► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Charles Krauthammer’

Friday with the ‘hammer – Never underestimate Obama

by Mojambo ( 194 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Republican Party at December 17th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

By agreeing to this monstrosity of Stimuls II, the Republicans (aka The Stupid Party, aka The Bourbons) have pretty much pulled defeat from the jaws of victory and immeasurably aided Obama’s reelection chances.  Like the  Bourbon dynasty of France, they learn nothing and forget everything. With the media firmly in his pocket as well as the popular culture – Obama just now needs to make meaningless gestures of bipartisanship  and with even a slight upturn in good economic news (which will be overhyped by a compliant media) in order to lock up 2012.  Don’t wait around for Obama’s base to desert him – as Dr. K. notes – they have no where else to go.

by Charles Krauthammer

If Barack Obama wins reelection in 2012, as is now more likely than not, historians will mark his comeback as beginning on Dec. 6, the day of the Great Tax Cut Deal of 2010.

Obama had a bad November. Self-confessedly shellacked in the midterm election, he fled the scene to Asia and various unsuccessful meetings, only to return to a sad-sack lame-duck Congress with ghostly dozens of defeated Democrats wandering the halls.

Now, with his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama.

Compare this with Bill Clinton, greatest of all comeback kids, who, at a news conference a full five months after his shellacking in 1994, was reduced to plaintively protesting that “the president is relevant here.” He had been so humiliatingly sidelined that he did not really recover until late 1995 when he outmaneuvered Newt Gingrich in the government-shutdown showdown.

And that was Clinton responding nimbly to political opportunity. Obama fashioned out of thin air his return to relevance, an even more impressive achievement.

Remember the question after Election Day: Can Obama move to the center to win back the independents who had abandoned the party in November? And if so, how long would it take? Answer: Five weeks. An indoor record, although an asterisk should denote that he had help – Republicans clearing his path and sprinkling it with rose petals.

Obama’s repositioning to the center was first symbolized by his joint appearance with Clinton, the quintessential centrist Democrat, and followed days later by the overwhelming 81 to 19 Senate majority that supported the tax deal. That bipartisan margin will go a long way toward erasing the partisan stigma of Obama’s first two years, marked by Stimulus I, which passed without a single House Republican, and a health-care bill that garnered no congressional Republicans at all.

Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go? Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred – and they know it. For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal.

The conservative gloaters were simply fooled again by the flapping and squawking that liberals ritually engage in before folding at Obama’s feet. House liberals did it with Obamacare; they did it with the tax deal. Their boisterous protests are reminiscent of the floor demonstrations we used to see at party conventions when the losing candidate’s partisans would dance and shout in the aisles for a while before settling down to eventually nominate the other guy by acclamation.

And Obama pulled this off at his lowest political ebb. After the shambles of the election and with no bargaining power – the Republicans could have gotten everything they wanted on the Bush tax cuts retroactively in January without fear of an Obama veto – he walks away with what even Paul Ryan admits was $313 billion in superfluous spending.

[…]

The greatest mistake Ronald Reagan’s opponents ever made – and they made it over and over again – was to underestimate him. Same with Obama. The difference is that Reagan was so deeply self-assured that he invited underestimation – low expectations are a priceless political asset – whereas Obama’s vanity makes him always needing to appear the smartest guy in the room. Hence that display of prickliness in his disastrous post-deal news conference last week.

But don’t be fooled by defensive style or thin-skinned temperament. The president is a very smart man. How smart? His comeback is already a year ahead of Clinton’s.

Read the rest here: The new comeback kid

UPDATE – As you all know by now, the bill was stifled last night. Here is a good response  to Dr. K.  I agree, if unemployment hovers near 10%, Obama will be dead in the water.

by Jacob Heibrunn

Judging by this column, Charles Krauthammer is terrified of President Obama. Where some see a president who has capitulated to his ideological foes, Krauthammer, by contrast, detects a nefarious Obama whose cunning has set a trap for the GOP on tax and spending policy. Obama, thanks to the foolishness of the congressional GOP, which appeased him, is on the rebound. All the GOP did is ratify a new round of stimulus spending:

[…]

So says Krauthammer, at any rate. But is it true? Has Obama pulled a fast one on the GOP? Or did he betray his own principles?

[…]

Republicans were desperate to retain the Bush tax cuts in toto. In return they extended unemployment insurance for another twelve months and agreed to a payroll tax cut. But to argue that Obama somehow outmanuevered the Republicans is implausible.

