Skip to comments.Krauthammer Schools Entire 'Inside Washington' Panel on 'The Cowardice of the Democrats'
Posted on 07/28/2012 11:34:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer perfectly demonstrated Friday why three liberal media members are no match for one conservative armed with the facts.
During a discussion about gun control on PBS's Inside Washington, Krauthammer gave fellow panelists Colby King, Mark Shields, and Nina Totenberg a much-needed education on "the cowardice of the Democrats" regarding this issue (video follows with transcript and commentary, file photo):
Krauthammer Schools Entire 'Inside Washington' Panel on the 'Cowardice of the Democrats'
MARK SHIELDS, PBS: Why is it that after Katrina, we say, We have to do something about the levees? After 9/11, we agreed we have to do something about security and terrorism. But something like Columbine, something like Aurora, something like Virginia Tech, No, no, we are helpless, were helpless, pitiable giants. We cant do anything because the NRA is all-powerful.
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Charles.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The reason that we cant do it is not because of a lobby but because of the cowardice of the Democrats. We don't have a debate on gun control in the country. We have it on talk shows, but theres none in Congress. If you have a debate, you have one party on one side and the other on the other. The Democrats will not speak up. A Democrat would not even give his name in Ninas quotation here.
The fact is that if you want to blame it on a lobby, you are barking up the wrong tree. A lobby, for instance in the sugar quotas its a minority that the majority would oppose if they cared or knew about it. Hear, it is not NRA representing a minority. The reason it speaks and everybody listens is because obviously Democrats and Republicans have the idea the majority of Americans agree with them. So its not a lobby, its a reflection of public opinion, and that is why there is no debate on.
COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: That is not the case. They intimidate politicians on both sides, both parties.
KRAUTHAMMER: If the people were on your side on the issue there would be no intimidation.
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: No, you know, even as far back as, you know, when it was lopsided, at like 70 percent, they had enormous power, great skills, and they managed to intimidate a lot of members of Congress.
KRAUTHAMMER: Try once to blame the Democrats instead of some outside ogre.
TOTENBERG: I blame everybody.
SHIELDS: And the Republicans are?
KRAUTHAMMER: Im saying on this issue the Republicans have a position, the Democrats will not oppose it because of public opinion.
SHIELDS: Republicans act out of courage and conviction rather than cowardice.
KING: Do you like that position? Do you agree with their position?
KRAUTHAMMER: I have spoken on this show for 20 years, I am not an opponent of gun control.
KRAUTHAMMER: I dont agree.
KING: So Republicans are wrong?
KRAUTHAMMER: I dont agree with Republicans on this issue.
KING: So Republicans are wrong, sir?
KRAUTHAMMER: But I am trying to point out that the reason this is not happening is not because of a lobby, but because of a consensus among a majority of Americans.
As usual, Krauthammer was 100 percent correct and his liberal colleagues were barking up the wrong tree.
The reality is that gun control for the most part is a liberal issue in this country, and for decades it has been the Left trying to enact tighter restrictions.
During this same period, public opinion concerning the matter radically changed. As Gallup reported last October:
A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years. [...]
For the first time, Gallup finds greater opposition to than support for a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles, 53% to 43%. In the initial asking of this question in 1996, the numbers were nearly reversed, with 57% for and 42% against an assault rifle ban. Congress passed such a ban in 1994, but the law expired when Congress did not act to renew it in 2004. Around the time the law expired, Americans were about evenly divided in their views. [...]
Additionally, support for the broader concept of making gun laws "more strict" is at its lowest by one percentage point (43%). Forty-four percent prefer that gun laws be kept as they are now, while 11% favor less strict laws.
The above chart perfectly demonstrates Krauthammer's point.
President Obama and his Party clearly want tighter gun control laws, but because the population doesn't agree with them, they are scared to death to bring the matter up.
If they weren't, they most certainly would have proposed a new assault weapon ban when they took control of the entire government with huge a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2009.
They didn't because they knew this would be a loser for them at the polls.
As such, game, set, match Krauthammer.
Would have been a good place to lay Fast and Furious and back door gun control on them.
But krauthammer actually stated he was for gun control.
Note to libs: Do not debate with Charles. Not gonna end well for ya.
I am not a fan of Krauthammer
CK is not very conservative. He appears that way on those shows because everyone else is so liberal.
