To the Editor:

As I read the text of the announcement of the 2009 Nobel Peace prize, I felt a bit solemn. There is so much idealism, so much goodwill expressed. “Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position...” Well, OK, that may be a veiled jab at the person that he replaced. After all, a 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264) found, with few exceptions, national increases of 13% to 33% in US approval ratings around the world since Obama took office.

Inside the United States, however, we have Rush Limbaugh saying “this actually makes a lot of sense when you look at who these people are, these elite, um, Norwegians.... they love what Obama is doing...” Being of Norwegian ancestry myself (as is Karl Rove), I rather resent that remark. The Norwegian people are a sober, hardworking, somewhat taciturn bunch. My brother’s favorite Norwegian joke is the one about the man who loved his wife SO MUCH that he—almost—told her. But I guess Limbaugh would consider anyone who knows the meaning of the word taciturn to be an elitist. RNC chair Michael Steele called the committee’s choice “Unfortunate.”

Comments from elected public officials were more courteous. Republican Governors Pawlenty (MN) and Doyle (WI) offered congratulations, and Doyle added that he thought it was “great” that Obama won.

CBS News Chief and “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer speculated, “It’s almost as if they’re saying, ‘We’re giving you this prize for winning the election.’” It is indeed a great accomplishment to be elected as the leader of the foremost nation in the world, and Obama’s 6.8% margin of victory (popular vote) is a clear repudiation of his predecessor’s half-percent loss in 2000 and his skimpy 2.4% win in 2004.

Obama has become the world’s leading spokesman, and the Nobel Peace Prize committee clearly approves of his vision and his message. Those who repeatedly spread messages of hatred, which is NOT the same as disagreement on the issues, should be ashamed of themselves. As committee chair Jagland said, "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us." I hope you will all join me in praying for the continued safety and well-being of our president and his family.

 

 

BACK