Posted on 07/17/2010 11:32:00 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
While I read Charles Krauthammer from time to time, I am not a big fan of his. In reading his column entitled "Obama's Next Act" yesterday, he pronounces Reaganism as good as dead, a victim of the first eighteen months of the Obama Administration. I rather think Krauthammer lacks standing to comment on "Reaganism" (whatever he means by that term) since he worked in Jimmy Carter's White House and tried twice to defeat Ronald Reagan both in 1980 and 1984. He was a speechwriter for Walter Mondale and I often wondered if he penned the immortal line (or was it the mortal line), "President Reagan will raise your taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."
I have heard Krauthammer on CSPAN and elsewhere opine that Obama is among the most intelligent men ever to be President. I suspect that he held Reagan's intelligence in somewhat less regard when the Gipper was running for President and while he was governing. Oh, Krauthammer did coin the term "Reagan Doctrine" and he came to favor the muscular foreign policy which Reagan pursued with remarkable (and virtually bloodless) success. This does not, however, entitle Krauthammer's views on domestic policy to any great weight, given his antagonism to "Reaganism" in the past.
Now, to his column. He begins by pronouncing ObamaCare both "historic" and "irrevocable", a definitive and everlasting change to one sixth of the American economy. Not only does he ignore the blatant unconstitutionality of the individual mandate requiring every citizen to purchase a private product (which is being challenged in the courts at this very moment), he completely ignores the mechanisms through which this program can be immediately defunded and neutered in 2011 when the GOP takes back the Congress. In 2013, the GOP will almost certainly have more than 60 senate seats and a filibuster will not be able to stop the outright repeal. This monstrosity has more than a few problems. But Krauthammer pronounces it final, res judicata, a fait accompli. It reminded me that Krauthammer was carrying water for ObamaCare in an August 21, 2009 column in the Washington Post when, in response to Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" torpedo aimed at the rationing schemes in the very heart of ObamaCare, Krauthammer told her to sit down and shut up:
"We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate."
Palin has subsequently been proven right (Does the recess appointment of Donald Berwick to the CMS leave any doubt?) and Krauthammer has been proven wrong, but I have heard no apology from him. He is just as wrong about the permanency of ObamaCare and the end of Reaganism.
Krauthammer goes on to pronounce the Financial Regulatory bill as a now permanent fixture that is unrepealable. Again, the "brilliant" Krauthammer ignores not only the constitutional problems with such a bill, but the political ones associated with them. For example, among other things, the Bill purports to delegate the authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to bail out any financial institutions at his discretion without the necessity to go back to Congress to appropriate the funds. This is a blatant unconstitutional delegation of Article I legislative authority to the Executive, which is certain to be challenged and likely to be stricken by the Courts. As the quid pro quo for the massive regulation of the financial industry will imperil not just the constitutionality of the rest of the bill but its political viability as well, that is: Since the financial industry will not be able to access bailout funds (the carrot) without going back to Congress, it will oppose the regulatory burdens (the stick) that go along with it. The Regulatory Bill thus has both constitutional and political infirmities which threaten its long term viability. It should be easy to repeal in 2013.
Finally, Krauthammer sees the $1 trillion dollar stimulus as a "structural alteration of the U.S. Budget", whatever that means. Congress can decline to appropriate the funds, and a new GOP President can impound (that is, refuse to spend) whatever cannot be repealed outright.
Krauthammer really demonstrates his ignorance (and his Mondale/Obama domestic ideology) with the following sentence:
"Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama's wild spending -- and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief -- will necessitate huge tax increases."
Wrong, Charles. Reagan's tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the federal government. A lot. The problem was not a paucity of revenue in the federal treasury but a Congress too willing and eager to spend it all, and then some. I am surprised you don't know such basic economics. But, then you did work for Walter Mondale who as the Gipper once observed "never met a tax he didn't like... or hike." I am not surprised that, as a devotee of "Coach Tax Hike" which is what we Reaganites (the real kind...not the ersatz, freshly minted versions) used to call your old boss, your first recourse has been, and will always be, tax increases.
The solution is not a tax increase. It is tax cuts, massive, permanent tax cuts. It is not a return to pre-Obama Care. It is a massive pushback of government involvement in the healthcare market. This involves a further privatization of the health care system, especially minimization and eventual elimination of government distortions in the marketplace which drive up health care costs, chiefly the third party payer problem. And it is massive spending cuts and defunding of all Obama's handiwork. It wasn't tax hikes in 1980. It is not tax hikes in 2012. Sorry, Charlie.
In a word, Krauthammer's gloomy column should demoralize no one. Amazingly, he sees the massive GOP gains in the House and the Senate as a silver lining for Obama that will help him in much the same way the GOP takeover in 1994 helped Clinton. The problem with that analogy is that Clinton's overreach with HillaryCare and overspending failed in 1993-4, so the economy recovered enough for him to win. Clinton did not win BECAUSE of the GOP Congress. He was aided by the worst GOP candidate in a long line of bad ones, the ancient Bob Dole and further aided by the Perot candidacy which siphoned off 10% of the vote. Obama will have to face Sarah Palin, the lady whom Krauthammer told to "leave the room" for "debasing" the health care debate. 2012 will not be analogous to 1996, but much closer to 1980. If Sarah Palin looks like Bob Dole to you, Charles, you really need to have your contacts cleaned.
Krauthammer closes his column with another obtuse and insulting comparison of Obama to Reagan:
"Obama is down, but it's very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he's done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days -- those that come after reelection.
The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril."
Krauthammer, a statist at heart, sees Obama's "accomplishments" as a political positive, even though they are toxic and wildly unpopular: "He got something done", even though it is the consensus of the American people that what he did was bad for the country and all its citizens. Reagan too accomplished things in his first term, notably the tax cuts of 1981 which were very popular and which had reinvigorated the severely ailing economy, which Reagan inherited, by late 1983.
Don't underestimate Obama. (Seriously, is this possible?) And don't overestimate Krauthammer. He was wrong about the death panels, wrong about Reagan, wrong about tax cuts, wrong about Palin and he is dead wrong about Obama. With a record like that, maybe he is the one who should leave the room.
Will ENOUGH Americans wake up and stop this madness before it reaches the point of no return? Hell... I don't know... but I know what I will do because I have prepared and have seen this coming since Johnson. I will not let GOD, those that have gone before us and Regan down without doing all that I can (admittedly limited) to stop this madness. If we all fight back... we can win... but without resolve... the world is in for "hell on Earth".
LLS
“Krauthammer in one of the very best we have at expressing in meticulous, analytical, and logical detail how and why Obama and progressives are attempting to destroy this country.”
Who needs the meticulous detail? The destruction is obvious anyway. And Krauthammer completely ignores the how and why.
In fact, he’s part of the how and why. Krauthammer’s most useful function for the cultural marxists is his ability to discourage conservatism in just the places where it’s liable to make a difference.
The burning rage against Obamacare is our best hope to defeat it. Meanwhile, Krauthammer runs around with a fire extinguisher putting out the flames, and talking down the only true conservatives daring to take shots at Obama.
Krauthammer has already left the room and is sipping wine with the David Brooks crowd.
“The burning rage against Obamacare is our best hope to defeat it. Meanwhile, Krauthammer runs around with a fire extinguisher putting out the flames, and talking down the only true conservatives daring to take shots at Obama.”
Yes. Telling conservatives that 2010 does not matter! When are the other FOX talking heads going to corner him and cross examine him about this column? ObamaCare, the nationalization of industry, etc is all FINAL.
In fact, according to Lord Krauthammer, a smashing GOP victory in 2010 will actually HELP Obama. So, he says to conservatives, do whatever you want. Work as hard as you will. You have lost, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Krauthammer probably thought the Soviet Union would last a thousand years. He certainly never thought Reagan would be elected or the great and successful President he became. Yet because he has an erudite manner and he weaves some truths into his columns, many genuine conservatives take him for the gospel. They are so hungry to hear anything that vaguely resembles conservatism that they overlook his sophistry.
From time to time, Rush will mention a column of his. That does not mean Krauthammer’s entire view is to be accepted as writ. Much more often Rush quotes Thomas Sowell, a genuine conservative on whom all of us could rely.
If anyone wants reliable Reagan conservatism, it cannot be consistently found on FOX. It is consistently available in only two places in the non-print Media: On Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. IMHO
“You channeled that directly from Ronald Reagan himself”
And it was easy to do considering the anniversary. Yesterday, when I wrote it, was the 30th Anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, a truly great day for the United States of America and for the entire free world!
Amen!
LLS
Krauthammer’s weaknesses are well-known but I don’t think we Palinites gain much picking fights with him. When he’s wrong just say so and move on to the real opposition. In the end, Charles will come around.
Agree with your statements. I have not tried to determine whether CK has an agenda or not. What he did while working for Dems in the past does not bother me, (I once worked for RFK. Minds can change.)
However if he has an agenda today and it is even close to what you suggest then he is part of the problem. To be sure.
See my other comment, I will be looking at his agenda — something I had not observed so far.
I have always been pleased when he pointed out how idiotic someone’s position was and usually noted that he was critical of the left. But you guys have a point.
Krauthammer is my favorite member of the all star panel. I also enjoy reading his articles.
I have complained about him for several years. He lies when he says he has nothing against OUR SARAH! He has a anti Sarah Palin complex, I have no use for the bum.
I knew he was a phony baloney putting himself across as some sort of conservative, but I confess I never knew he actually was in the Carter White House etc.
Now it makes sense. I did see him interviewed on C Span a few years ago, he told Brian Lamb that he was an agnostic and that he had no use for Social Conservative views (I paraphrase)
All I know is that he has fooled a lot of people. Prior to the 2008 election he wrote trash articles about Sarah, CNN NBC etc would say....even Charles Krauthammer says she is not fit for office etc
I have emailed Bret Baier a number of times about CK, I received 2 emails from Bret Baier (sp) I said it`s not fair and balanced to have all the reg panelists being anti Sarah Palin.
The reg all are against her on Special report panel, talking regulars.
I have e-mailed about the panels also. I told them to have a real conservative on like MM or Laura or Ann. most of the time they all agree how is that balanced?
This whole vanity post is nonsense. Just plain garbage, inaccurate and misleading. It’s junk and should be pulled.
If Krauthammer has expressed opinions having a “validity that many other commentators miss,” then they are greatly overshadowed by his tendency to make comments which harm the conservative cause, while his criticism of the left seems to be carefully done in a tiptoe manner so as to allow them to proceed full steam.
Which part is inaccurate?
I say it’s an excellent commentary, one that can help correct the notion that Charles Krauthammer’s opinions should be respected by conservatives hoping to obtain information on political issues from a conservative with a learned or insider’s viewpoint.
This post brings to light the fact that he is not a conservative, and that the inaccurate and misleading garbage comes from Krauthammer himself.
Good response.
Your thread has provoked a great discussion...and got me to thinking a lot.
Thanks.
CK is for Romney, very open about it.
I have already said that I don’t buy into everything that Krauthammer prints or says on his talk show panels, but I believe I have to defend him because you continue to opine that he “makes comments which harm the conservative cause”.
Well here are three columns where this is not the case:
A disaster with many fathers
May 28, 2010
In this article CK points out the obvious fact that Obama’s policies have made it impossible to drill for oil in safe places and that drilling in deep water could be predicted to have high risks. I believe this serves the conservative position because we should in fact be drilling and producing oil during any transition to “green power” or my favorite — Nuclear power.
Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews
Friday, June 4, 2010
In this article he stands up for Israel in their use of a blockade of Gaza. As a conservative Jew myself, I find that the exposure of the facts that this was not a humanitarian effort but an attempt to break a blockade that CK finds to be entirely legal to be of support to the conservative (pro Israel) position.
Terror — and candor in describing the Islamist ideology behind it July 2, 2010
“Holder’s avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why.” In this article CK points out that members of Obama’s administration cannot bring themselves to be even slightly critical of Islamic Fundamentalism. I believe this supports a conservative position.
Now — you can find things that CK has said that may appear to support the Obama administration — such as saying that we will have to work hard to undo the make up of the Congress and that the bills already passed are irrevokable until we change Congress and the White House or that we should not underestimate Obama’s political capability. The fact is that he is right about this, it is an uphill battle and elections do matter. Why is it so wrong to say something that every conservative should understand pretty clearly after living with this president for 18 months?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.