Every once in awhile, someone will respond to something I wrote regarding a generic person who thinks as they think, and I'll realize that I was mistaken about that person's beliefs. For example, I really did think that anarchists supported anarchy, until I realized they just wanted a limited form of democracy that won't be called democracy and doesn't sound the least bit feasible. But usually, they confirm exactly what I wrote about them in the first place.
And so it is with Obama's critics. I wrote a recent post titled Obama Haters Still Hate Obama, which suggested that the only people who would criticize Obama's Nobel Peace Prize are the same people who criticize everything he does. And sure enough, one of Obama's liberal critics posted a comment linking to what they described as 50 reasons why Obama should NOT have won the Nobel.
But as I predicted, it was just the same list of complaints against Obama, very few of which have anything to do with world peace. And apparently, it wasn't even 50. It was 53. I feel like I've been had. And you can read his post if you want, but I'll summarize a few of Josh's reasons for you.
Reasons Obama Didn't Deserve the Peace Prize
Obama is talking tough about Iranian nukes, and therefore is probably doing what Bush did with Iraq.
Says he won't pull troops out of Iraq until the end of 2011, but is probably lying and will keep them there forever.
Increased the deficit.
Is hypocritical on gay rights.
Issued signing statements.
Wants to use the Fed as a "super-regulator."
Is allowing the Fed to monetize debt.
Supports Swine Flu propaganda.
Is using the same misleading unemployment numbers as previous presidents.
Has said things about Healthcare Reform which Josh doesn't like.
Hired people who support gun control.
Hired Rahm Emmanuel.
Hired Eric Holder.
Hired someone who was a Monsanto lobbyist many years ago as an FDA "Czar" (not to "head the FDA" as Josh claimed).
Worked with a Big Pharma lobbyist on healthcare.
Isn't making more corporations pay taxes.
Has attended weekly prayer meetings of an influential Christian group (though his link doesn't support this claim.)
And sure, I picked seventeen of the sillier ones. But trust me, these aren't the only ones that aren't related to peace. In fact, I'd guess that maybe ten of the fifty-three belong on this sort of list. So sure enough, this is just your standard list of random complaints against Obama.
And even his explanation of this stuff is weak. Apparently, Holder is bad for world peace because he once represented Chiquita in a civil suit they pled guilty to and paid $25 million in fines, after they admitted to paying protection money to a Columbian terrorist group to not kill their employees. Plus, he supported the D.C. handgun ban. Oh, and Rahm made the list for supporting gun control, too. Apparently, guns are good for world peace.
And just so you know, most of these merely link to Josh's own blog, meaning that these really ARE a list of complaints he's already had and merely compiled them to show how much he doesn't approve of Obama. and that's exactly what I had written. The only people who are going to criticize Obama's award are the folks who criticize everything he does. I have no idea why these people imagine they have any credibility amongst people who don't already hate Obama.
Had he limited his list to ten items, he could have had a point. But he wanted to act as if he had some giant laundry list of horrid Obama deeds, some of which consist of nothing more than Josh's own opinion that Obama will eventually prove to have done something wrong, while many others attack Obama for not being a Superman who could have single-handedly saved the world in his first year in office. And by doing so, he only confirms the fact that Obama is a mainstream president whose main opposition are people looking for something to complain about.