► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Charles Krauthammer’

Debunking Liberal Excuses

by Mojambo ( 144 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Progressives at February 19th, 2010 - 11:00 am

Welcome to Friday’s with the ‘hammer.

Dr. K. rightly points out that the Left never can own up to their own mistakes and prefer to point fingers and make excuses for their failed policies (when not altogether denying the failures) despite controlling all three branches of government and having the “popular culture” in its hip pocket.  For example, now we are told that it takes at least a year for the stimulus to kick in and create jobs – that was not what they were telling us last February.  Jimmy Carter blamed his failures on a “national malaise”, the Clintonistas claimed (through their parrot Peter Jennings) that the 1994 electoral tsunami was akin to a 2-year olds temper tantrum. Barack Obama claims it is all a matter of failed communications, not failed policies. They would all be advised to heed Cassius’s warning to Brutus  “The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves”.

by Charles Krauthammer

In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president’s own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board — and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

[…]

The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation. If only we could be more like China, pines Tom Friedman, waxing poetic about the efficiency of the Chinese authoritarian model, while America flails about under its “two parties … with their duel-to-the-death paralysis.” The better thinkers, bewildered and furious that their president has not gotten his way, have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system.

[…]

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise — expanded coverage at lower cost — led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections — Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

Read the rest: Excuses for Obama’s Failure to Lead

The peasant revolt of 2010

by Mojambo ( 126 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2010 at February 5th, 2010 - 11:00 am

Welcome to Friday’s with the ‘hammer.

Update: corrected intro-

Yes Obama you are an ideologue and your failure to draw the proper conclusions as to why the people are angry is proof that in your case, ideology takes precedence over common sense. No doubt you will win Massachusetts in 2012 but the failures of Democrats that you have stumped for bodes ill for your agenda (and good for the nation). You are in way over your head and only a still fawning media has prevented you form descending into caricature. Your “Navy Corpse Man” remark (3 times) the other day would have been daily fodder of Letterman had Bush or Quayle had said it. You are an elitist who suffers from the proverbial “loves humanity, hates people” disease that all “to the manner born” suffer from.

by Charles Krauthammer

Washington– “I am not an ideologue,” protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.

—————————-

A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a “jobs bill.”

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded.

———————————————

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself “for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people.” The subject, he noted, was “complex.” The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people’s anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.

——————————————————

It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick’s masterwork, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” “proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification.” The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.

This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama’s social democratic agenda — which couldn’t get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts — is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush — from Iraq to Social Security reform — constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is “one of the truest expressions of patriotism.”

No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice.

———————————————————————–

Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.

———————————————————-

For liberals, the observation that “the peasants are revolting” is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

Read the rest: Don’t they understand .


(Don’t forget to vote in the Blogmocracy Awards! One vote per award, per day~ Voting ends Feb. 5)

The Real Detainee Scandal

by Mojambo ( 195 Comments › )
Filed under Politics, Terrorism at January 29th, 2010 - 12:30 pm

Dr. K. mentions an interesting point. Congress ought to cut off funding for a trial of KSM and all future terrorists who are captured. This way they will be forced to undergo trials before military tribunals. During the election it was pointed out by some people that the Democrats still view terrorism as a law enforcement issue as opposed to being an act of war. The decision to try the Christmas bomber as well as KSM only reinforces that notion.

by Charles Krauthammer

The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane — that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration — but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.

After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.

The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama’s own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration’s new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

———————————–

Travesties of this magnitude are not lost on the American people. One of the reasons Scott Brown won in Massachusetts was his focus on the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.

———————————–

Congress may not be able to roll back the Abdulmutallab travesty. But there will be future Abdulmutallabs. By cutting off funding for the KSM trial, Congress can send Obama a clear message: The Constitution is neither a safety net for illegal enemy combatants nor a suicide pact for us

Read the rest.

Update:

It  seems like the message might be getting through to Obama.

White House asks Justice Department to look for other places to hold 9/11 terror trial

“It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that’s too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood,” Bloomberg told reporters.

“There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City.”

State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.

Read the rest.

What Scott Brown’s win means for the Democrats

by Mojambo ( 166 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Politics at January 22nd, 2010 - 3:30 pm

Welcome to Friday’s with the ‘hammer.

Dr. K.  (one of the few voices of sanity at the Washington Post) cuts through all the spin and tells the simple truth – that Scott Brown  was able to win because he nationalized the race. Martha (or is it Marcia?) Coakley had Obama on her side, Brown had Curt Schilling – the bloody sock beat the cut out board, Fenway Park beat the salons of Georgetown and Cambridge. The good thing for the Republicans (and ultimately bad for the national Democrats) is that the Democrats are in complete and total denial as to what happened on Tuesday. Howard Dean actually claimed that  it was a vote for more “progressive health care reform” leaving Chris “tingles up the leg” Matthews flabbergasted. Another such “victory” (coming on the heels of NJ,  Va. And Ma.) and Obama will be ruined (the classic pyrrhic victory).

by Charles Krauthammer

On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health-care reform. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”

The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health-care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don’t throw her a millstone.

After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Let’s get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.

——————————————-

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don’t Mirandize terrorists. Don’t raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

——————————————-

Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal — of a man who had them swooning only a year ago — something is going on beyond personality.

Read the rest.