Krauthammer Schools Entire 'Inside Washington' Panel on 'The Cowardice of the Democrats'

NewsBusters.org ^ | July 28, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

[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, we’re helpless, pitiable giants. We can’t do anything because the NRA is all-powerful.”

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Charles.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The reason that we can’t 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 there’s 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 Nina’s 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 it’s 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 it’s not a lobby, it’s 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: I’m saying on this issue the Republicans have a position, the Democrats will not oppose it because of public opinion.

TOTENBERG: [Laughs]

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.

KING: Okay.

KRAUTHAMMER: I don’t agree.

KING: So Republicans are wrong?

KRAUTHAMMER: I don’t 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.

[gusopol3]

Would have been a good place to lay Fast and Furious and back door gun control on them.

[ozzymandus]

But krauthammer actually stated he was for gun control.

[Straight8]

Note to libs: Do not debate with Charles. Not gonna end well for ya.

[MileHi]

KRAUTHAMMER: I have spoken on this show for 20 years, I am not an opponent of gun control.

I am not a fan of Krauthammer

[Bryan24]

CK is not very conservative. He appears that way on those shows because everyone else is so liberal.

[WMarshal]

I see a pre-revolutionary mindset beginning to form and the growing pro-2nd Amendment opinion is a reflection of it.

[junta]

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.

[NCLaw441]

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.

[BerryDingle]

Charles appears right of center because he doesn’t justify his socialism with lies.

[fish hawk]

so you are for NO gun control laws what so ever? Anyone can get a gun of any kind in any situation?

[musicman]

Please Help To Keep The
"Conservative News and Views"
on FR coming by "Clicking Here"!!

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!

[MileHi]

I’m of the opinion that it is possible to disagree with someone without thinking they are either stupid or evil.

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.

[ozzymandus]

We have too many gun control laws now, but they are not enforced against criminals. Don't try to put words in my mouth. You sound like that idiot O’Reilly. I'm surprised you didn't mention “howitzers” and “bazookas”.

[meatloaf]

None of the electric fence liberals are going to make any points with Krauthammer.

[skeeter]

Krauthammer didn't 'school' anybody - the three liberals' intellects were playing hooky. They weren't listening.

Leftists are impervious to facts.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

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?

[meatloaf]

That’s not a bad idea but you’d have to ban religion too.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

I get your point, but I was trying to make a similar one. Humanity is flawed, and the reason why there have been so many recent killings in Chicago is not because of a gun policy, or because of tax policy, or because of a controversy over same-sex marriage. It's because the people involved are not restricted by their own internal values from committing these acts. I don't pretend to know all the reasons why this is true, but I'm very confident that it's not going to be fixed by a new law on the books.

[TXnMA]

pieceofthepuzzle: "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?"

meatloaf: "That’s not a bad idea but you’d 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.