The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

03 February 2007

Nobel Peace Prize Nominations, Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh


While Gore's Nomination Praised, Rush's Is Panned

What makes talk radio host Rush Limbaugh any less deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than Al Gore? Both exist inside the world of politics, with Gore's environmental views and Limbaugh's smaller government stances reflective of distinct partisan philosophies.

Because the Nobel Prizes are increasingly known as a hotbed for left- wing political advocacy, however, Gore's nomination is accepted by the mainstream news media as highly appropriate, while Limbaugh's has predictably been denounced.

When the Landmark Legal Foundation nominated Rush, it's more than likely the organization knew it would raise a ruckus, so there was a tongue- in- cheek aspect to it. At the same time, the group probably wished to call into question the absurdity of Gore's nomination more than anything else.

Here is their official reasoning:

LEESBURG, Va., Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Landmark Legal Foundation today nominated nationally syndicated radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Limbaugh, whose daily radio show is heard by more than 20 million people on more than 600 radio stations in the United States and around the world, was nominated for the prestigious award for his "nearly two decades of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. These are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world," said Landmark President Mark R. Levin.

"Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today," explained Levin. "Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law -- and it is fitting that the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful world for future generations."

The news media, meanwhile, has been nearly universal in its condemnation of the Limbaugh development. Especially telling is that even broadcast trade publications, also notoriously liberal, have gotten into the act.

From Broadcasting & Cable, here's a prime example:

Don't Rush to Conclusions

Rush Limbaugh has been nominated for a Nobel Peace prize.

That is the headline that conservative public interest law firm Landmark Legal Foundation would like you to see. "Limbaugh called 'the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today,'" the group proclaimed, though Landmark President and fellow conservative talker Mark Levin was the one doing the proclaiming. He was not available to comment.

The group sent out the release saying they had nominated the conservative radio talk show host, who, by the way, regularly trashes his opposition with terms like feminazi. Levin isn't much kinder to his opponents. It was likely a knee jerk response to the actual nomination of Al Gore.

They added that "should Limbaugh become the 2007 Nobel Laureate for Peace, he will receive the Nobel Peace Prize medal and a cash award of $10 million Norwegian Kroner (approximately $1.6 million). The prize would be presented at a ceremony in the Oslo City Hall presided over by King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway on December 10, 2007, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel's death. As the 2007 Nobel Laureate for Peace, Limbaugh would deliver the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Lecture at that ceremony."

It reminded us of those "50 million to 1 contest" solicitations that talk about how "your name here" would be buying a yacht and traveling the globe and riding in a Mercedes "if the name of 'your name here' is announced as the big winner."

Their conclusion: Gore's nomination is real because an "acceptable" entity put his name forward (two left- wing members of the Norwegian Parliament), while Rush's isn't because media partisans don't recognize the Landmark Legal Foundation as legitimate.

As for the Nobel Institute's own guidelines, they're a bit fuzzy, so that's what angry leftists are clinging to for their contention that Limbaugh can't be nominated.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, greatly help to support this site's efforts. Thanks again!

Technorati tags:


  • Brian, he's a junkie.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 03 February, 2007 23:12  

  • So what? Al Gore is more stoned on his crackpot environmental policies than ever before--EMPHASIS ON MENTAL!

    Now I don't expect Hush Bimbo to win, but seeing he's nominated has ultra-left, terror loving radicals' panties in a wad--ESPECIALLY THE MEDIA!

    By Blogger The Real Bob Anthony, at 04 February, 2007 16:23  

  • Pat World
    Al Gore is more stoned on his crackpot environmental policies than ever before--EMPHASIS ON MENTAL

    So let me get this straight the entire scientific community says Gore is right. Michael Criton (fiction writer ) and Exxon/mobile says he is wrong !!! Seems to me Gore is not the crackpot, rather Criton is (unqualified fiction writer of Jurassic Park) and Exxon/Mobile are just pigs who only care for the profits! Of corse you side with the unqualifed and big business. Why? Because you have to be a contrarian and disagree with anyone who has the letter 'd' next to his name. global warming is ACCEPTED FACT, get over it.

    You righties are absolute crack pots.

    And Maloney has to be joking? right? Limbaugh is a joke, an entertainer not a Nobel prize worthy man of peace. He is no more qualified to receive this award than say Sean Penn, both are entertainers with opinions. An opinion does not earn a Nobel, opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one, not a qualifier for the reward.
    At least Gore contributed something to society, Limbaugh contributes his big fat drug addled mouth, and his own foundation nominated him. Tell me you are joking, please!

