Donald Trump

While yesterday’s interview segment focused on his interest in the President’s birth certificate, this time around O’Reilly quizzed Trump on issues that he would have to realistically face as President, particularly the struggle for stability in the Middle East. Trump apparently found the Bush doctrine of promoting democracy for democracy’s sake in the Middle East preposterous, noting that, in the old days, “when you won victories, you win… to the victor go the spoils.” He noted that leaving Iraq in the recent future would be an unwise move because it would give Iran space to attempt an invasion for control of the oil fields, and America is “not going to have enough heart to go back.” “If Iran is going to take over the oil, we stay and we keep the oil,” he argued simply. The objective, he said, was to “pay ourselves back a trillion and a half dollars more… and don’t be so stupid” that America invested in the Iraq war.

Calling himself a war scholar since “my whole life is a war,” Trump reiterated several times his belief that no war is complete without bringing something home. “A country goes in, they conquer, and they stay. We go in, we conquer, and we leave it to people we don’t even know.” This concern most vividly appeared with the current situation in Libya. Here, Trump argued that the Arab League should be paying America’s military costs– a point with which O’Reilly agreed– and noted his perception of President Obama as a warmonger. “Our weak president that kisses everybody’s ass is in more wars than anybody else,” he noted, sighing, “you’re talking about me like I’m a warmonger.”

While, as a businessman, Trump’s forte will always be in economic issues should he choose to run in 2012, his foreign policy rhetoric proved significantly more presidential than his complaints about Obama’s birth certificate, and will win him points among the more hawkish on the right and perhaps even corroborate his economic rhetoric.

The segment via Fox News below:

Obama praised the intelligence and skills of his Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, and mentioned that “Chu’s the right guy to do this, he’s got a Nobel prize in physics — he actually deserved his Nobel prize.” The audience exploded with laughter. Obama then went on to describe Chu as someone who likes to spend his free time on weekends in the garage figuring out how to extract natural gas. After picturing that image, Obama too couldn’t contain his laughter.

Obama’s ability to engage in self-deprecating humor is likely to endear him to many, however, his fiercest critics might have a predictable, although still humorous, response of their own: “finally Obama speaks the truth.”

Watch the clip below from today’s speech:

(h/t The Blaze)

Among the most prominent concerns on both the left and right with the intervention in Libya was the fact that the revolts there did not happen in a vacuum– Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern nations also face similar conflict, and many wondered whether stepping into one fight would necessitate further action elsewhere. President Obama’s speech tonight eliminated that possibility for both Maddow and O’Donnell. “We looked at this theater of war and decided we could win here,” O’Donnell paraphrased, highlighting how practical the president made the mission sound, and how much he emphasized the humanitarian and not political side of the effort.

Maddow agreed, noting that the speech’s main goal was to distinguish Libya from Syria, Yemen, et al. Noting in particular the possibilities of an influx of refugees as well as credibility with the UN as points the President was correct to emphasize, Maddow noted that all these issues legitimized the effort. What’s more, the speech to her solidified the very America perspective that there is “human value [in democracy] that transcends politics,” and in this she surprisingly compared it to President Bush’s second inaugural address, praising the latter.

Maddow also compared the speech to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize award speech, much to O’Donnell’s chagrin, and concluded that the former echoed the latter significantly. “He was making the same case,” she asserted, to his benefit.

Maddow and O’Donnell’s post-speech commentary via MSNBC below:

Beginning the segment with President Obama’s acceptance speech after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, host Jon Scott went around the table asking for general evaluations of the response to the Libyan intervention. Jim Pinkerton saw it as a “pretty donkeys versus elephants” situation, going as far as to highlight the lack of loud objection on the left to “a great display of partisanship.” In this opinion he was joined by Judy Miller, although she later added that the problem the media has had in figuring out how to respond to the war is that “the left is split on this war”– to which the rest of the panel protested that it was still unclear whether this would pan out into another war.

While Pinkerton and Miller hovered around the same general opinion of the response to the invasion as partisan but still confused, Mary Katharine Ham and Kirsten Powers took those arguments to either corner– Ham arguing that the relative quiet in response to the decision to enter Libya proved liberal bias, Powers arguing that the partisanship exhibited in favor of the Iraq War during the Bush administration was the truer demonstration of subjectivity. “The media were cheerleaders and they were going along with the whole thing,” Powers argued, noting that she believed the response to Libya would have been the same regardless of President Obama’s party.

The debate via Fox News below:

Appearing on Special Report with Bret Baier , Kratuhammer had this perspective (transcript via):

I think that award on transparency would have been the domestic equivalent of the Nobel he had for Peace after having done so little nobody could see it except the gentleman on the Nobel committee. Look, I’m not terribly agitated with a lack of transparency. Every administration, tries to hide what is embarrassing and show everything else.

Watch the clip embedded below courtesy of Fox News:

(H/T RealClearPolitics)

From Valen’s post:

It is always easier to support freedom of speech when the one who speaks agree with you politically. This is one of the ‘tests’ on liberal and democratic values that governments tend to fail. For instance, western governments have a long history on tolerating oppressive regimes that are ‘friendly-minded’. Internet companies assist China in censoring search engines. And many countries respond to Wikileaks‘ obvious right to publish material that is of public interest, by seeking to ‘shoot the messenger’.

…

Nevertheless, many seek to redraw the map of information freedom with the emergence of institutions like Wikileaks. Political powers and institutions that ordinarily protect freedom of speech suddenly warn against the danger, the threat to security, yes even the ‘terrorism’ that Wikileaks represent. In doing so, they fail in upholding democratic values and human rights. In fact, they contribute to the opposite. It is not, and should never be, the priviledge of politicians to regulate which crimes the public should never be told about, and through which media those crimes become known.”

Valen goes on to compare his nomination to the recent win by Liu Xiaobo, the pro-democracy activist, who was not able to claim his award in person since he was still being jailed by the Chinese government.

The actual winners won’t be announced till next October but really, who cares? “Person of the Year?” Nobel Peace Prize? They may sound nice but we only care about the really flashy awards like the Oscars. Let us know when WikiLeaks wins one of those. Ha! That’s impossible.

…or is it?

(h/t Reddit)

Despite having been nominated by President Obama and vouched for by Paul Krugman — two men with their own Nobel Prizes, of course — Sen. Shelby remained unconvinced. He felt that Diamond’s expertise on our struggling labor market was lacking. But back in Sweden, the Nobel committee is thanking the professor for his “work on markets where buyers and sellers have difficulty finding each other, in particular in labor markets.” I’m no Nobel winner myself, but I can deduce one thing from that phrase: neither is Sen. Richard Shelby.

“I liked what he said…I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times.”

Former Governor of Alaska, and current best-selling author (and possible 2012 third party candidate) Sarah Palin weighs in on President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech yesterday. Alas, not in an extended post on her Facebook page, but in a quote to USA Today whose readership is just about on par with the number of “friends” Palin’s page boasts (1.9 million and 1.1 million, respectively). Is Palin attempting to take credit for Obama’s “just war” philosophy? Perhaps just wishful thinking. The president has stated he has no plans to go rogue with Going Rogue.

The initial, general consensus seems to be that Obama exceeded expectations and that his “sober” acceptance speech — which required him to walk a very tricky tightrope — will please the conservatives as well as the liberals as much as any speech by the president can. That said, for a Nobel Peace Prize speech the president spoke an awful lot about war. In fact, he mentioned ‘war’ 44 times during the speech — a ‘just war‘ appears to be the main takeaway. To contrast he mentioned ‘peace’ 29 times. Sound like a strange tone to strike whilst accepting a peace prize? Well, maybe just imagine if he had he not chosen to address the elephant in the room. Says the Atlantic’s James Fallows:

As with his Philadelphia speech, he made the speech about the most awkward issue of the moment, rather than trying to avoid it. (In Philadelphia, the racially inflammatory rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright; in Oslo, his predicament as a war president getting a peace price.) I don’t think he provided even a five-second passage of the speech that could be isolated by U.S. opponents to show that he was “apologizing” for America.

Time’s Joe Klein thinks this passage from the speech is particularly worth noting as there is “something remarkably gutsy about using Martin Luther King Jr. as a foil before the Nobel Committee”:

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Meanwhile Politico’s Ben Smith felt Obama used the opportunity to “to sell his foreign policy at home and abroad without public reference to human rights, viewed by this White House as cheap — as used by Bush — and potentially counterproductive.” You can read the full text of the speech here and once we get video I will update. (Update: video below)

QUESTION: Can you explain how the president is deciding what to do with the Nobel Prize money? Is he talking to different charities? He said he was going to give it to charity. Will that be more than one? Will the foundations…

GIBBS: He mentioned specifically to me on Friday that the money would be donated to charity. There will be a process to evaluate that from his perspective. I assume it will be many different charities. But he has not told me or anybody else here the specifics of what that — what those might be.

QUESTION: Is there a timeline? Does he want to have it in place by the time he goes to accept the award or before that?

GIBBS: I have not talked to him about that, but I can.

QUESTION (From Congress Daily reporter): I assume we can rule out ACORN as a recipient.

(LAUGHTER)

GIBBS: And a lifetime subscription to “Congress Daily.”

“The fact that the Nobel committee, and I can’t read their minds, none of us can, but the fact they recognized that his attitude toward America’s role in the world and his willingness to challenge everyone to step up and take responsibility really restores an image and an appreciation of our country.”

Not exactly the “bonk, bonk bonk” some of us were imagining but who knows what goes on behind closed doors! Clinton however did appear to want to bonk a few heads together when Curry asked her about the rumors that Clinton is continually being marginalized. Oh yes, and she says she’s done with her presidential ambitions, though that mind-reading remark does leave a little doubtful (political) wiggle room.

‘Why are you not more out-front on these very important issues of our time? … What do you say to the people who are concerned that you have been marginalized?’

CLINTON: ‘Ann, I find it absurd. … I believe in delegating power. You know, I’m not one of these people who feels like I have to have my face in the front of the newspaper or on the TV every moment of the day. … My goal is to be a very positive force to implement the kind of changes that the president and I believe are in the best interests of our country. But that doesn’t mean that it all has to be me-me-me all the time. I like lifting people up. … I am part of the team that makes the decisions.’

CURRY: ‘Will you ever run for president again? Yes or no.’

CLINTON, laughing merrily: ‘No.’

CURRY: ‘No?’

CLINTON; ‘No. No. I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24-7 job. And I’m looking forward to retirement at some point.’

You get a stronger sense of Clinton’s (understandable) frustration on this point from watching the video.

At the Human Rights Campaign 13th Annual Dinner, Obama reiterated his campaign promise to abolish “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  The reaction by some seemed to suggest that people thought Obama was repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which is not the case, it’s just more talk.

Andrew Sullivan took the President to task, saying:

The sad truth is: he is refusing to take any responsibility for his clear refusal to fulfill clear campaign pledges on the core matter of civil rights and has given no substantive, verifiable pledges or deadlines by which he can be held accountable. What that means, I’m afraid, is that this speech was highfalutin bullshit. There were no meaningful commitments within a time certain, not even a commitment to fulfilling them in his first term; just meaningless, feel-good commitments that we have no way of holding him to.

Obama can’t repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” alone anyway, he needs to convince Congress to do so. He has control of both the House and the Senate, but he’s done little to wield that power to push forward the things a majority of Americans elected him to do.

Sullivan isn’t the only one annoyed by Obama’s tough talk and no action. Paul Krugman wants to know when he plans to address the culprits behind our economic crisis.

In response to an unprecedented economic crisis — or, more accurately, a crisis whose only real precedent is the Great Depression — Mr. Obama did what people in Washington do when they want to sound serious: he spoke, more or less in the abstract, of the need to make hard choices and stand up to special interests.

Obama’s stalling on health care reform is well documented. He’s finally came around to releasing his own plan for reform, and up until that point made high level declarations for what he wanted Congress to develop. The ensuing food fight between Republicans and Democrats has failed to result in a bill and we’re still waiting with nearly no end in sight for one to be put to a vote.

Obama would be better off if he stopped worrying about trying to compromise and make the right leaning portion of the country happy. He can’t, and by not pushing forward, he’s simultaneously pleasing the right by not putting forth policies they oppose and giving them more fodder to say he’s done nothing. All the while he’s leaving the left frustrated and annoyed. It’s a lose/lose position he’s taking. He’s wasting the political capital he earned during his campaign by not being more aggressive about fulfilling his promises.

The Nobel committee gave him the Peace Prize because they believed he would be a transformative figure on the world stage. We elected him based on his policies for both home and abroad. He has the support of the majority of Congress and of his citizens, how long do we have to wait for him to act?

It’s time for  ”Don’t Talk, Just Do” and that goes for a lot more than just “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Glenn Beck said on his syndicated radio show today that “the Nobel peace prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and should be given to the tea party goers and the 9/12 project.” Beck continued, “because of the tea party goers and the 912 project people that stood in his way and stopped him from accomplishing from the things that he thought, ‘Please I’m the messiah, I’ll be able to accomplish that.’” (h/t The Hill)

Matt Drudge linked to a Reuter’s article and included the phrase “EMBARRASSING JOKE” in the headline. But who actually said that phrase prominently quoted on his homepage? None other than Liaqat Baloch who is also known as the twice elected president of Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba in Lahore, Pakistan.

As we reported earlier, Joe Scarborough openly mocked and laughed at the award, while guest Mark Halperin immediately compared it to Marrisa Tomei winning an Academy Award for her light-weight role in My Cousin Vinny. Scarborough later apologized via Twitter – TO TOMEI! (That was pretty funny actually.)

But its not just those on the right. Michael Moore got in the act with a congratulatory letter written to President Obama published on his website. “The irony that you have been awarded this prize on the 2nd day of the ninth year of what is quickly becoming your War in Afghanistan is not lost on anyone.” This from a supporter?

But Rush Limbaugh made the stunning comment “this is a greater embarrassment than losing the Olympic bid.” Again, only in the strange world of Rush Limbaugh does winning a Nobel Peace Prize equate to an embarrassment. But he didn’t end there.

Limbaugh said later “I think that everybody is laughing. Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn’t deserve the award. Now that’s hilarious, that I’m on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban.”

There it is — Barack Obama has brokered peace between Rush Limbaugh and the Taliban! NOW who says he doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize!

With American forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama’s name had not figured in speculation about the winner until minutes before the prize was announced here.

Yes! Not terribly peaceful. The Nobel board says Obama “has created a new international climate,” which is basically a diplomatic way of saying congratulations on not electing another George W. Bush!!

The view from Twitter reveals a similar sense of surprise from media folk across the board. Also the growing sense that maybe Obama should consider turning the prize down. Give it a couple of more hours to sink in before the real backlash begins. Take a look.

“Should Pres. Obama accept the Nobel Prize? Should he suggest the award is premature and there might be others more deserving?”

Nick Kristof: My blog on Obama’s Nobel: it’s premature, esp when so many are risking lives doing fab work. http://tinyurl.com/ylbrkw

The Note (Rick Klein): wondering if confused react to Obama Peace prize has to do w/ sense that Nobel folks seem to be describing Jan. 20 Obama, not Oct. 9 Obama
5 minutes ago from web

George Stephanopoulos: Best Obama-Nobel Jokes http://bit.ly/2CqNuC

Marc Ambinder: RT @dbgrady: All my life, I’ve said, “Bomb the moon, and the world will bend to your will.” Well played, President Obama. Enjoy your Nobel.

David Folkenflik: Noting sniping about Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, Fox News’ Wendel Goler says that puts RNC Chair Steele in roughly same camp as Taliban

Balk: Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for all his work on the intractable Gates-Crowley conflict?

Howard Kurtz: Never thought I’d see Nobel Prize portrayed as a negative. But hard to fathom since O took office 2 wks before nomination deadline

“Does Nobel prize clerk requires photo ID and birth certificate when picking up? I smell a trap.”

Felix Salmon: RT @smalera: Does Nobel prize clerk requires photo ID and birth certificate when picking up? I smell a trap.

Marc Lamont Hill – Am I the only one who thinks that awarding Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is ABSURD?!?!?!

Michael Scherer: RT @marcambinder: RT @blakehounshell: For those perplexed, Committee has been awarding”aspirational” prizes for years http://bit.ly/qRhqS

@pourmecoffee: Nobel committee picks Obama for its fantasy peace team.

Mike Madden: RT @tfish77: obama? what was it, his passionate defense of bush torture policies, or his passionate refusal to investigate bush war crimes?

Mark Knoller: Should Pres. Obama accept the Nobel Prize? Should he suggest the award is premature and there might be others more deserving?

Jake Tapper: apparently the standards are more exacting for an ASU honorary degree these days

Rachel Sklar: ironic Obama gets Nobel Peace Prize on day the U.S. declares pre-emptive, unprovoked war on the moon

Rachel Sklar: BONK BONK BONK BONK BONK (That’s the sound I imagine Hillary Clinton’s head made banging against the wall this morning.)

Steve Krakauer: RT @mediaite …Nobel Peace Prize Problem: http://bit.ly/3yDlLz Spin this: #Obama was 11 days into presidency when noms closed

“Nobel Peace Prize Problem. Spin this: #Obama was 11 days into presidency when noms closed”

Patrick Gavin: Also, Arafat // You know who also has a Nobel Peace Prize? Kissinger. (Not actually a joke.) (via @anamariecox)


Chris Lehmann: Harry Reid flummoxed that Obama won Peace Prize without Olympia Snowe’s backing.
40 minutes ago from TweetDeck

Ana Marie Cox: WE’RE EARTHLINGS! BLOW UP EARTH THINGS! http://bit.ly/18PomY #eatitmoon

Rachel Sklar: Obama is to the moon as Joe Wilson was to Obama

Ana Marie Cox: RT @lehmannchris: Biden now convinced he has a shot at the Chemistry prize. // Actually convinced he HAS the Chemistry prize.

Choire: I can’t believe Sweden is upstaging our moon-bombing. (Among other things I can’t believe! Thanks for making everything awkward!)

Mark Knoller: So — if Nobel cmte based its decision on speeches, Jon Favreau and Ben Rhodes won Obama his Nobel.

NYTimes: Also on our radar, literally: Moon bombing. Any minute now. http://bit.ly/2xCKGe

Glynnis MacNicol: Obama Nobel Prize translation: Congratulations America on not electing another GWB.

The Note (Rick Klein): RT @anamariecox Apparently Nobel prizes now being awarded to anyone who is not George Bush.

Marc Ambinder: RT @Goldberg3000: It might be smart for Obama to turn this prize down, at least until he achieves peace somewhere. Or trade for Olympics

ChuckT Political (Chuck Todd): Axelrod on MSNBC: nothing anyone expected. … Affirmation by the Nobel cmte “are important and significant.”

NEXT: First Twitters announcing prize and early shocked reactions.

]]> http://www.mediaite.com/online/obamas-stunning-nobel-prize-win-the-stunned-reaction-from-twitter/feed/ 2 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/surveying-the-anti-climactic-moon-bombing-scene/ http://www.mediaite.com/tv/surveying-the-anti-climactic-moon-bombing-scene/#comments Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:47:22 +0000 Steve Krakauer http://www.mediaite.com/?p=33226 Barack Obama got that Nobel Peace Prize victory out of the way, it was time to bomb the Moon. As predicted on Office Hours yesterday, the entire event, taking place this morning at 7:30amET, was mostly hype, at least in terms of usable video. Still, every cable and broadcast news morning show took it live, with team reporting. Here's a look at how each show dealt with the anti-climactic Moon bombing:]]> Now that Pres. Barack Obama got his Nobel Peace Prize victory out of the way, it was time to bomb the Moon. As predicted on Office Hours yesterday, the entire event, taking place this morning at 7:30amET, was mostly hype, at least in terms of usable video.

Still, every cable and broadcast news morning show took it live, with team reporting. Here’s a look at how each show dealt with the anti-climactic Moon bombing:

On CNN, John Roberts didn’t have beautiful video, but he did have jokes: “Crashing into the Moon, I guess, is a big scientific deal, but it’s a lot easier to crash into the Moon than it is to land on the Moon.” Also, CNN was the first network to jump back to the original NASA animation they’ve been using all week, since the actual video was pretty unclear:


Fox News had reporter Claudia Cowen at some viewing party where the people were “crazy about the moon,” according to Steve Doocy. How crazy? “Did you see the impact just now on the big screen?” asked Cowan to a guy in afull Star Trek uniform. “They said it impacted but i didn’t see anything,” he said:


MSNBC’s Morning Joe team, which had been laughing up the Nobel Prize win all morning, enjoyed their two-shot. “The rocket has successfully crashed into the Moon. The wires are reporting that,” said Joe Scarborough. “Of course, Mika asked me where the rest of the Moon was in that shot, fearing that it has sheered off about one-eighth of the Moon.”:


On broadcast TV it was more of the same. Diane Sawyer on ABC’s GMA didn’t know what to do with some images that didn’t add much to the story. “So, it has hit. And they have an Infrared picture. But I gather they are waiting for the next phase, the analytical machinery to kick in.”:


CBS’ The Early Show was first to jump out of their live shots, mainly because they had their own visual set-up. Harry Smith and CBS News’ Space Analyst Bill Harwood stood around a Moon. “It’s flopped in there. So we didn’t get much picture out of that,” said Smith. “Not yet,” said Harwood:


And on NBC’s Today show, Tom Costello probably summed it up best: “I’ve got to tell you, at the moment, I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed. They truly believed that this satellite was going to be providing some spectacular images of the plume, and we don’t see that.”

Later, Matt Lauer admitted, “Maybe that was oversold in this particular case.” Costello: “Well, for all of us. I think we’re all a little bit stunned that we didn’t see more.”:


Moral of the story: next time we bomb the Moon, we need better pictures and video!

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

]]> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/surveying-the-anti-climactic-moon-bombing-scene/feed/ 0