Who Is Charles Krauthammer?
For example, Krauthammer opines that Obama’s “string of lame-duck successes” — Stimulus II, repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and the START treaty — “is a singular political achievement,” and that “the great Republican ascendancy of 2010 lasted less than two months.” But in a subsequent WaPo article, Krauthammer rightly observes that a new spirit of “constitutionalism” is a “promising first step to a conservative future,” which would appear to imply that the Republican ascendancy is not over but has just begun. “Sneering” Democrats are given the back of his hand; yet those he calls “non-suicidal liberals” are still “[d]emeaningly, and somewhat unfairly … having to prove their fealty to the flag.” Since liberals are for the most part affiliated with the Democratic Party, it would make some sense to suggest that the best way to prove their fealty to the flag is to leave the party.
On the whole, the value of Krauthammer’s general deposition is that it serves as a warning to Republicans not to take Obama lightly or to underestimate the conniving shrewdness of the Democratic left. But even in his more balanced columns, a latent current of misplaced respect for a divisive and destructive president willy-nilly tends to emerge. This seems at times like something more than the cautionary esteem of a redoubtable opponent; it smacks of a kind of selective bemusement masked by an aura of Olympian detachment.
A lauded political analyst from whom much is anticipated, a man of presumed conservative principles, an eminence by consensus, he now occasionally prattles away in fluent liberalspeak, attacking a patriot like Geert Wilders and, in practical effect, inflating the “achievements” of a schismatic like Barack Obama. This looks a lot like cognitive dissonance or a species of intellectual vagrancy. Who knows, maybe he has started to mellow and is no longer the Critter Gitter he used to be.
Or is he, as I suggested above, simply sui generis — one can never be sure where on the radar screen of current events his columnar blip will next appear. He clearly leans toward the conservative standpoint on the major questions of foreign policy and the Constitution; yet on social issues such as abortion, energy taxes, and stealth jihad he seems sympathetic to the liberal perspective. True, he opposes the Cordoba mosque project as a violation of “hallowed ground”; on the other hand, as we have seen, he trashes Wilders who has spoken passionately against the Cordoba mosque. What gives? The same man who came out strongly in Israel’s defense during the 2006 “Lebanon War,” backed by the conservative right, also supported Ariel Sharon’s disastrous “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005, which was naturally encouraged by the liberal-left.
How does he juggle what resembles a set of incompatibles? To use a metaphor from Bridge, it is as if Krauthammer is playing a tenace hand, holding two nonconsecutive high cards in a suit, but with no intention of “finessing underneath” the missing “honor.” There is no doubt that he plays a powerful game. But regrettably, one misses both the level of consistency one would infer from so formidable a player and the willingness to grapple with the terminal implications of that game.
CK is an astute observer and has a rapier wit, but does not seem to consistently hold a political position. In that regard, he occasionally runs with the utopian schemes of liberals because they are more enchanting than then the principled stands of conservatives.
This is hardly unique to CK, though. And it begs to be forgiven because it is an echo of human nature. It is ugly, horrible, and painful to starve — and, so, everyone is against starvation. Liberals create gargantuan bureaucracies to feed the hungry, where conservatives look at the entire bell-curve of hunger and find that there are those who cannot find food because they don’t know how to look, but there are also those who would hunger in the midst of plenty because they were too deranged or dysfunctional to sate themselves. While an anti-hunger bureaucracy will eventually grow to the point where it is cramming feeding tubes into immobile patients whose minds were gone long ago, anyone taking a more rational view faces pillory in the press and cries of heartlessness.
Things push our emotional buttons, and it’s natural to want to do something even if one suspects it doesn’t work…..or to blame someone for not trying something even if there’s ample evidence that such effort would be useless.
It takes serious commitment to conservatism to realize that money spent in a fruitless attempt to feed the deranged is inevitably diverted from funds necessary to tip a potential ex-addict into sobriety. It is necessary to deal harshly with ineffective “feel-good” solutions because there is so much “real-good” to be done. It becomes even more difficult to explain why a recognized public problem can be better served with a non-governmental solution.
This is where CK comes up short. He’s a worthy close-quarters fighter who inhabits the conservative side of the debate — but his instincts are as shallow as everyone else’s, and he is drawn to the plight of the unfortunate.
I have noticed CK’s wavering for some time, and have thought about it a lot. He is not shallow, but rather a member of an exclusive club: that of the Moderate Men about whom I wrote here: http://clarespark.com/2010/11/06/moderate-men-falling-down/. That clique is composed of Washington insiders and their affliction is too much investment in their prestige. They may lean right, they may lean left, but in the end, it is their membership in the Club of Gentlemen that determines how far they will diverge from the golden mean. Briefly, that is how an establishment behaves, and we should expect nothing else from him. If you reject his moderation, you risk being branded an extremist or an eccentric, or worse.