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 04 February, 2007 16:49  

  • Maloney Said:
    "Gore's nomination is real because an "acceptable" entity put his name forward (two left- wing members of the Norwegian Parliament)"

    The people who nominated Gore were two political opponents, a socialist and a conservative.

    By Blogger qw3rty, at 04 February, 2007 23:41  

  • Link

    "Norwegian lawmakers are among the thousands of people and groups with rights to nominate Nobel candidates. Others include members of national governments, past laureates, members of the awards committee and its staff, and many university professors."

    By Blogger qw3rty, at 04 February, 2007 23:44  

  • Brian, ohh boy
    Debunked by your own readers, does the humiliation ever stop for a second?

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 05 February, 2007 08:54  

  • Of course, you leave out the fact that Rush Limbaugh is not an actual nominee for the Peace prize, while Al Gore is. Being nominated by random people doesn’t make you a nominee, any more than plastering “Me for President” posters makes you a presidential candidate. See link below for rules on nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize:

    Your headline would have been more accurate expressed as:

    Nobel Peace Prize: Al Gore Nominated, Rush Limbaugh "Nominated"

    By Blogger rlee, at 05 February, 2007 14:42  

  • A scientific consensus is not the same as scientific proof. Look up the definition. Once there was a scientific consensus that the world was flat and at the center of the universe, that didn't make it true though did it.

    By Blogger JE, at 05 February, 2007 15:12  

  • Funny how in the 70's we were convinced that we were going into another ice age and the plan was to release large amounts of CO2 to try and stop the world from freezing.

    By Blogger JE, at 05 February, 2007 15:15  

  • JE,

    Let's not forget that a ship could sail off the edge of the world(since it was flat, according to the scientific consensus) and that the sun rotated around the earth.

    Libs are all about the consensus and not about the leadership.

    By Blogger Stacy, at 05 February, 2007 17:38  

  • Stacy, that's called government, as opposed to a corporate hierarchal structure.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 05 February, 2007 23:43  

  • Now let's see, Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh are equally eligible for the Nobel Prize. Yeah, that makes sense.

    Problem is, Brian, is that the Europeans who make these decisions have left us in the dust. Your or my thoughts are as irrelevant to them as those issuing from some nether region of New Guinea or the Amazon basin. No one outside the U.S. is stupid enough to think that LImbaugh needs accolades. Many, however, who know how imporant for the world it is to curb U.S. greenhouse emissions—the U.S. is just immorally profligate in this regard—regard Al Gore as a bastion of sanity in the strange, willfully ignorant place that the U.S. has become.

    The U.S. has become a cultural backwater. It's foolish fiscal and foreign policies are pushing it ever more deeper into irrelevancy.

    Rush LImbaugh get a Nobel? Forget about it. He's chief witchdoctor for the stupid, ignorant, superstitious place that the U.S. has become.

    We're a Christian Iran, with lots of nukes. And we're a blight on the planet.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 06 February, 2007 05:16  

  • As much as Rush Limbaugh challenges liberal ideaology and Al Gore challenges the common sense of conservitives this does not mean they are not quailfied. Rush is nominated because he promotes the conservitive idea of how to achieve peace. This includes the use of force and negotiations to achieve the goal. Mr. Limbaugh has history on his side in this matter. Al Gore's nomination on the other hand really has nothing to do with peace that I can see on the surface therefore I can only assume that there is another motivation behind this. If Mr. Gore were solid in his science should'nt he be nominated for the Nobel prize in science? I think that the reality is that this prize has become a political enity and therefore both men are very qualified.

    By Blogger swamp yankee, at 06 February, 2007 10:24  

  • Hash,

    When you can answer the questions I have previously posed to you, then I will deal with you at that point. Until then, you are dead to me.

    Consensus is the absence of leadership.


    Since the U.S. is a blight on the planet, and you are in the U.S., then you are part of the problem.
    So, knowing I will get hit for this and not really caring about it, to what country are you moving?

    By Blogger Stacy, at 06 February, 2007 12:42  

  • Stacy....who ASKED you? I TOLD you the facts...this is not up for debate.

    I don't know what BS questions you asked, and I really don't care. Do your homework, and put some effort into posting intelligently and THEN we will talk.

