The cowardly Mike Luckovich

Apparently, prestigious prizes ain’t what they used to be.

The downward spiral for the Nobel Prize began with Al Gore, awarded the Peace Prize for a movie that had nothing to do with peace. The film was nothing more than a propaganda tool advocating carbon taxes, disguised as a documentary.

Then, to make absolutely sure that everyone knew the Nobel Peace Prize had become a joke, Barack Obama won a Nobel Prize for dewily not being George W. Bush.

Seriously.

Here’s some of what the Nobel committee wrote about Obama while giving him the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics.

This was a mere http://bestpensintheworld.com/page/2/ three months after his election, only a month after being sworn into office. While a senator, Obama developed something of a reputation for voting “present” as opposed to “yea” or “nay” on controversial legislation.

So early into his time in office, Obama hadn’t yet begun his efforts to completely destroy the reeling American economy. Still, the Nobel committee had faith in the neophyte president, for their vision of what ought to happen to America.

Their faith continues to be rewarded, even as I type these words.

Okay. So, the Nobel Prize sucks these days.

But the Pulitzer Prize is different–it’s only awarded to journalists who’ve reached the pinnacle of their profession…right?

Then why has Mike Luckovich won two Pulitzer Prizes?

Is he really that good? Or is the competition that bad?

As the editorial cartoonist of my hometown newspaper, Luckovich has been spewing ultra liberal claptrap and nonsense since 1989, typically playing to the worst, most blatant stereotypes to demonize conservative politicians.

Once in a blue moon he’ll gently chastise a Democrat for a really egregious transgression against boilerplate liberal Democrat policy–which is to spend lots of federal dollars on social engineering programs while they despise the military. At the same time, these ultra liberals unashamedly accuse conservatives of trying to do what they are actually doing–things like segregating and dividing the American people, creating strife through class warfare.

But it’s mostly to create an impression of being a moderate.

Republicans are frequently depicted by Luckovich as the party of angry white males who love their guns and hate black people.

All that aside, the Pulitzer Award committee spokesman said that choosing Luckovich was easy: “”His cartoons stood out as very pointed, very humorous and much sharper than everyone else’s.”

Really? As I speculated, there must not be very much in the way of competition…okay, so there are only about 90 eligible artists.

Still, one of 90, twice in less than 20 years? Perhaps not all of the cartoonists are sufficiently liberal for the Pulitzer people.

Ultra-liberal editor Cynthia Tucker wrote about his award, “Mike Luckovich is, quite simply, brilliant. His responses to the important social issues of our day range from wickedly funny to deeply poignant to decidedly irreverent. But they are always right on the money.”

True, Luckovich isn’t a bad artist–you can easily identify the target of his wrath most of the time. Newt Gingrich always has a very large head on a fat body–okay, maybe that one is a fair caricature.

As for his being wickedly funny…in your dreams. Wicked and vicious, yes.  Horribly wrong, absolutely.

But wickedly funny?

I cannot ever remember laughing out loud at one of his cartoons, over twenty years. Not once. Not even a snicker. He’s much too biased.

And right on the money…since when?

For example, today’s cartoon features Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in the cartoonist’s take on Obama’s horrific gaffe in a recent speech, now an Internet sensation. You know the mistake…”if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

Incredibly, Luckovich’s take on the fiasco is that Romney somehow edited words out of Obama’s speech. Romney has new campaign ads with which he’s pounding Obama for that crucial campaign blunder. So Luckovich is trying to rescue the president from his own speech.

This joke of a cartoonist just implied that Romney is cherry-picking from the actual words of what the president said to distort their meaning, as opposed to actually quoting Obama verbatim–which Romney did.

Wait a minute, Mikey! Did you mean that Romney was doing a hatchet job worthy of Andrea Mitchell?

Unfortunately, it is the media that can no longer be trusted to provide accurate information these days. I’m no shrink, but I think a psychiatrist might diagnose this as “projection”, Mikey.

In fact, during the same speech, as if to hammer the point that business owners didn’t create their businesses home, Obama also said, “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”

So, how exactly did Romney misrepresent the truth there, Mr. Luckovich? Did Romney commandeer control of the teleprompter and put the wrong words into Obama’s mouth?

I ask because the raw tape of his speech, in full context, is even worse. You can easily find it on YouTube, although with brilliant critiques of the speech such as this one by Charles Krauthammer.

Well played, A.B.

In that now infamous speech, Obama openly expressed socialist views that are anathema to the entrepreneurial spirit of the capitalist culture that is the very heart of American society and pumps the life-blood of economic growth.

In stark contrast, “Zo” clearly knows the importance of entrepreneurship and capitalism to our society. I now proudly consider myself aligned with the Zonation, not an Obama voter/zombie.

Obama, a man who never had a “real” job or even so much as ran a candy store, yet wrote two autobiographies before he accomplished anything, truly does not understand capitalism.

Luckovich once again demonstrates that he is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt, distorting the truth of what actually transpired beyond recognition. Someone just waking up out of a coma might actually believe that Romney is lying about what Obama said, when the truth is that Luckovich is lying about Romney misrepresenting the actual words of Obama rather than quoting him.

And, being the coward that he is, the comments are turned off so that readers outraged by his gross distortions cannot respond to Luckovich.

But I have a blog, Mikey. And I’ll use it to speak my mind about your pathetic liberal nonsense, you piece of work.

You are a liar and a coward, sir.

You lied about what Obama said, and in turn accused Romney of doing something he didn’t do.

You are a coward because you routinely refuse to allow comments to be posted in response to your bed-wetting liberal B.S.

Comments on this article remain open.