But then on the other hand, maybe there’s something in the water pipes over at the Fox News building. O’Reilly, Hume, Huckleberry, Juan Williams? Maybe Charles isn’t the only pretend “analyst” at that location. And maybe the bottom line of all the preparation is “stop the cultist” in 2012.
I NOTIC CK TALKING SO DIFFERENT ABOUT 1 MONTH AGO, VERY DIFFERENT….
SOMEONE MUST HAVE SAID SOMETHING TO HIM..LIKE THE BOSS..
We noticed this problem in the fall elections when he and Rove were PO’d about Tea Party candidates interfering with a possible GOP Senate majority. I swore I would never watch him again, and actually wrote to both of them to inform them that the American people are in charge of electing our representatives. The majority of the Senate was not at issue because the American people favored a constitutional government represented by the people based on conservative values for sure.
He has been all over the map on his ideals, and hard to know where he might stand on any OLD or new political issue any more. He confusing me anymore so my family waits to see where he stands and if in the middle or LEFT then we change channels is all. We certainly practice the channel swap ANYTIME we see our failed presidents doing lip service.
Spot on…
Its the clique…over paid, exclusive neighborhoods, fabulous parties, connections to the beautiful people, TV exposure…it goes to your head…
The next party and maintaining the “relationships” with the insider gang are more important than being a true believer….decades of living among the elite, and having enough accumulated assets to weather any coming financial storm in comfort, definitely softens you up…
CK is a smart guy, but like most scribblers, he thinks THINKING about something is viable policy, he thinks PONDERING is the same as doing…Like most scribblers, he’s an over intelligent Insider with no BALLS to make decisions.
I’ll take an abrasively honest Gert over a smooth CK any day
So would I!
CK is a psychiatrist. I started noticing
his changes a while back and now they are
being validated. Maybe he is going
psychotic.
But this is what makes Krauthammer more interesting than many columnists and commentators of the left and the right who are almost completely predictable. Truth is complicated. Simple minds want simple truths; Krauthammer refuses to be simple. He is damned with intelligence, and intelligence, if it keeps its eyes open sees complexity and context in the flawed individuals on both sides of the political spectrum.
As for his being taken to task for apparently troublesome defense of liberals: “yet those he calls “non-suicidal liberals” are still “[d]emeaningly, and somewhat unfairly … having to prove their fealty to the flag.” may be K’s version of raising objections to the oversimplification if there ever was one of “liberals = Stalin.”
As for “Since liberals are for the most part affiliated with the Democratic Party, it would make some sense to suggest that the best way to prove their fealty to the flag is to leave the party.” What does THAT mean?
That being a Democrat is worse than being a liberal?
Ah, how refreshing, a simple pronunciamento by my dear friend Dwight: “Truth is complicated.”
But if that is the truth, there is a problem because the statement is uncomplicated. Therefore, we have a major lapse of “simple” logic and cannot accept the statement as true. However, if one says “Truth is uncomplicated” whether one agrees with it or not, the statement COULD be true. My good friend’s statement, though, cannot possibly be considered true because the statement asserts a need for complexity in truth while at the same time being an non-complex statement.
It is very fortunate that my friend has a high opinion of his own intelligence. If he didn’t have, he would be stung for making such an unintelligent remark.
Very nicely put, but I doubt Dwight, notwithstanding his monumental intelligence, will be able to follow it.
The truth about people is complicated. The truth about the truth about people is simple, “It’s complicated”.
No, Dwight, truth is always simple. It is eloquent in its simplicity. When all the fog and mirrors are cleared away, truth shines forth brightly. When the answer to a complex problem with which you have been struggling comes forth, it is blinding in its evident rightness and simplicity. It is why we slap our foreheads. Truth is the result of clear thinking. It is only sloppy thinking which makes it seem complicated.
The best way to show fealty to the flag is to leave the Party. This is a very simple truth, one which you admittedly do not understand. Let me explain it to you.
A political Party gets founded upon certain principles. Somewhere along the way, the Socialists hijacked the Democratic Party. In order to remain true to the principles of the Party, sometimes one must leave the Party. It is what Reagan said, “I did not leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me.” He stayed with the Principles, not the Party.
Most of the Tea Party are folks who are disaffected with both Parties. They are ex-Dems and ex-Pubs, plus other independents. They have decided to be true to their country, not true to some political Party which is intent solely upon political Power.
Be true to principles, not Party or Power. It is a very simple truth.
I feel it’s exactly the opposite: The smarter you are, the simpler the choices become on what’s wrong and what’s right. All the equivocating and muddled thinking denote the kind of intelligence that is useless.
