► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Charles Krauthammer’

Friday with the ‘hammer – A pyrrhic victory and the Buckley rule

by Mojambo ( 169 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2010, Tea Parties at September 17th, 2010 - 9:00 pm

Needless to say – I (along with Rodan) agree with the ‘hammer. There was a reason why Joe Biden’s son did not want to run in liberal Delaware and it had nothing to do with fear of Christine O’Donnell. Good luck to her in November though.  As Dr. K says “I would be happy to be proved wrong about O’Donnell’s electability — I want Republicans to win that 51st seat.”

Note – people, this subject has been a heated one lately and I initially hesitated to post it, however let’s try to keep it civil and avoid name calling and the rest.  Much thanks.

Now I duck the brinks headed my way!

by Charles Krauthammer

Tuesday in Delaware was a bad day not only for Republicans but also for conservatives. Tea Partyer Christine O’Donnell scored a stunning victory over establishment Republican Mike Castle. Stunning but pyrrhic. The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama’s social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda.

Bill Buckley — no Mike Castle he — had a rule: Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.

A timeless rule of sober politics, and particularly timely now. This is no ordinary time. And this is no ordinary Democratic administration. It is highly ideological and ambitious. It is determined to use whatever historical window it is granted to change the country structurally, irreversibly. It has already done so with Obamacare and has equally lofty ambitions for energy, education, immigration, taxation, industrial policy and the composition of the Supreme Court.

That’s what makes the eleventh-hour endorsements of O’Donnell by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sarah Palin so reckless and irresponsible.

Of course Mike Castle is a liberal Republican. What do you expect from Delaware? A DeMint? Castle voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. Yes, he voted for cap-and-trade. That’s batting .667. You’d rather have a Democrat who bats .000 and who might give the Democrats the 50th vote to control the Senate?

Castle wasn’t only electable. He was unbeatable. Why do you think Beau Biden, long groomed to inherit his father’s seat, flinched from running? Because Castle, who had already won statewide races a dozen times, scared him off. Democrats had already given up on the race.

O’Donnell, a lifelong activist who has twice lost statewide races, is very problematic. It is not that the Republican establishment denigrates her chances — virtually every nonpartisan electoral analyst from Charlie Cook to Larry Sabato to Stuart Rothenberg has her losing in November.

[….]

And its complaint that it is often taken for granted by the Republican establishment (interestingly parallel to the often-heard African American community’s complaint against the Democratic Party) is not to be dismissed. Tea Partyers should not, as many of them fear, simply be used by the Republican Party as a source of electoral energy while their own candidates are ignored and dismissed. But the question is: Which of their candidates?

Marco Rubio in Florida is strong, serious, dynamic. He has a great future as a Republican leader. Joe Miller, who upset the Murkowski dynasty in Alaska, is a man of remarkable achievement: West Point graduate, decorated veteran, judge. Both will win.

Moreover, geography matters. Rand Paul may not be the best candidate in the world — it is not a very good idea to start your general election campaign by expressing reservations about the Civil Rights Act — but he is running in Kentucky. He will almost certainly win.

Delaware is not Kentucky. If Republicans want to be a national party, they cannot write off the Northeast, whose Republicanism is of a distinctly moderate variety. Scott Brown broke Republican ranks to vote for Obama’s financial reform. Are conservatives going to now run him out of the Senate? Wasn’t it just eight months ago that his victory in Massachusetts was hailed as a turning point in the campaign to stop the Obama agenda?

Read the rest The Buckley rule

Friday with the ‘hammer – “Built in failure”

by Mojambo ( 187 Comments › )
Filed under Israel, Palestinians at September 10th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

In the past Israel gave up tangible things (territory) for intangible things  i.e. promises of peace (which could be revoked at any time). By making the talks revolve around  a final peace and not interim agreements, essentially the Palestinians have to show their  hand. Unfortunately that hand is still one of maximalist demands which would ultimately lead to the destruction of Israel. By Abbas’s  refusing to back down on “the right of return” of millions of hate filled Muslims and refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the talks are destined to fail.

by Charles Krauthammer

The prospects are dim but the process is right. The Obama administration is to be commended for structuring the latest rounds of Middle East talks correctly. Finally, we’re leaving behind interim agreements, of which the most lamentable were the Oslo accords of 1993.

The logic then was that issues so complicated could only be addressed step by step in the expectation that things get easier over time. In fact, they got harder. Israel made concrete concessions — bringing in Yasser Arafat to run the West Bank and Gaza — in return for which Israel received growing threats, continuous incitement and finally a full-scale terror war that killed more than a thousand innocent Israelis.

Among the victims was the Israeli peace movement and its illusions about Palestinian acceptance of Israel. The Israeli left, mugged by reality, is now moribund. And the Israeli right is chastened. No serious player believes it can hang on forever to the West Bank.

This has created a unique phenomenon in Israel — a broad-based national consensus for giving nearly all the West Bank in return for peace. The moment is doubly unique because the only man who can deliver such a deal is Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu — and he is prepared to do it.

[….]

A final peace was there to be had. It remains on the table today. Unfortunately, there’s no more sign today of a Palestinian desire for final peace than there was at Camp David. Even if Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wants such an agreement (doubtful but possible), he simply doesn’t have the authority. To accept a Jewish state, Abbas needs some kind of national consensus behind him. He doesn’t even have a partial consensus. Hamas, which exists to destroy Israel, controls part of Palestine (Gaza) and is a powerful rival to Abbas’s Fatah even in his home territory of the West Bank.

Indeed, this week Abbas flatly told al-Quds, the leading Palestinian newspaper, “We won’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state.” Nice way to get things off on the right foot.

Read the rest: Your move Mr. Abbas

****sep 11 ‘where were you when it happened’ thread is saturday morning 0800-1200, we will collect and share some memories…write your story for everyone****

please return to your regularly scheduled thread.

Friday with the ‘hammer- War is a distraction for Obama

by Mojambo ( 195 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Iraq at September 3rd, 2010 - 2:00 pm

Obama refuses to use the term “victory” because he is not committed to victory. What he wants is the “decent interval” that Henry Kissinger was looking for from the time that America pulled out of South Vietnam to the time the communists would  take over. I sadly predict that Iraq will revert to a form of Baathism and that Afghanistan will be retaken by the Taliban. Obama is more interested in socializing America then anything else, and complicated foreign affairs which involve give and take and at times being clear cut and decisive action which might be unpopular,  are a distraction to him.

by Charles Krauthammer

Many have charged that President Obama’s decision to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan 10 months from now is hampering our war effort. But now it’s official. In a stunning statement last week, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway admitted that the July 2011 date is “probably giving our enemy sustenance.”

A remarkably bold charge for an active military officer. It stops just short of suggesting aiding and abetting the enemy. Yet the observation is obvious: It is surely harder to prevail in a war that hinges on the allegiance of the locals when they hear the U.S. president talk of beginning a withdrawal that will ultimately leave them to the mercies of the Taliban.

How did Obama come to this decision? “Our Afghan policy was focused as much as anything on domestic politics,” an Obama adviser told the New York Times’ Peter Baker. “He would not risk losing the moderate to centrist Democrats in the middle of health insurance reform and he viewed that legislation as the make-or-break legislation for his administration.”

If this is true, then Obama’s military leadership can only be called scandalous. During the past week, 22 Americans were killed over a four-day period in Afghanistan. This is not a place about which decisions should be made in order to placate members of Congress, pass health care and thereby maintain a president’s political standing. This is a place about which a president should make decisions to best succeed in the military mission he himself has set out.

[…]

This was the stage for Obama to explain what follows the now-abolished Global War on Terror. Where does America stand on the spreading threats to stability, decency and U.S. interests from the Horn of Africa to the Hindu Kush?

On this, not a word. Instead, Obama made a strange and clumsy segue into a pep talk on the economy. Rebuilding it, he declared, “must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.” This in a speech ostensibly about the two wars he is directing. He could not have made more clear where his priorities lie, and how much he sees foreign policy — war policy — as subordinate to his domestic ambitions.

Unfortunately, what for Obama is a distraction is life or death for U.S. troops now on patrol in Kandahar province. Some presidents may not like being wartime leaders. But they don’t get to decide. History does. Obama needs to accept the role. It’s not just the U.S. military, as Baker reports, that is “worried he is not fully invested in the cause.” Our allies, too, are experiencing doubt. And our enemies are drawing sustenance.

Read the rest: Our distracted commander-in-chief

Jonah Goldberg doing his best tongue-in-cheek, misses Bill Clinton.  He actually makes some good points. Clinton, as opposed to Obama, was sensitive to the will of  the American people while Obama frankly seems bored with the job.

There’s been a lot of talk about Bush nostalgia lately.

At Martha’s Vineyard, the Obama-bilia wasn’t moving like it was during the Obamas’ previous visit there. The big seller was a T-shirt depicting a smiling George W. Bush with the tagline “Miss Me Yet?”

In response to President Obama’s vacillating, lawyerly support for the Ground Zero mosque, Peter Beinart recently vented in the Daily Beast: “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush.”

Well, I’d like to return the favor, a little. I’m suffering from a mild case of Bill Clinton nostalgia: I miss having a Democrat who could sell.

Clinton, a political prodigy of the first order, loved the human side of politics. He listened to the hoi polloi more than he listened to the Harvard faculty. It made him a less consequential but more democratic president.

Meanwhile, Obama’s “People of Earth, Stop Your Bickering” aloofness often makes him seem exasperated with the country he leads. He doesn’t seem to care what the people think. If voters disagree with him, that’s their mistake.

[…]

He’s gone straight from messiah to Michael Dukakis.

Read the rest: Why I miss Bubba

Friday with the ‘hammer – “The last refuge of a progressive”

by Mojambo ( 131 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Progressives at August 27th, 2010 - 6:00 pm

If as the old cliche used to go – “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” – well Dr. K. points out that “charges of racism” (or as we like to say in the right wing blogosphere “raaaaacism”,  always remember that there are five “a”‘s in the word) is the last refuge of a liberal. When you cannot win the argument on merits, bring out the “race card” (just like a portly blogger likes doing) and try to bludgeon your opposition into silence. Well guess what? If 72% of the nation thinks a Ground Zero Mosque is inappropriate yet 52% of the voters in November 2008  (foolishly) pulled the voting lever for Barack Hussein Obama , what we have here would be a classic case of political  cognitive dissonance by our self anointed “betters” such as Joe Klein, David Brooks, David Frum, Kathleen Parker, and the Old Media crowd. The fact that people oppose  the persecution of the state of Arizona, the massive (and epic failure) stimulus bill, California’s proposition 8, the coming destruction of our Health Care system, and the construction of an “in your face” Mosque next to the ruins of the World Trade Center on grounds of fiscal sanity,  principle and integrity, and common decency – never occurs to the loons at MSNBC, The New York Times and an obscure deranged blog. The more they toss around the race card – the more we know that they are losing and getting panicky.

by Charles Krauthammer

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the “bitter” people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging “to guns or religion or” — this part is less remembered — “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

That’s a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

— Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

— Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

— Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

— Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities — often lopsided majorities — oppose President Obama’s social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What’s a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president’s proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

[…]

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them” — blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims — a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, “just downright mean”?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

Read the rest here: The last refuge of a liberal