Seriously though. It really is pretty amazing how basically just being appointed by Obama seems to be the criteria for obstructionism.

Considering the incompetence that Obama has shown to date, is such criteria so illogical???

Michale.....

I have to admit I misread your title initially as "The Nobel Prize in Obstructionism"

This lead me to think that maybe there's a good joke in here somewhere about Republicans winning a Nobel Prize for obstructionism.

Ok, ok. Maybe a joke. But probably not a good one.

Seriously though. It really is pretty amazing how basically just being appointed by Obama seems to be the criteria for obstructionism.

-David

Michale, I KNEW the first comment would be from you with your usual false equivalency.

Exactly why is it a "false equivalency", Kevin??

But you know, it just occurred to me..

My "hatred" of Obama notwithstanding, it's probably not a good idea for the Democrats to make this argument about Diamond.

Why, you may ask?

Because it will remind people that, as I pointed out above, Obama also won a Nobel Prize. Which will, in turn, remind people that Obama did not live up to the potential that the Nobel Prize was awarded to him for. Which will, in turn, remind people that, once again, Obama has failed.

It would have made a good argument had Obama not won the Nobel Prize.

But by making this argument now, it will remind Americans of things that Obama would very much like Americans to forget about.

Michale.....

Winning a Nobel Prize USED to be about accomplishments.

Now the Nobel Prize is handed out for partisan political reasons..

This economist guy MIGHT be qualified to do the job..

But simply winning a Nobel Prize is by no means an indication of his qualifications.

Michale.....