I don’t find Krauthammer interesting. I find him pretentious and tiresome.
He’s a moderate. He only seems to be a conservative because everybody else in the lamestream media leans so far left that they all walk in circles when they walk.
Moderates? Pffft. Maybe not quite as nakedly evil as are members of the leftist/pro-jihadi axis; more like the lukewarm Church of Laodicea in Revelations. Not to my taste at all.
All you’ll find in the middle of the road are paint lines and dead skunks. Guess which I think he is.
Wow. And all because he criticized the queen bee.
The right is now eating its own. This is going to be interesting to watch. And it might encourage a few of the brighter ones to lose their partisan attachment.
mindless reprise of adolescent angst.
Ah, another pronunciamento, this time by another friend, Matthew: “The right is now eating its own.”
The root of the trouble with this statement is the word “now”. This here now suggests that Matthew thinks that the group loosely called conservatives or, as he says, “the right” has never had in the past a situation in which one member disagrees with one or more statements by another member. The absurdity of this assertion is vastly amplified by the addition of the cannibalism factor. But that is the cute and lovable style of my friend. What a card!
Matthew, critiquing and airing differing views is healthy and most times informative.
Heck, even your CNN, MSNBC read the tea leaves and practiced such interaction, growth in the canning of Rick Sanchez, Campbell Brown stepping down due to abysmal ratings (being replaced by Spitzer..?) and Keith Olbermann getting axed, respectively.
But hey, keep your psychosis afloat to John Lennon’s chorus of, ‘Whatever get you through the night’.
Go back to Huff Po Matthew,they are the only ones left that believe any drivel you spill.
“The Right is eating its own.” It’s a feature, not a bug.
The Left believes in “No enemies on the Left.” Resultantly, they have no standards of decency. Kermit Gosnell was allowed to continue in his vile practice, because the Left would not prosecute one of their own. Even if you support abortion, you should have the decency to repudiate such a vile being and his doings, but the Left has not even yet spoken out against him. Such a person hurts your cause, but you refuse to eat one of your own. The Left has no standards, and thus, attracts every kind of the most vile scumbags. Because they do not eat their own.
I sure would hate to be Matthew right about now. He must feel like a monumental dumbass.
Not at all. Krauthammer has been a completely predictable wind-up booster for the general neo-con position for as long as I’ve been aware of his writing. He’s one of the luminaries who helps to create the impression of an intellectual basis for the right. Personally, I haven’t read a lot from him that’s been surprising or enlightening (although it HAS happened, absolutely – he’s obviously a really smart guy), but most of the time he’s just saying exactly what I’d expect someone in his position say, no surprises.
So I’m finding hugely amusing to see people trying to tear him down simply because he stated something very obvious about one member of the new political royalty. It’s a bit obvious, guys.
oh matthew, grow up and face reality.
You make up the silly scenarios and make the left look even more simple.
FIX YOUR WALDO LINK! FIX YOUR DAMN WALDO LINK! IT’S A SCREAMER!
Admin has fixed the link. I hope and trust the original link was an accident. There’s no good reason ever to pull a screamer on your readers.
Three pages to explain what most of us already know…and, I’ll sum it up tightly for you:
Krauthammer is a douchebag.
You’re welcome.
The dude is a dud. I used to appreciate his input until he suddenly tilted to the left like a madfly. No. Just no.
agree …well said.
Simplistic and wrong — Delia, not Krauthammer.
Oh? Too short-n-sour for ya?
Okay. I’ll break it down for vous:
Krauthammer has a very persuasive and non-grating speaking voice to go along with his intellect which I greatly admire, but, when his prognostications become so glaringly LEFT 0bama-team leaning as to be almost absurdly ingratiating towards baby ‘o’ and said administration, I take umbrage with that immensely.
Even cry-baby Glenn Beck doesn’t come right out and say Obie is going to lose or win a re-election but good ol’ Charlie seems believe he can be a predictor of elections and the electorate at large and to have his finger on the idiot pulse of Americans (and ACORN’s mickey mouses and dead voter’s zombie pulses for that matter).
Meh.
C.K. is a DOUCHEBAG.
again yes ..
not in my opinion
Delia, not only well said, you speak for me as well. I think sister Peggy Noonan & Krauthammer are dating.
In reply to Delia— the only thing I can say is look in the mirror to find what you called Charles Krauthammer. You have been watching too much MSNBC and it shows.
That’s QUEEN douchebag to you, missy.
And, I’d rather poke my eyeballs out with a hot-poker, pour lighter-fluid into my eye-sockets and light ‘em on fire before I would subject myself to the likes of MSNBC or any other lefty news channel.
Now, you go on and have a nice weekend (and laugh a little).
I’ve enjoyed many of Charles Krauthammer’s articles. Unfortunately, his ideas on radical Islam are just plain wrong. If he really thinks that “Islamism is merely an ideology of a small minority,” he is either misinformed or is willfully ignoring the danger of radical Islam. Try telling the people of Iran or Afghanistan that radical Islam is just an ideology of a small minority. Try telling the people of Lebanon, who just lost their parliament to the thugs from Hezbollah, that radical Islam is just the ideology of a small minority. And try to tell the families of all the people killed by car bombs in Iraq and Pakistan that radical Islam is just the ideology of a small minority.
Radical Islam is the primary threat the civilized world faces today. Forget about China. At least China has some notion of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that the Soviets had during the Cold War. Radical Islamists are a bunch of psychotic religious nihilists who actually embrace death rather than try to avoid it. Don’t believe me, just look at 9/11 and every other Muslim suicide bomber that gave up their lives for Allah. Nope, these are the people we desperately need to stand up to, fight, and kill, before they do the same to you. And for a smart guy like Krauthammer not to see that is puzzling to say the least.
Krauthammer is right. I’ve lived in the Middle East, and here’s my take.
I’d say about 5% of the Muslims in those countries are card-carrying fanatics who wield outlandish power — same as the old Soviet Union. The remaining people just want to live their lives and be good Muslims only to the extent that it’s convenient and nice. The intolerance and bloodlust in the Koran are embarrassing, but what are you gonna do when repudiating it could get you the death penalty? Worse still is when foreigners start pointing this crap out.
The official reform movement is yet to come, but there’s a chance it will happen when Muslims publicly acknowledge the fact of widespread individual disbelief.
Assuming your numbers are correct, that means that 5% of that population are maniacs and the other 95% go along out of laziness and fear. That sounds vaguely familiar. Where have we seen this before in history? It is on the tip of my tongue. I hate that. Little help anyone? Oh well, I’m sure it will all work out just fine.
As for Chuckie, he has a gift with words which is enjoyable when he happens to be arguing on the correct side of issues. But he often is on the wrong side and his sharp tongue falls flat in those cases. Examples include his life long obsession with imposing an energy tax on all of us peasants, his defense of “stimulus” dollars going to GE, etc., etc. His praise for Obama’s lame duck accomplishments, however, is a different story. Here has was sent out as the Republicans’ advocate to turn skeptical liberal opinion from opposing to supporting Obama’s tax and spend deal with Republicans. He has a gift with words and he delivered, for better or worse. Does all of this suggest a political categorization for him? Good establishment Republican, maybe?
arhooley, you make the case against the 5% yourself. The fact that you can get the death penalty for repudiating the Koran is exactly why the 5% matters.
Maximus, you’re simply rephrasing me; I said their power is outlandish. My point is that Krauthammer is right when he says the vast majority of Muslims are not dangerous fanatics.
Not a helpful concept to be promulgating widely at this time without some vitally important qualifiers, Buckaroo, like, “…but as long as that 5% remains muzzled by the threat of imminent death, we look to them for any help in this struggle to our grave peril.”
Is this somehow meant to reassure us? Maybe you should practice burying your butt in the sand along with your head!!
In certain grownup conversations, Mayberry, people argue one point at a time. But do get some context. In the same event, Krauthammer (to whom we are also indebted for the concept of Sudden Jihad Syndrome), said this:
“In certain grownup conversations, Mayberry, people argue one point at a time.”
Not that your comment makes any sense, arhooley, but see point 1 at 8:43; point 2 at 8:49. They even landed under the appropriate indentations.
I’ll also take this opportunity to note that the “5%” in the former should have been “95%.”
And BTW, you don’t need to tell me who died and put you in charge.
“In certain grownup conversations, Mayberry, people argue one point at a time.”
You lost me on that one, arhooley, but do see point 1 at 8:43; point 2 at 8:49. They even landed under the appropriate indentations.
And to apparently risk irritating you even further, I’ll also take this opportunity to note that the “5%” in the former should have been “95%.”
BTW, don’t bother letting us know who died and put you in charge.
O’Sullivan’s First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. http://goo.gl/WaFo4
Krauthammer == “organizations”? Sounds like it.
The thing you are reaching for here is that the world is pretty complicated and the body of responses to the world made by reflective and intelligent people tend not to fit something that can be decsribed by a one- or two- dimensional ideological scale.
I also happen to think he is right to condem Mr Wilders.
The way I see it, there are the bad guys like Osama Bin Laden and Kurt Wilders who claim that Islam is all about killing infidels and that Muslims cannot live peacefully in the west. Then there are good guys like the President of the United States of America who make the obvious point that “Islam, AS PRACTISED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America.”
Given the choice between Bin Laden/Wilders and POTUS I think Krauthammer is probabaly right to side with the latter.
You lost anyone good and sane at, “Then there are good guys like the President of the United States of America.”
Doesn’t that depend on which President?
Uh, Roy, his name is GEERT Wilders.
I know. Again: must read back before posting.
“……there are the bad guys like Osama Bin Laden and Kurt Wilders….”
Ludicrous statement and comparison. That’s like comparing Stalin and OBama, because of similarities in their political philosophies. Neither Wilders nor Obama were ever involved in mass murders.
Kind of true. I was trying to point out something about how both Osama and GEERT believe, or say that they believe, that true Islam is murderous and violent and Muslims and non-Muslims can’t live together. Whereas good guys like the President of the United States and errrr me say different.
A better person to put next to Geert might have been some Osama-appologist Muslim hate-preacher that you’ve never heard of, but that wouldn’t have worked well either.
Christians and other non-Muslims might have been able to live together in some more secularized Muslim countries like Iraq, Egypt, and Turkey but that is no longer true as we have seen in the bombings and church burnings. Ancient Christian and Jewish communities existed in these countries before the birth of the prophet Mohammad. Non Muslims have at best been tolerated at times, but never considered equals under Muslim law. The Koran is the justification for subduing, persecuting, and killing infidels. The fact that they sometime, someplace practice a little tolerance doesn’t change the basic text of that “religion”. Who cares that only “5%” of them are fanatics, only 50,000 out of every million. That makes me feel so much better. Does that percentage apply to the millions of Muslims in Europe and the U.S. too. What was I worried about?
“Neither Wilders nor Obama were ever involved in mass murders.” Right, Geert Wilders hasn’t but I’d keep an eye on Obama.
I left these remarks on Steve Greene’s page, too: Krauthammer’s “Comeback Kid” theme disappointed me, and very likely boosted Obama’s morale and that of his handlers. Krauthammer is not philosophically consistent enough to be “right” every time he speaks. In fact, he’s not philosophical at all. Obama has been emitting word clouds for three years, and Krauthammer was right to advise that observers should pay much more attention to what he does than to what he says. Obama is a certified ideologue, and his approach to the State of the Union speech was, “Damn it, I have to say something, and it’s got to sound conciliatory (yuk, yuk), so let’s knock together some yadda yadda that’ll make me sound ‘centrist’ and humbled and a teeny bit ‘bipartisan.’ At the same time, we shouldn’t alienate those fool independents again so let’s throw in stuff about green energy and China and some collectivist buzz-words. If we get it right, we could ask that stone-faced Krauthammer if he’d want to be my new press secretary.”
But it comes as a surprise to me that Krauthammer laid into Geert Wilders on NRO and has displayed a fatal ignorance of Islam and the jihad being waged against the West. This revelation completely revises my estimate of Krauthammer as a reliable and consistent commentator on current events. He has plent of detractors on the Washington Post, but they are nothing like the people who want to kill Wilders and other notables outspoken in their criticism of Islam and Muslims. I doubt if Krauthammer must endure living with 24/7 security.
Krauthammer gets the Israel/Palestine crisis dead-on correct. I cannot understand why he otherwise gets a bit mushy about Islam and the Islamists – except for one obvious point – given how the dhimmis at the Washington Post are so scared of criticizing Islam, they must have warned him about dropping his column if he gets too critical.
If so, it is a shame that CK caves in – WaPo needs him more than he needs WaPo.
I wish Chuck would let us and Sarah back into the room.
Thank you for this astute on target article. I’ve gotten to the point that I can’t listen to or read anything that Krauthammer says or writes. I lost trust in him some time ago but his inexplicable attack on Geert Wilders was the last straw.
I hate to say it but I fear Charles suffers from our national disease as much as anyone in the public spotlight. The disease is Liberal Intimidation and the very Liberal tactic labeled by Bill Clinton as the Politics of Personal Destruction. The screetching Liberal hoard is nothing more than a professional attack machine with only one purpose in mind – Keep your opponents off-balance, confused and unable to respond in-kind because they have been captured within a false Liberal box of distortions, misperceptions and outright lies (Tuscon anyone?).
The “fluence in Liberalspeak” statement gets to the heart of the issue here I think. Anyone who engages professionally on the public stage in America is faced with a choice of whether to play by the Lib rules – within the false Liberal framework the Libs have created and spend enormous energies maintaining – or not. To decide not play by those Lib rules is a decision to make ones self the object of endless attacks, ridicule and eventually to be ignored because ones point of view is sold as “out of bounds” and contrary to the Liberal rules. The public figures who do not play by the Lib rules and within their proscribed boundaries of permitted speech are subjected to the real Politics of Personal Destruction, not the pretend kind of the Clinton era. Whether they do not play by the Lib rules because they are fundamentally grounded in traditional conservative mores (Like Palin) or because they fully understand the situation created by the Libs and choose not to play by their false rules (Rush) the result is the same – Relentless attacks from all quarters by the Lib attack machine biting, gnawing, chewing and spewing the vilest of accusations day-after-day-after-day until the Libs silence the uppity conservative or the public becomes exahusted by the unceasing malignance and is happy for the conservative to go away, not because they disagree with the conservative, but just to stop the Liberal screetching. And don’t think the Libs are not fully aware of this.
It takes someone very special to remain fully grounded in ones own principals when going up against the professional Liberal attack machine. Just consider for a microsecond the implications of the Tuscon shooting and the pre packaged assault the Libs unleashed on their political enemies. That was the perfect time for conservatives as a whole to kick the Liberal attack machine in the collective groin and go on the offensive, but most conservatives chose to only play defense and hope the whole mess would just go away.
Liberald need to be treated like children, because that is what they are. Thats all anyone needs to know.
I agree completely. Very well said! If being intimidated doesn’t explain Krauthammer’s overall less than stellar defense of liberty than his intelligence is very overrated.
Thanks for reminding all of us that Sarah was just about the only one who made the right choice. Out here in flyover country, where we mostly just use un-nuanced, Neanderthal –speak, we call that LEADERSHIP, whereas what CK has done is called COWARDICE. And whereas Sarah had to pull hers out of her purse, CK presumably has a set that’s anatomically attached.
And though I hate to pollute the site, in the spirit of the old saw that “even a broken clock is right twice a day,” here’s an astute observation from none other than Joel Skousen, survivalist and nut-cake: “In terms of unity, we are at a real disadvantage up against the left. It only takes one thing in common for “liberals” to unite. It only takes one difference of opinion for conservatives to divide. “
“the president is a very smart man,”
The burden of proof is on you, pal.
Agreed. Until Obama releases his grades and test scores, we must all assume he has good reason to conceal them.
Sadly, Dr. Krauthammer has slid into an increasingly off-putting state of hubris. His inconsistent pontifications on profoundly crucial issues are less and less helpful as we cope with the immoral ambition driving the White House and the very serious threat of islamic terror.
Well considered and well put. I’ll put Krauthammer back a step in my estimation.
Defining Krauthammer is like shredding a cabbage which is “Koolsla” in Dutch. First Krauthammer cuts the head through to the core with a sharp cleaver creating four quarters. Describing Krauthammer’s Koolsla, it always contains a base of vinegar but depending on his disposition he may decide to “hammer the hell out of it” which is what he likes to do when speaking about Gert Wilders. When it comes to the texture of Krauhammer’s Koolsla his larger chunks don’t make it easily edible, and his constantly changing of his recipe makes him appear unsure when he smashes everything with his latest ideology from the leftovers of stuffed cabbage
Intriguing: koosa is zucchini in Arabic.
I, too, have noticed the inconsistency in Krauthammer’s thinking. t is more than disappointing. It is incongruous, and leads me to wonder if the flattery of the political elite in their acknowledgment of his obvious brilliance has led him to identify with their ideology.
Maybe the guy’s just human and sometimes wrong.
I agree, Bill. We need to remember that opinion writers need to take firm sides on issues on almost a daily basis. “Even Homer nods.”
Yowza! In fact, he admitted with perfect frankness and good humor that he was wrong about the Tea Party town halls of 2009, when he predicted backlash, not forward lash. Maybe we should even consider whether Ronald Reagan was human, too. What was that about Marines slaughtered in Lebanon with no consequences?
Yowza! In fact, he admitted with perfect frankness and good humor that he was wrong about the Tea Party town halls of 2009, when he predicted backlash, not forward lash. Maybe we should even consider whether Ronald Reagan was human, too. What was that about Marines slaughtered in Lebanon with no consequences?
Yes, it’s so “funny ha-ha” Hi-freakin’-larious to disparage an entire grass-roots conservative movement and be completely, utterly, absolutely wrong about it all and then when the egg hits his face he says, “Oops! IFU!”. Then, he goes on to praise Bammy and predict that he will win 2012! Whatta guy! He really learned his lesson eh?!
DOH!
That’s right Bill. Like a maritial cheater, or thief, or a lier; sometimes right, sometimes wrong.
In short, Krauthammer’s example symbolises a moral decline and an intellectual implosion of America and the entire Western world along.
P.S: What the author has forgotten is to mention Kraut’s strategic failure to recognise the rise of Tea Party and shameful and ungentlemany treatment of its unoficial leader, Sarah Palin.
What about inviting Sarah back to the ROOM, Charles?
And with the respectful bow she deserves, of course.
And since when did we need ideological purity anyway?
This post was badly needed; Krauthammer let loose quite a few ‘whoppers’ lately, in which I questioned where his intellect went. His latest, and many column really did ‘praise’ Obama.
I have also wondered, why he contineously trashes Sarah Palin; not really explaining what his dislike of her really is.
I used to enjoy rading his column; but have become skeptical.
As a more casual observer of this scene but a fan of Charles Krauthammer I just assumed his snarky comments about Sarah Palin was a not too hidden attempt to diminish her because like all good Neo-Cons he was pretty sure she was the real thing and if the American public ever got a chance to put her in office the controlability of the American war machine might actually come back into the realm of the American public not the American elites.
This of course would not be very popular with the Republican/Democratic elites who currently Mr. Krauthammer can socialize with more easily than Ma and Pa Kettle.
Spot on Nickel. This is a subconscious reaction of a PARASITE fearful of the possibility of being removed from its carrier.
They (Kraut and CO.) know very well that she will win EVERY argument with them as she is able to back it with the example from her own life.
Perhaps Mr. Krauthammer will have second thoughts about Obama’s intelligence when he hears about the Youtube town hall this past week when the president repeatedly confused Afghanistan with Iraq. Let’s hope Obama doesn’t confuse Egypt and Turkey this week.
I cannot find this youtube clip but would like to…
Your wish is my command:
Your Interview with the President 2011
Thanks Dalia! The link where Obama mixes Afghanistan and Iraq mixed up is also posted on
Drudge.
You’re both welcome!
Without the teleprompter, 0bie is truly a lost cause.
“Your wish is my command.” I thought that was supposed to be the Congressional Reps’ mantra–one that in the wake of the town hall meetings of Aug 2009, they’ve proven they’ve forgotten.
Thank you Delia. I will enjoy watching Barry embarrass himself intellectually for the umpteenth time. Good day to ya.
Krautheimer is a successful member of the beltway establishment and he defends that. He cannot imagine that the rules he has risen by could change and does not favor that ruining his cushy deal, anyway. Hence he cannot fathom Palin, the Tea Party. I wrote him once and told him to read the history of Restoration movements. He has just gotten worse, sniffing Obama’s jock strap. Cromwell would quickly behead this apologist for the status quo, and we should give him no account either.
Mr. Solway – you did it again! Kudos for your thoughtful and brilliant observations. Many of us have been wondering lately, just what is up with Krauthammer? Started to notice his mood swings a few months ago and thought he was “crossing the aisle” just to shore up his job prospects. Like Miss Peggy Noonan, he is starting to feel like a journalist more concerned with his “broader appeal” than with the truth. Really quite surprising and unsettling.
“–one expects more from the best”. Of course, but Dr. K is not always in this category. Have you noticed that Dr. K. does not engage in conversation but rather makes pronouncements from on high. Having observed him from the vantage point of a clinical psychologist he fits well within his DSM psychiatric bible of Narcisistic Personality. That is, because he is an Ivy League trained M.D. he need not go beyond his own partially informed intellectual catalog. If he makes an off the cuff declaration
then it must certainly
be true. Almost as if he were from Hollywood.
Not to be unkind but this self appointed expert walks both sides of the political street with purpose. $$$$
For substantive political, historical observations and insights refer to Victor Davis Hansen, Ph.D.
“Did success spoil….Charles Krauthammer”?
Perhaps Dr. K is/was engaging in “on the one hand…on the other hand” commentary? Hard to tell when your examples of Dr. K’s contradictions are taken out of context.
I have found Dr. K to be a reliable (non-biased) source of information.
One has to be suspicious of many socalled conservatives besides Krauthammer. The most egregious example is Bill O’Reilly who is perceived to be the voice of the conservative right yet who has never endorsed one conservative policy. In fact O’Reilly goes out of his way to defend and celebrate the Obama administration while shushing any criticism of it that shows up on his show. I think we must realize that these people, O’Reilly, Krauthammer et al are entertainers and are only intersted in ratings and money. Many of them have no core values and this is true on the Left also; many of the TV pundits are out to make a buck and should be seen in that light. It is easier to understand what they are up to if you do not buy into their feigned political stance.
Come on, putting Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krautheimer in the same catagory is a comparision that only O’Reilly would like, as he is not a complete fool.