    And will YOU pay metro for his relocation expenses? Will you pay ALL American citizens back, what you have stolen from us?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 06 February, 2007 17:56  

  • WOW, it is always the same... How does talking about global warming make you a qualified person to receive the Nobel Prize? If he was so true in his beliefs then why did he not support the Kyoto accord in 1997? In fact why does everyone believe that a consensus is fact? All you need to do is pickup a dictionary and see that it is not. Minister of Propaganda, fitting name btw, you need to do more research before talking about something you have no idea about. Michael Crichton, you could have at least spelled his name right, is a MD from Harvard Medical School. will tell you more about his qualifications. Just because he wrote a book does not mean that he is unqualified. Spending years in grad school learning the ins and outs of double blind studies to me makes him more qualified than Al Gore. Not to mention that while Al Gore is spreading his propaganda he is flying around the country on his private jet. It was laughable when he drove up to the red carpet in his Prius, followed by 2 full-size trucks, 2 stretch limos and a motorcycle patrol for his entourage. Not to mention all the money his is making off his books and movie deals.

    Rush may not be the best choice for the Nobel Prize... in fact neither of them should get it. I do however think that a man who has been saying the same things for 20 years without ever swaying from what he believes says something more about his character than a sore looser who can’t understand the electoral voting system. A system that was founded by the founding fathers, who the hell is he to question the system that has served this country for so many years before him.

    By Blogger JE, at 06 February, 2007 19:17  

  • Since no one asked you, Hash, why do you keep piping in? I have posted intelligently (this one included), and the best you can come up with, to pass off as an intelligent post, is "Brian, he's a junkie"? That's intelligent? Compared to who? My 4 year old daughter can come up with something more intelligent.

    So, I will give you a chance to stretch out your brain and talk down to me: what caused the warming that melted the ice back in the Ice Age? What was mankind doing in that time to the ozone layer? Which SUV's were being used to add the pollution? And what was the temperature (high and low) on this day in, say 2100 B.C. in what is now New York? And what is now Los Angeles? And what is now Paris? Please, do tell.

    I look forward to your intelligent response...if you've got the guts to be intellectually honest.

    By Blogger Stacy, at 06 February, 2007 20:52  

  • "Rush is nominated because he promotes the conservitive idea of how to achieve peace. This includes the use of force and negotiations to achieve the goal."

    Yeah, Rush's policy in Afghanistan and in Iraq has been a smashing success in bringing peace to the world. Terrorism's up. War is up. Everyone hates the U.S. You gotta hand it to our Oxycontin-(spelling?)-addled friend, old Rushbo.

    Good Lord!

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 06 February, 2007 22:47  

  • Oh, and I forgot to mention his brilliant initiatives in Lebanon and Israel. Way to go, Rushbo!

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 06 February, 2007 22:47  

  • Lacy...share your seances with the muse with someone who's up about your deficits and your friendly fire incidents, and THEN I'll deal with you, as if you were a member of the human race...

    And don't forget to pay back real Americans what you stole.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 07 February, 2007 00:46  

  • Oh, and Stacy, why are you arguing with Hashfanatic?
    Shouldn't you be publishing your glittering analyses of climate change in peer-reviewed journals? I'd suggest you start with "Science" and "Nature." You can then work down the list to less pretigious publications.

    Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 07 February, 2007 01:32  

  • One thing, Stacy, your point is well taken. I should move elsewhere.

    Alas, I do have a life here. A job I like a lot, that would not be easy replicated elsewhere nor even here in the United States. And it's not that the U.S. is so marvelously benevolent. It's just that I work in a niche industry, and I've worked this and that angle to achieve what I have, and I love my work. I could have done it elsewhere, but I did it here, and the investment is too great to abandon.

    Moreover, I have a family. And I can't just pick up an leave.

    But by the gods that steer the stars, I intend to make this place better by fighting ignorance of science and fundamentalist impulses in this stupid country, qui est à fond le mien, despite being the Christian Iran.

    I do hope you don't live in Florida and don't live to see your condo submerged beneath the waves.


    By Blogger metrodorus, at 07 February, 2007 01:48  

  • Hash,

    Gee, you cannot back up, nor have the balls to bring any proof of manmade global warming. Shocking. As if I couldn't see that coming.

    Your name calling is juvenile.

    Christian Iran? Metro, though I sincerely doubt you care if my "condo" gets submerged(since I don't have a condo, I don't have to worry about that), why not move to the more tolerant Europe? You would fit in better with people of your thinking, and can do away with this place you call the Christian Iran.

    Metro, I noticed you didn't refute anything I said either. When you can prove me wrong with actual SCIENCE and not consensus, let me know.

    By Blogger Stacy, at 07 February, 2007 10:23  

  • Stacy:

    I apologize for my snarky comments. In retrospect they were rude and unnecesary.