Krauthammer focuses on the politics, arguing that Obama’s base has nowhere else to go. But it could. It could, in fact, go nowhere. On election day. That alone could jeopardize Obama’s reelection chances. The real question is whether Obama is going to morph into the slayer of old-time liberalism.

He was elected on the expectation that he would revive the Democratic party. But what if he does it by completing the Clinton revolution? It’s worth asking what will be left of liberalism after one, or especially two, terms of Obama. Obama is talking about using the tax cut program deal as a template for reaching other compromises with the GOP on issues such as reforming Social Security. Now that the midterm election has wiped out many House members, Obama is free to tack to the center.

Ultimately, the president remains the central actor. If there’s a foreign policy crisis, he’s the big man. If Obama wants to reshape the federal government, he can float a proposal that will appeal to Republicans. Obama’s mistake during the health care debate was to rely on congressional Democrats to come up with a program. He forgot the old line that the president proposes and Congress disposes. It looks as though Obama may be going into proposing mode.

But whether this really turns him into the cunning chameleon that Krauthammer purports to see is another question. The blunt fact is that Obama can do all the trimming he wants, but if unemployment remains at 10 percent he’s most likely a one-term president.

Read the rest – Why is Charles Krauthammer afraid of Obama?

Friday with the ‘hammer – Obama’s great swindle

by Mojambo ( 255 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2010, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party at December 10th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

The Republicans blew their first post-2010 victory opportunity by agreeing to a plan that will by lowering taxes slightly – still add over a trillions dollars (of Chinese money) to our deficit.  Barack Obama by being attacked by his Left and by him going through the motions of fighting against the Olbermann’s and Maddow’s, will have a phony Sister Souljah moment and the end result will be that he has improved his reelection chances in 2012. Like the Bourbon kings of France whom the Duke of Wellington once quipped “They forget everything and learn nothing” – the GOP leadership was taken again.  Right now I would make Obama’s chances of being reelected dispute his miserable presidency at slightly  over 50%.

by Charles Krauthammer

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 – and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years – which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years. Two-thirds of that is above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts but includes such urgent national necessities as windmill subsidies.

No mean achievement. After all, these are the same Republicans who spent 2010 running on limited government and reducing debt. And this budget busting occurs less than a week after the president’s deficit commission had supposedly signaled a new national consensus of austerity and frugality.

Some Republicans are crowing that Stimulus II is the Republican way – mostly tax cuts – rather than the Democrats’ spending orgy of Stimulus I. That’s consolation? This just means that Republicans are two years too late. Stimulus II will still blow another near-$1 trillion hole in the budget.

At great cost that will have to be paid after this newest free lunch, the package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

And he gets all this in return for what? For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate tax rate of 35 percent – it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 – that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.

[…]

Obama’s public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 – and abandoned the Democrats in 2010 – is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the left.

Hence that news-conference attack on what the administration calls the “professional left” for its combination of sanctimony and myopia. It was Obama’s Sister Souljah moment. It had a prickly, irritated sincerity – their ideological stupidity and inability to see the “long game” really do get under Obama’s skin – but a decidedly calculated quality, too. Where, after all, does the left go? Stay home on Election Day 2012? Vote Republican?

[…]

Not even Democrats are that stupid. The remaining question is whether they are just stupid enough to not understand – and therefore vote down – the swindle of the year just pulled off by their own president

Read the rest: Swindle of the year

Friday with the ‘hammer – Assange should be on the run; and a Bloomberg third party candidacy?

by Mojambo ( 113 Comments › )
Filed under Crime, Elections 2012, Liberal Fascism, Politics at December 3rd, 2010 - 4:30 pm

Julian Assange ought to be hunted down like a wild animal and brought to justice. If he gets away with what he does, then every miscreant out there will know that there will be no price to pay for having damaged America’s security and foreign policy interests. Unfortunately Eric Holder is not the type of Attorney General who will strike fear into the vile hearts of left-wing activists because in my opinion – Holder actually has sympathy for their goals.  We are still treating acts of war and sabotage as law enforcement issues.

by Charles Krauthammer

It is understandable for the administration to underplay the significance of the WikiLeaks State Department cables. But while it is wise not to go into a public panic, it is delusional to think that this is merely embarrassing gossip and indiscretion. The leaks have done major damage.

First, quite specific damage to our war-fighting capacity. Take just one revelation among hundreds: The Yemeni president and deputy prime minister are quoted as saying that they’re letting the United States bomb al-Qaeda in their country, while claiming that the bombing is the government’s doing. Well, that cover is pretty well blown. And given the unpopularity of the Sanaa government’s tenuous cooperation with us in the war against al-Qaeda, this will undoubtedly limit our freedom of action against its Yemeni branch, identified by the CIA as the most urgent terrorist threat to U.S. security.