I agree, our “elite” strives for Political Correctness and PC is an estrangement from reality. I think Krauthammer has mentioned that as well to his fellow liberals.
I disagree with Krauthammer on gun control. But he is a thoughtful person. I’m of the opinion that it is possible to disagree with someone without thinking they are either stupid or evil.
Charles appears right of center because he doesn’t justify his socialism with lies.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
I didn't say he was either. To the extent that Krauthammer advances conservatism, I favor that. Gun control is not the only area in which he is not particularly conservative.
He is rather intelligent. I am just not a Krauthammer fan.
None of the electric fence liberals are going to make any points with Krauthammer.
Leftists are impervious to facts.
Communism /socialism are responsible directly and indirectly for the deaths of more people than any other political ideology in history. Why don’t we ban them?
That’s not a bad idea but you’d have to ban religion too.
meatloaf: "Thats not a bad idea but youd have to ban religion too."
Banning communism/socialism is a worthy ideal, but you'd probably have to kill off the part of the populace that is genetically disposed to liberalism. But, you wouldn't have to ban religion -- just religion + (political) power. IOW, stick with the First Amendment.
History is relevant here. After their shellacking in 1994, Democrats determined that 25 of the House seats they lost were directly related to the assault weapons ban. They aren’t going to make that mistake again.
At least, not on gun control.
That was a great response.
Thanks for showing how it’s done.
One can remove automatic rifles entirely from American society. But if you use that filter and examine all shootings over the past thirty years....it comes down to one percent of the killings/shootings (my estimation, not absolute facts), so you ask yourself...what little gun control that might be somewhat agreeable...really has very little to no effect on all those shootings.
So then you are back to point number one. Now, if I removed all druggies, nuts and crazies from society, and used the same base of data....I might actually triple the number of people killed, and I might save a fair number of people. But you just aren’t going to let me put those guys in a state-run facility...are you?
He did say he is for gun control. He also pointed out the obvious, that his is a minority opinion.
Not precisely. He said he didn’t oppose it. He’s being weaselly. He can still claim he is neutral on the issue.
I’d actually have more respect for him if he said he was in favor of it, but he’s trying to have it both ways.
It’s weaselly crap like that that makes me dislike him.
And he is the conservative?
Love your comment.
Communism /socialism are responsible directly and indirectly for the deaths of more people than any other political ideology in history. Why dont we ban them?
“so you are for NO gun control laws what so ever? Anyone can get a gun of any kind in any situation?”
This is the argument of the left and the we know better right. Gun laws and the war on drugs only seem to effect the law abiding by making it harder to own guns and to buy decongestants. Who has to sign for their drugs or guns, not the criminals. We tried prohibition it didn’t work and had to be repealed but everyone wants to do it again and again and again. These type of laws don’t work and never will, it is human nature. You have to teach and lead people to do the right thing. If laws could do everything we could eliminate churches and declare everyone a Christian and then everyone would live right, be sin free and go to heaven. Just think how bad life would be for televangelists, megachurch preachers and the Pope.
This is similar to the immigration issue. IT has been "interpreted" out of existence. The worst possible way to do it.
Apply our laws or repeal them. Don't let moron activists like Reid and Pelosi play their silly games.
I am not a fan of Krauthammer
He's an Atlantic Seaboard elitist. People like him have been the curse of the nation since Plymouth Rock. Why expect different?
Our magnum opus is getting rid of the strings these elitists use to make themselves oligarchs. Find the strings, cut them, burn them. And toast the fingers on the other end -- or send them into perpetual exile.
Oh, another voice for drug legalization. Let 20,000,000 kids burn themselves out, nodding out on street corners and in public parks. Sure.
You post this:
Our magnum opus is getting rid of the strings these elitists use to make themselves oligarchs.
Then you post this to A Strict Constructionist:
Let 20,000,000 kids burn themselves out, nodding out on street corners and in public parks.
Why do some FReepers relish pummeling straw men?
By definition, NO gun control works against criminals.
By definition, criminals can get a gun of any kind in any situation.
By definition, gun control ONLY disarms law-abiding victims.
If there is any debate, it must be on why nobody in the theater could shoot back.
That's a great description. I prefer to think of them as urban elitists, because what really distinguishes them from real Americans is that their urban existence has insulated them from how the outside world really works.
I'm no fan of Krauthammer on many, many issues but he's a very smart guy who often lays out a very cogent and conservative viewpoint on issues of substance. Even when I disagree with him vehemently I find it hard to dislike him.
Likewise, he wouldn't say the Republicans were wrong, even if they didn't agree with him. Weaselly, yes.
Thank you for bringing up the issue that REALLY matters!
They came to that battle of wits unarmed.
That's a really good point, and one that contemporary writers would find compelling, I think, if so many of them weren't preoccupied with trying to manipulate masses of voters pro bono the Prog Cabal, which many of them -- like Doris Kearns Goodwin, whom I am beginning to think about nominating for a bronze statue as the all-time hallmark Liberal Drooling Idiot, still apparently think of as an urban goodies-delivery cooperative, rather than as a slavery cartel.
I found an example of an excellent urban-elitist rant in Commentary, here:
Before I read the article and chased links to many, many comments on Jewish-themed websites, I had no idea the depth of the aversion to everything we call "American". Former Bush writer David Frum commented (big super-RiNO), as did a website called Jewschool.com, whose comments were largely ethical and not overly prejudiced. The views expressed limn a fair outline of the "Red/Blue" schism in society, and explain the sharp demarc in U.S. voting patterns.
The animus displayed in the Commentary article and scholiae and commentaries appended thereto, reflect one POV that is Jewish, but I think is more widely attributable to "urban East Coast" elites and their control of media and academe.
writing in big letters does not answer the question and neither does “by definition”.
you are the second person to write back to me without answering my question: so you don’t believe there should be any gun laws what so ever??? I’ll ask it again and instead of calling names and blabbing nonsense, try to answer it this time. Try this one: is it okay for Charles Manson to be set free from prison and be able to buy any gun he wants at any time with no restriction? Why can’t you libertarians just say, well yes, there has to be SOME gun laws instead of ranting.
you are the second person to write back to me without answering my question: so you dont believe there should be any gun laws what so ever??? Ill ask it again and instead of calling names and blabbing nonsense, try to answer it this time. Try this one: is it okay for Charles Manson to be set free from prison and be able to buy any gun he wants at any time with no restriction? Why cant you libertarians just say, well yes, there has to be SOME gun laws instead of ranting.
Your error is in thinking that it is OK for Charles Manson to be set free from prison. And yes, there needs to be some gun law and it is entirely expressed by the Second Amendment. Free people can bear arms, slaves can't. It's that simple.
That’s a great article at that link. You get the impression that Palin is a real American while the detractors mentioned there simply aren’t.
I’m a huge fan of Krauthammer. No, he’s not the pristine conservative that so many here will only support. But I learn something every time he speaks! AND he is the most thoughtful, courageous pundit out there right now. 90% of the others scream inane talking points at each other and I learn nothing.
And by the way, he’s heavily anti-Obama and consistently makes powerful well reasoned effective arguments against Obama’s policies. 2nd only to Newt in this regard, IMHO.
AND if a liberal does try the inane talking point gibberish with him, he promptly destroys them with an intilectual response. Poor Juan Williams has nightmares about multiple public floggings The Hammer unleashed on him.
Exactly. Most of the voters in the "blue" (very PINK) counties, the Gorebot counties, are being led around by opinion "leaders" who not only don't feel like Americans, they don't like Americans, or America, and don't give a damn about freedom and independence.
They think of the world as one big cable-TV market or something, in which the problem is always to get the best service for the least money, or get a good technician to come solve their "prollems". Think of them as being a sea of "Snookis", and then you can begin to scope the problem.
Tell one of those people that so-and-so is a great American, a true patriot and servant of the country, and all they want to know is, "Does he deliver? Is he open at 3 a.m. so I can get a good -- make that great -- bagel?"
s I once read an interesting article about the people of ninth-century Constantinople, the import of which was that the Byzantines were the age's most cosmopolitan people in the age's most advanced city -- but that their worldview was parochial, solipsistic, and cramped, and that that shortsightedness or lack of vision, lack of attunement to reality, eventually killed their empire and gave their city to rude people stinking of old garlic.
If you had actually read my reply, you would have seen that I said we have plenty of gun laws already. Instead you go off on some stupid rant about Charles Manson, and then accuse me of “calling names and blabbing nonsense”, which is exactly what you did. Since you insist on not reading what I say, I’m not wasting any more time on you.
Thank you, as you were wasting your time and mine.