    But really, global-warming is a serious menace. We have to believe the scientists on this because they have the appropriate tools to assess the risk. To do otherwise it to let the class clowns take over the classroom.

    By the way, it's wrong to say that scientists once thought the world was flat. Anyone who carefully watches the stars winds up concluding that the world is round. No one in the West anyway, with any serious education, has thought the world was flat since the time of the ancient Greeks, at least—and, probably—since way before that.

    That stuff about Columbus believing the world round while all others thought it flat is not true.

    (I've been told--I'm not sure it's true--that Columbus just believed the world was much smaller than it really is in contradiction to all the other sensible people around him. He was wrong, but lucked out when he hit the Americas rather than perishing in the middle of a vast ocean as he ought to have. Or it may not have been luck, since Europeans has probably been to the Americas often before his time, and he somehow got their reports.)


    By Blogger metrodorus, at 07 February, 2007 10:52  

  • Stacy, I do confess I spend as much time as I can in Europe. You might try it. You might learn like it there, too.

    Here's the science, Stacy:
    (By the way,I'm not a climatologist. I just have the common sense to listen to reputable experts, whether it's as everyday a thing as having my car repaired or as vast a thing as global warming.)

    Here's a great quote in reference to the fact that the American Enterprise Institute [AEI] just offered to bribe scientists with generous grants if they would attack the IPCC's recent report on climate change:

    ""The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash." --Ben Stewart of Greenpeace.

    Just when you think our current administration can get no more corrupt, you find it trying to bribe scientists to change their opinions.

    Où est la frontière canadienne?


    By Blogger metrodorus, at 07 February, 2007 11:08  

  • Metro,

    Thank you for trying to have a dialogue on the issue.

    I have no problem with saying that there is global warming. I just don't think there is enough concrete evidence of it being caused by man. Reliable measures of recording temperatures were not developed until the 1880's. So, scientists are basing their ideas on global warming on the last 130 years, when the planet is millions of years old???

    Scientists should be, by nature, a skeptical bunch. Otherwise, how would we have had the advancements in medicine, computers, etc as time has passed? In addition, this is a document(the 20 page report that came out last Friday) that was compiled by 600 scientists, gone over by another 600 "experts" and then gone over word for word with govt officials from, depending on the article, 113-154 countries. Another reason to be skeptical.

    If I can find those articles online today(I know they are still out there, for they were online about a week and a half ago), I will post the links.

    By Blogger Stacy, at 07 February, 2007 13:17  

  • Haven't started looking for those articles yet, but came across this:

    And found this blurb from the NOAA, in regards to my point earlier about when reliable temperature recording began:

    ...since 1880 (the beginning of reliable instrumental records)-NOAA

    By Blogger Stacy, at 07 February, 2007 15:03  

  • OK, Metro, here are 3 links to stories I saw last week. One story states 113 countries have to go over(approve, I believe) the report. Another states 154 countries.

    The overall point I am making is, science is based on questioning what is and proving/disproving something. Thats the way it has always been.

    Now I have no problem with people questioning the Iraq Conflict(not war, since Congress has not voted for a war resolution), so long as it is done without attaching an agenda to it, and it is done honestly. There are some on this board who do not do that. So, why is it ok to question the various aspects of the Iraq Conflict, but accept hook, line and sinker (without question, mind you) this report?

    How do we know this is not a cycle in the history of the earth? The Earth is millions of years old, and no one, including Al Gore, can say definitively what the Earth will be like in 93 years, much less 3 years.

    Just my view from Down South.

    Now, those 3 links:

    By Blogger Stacy, at 07 February, 2007 20:48  

  • Let's try those links again:

    By Blogger Stacy, at 07 February, 2007 20:51  

  • Stacy, I will check out those links.
    But it will take me a while.

    In advance what I will say is that what matters in this debate is not what you or I think. What matters is what has gotten into the best peer-reviewed journals. While science is in some sense democratic. and anyone can, theoretically participate, there is an establishment of people who have, through rigorous competitive processes that do, eventually anyway, punish those who err and reward those who advance successful hypotheses. To that extent, it is not democratic but meritocratic. I am in no position to challenge the findings of the IPCC, which represents the collective wisdom of the community of respected climatologists, any more than I would be capable of challenging NBA basketball players in a game of basketball. Accordingly, I would, in my mind, be foolish to listen to anyone who challenges the IPCC report.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 07 February, 2007 21:27  

  • And one more little thought.

    Modern climatologists have very sophisticated statistical tools and models that allow them to isolate the contribution of humans to global warming. Really, advanced statistics is an amazing thing. It really doesn't matter much what caused the end of the last ice-age. What matters is that climatologists have, with very sophisticated mathematical tools, demonstrated that humans are causing global warming.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 07 February, 2007 21:38  

  • Metro said:"Accordingly, I would, in my mind, be foolish to listen to anyone who challenges the IPCC report."

    Would that include other climatologists(sp?) who question the IPCC? One story I saw(not sure if I can find it, I saw many in the buildup to the release of the IPCC report) where someone from NASA or NOAA resigned from the IPCC 2 years ago because they saw where the findings were going.

    Besides, this is being touted as the definitive report on global warming. At least the media circus leading up to it could make one believe that. But this is a "more conservative" estimate from the report released in 2001. What changed in the last 6 years? They don't release that information.

    And China had a problem with the term "global warming" being in the report at all. And they are exempt from the Kyoto Treaty. Their population and assorted businesses trump the United States.

    Just more questions that appear to have no apparent answers. That is another reason I don't buy the IPCC report.

    By Blogger Stacy, at 08 February, 2007 10:23  

  • Well, I actiually do have one acquaitance (a friend of a friend, or foaf as they are called in folklore studies and the worst sort of testimony) who is a climatologist.

    He's working on his doctorate at a major university. He's a nurd, but very gifted mathematically. And he is just outraged that anyone at this point would question the science around global waring.

    But, again, his opinion is ultimately irrelevant. Any individual's opnion is irrelevant--even that person who quit NASA, if that's true. What matters is what makes it through the competition into major peer-reviewed journals on climatology. Peer-review is what allows scientists to pass a collective judgment on a hypothesis. And I challenge anyone who is reading this to reference a journal article from such a venue in the last several years that challenges the theory of global warming's fundamentals. That is really, for me, bottom line. Without that kind of evidence, I won't change my mind. And, I daresay, anyone who understands how science operates would be of the same mind as me. Any real, professional scientist would kill to publish a major article in a major journal questioning something like global warming. Her or his reputation would be made for centuries. His or her university or research institute would treat her or him like royalty. But it just hasn't happened.

    By the way, I'm just blowing smoke here. I'm a bit busy with my day job, and haven't checked out the references you have put out there, Stacy. But, really, the sort of argumenation you are using to support your point is not the sort to refute the IPCC report. Alas, it takes years of serious study involving very complicated math to begin to have the skills to construct that sort of argument. But believe me, if it could be done, it would have been done. Scientists tend to be very competitive, and they love proving each other wrong.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 08 February, 2007 11:33  

  • Hi, Stacy. I looked at the links. Thanks for those!

    Alas, I remain convinced by the IPCC report. And nothing but peer-reviewed science will convince me otherwise.

    Again, the argument that people are causing warming comes from complex statistical arguments that correlate the present global warming with rise in CO2 from human sources. It's irrelevant that there is no generally accepted theory on what caused the ice-ages or other long-term temperature swings.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 09 February, 2007 21:24  

  • God some of you guys are funny. Lets see now global warming? Entire scientific community? Lets get this straight a handful of scientist is the entire community, because the others don't count? Why don't we ignore the fact that the suns activity has risen shall we? How about the fact that Gore takes private jets that can keep my car full for years in one trip. That one volcano puts out more co2 then we do in decdades? BTW if you want to stop global warming everyone has to stop eating, drinking, or well breathing. Actually the best way is to nuke the planet to oblivion. Man is still a small speck in what the planet naturally does. Hey anyone hear that part of global warming is being cause by the moon drifting away? Organic foods is damaging the enviroment, but so is pestisides?

    By Blogger Bhaal97, at 23 February, 2007 13:04  

  • God some of you guys are funny. Lets see now global warming? Entire scientific community? Lets get this straight a handful of scientist is the entire community, because the others don't count? Why don't we ignore the fact that the suns activity has risen shall we? How about the fact that Gore takes private jets that can keep my car full for years in one trip. That one volcano puts out more co2 then we do in decdades? BTW if you want to stop global warming everyone has to stop eating, drinking, or well breathing. Actually the best way is to nuke the planet to oblivion. Man is still a small speck in what the planet naturally does. Hey anyone hear that part of global warming is being cause by the moon drifting away? Organic foods is damaging the enviroment, but so is pestisides?

    By Blogger Bhaal97, at 23 February, 2007 13:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger