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.

[fish hawk]

writing in big letters does not answer the question and neither does “by definition”.

[fish hawk]

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.

[Mycroft Holmes]

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.

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.

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[Private_Sector_Does_It_Better]

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.

[lentulusgracchus]

....impression that Palin is a real American while the detractors mentioned there simply aren’t.

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.

[fish hawk]

Please look up the meaning of “metaphor”. Also, I stated “is it okay” not gee why don't they set Manson free. If i were up to me he wold have been dead years ago.

[Mycroft Holmes]

Seems like you have chosen your side. It's not the same as mine.

[ozzymandus]

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.

[fish hawk]

Thank you, as you were wasting your time and mine.

[A Strict Constructionist]

“Let 20,000,000 kids burn themselves out, nodding out on street corners and in public parks. Sure.”

Well that would be approximately 1/3 of the people under 20 in the USA. Since I see this daily from the ER vantage point. I can tell you that you are way off. Since I also have seen the WOD from the coroner’ office perspective I can tell you that greater than 90% of the people shot in our city are related to drug dealing. Read up on Prohibition and the Kennedy clan and see who got rich and enjoyed living high while the others burned. The Oligarchs love the WOD and so do the COPS. Check the term NARCOTERRORIST. Might find some bankers and others that fit that term.

[A Strict Constructionist]

I also forgot to mention that as scientist I believe in the scientific method. We’ve done the experiment once, prohibition, and it didn’t work. We’re repeating it again and it isn’t working and we are getting exactly the same result. If this was a drug trial and it was found that the drug didn’t work and was harming people it would be immediately stopped. Prohibition has never worked at anytime in history that I can find. It is against human nature.

[lentulusgracchus]

So basically your answer is "go ahead, legalize drugs -- it won't hurt."

Or did I miss some nuance in there? Some nuance that makes you more and more right, the more you think about it, and less and less susceptible to second-guessing on your primary value judgment for free access to the world's most powerfully addictive substances?

[lentulusgracchus]

We’ve done the experiment once, prohibition, and it didn’t work.

Your premise is substantially in error. Prohibition did work -- but the propaganda has been the other way, so don't worry about it.

Total alcohol consumption, total consumption per capita, and alcoholism rates fell. Rum practically disappeared, other white liquors declined precipitously in popularity, and wine nearly disappeared for 50 years.

Tastes rotated toward brown liquors and beer, and consumption fell. Social attitudes changed, and moderation was in.

It worked. Deal with it.

[A Strict Constructionist]

“It worked. Deal with it.”

It was repealed in record time so you deal with it. You fail to mention the rise in violent crime related to prohibition. You can force abstinence and what do you get extinction of the species except for the hidden prostitutes who will continue to get pregnant from the Oligarchs.

[A Strict Constructionist]

I forgot to mention the rise of organized crime during prohibition which was fueled by illegal alcohol and which expanded during the Great Depression and gave us things like the Gun Control Act of 1934 under Barack the I’st. I guess you like living in a police state. If you don’t think so you haven’t dealt with the FBI, DEA and the locals on issues dealing with the WOD. I have this opinion because I was working with them. If you don’t think it’s all about money and power, I’ve got a bridge for sale.

[lentulusgracchus]

It was repealed in record time so you deal with it.

It did its job in record time and left a permanent impress on society and our mores.

You deal with it. Game, set, match.

Thanks for playing.

[A Strict Constructionist]

Always fun. For your reading pleasure, may be a little too Libertarian for you since it is from the Cato Institute.

Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 157: Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure.

Keep the faith.