► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Charles Krauthammer’

One Year Out: The Fall

by Mojambo ( 122 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Politics, Progressives at January 15th, 2010 - 12:00 pm

Welcome to the Friday’s with the ‘hammer thread. As usual Dr. K. cuts through the propaganda and lays The One bare. Obama is dropping not because he is too laid back, cool or too nice (he is none of those) but because he is too Left. He misread the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections and being the narcissist that he is, thought that the change that the country wanted was Great Society liberalism.  For those who thought “things can’t get worse and let’s give this charismatic newcomer who as an added bonus happens to be a minority,  a chance” – well they did get worse and are you happy with him now? Just wait until health care passes and you paycheck is further eviscerated. In my opinion Obama’s worst mistake was to not concentrate on job creation through traditional methods of tax cuts and incentives – instead he passed a massive stimulus which will hang as an albatross around our necks for decades, and which has not created any new jobs at all.  Also he rushed through an attempt to take over one-sixth of the economy with his misguided health care reform plan which the public does not like or want.

By Charles Krauthammer

What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama’s approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent — and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president’s second year.

A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform.

A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing — even among erstwhile believers.

Liberals try to attribute Obama’s political decline to matters of style. He’s too cool, detached, uninvolved. He’s not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He’s contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.

These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today’s vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he’s too left.

—————————————————–

Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.

It’s inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel — of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.

Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn’t just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something — to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America’s deeply and historically individualist polity.

Read the rest here.

A terrorist war Obama has denied

by Mojambo ( 113 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Terrorism at January 1st, 2010 - 8:30 am

Welcome to the “Friday’s with the ‘hammer” thread. First off let me wish every single poster here a happy new year especially to “m”, Vagabond Trader, Carolina Girl, Chickadee, newsjunkie_ky, loppyd, Urban Infidel, typicalwhitey and Nevergiveup – you guys make it easy for me not to miss that once great blog that is now a train wreck. Also, a happy new year to the two contributors whom I occasionally argue with – we are still on the same side!

Back to the column – Dr. K. as usual with his psychiatric training, dissects and eviscerates the naiveté of the Obama administration and their almost willful incompetence and incomprehension of the threats that we face. They actually seemed to believe that it was all George Bush’s fault and that once he was gone and the current POTUS mouthed his clichéd platitudes and sang Kumbaya and “All we are saying, is give peace a chance” – all would be well in the world. Obama will do lasting damage to this country ecomoincally and to the world – long after he has gone back to the political swamps of Cook County, Illinois (which is where he frankly belongs). His incompetence and slavish devotion to the ideology he learned from Franklin Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, can be seen in the hard core ideologues and left-wing incompetents he as appointed (Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano) or tried to appoint (Vann Jones).

A terrorist war Obama has denied
by  Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post

Janet Napolitano — former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security — will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: “The system worked.” The attacker’s concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son’s jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.”

Read the rest.

An Anniversary of Sorts

by Mojambo ( 155 Comments › )
Filed under Politics at December 18th, 2009 - 12:00 pm

Charles Krauthammer, the only pundit at the Washington Post worth reading (and that includes the tiring, increasingly boring and irrelevant George Will IMHO) reflects on his 25 years of punditry.

An Anniversary of Sorts
By Charles Krauthammer

Twenty-five years ago this week, I wrote my first column. I’m not much given to self-reflection — why do you think I quit psychiatry? — but I figure once every quarter-century is not excessive.

When Editorial Page Editor Meg Greenfield approached me to do a column for The Post, I was somewhat daunted. The norm in those days was to write two or three a week, hence the old joke that being a columnist is like being married to a nymphomaniac — as soon as you’re done, you’ve got to do it again.

So I proposed once a week. First, I explained, because I was enjoying the leisurely life of a magazine writer and, with a child on the way, I was looking forward to fatherhood. Second, because I don’t have two ideas a week; I barely have one (as many of my critics no doubt agree).

The first objection she dismissed as mere sloth (Meg was always a good judge of character). The second reason she bought. On Dec. 14, 1984, my first column appeared.

Longevity for a columnist is a simple proposition: Once you start, you don’t stop. You do it until you die or can no longer put a sentence together. It has always been my intention to die at my desk, although my most cherished ambition is to outlive the estate tax.

Read the rest.

Krauthammer- Where is Obama on Iran?

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Iran at June 19th, 2009 - 11:12 pm

Great op-ed by a brilliant man…

Hope and Change — but Not for Iran

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 19, 2009

Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued “dialogue” with their clerical masters.

Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with — which inevitably confers legitimacy upon — leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.

Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamenei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of “some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election.”

Where to begin? “Supreme Leader”? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts — a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.

[…]

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What’s at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime — and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

[…]

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this “vigorous debate” (press secretary Robert Gibbs’s disgraceful euphemism) over election “irregularities” not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration’s geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, President Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear “file is shut, forever.” The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.

That’s our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid of “meddling.” Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror — and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America’s moral standing in the world.