at 4:10 am Link to this comment

They hate “Obama‘s America” actually. That doesn’t surprise me and shouldn’t
surprise any of us. What always does surprise me however is the momentum
these radical ideas gain within the population. I was out of the country during
the announcement and watching the coverage it received there opened my
eyes. American news focused on the pros and cons and sought those opinions
from the usual suspects: famous liberals, infamous conservatives, MSNBC and
Fox, pundits, elected officials and (groan) the ill informed man on the street.
Most, as this post points out, would approve of nothing Obama could do. The rest carped
about giving the prize to someone on one hand hadn’t done anything, and on
the other, was “waging” two wars.

The BBC obtained statements from world leaders. Europe. Asia. The Middle
East. They talked about the same things the Committee did in justifying the
Prize: His speeches in Berlin, Prague and Cairo. In contrast to the policies of the
past, they saw Obama as an important turn around for America in the world.
They were moved by the fact that now we had a leader who cared passionately
about climate change, nuclear arms and relations between America and the
Muslim world. 

I also think as some have said, the award was given to us for electing him.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 13, 2009 at 3:40 am Link to this comment

Gene,
They hate America because they hate freedom and democracy. They are brothers and sisters to Hitler’s Nazis, Mussolini’s Fascists, Franco’s Phalangists, and the myriad supporters of Pinochet, Mugabe, Putin and every other @$$#ole who thinks they are gonna get rich and powerful at someone else’s expense.  The rest are brothers and sisters to Christian, Moslem, Jewish, and Hindu extremists who see THEIR “God” as justification for tyranny.

There ARE legitimate questions to be asked of Obama and his policies and, yes, it’s perfectly normal to question THIS Peace Prize since it’s awarded to someone really prominent.  The Committee awards it to rather obscure people when it wants the world to know them—like Mother Theresa or Ang San Syu Kim (scuze the mis-spelling).  But EVERY prominent person who gets it has serious grumblers—whether it was Jimmy Carter or Henry Kissinger, Al Gore or Menachem Begin, President Obama or Yassir Arafat.

People grumble about Teddy Roosevelt getting it because of his muscular jingoist interventions in Latin and South America.  Yet he DID negotiate the end of the Sino-Russian War, for which he won.

People SHOULD grumble about Woodrow Wilson winning the award for the League of Nations, though he made SO many compromises to get the League that he doomed it to failure, and was a virulent, hateful racist, even by the standards of his day.

Yet I said this before and I agree with you, Gene, about this.  The nasty Right that elected Bush twice represents AT MOST 60 million people.  The Nobel Committee is speaking for 5 BILLION, 940 MILLION in answer to them—about 100 times as many people.  1% of the world’s population should not get to dictate to the other 99% when it is against that 99%‘s best interests, as the Bush years proved.

Report this

By Laugher, October 13, 2009 at 3:30 am Link to this comment

This is a fairly mindless editorial

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, October 13, 2009 at 3:29 am Link to this comment

Hyperbole aside; they just hate not having THE POWER.
That’s what this game is about, power, not money, but
power. Obama being black also sticks in their craw. Mr.
Fish’s new cartoon pretty much says it all.

Report this

By montanawildhack, October 13, 2009 at 3:24 am Link to this comment

Lost Hills is right on… Couldn’t have said it better myself-but I must comment further…

All this bable from from the “right” and the “left” in this country is just that….Bable!!!  Noise and static and Bullshit to make the proletariat think that there is real choice in this “democracy.”  And Obomba is the perfect front man…. “He’s so handsome and articulate and smart and he has such a nice smile… He couldn’t possibly be evil.”  Gore Vidal grew up in Wash DC and knows how these people really are… They have complete and utter comtempt for the working class…the proletariat…the masses.  The great writer and poet Edward Abbey was right on when he said that it is time for the troops to come home and point their guns at our real enemies in the capital building…

Report this

By ardee, October 13, 2009 at 3:12 am Link to this comment

It saddens me when a talented and intelligent author like Mr. Robinson posts a childish piece like this. There are legitimate criticisms of the awarding of such a prize to one who foments war and continues torture, and the spouting of the Limbaugh’s et al may only obfuscate that legitimate critique.

Obama was given this award in hopes of future actions I guess.

Report this
knobcreekfarmer's avatar

By knobcreekfarmer, October 13, 2009 at 2:18 am Link to this comment

it’s funny, “Why, oh why, do [liberals] hate America so?” is the
Limbaugh/Beck/O’Riley tagline…

Report this
LostHills's avatar

By LostHills, October 13, 2009 at 2:17 am Link to this comment

Yeah, everyone who disagrees with Obama is a rightwinger. Bullshit. The award was a farce and a travesty because Obama has our country embroiled in a war that the majority of citizens do not support. You can’t be waging war and receiving a “peace” prize without people calling you on the hipocrisy. I’m on the left, and everyone I know on the left is sickened by this travesty.  Giving this award to a warmonger is an afront and an insult to everyone who is working for peace. It validates Obama’s continuation of Bush’s wars, and short circuits the peace movement. But it won’t work.

Report this

By Ricardo, October 13, 2009 at 1:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why do so many Americans like Eugene Robinson have to politicize literally everything. It is so absurd! I am not American or living in America and I find it ridiculous that Obama was given the Nobel peace prize when all he has done so far is make promises, and unlike Bush, behave like a normal civilized human being. That however is not reason enough to be given a Nobel peace prize! If Americans could make decisions and look at problems in a relatively unbiased non-political way using their common sense, than they could also have a decent health, educational and penal system like the EU, Canada, Australia and N.Z. And just think what all that money now being wasted on continues war and the killing of innocent people world wide could do to improve the lives of your own citizens! We in the rest of the world would be grateful and the Nobel peace prize well deserved!

Report this

By samosamo, October 13, 2009 at 12:29 am Link to this comment

It is late and I am still just looking at the titles of these articles, in this case ‘why
do conservatives hate america’?

I can only say it is because they don’t, the conservatives have from the beginning
of think tanks to build plans to gain control to government and economic sectors
for their benefits are still making out like bandits so why would they hate it with o’s continuance of w’s shit?

Working on an apple is great when I have been used to working on a piece of crap
from microsoft which mine just could not work well at all with robert scheer’s new
version of truthdig which I am still not happy with the ‘rebuilt’ version..

Report this

Page 3 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook