“Jack, I believe you have understood CK better than Brice. He is not saying that Obama has passed great legislation, my opinion is that CK does not like the laws Obama has passed.”
I am not saying Krauthammer believes this is great legislation. However, much of it is legislation that both he and his bosses Carter and Mondale supported back in the 1980s when he was trying his best to defeat Reagan. So you can color me skeptical about his sincerity. And the Kraut offers no prescriptions about how to resist/repeal/attack the atrocious schemes. He pronounces them settled and irrevocable. Whether Krauthammer intends it or not, his piece—if taken seriously—offers no hope for overturning Obama’s handiwork, and it could have the effect of DEMORALIZING GOP turnout in 2010.
He says as much:
“For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.”
If you follow his logic, Democratic retention of the House and Senate in 2010 would make it TOUGHER for Obama in 2012. So if you want to strike a blow at Obama, according to Krauthammer’s analysis, either vote Democrat in 2010 or don’t vote at all. Having a GOP Congress is, in effect, a political liability for 2012.
This is preposterous spin based upon 1996, a totally different election cycle, with different candidates and has no relationship to the present.
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.