Second, we’ve suffered a major blow to our ability to collect information. Talking candidly to a U.S. diplomat can now earn you headlines around the world, reprisals at home, or worse. Success in the war on terror depends on being trusted with other countries’ secrets. Who’s going to trust us now?

Third, this makes us look bad, very bad. But not in the way Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implied in her cringe-inducing apology speech in which she scolded these awful leakers for having done a disservice to “the international community,” and plaintively deplored how this hampers U.S. attempts to bring about a better world.

She sounded like a cross between an exasperated school principal and a Miss America contestant professing world peace to be her fondest wish. The problem is not that the purloined cables exposed U.S. hypocrisy or double-dealing. Good God, that’s the essence of diplomacy. That’s what we do; that’s what everyone does. Hence the famous aphorism that a diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country.

Nothing new here. What is notable, indeed shocking, is the administration’s torpid and passive response to the leaks. What’s appalling is the helplessness of a superpower that not only cannot protect its own secrets but shows the world that if you violate its secrets – massively, wantonly and maliciously – there are no consequences.

The cat is out of the bag. The cables are public. Deploring them or trying to explain them away, a la Clinton, is merely pathetic. It’s time to show a little steel. To show that such miscreants don’t get to walk away.

[…]

Read the rest here: WikiLeaks founder Assange ought to be in hiding from from America

Mike Bloomberg running as a third party “centrist” candidate for POTUS in 2012 – yeah that makes perfect sense – we already have a nanny in the oval office.  Bloomberg is no centrist – he is an old fashioned, overbearing liberal who looks down on the vast majority of working stiffs and has an imperious demeanor which is so typical of millionaire (or as in his case – billionaire) liberals. He is proof positive that one can make a ton of money and still be an idiot  (actually Hollywood, Major League Baseball, the NBA and the NFL is further proof).  Like a former Governor of Alaska, Bloomberg has gotten bored with  the grind and minutiae of “governing” and now wants a job upgrade.

by Adam Brodsky

Here we go again: The 2010 midterm elections are barely a month old, but chatter’s already surfacing about a possible Mike Bloomberg presidential bid, just as after the 2006 midterms. A week from Monday, we get the launch of a new “centrist” group that could evolve into a third party that would be perfect for Hizzoner to represent.

If it all takes root, get set for a campaign to pull the wool over Americans’ eyes — while New York City, perhaps, rots from neglect.

So far, Bloomberg swears (cross his heart!) he won’t run. But: 1) One guy who reportedly played a role in assembling the group’s leaders was Mike’s political gofer, Kevin Sheekey — a key force behind the mayor’s last presidential flirtation. 2) Its rhetoric sounds uncannily like Hizzoner’s. And 3) He was invited to Monday’s launch.

The group calls itself “No Labels,” but “No Purpose” might be better– because, other than as a platform for Mike, it offers no reason whatsoever to exist.

Scour nolabels.org and just try to spot a rationale. You can’t.

Its “Statement of Purpose”? A litany of domestic challenges plus several paragraphs of gibberish: “Most Americans in the vital center want . . . a political system that works,” it boldly asserts — one that “makes the necessary choices to . . . put our country on a viable, sound path going forward.”

[…]

Yes, the group has a strong view of what it calls “hyperpartisanship,” which is “destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.” We’re supposed to buy No Labels as a response to “extremism” on the left and right — presumably, the Tea Party movement and group like MoveOn.

No Labels vows to “restore the political center.” But is the center moribund — or just further to the right than where the No Labelers would like? Americans this year didn’t oust moderates in favor of an equal number of far right-wingers and far left-wingers; they booted Democrats, and some moderate Republicans — and welcomed conservatives. Independents, notably, broke 56 percent to 37 percent for the GOP, ABCNews reports.

Nor, by the way, are the Tea Partiers a handful of right-wing radicals. They include a broad swath of mainstream Americans frightened by the left’s agenda: ObamaCare, ever-bigger government, massive debt, taxes.

And they don’t want everyone to simply “come together” and split the baby — cut some spending here, raise some taxes there — as Bloomberg and No Labels might suggest.

Now compare the group’s rhetorical mush with Mike’s after 2006: “The politics of partisanship,” he said then, “have paralyzed decision-making . . . and the big issues of the day are not being addressed.”

Yeah, blame partisanship. Never mind what voters actually think.

[…]

Read the rest here: No labels = no ideas

Friday with the ‘hammer – “START needs to be stopped”; and Obama’s Foreign Policy House of Cards Collapses

by Mojambo ( 111 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Weapons at November 26th, 2010 - 3:30 pm

A staple of the Left (to which Obama swore fealty to) in the early 1980’s, was nuclear disarmament. Of course the fact that nuclear weapons prevented World War III and a flood of Soviet tanks from rolling into Western Germany was never the issue for them. The key was that the West be vulnerable to blackmail and agression.

by Charles Krauthammer

It’s a lame-duck session. Time is running out. Unemployment is high, the economy is dangerously weak and, with five weeks to go, no one knows what tax anyone will be paying on everything from income to dividends to death when the current rates expire Jan. 1. And what is the president demanding that Congress pass as “a top priority”? To what did he devote his latest weekly radio address? Ratification of his New START treaty.

Good grief. Even among national security concerns, New START is way down at the bottom of the list. From the naval treaties of the 1920s to this day, arms control has oscillated between mere symbolism at its best to major harm at its worst, with general uselessness being the norm.

The reason is obvious. The problem is never the weapon; it is the nature of the regime controlling the weapon. That’s why no one stays up nights worrying about British nukes, while everyone worries about Iranian nukes.

In Soviet days, arms control at least could be justified as giving us something to talk about when there was nothing else to talk about, symbolically relieving tensions between mortal enemies. It could be argued that it at least had a soporific and therapeutic effect in the age of “the balance of terror.”

But in post-Soviet days? The Russians are no longer an existential threat. A nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is inconceivable. What difference does it make how many nukes Russia builds? If they want to spend themselves into penury creating a bloated nuclear arsenal, be our guest.

President Obama insists that New START is important as a step toward his dream of a nuclear-free world. Where does one begin? A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare. We voluntarily disarm while the world’s rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret. Just last week we found out about a hidden, unknown, highly advanced North Korean uranium enrichment facility. An ostensibly nuclear-free world would place these weapons in the hands of radical regimes that would not hesitate to use them – against a civilized world that would have given up its deterrent.

Read the rest: The irrelevance of START

Caroline Glick believes that  Obama’s world is getting rocked every day and that he is as clueless as ever as to what real evil is all about.

by Caroline Glick

Crises are exploding throughout the world. And the leader of the free world is making things worse.

On the Korean peninsula, North Korea just upended eight years of State Department obfuscation by showing a team of US nuclear scientists its collection of thousands of state of the art centrifuges installed in their Yongbyon nuclear reactor.

And just to top off the show, as Stephen Bosworth, US President Barack Obama’s point man on North Korea was busily arguing that this revelation is not a crisis, the North fired an unprovoked artillery barrage at South Korea, demonstrating that actually, it is a crisis. But the Obama administration remains unmoved. On Tuesday Defense Secretary Robert Gates thanked his South Korean counterpart Kim Tae-young for showing “restraint.” Thursday, Kim resigned in disgrace for that restraint.

The US has spoken strongly of not allowing North Korea’s aggression to go unanswered. But in practice, its only answer is to try to tempt North Korea back to feckless multilateral disarmament talks that will go nowhere because China supports North Korean armament. Contrary to what Obama and his advisors claim, China does not share the US’s interest in denuclearizing North Korea.

Consequently, Beijing will not lift a finger to achieve that goal.

[…]

Due to this thinking, as far as the Obama administration is concerned the US should stick to its failed sanctions policy and continue its failed attempts to cut a nuclear deal with the mullahs.

As Michael Ledeen noted last week at Pajamas Media, this boilerplate assertion, backed by no evidence whatsoever is what passes for strategic wisdom in Washington as Iran completes its nuclear project. And this US refusal to understand the policy implications of popular rejection of the regime is what brings State Department wise men and women to the conclusion that the US has no dog in this fight. As State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley told the Wall Street Journal this week, the parliament’s bid to impeach Ahmadinejad was nothing more than the product of “rivalries within the Iranian government.”

Then there is Lebanon. Since Ahmadinejad’s visit last month, it is obvious that Iran is now the ruler of Lebanon and that it exerts its authority over the country through its Hizbullah proxy. Hizbullah’s open threats to overthrow Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s government if its role in assassinating his father in 2005 is officially acknowledged just make this tragic reality more undeniable. And yet, the Obama administration continues to deny that Iran controls Lebanon.

Read the rest: Rocking Obama’s World