Compare and Contrast According to
Compare and Contrast
Teddy Roosevelt received the prize in 1906, while President, for this reason:
But what has especially directed the attention of the friends of peace and of the whole civilized world to the United States is President Roosevelt’s happy role in bringing to an end the bloody war recently waged between two of the world’s great powers, Japan and Russia.
Woodrow Wilson received the prize in 1919, while President, for these reasons:
As the name of President Wilson comes to the fore on this occasion as the recipient of the Peace Prize, I know that the award is accompanied by the thanks of the people of Norway, because in his celebrated Fourteen Points the President of the United States has succeeded in bringing a design for a fundamental law of humanity into present-day international politics. The basic concept of justice on which it is founded will never die, but will steadily grow in strength, keeping the name of President Wilson fresh in the minds of future generations.
Jimmy Carter received the award in 2002, 22 years after being beaten to a bloody pulp in his last election for these reasons:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
Oh, this too:
“It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken,” said Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Nobel committee. “It’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the U.S.,” he added.
When I am Right, I
When I am Right, I am Right
Earlier, I predicted that the New Republic would attempt to use to their advantage the fact that Republicans are decent enough to follow EXISTING election code in Montana. In fact, here are my exact words:
Nothing yet from The New Republic, although I am willing to bet that they will continue to defend the Lautenberg/Toricelli switch using this exact case as evidence that candidate switching will not happen frequently. Of course not- Mark Racicot believes in the rule of law.
Here are the New Republic hacks today, justifying the unjustifiable:
Then later in the day came word that the Republican U.S. Senate nominee in Montana, state Senator Mike Taylor, was dropping out of the race after his opponent, incumbent Democrat Max Baucus, aired a commercial so hard-hitting it quickly expanded Baucus’s lead from 19 to 33. Surely these developments undermine our earlier bloviating about the trivial precedential value of the New Jersey case.
Actually, no. At the time, we confidently predicted that there would be almost no situation in which a party would find it worthwhile to substitute one candidate for another after the state’s deadline for doing so–usually only a couple of weeks out from election day. That prediction remains perfectly intact today. While some rank-and-file Pennsylvania Republicans have indeed floated the idea of a Fisher-Schweiker substitution, it’s turned out to be entirely idle chatter. As The Washington Post reported yesterday, “Republican officials emphasize that nothing of the kind is being contemplated”–presumably because the disadvantages (i.e., looking like you’re trying to hijack an election) outweigh the advantages. Meanwhile, in Montana it appears that Taylor dropped out of the Senate race completely of his own volition–and not under pressure from the party. And while Montana Republicans are considering putting forth another candidate as a write-in–and even that probably won’t happen–there is basically zero chance they’ll follow New Jersey’s example and replace Taylor on the Senate ballot.
Predictably, the party of Clinton marches ever onward. The nerve of these people.
Does This Count as Multilateralism?
Does This Count as Multilateralism?
Jimmy Carter, Man of Peace
Carter finally wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and with this presentation, any hopes of Bill Clinton EVER shutting up on international affairs completely and permanently disappear.
William Sjostrom comments (link via Instapundit):
The Wall Street Journal (subscription only) reports that in awarding the prize to Carter, the committee said:
“It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken,” said Gunnar Berge, chairman of the Nobel committee. “It’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the U.S.,” he added.
I think it is interesting that neither the Washington Post or the New York Times picked up this line. Are they covering up just how degenerate the committee is?
If they really wanted to kick this administration, they would have manufactured a reason to give it to Clinton (Ireland, maybe). Also, as the Instapundit noted, let’s remember the company Carter now keeps.
Greg Hlatky of A Dog’s Life fame says it best:
TOTAL BANKRUPTCY… Jimmy Carter – international Mary Worth, white-bread version of Jesse Jackson, whose every foreign policy effort came to utter grief, who opens his mouth only to say something foolish – has won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.
Ibk! Gaaack! Spew!
Gay Montana, continued Lost of
Gay Montana, continued
Lost of interesting stuff on the Taylor/Baucus gay ad today:
To their credit, The Daily Kos and Ted Barlow have essentially ‘come out’ (sorry, I couldn’t help myself) against the ad.
Andrew Sullivan notes, quite correctly, that if the roles were reversed, the libs would be screaming bloody murder.
Jane Galt thinks the whole problem could be solved by giving the Democrats a wedgie.
As expected, Josh Marshall describes himself as equivocal. Depends on what the meaning of the word is, is, I guess.
Nothing yet from The New Republic, although I am willing to bet that they will continue to defend the Lautenberg/Toricelli switch using this exact case as evidence that candidate switching will not happen frequently. Of course not- Mark Racicot believes in the rule of law.
John Fund reports this isn’t the first time Max Baucus has dabbled in sleazy campaign tactics:
That’s pretty much what political observers also said in 1978, when the Montana AFL-CIO decided to unload on Republican Larry Williams, an investment adviser who was running against Mr. Baucus for the Senate. The union distributed hundreds of thousands of copies of a photo, taken when Mr. Williams lived in California, that showed him wearing love beads and with an unkempt hairdo, a sharp contrast to the buttoned-down image he tried to convey in his Senate race.
Mr. Williams claimed the photo had been taken after he had finished a long flight, but the damage was done. Charles Johnson, a journalist for the Lee newspaper chain in Montana, says that “at the time, some election observers credited the move as a factor in helping Baucus win the tight race.”
Apparently homophobia is only bad when it hurts Democrats.
When nuts blow up a government building in Oklahoma City we are told it is because talk radio is anti-government. When a black man is dragged to death in Texas we are told it is because George Bush didn’t sign a hate crimes bill. The next time some gay kid is beaten to death will we hear that it is because the Democratic Party has made gays into objects of derision?
Meet Sour Bob’s Best Friend:
My Best Friend Is The Most Annoying Person In The World
I didn’t plan to end up with this guy as my best friend.
He’s painfully uncool. He watches wrestling for chrissakes. He loves video games and insists on discussing their nuances in agonizing detail, even as I’ve assured him repeatedly that I do not give a fuck. His wardrobe is an odd mix of items that should have died on the Old Navy