Bill O’Reilly is a right leaning propagandist that is a valuable warrior for the conservative side. He may or may not be a Big Government financially clueless moderate but he is willing to take on the forces of the very powerful and dangerous left wing slander media. He has created a bully pulpit in his The Factor broadcast that is invaluable to the dissemination of much needed conservative viewpoints in a sea of liberal hogwash. He is invaluable to the cause of freedom for that fact alone.
An intellectual?, forgetaboutit.
BOR is not a conservative by his own proud admission. He is a populist/traditionalist and like most commentators of that variety has some reliably conservative impulses, but he believes that being “non-ideological” is a net positive — even in cases where it clearly leads him into squishy territory either positionally or logically. Even so, “most of the folks aren’t ideological,” and with the folks is where he wants to be. That makes him a very good barometer of public opinion and an occasional shaper of it provided he doesn’t deviate very far from where the mainstream of America is. It does not make him a clear thinker: he isn’t one.
Charlie is another matter. His thinking is fine as far as it goes. But he isn’t terrifically well informed. I wonder, just for one example, in his criticism of Palin in the most recent contretemps re: Tucson if he even bestirred himself to find out why Palin felt compelled to respond. Given his reflexive disdain for her I seriously doubt he was aware how thoroughly she was excoriated in the left-wing blogosphere for her failure to respond for nearly a week. Or given how wonderful he thought the Tucson Memorial was, if he troubled to discover the back story of bumper stickers, T-shirts, sloganeering, cheerleading, adolescent behavior and other trappings of electioneering so blatantly part of Wellstone 2.0. If not, why not? The Memorial in its entirety was offensive, and if you don’t believe 0bama’s public opinion team was a part of the Big Picture of it, I have a bridge to sell you.
Or to take a matter that doesn’t involve his manifest PDS, but does involve behavioral psychopathology — about which Dr. Krauthammer has more than a passing familiarity, does he really believe that a society can survive, or even function very long, when 5% of its participants are murderous extremists? That might be a small percentage of the Muslim world when we’re discussing people who don’t floss regularly. It is by no means small when we consider how fragile the fabric of civilization is. Humans are the top predators on earth. We have restrained ourselves rigorously in culture and law precisely because we are so dangerous. The number of Islamists he dismisses is by no means small when we must multiply by the coefficient of their destructiveness. Yet, Charlie perhaps had just finished reading a (thoughtful, to be sure) study by The Brooking’s Institution or Foreign Policy which convinced him that the threat is, in the phrase beloved of deep thinkers trapped inside I-495, “manageable.”
And that, I submit is the essence of Dr. Krauthammer’s problem: the water he swims in.
How do you account for Steven Hayes’s disdain for Sarah’s response? Do we need a column on him, too?
First of all, I offered that by way of one of just two pertinent examples of Krauthammer’s lack of curiosity establishing a basis for occasionally poor analysis. We were not talking about Stephen Hayes. If you want me to agree that Mr. Hayes occasionally suffers from Beltway Myopia, OK by me: he does.
But in Krauthammer’s hand we have a smoking gun, a column following his ill conceived invective against Palin in which he accuses the Left of an egregious libel in the Tucson shootings. He is correct. But only a person with multiple personality disorder or an irrational dislike of Sarah Palin can have it both ways; it was a libel targeting the Right in General, but several well-known right-wing icons in particular, one of whom was Sarah Palin. If Dr. Krauthammer thinks it ill-advised to respond to a libelous accusation, why did he himself do so? And why, in Sarah Palin’s case was it wrong?
Physician, heal thyself.
In the second place, we have already had considerably more than a column on Stephen Hayes, Charles Krauthammer, et al, and their blind approbation of the Tucson Memorial in the form of a very extended commentary by Rush Limbaugh on this matter. Limbaugh was absolutely correct in his assessment that it was a slobbering embarassment and Krauthammer’s reply was — quite frankly — petulant and small. For someone as frequently condescending as Krauthammer to accuse Limbaugh of condescension (all in the process of making a condescending reply) was the most delicious irony of the year so far. The conduct of the President’s proxies at the Memorial was, in one word, disgusting. All the pious grandstanding in the world does not change that fact, whether put on by 0bama or Krauthammer.
I expect no better from the 21st Century’s version of Soapy Smith. I do expect more from Charles. And yes, I do expect more from Stephen Hayes.
Fred, thanks for the reply. Points well taken.
While David Solway’s analysis is impeccable, he elegantly ommits the one and most plausible explanation for Krauthammer’s more and more frequent illogical vacillations: age…
He’s 60 years old. I guess that knocks out anything Reagan ever said after 1971.
..age and early to midstage Alzheimers would be the two crutches to explain the 1986 amnesty. If I were Michael Reagan, I’d reverse course and agree with Ron Jr.
Just taught myself General Relativity from Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler at the ripe old age of half-past Charlie Krauthammer (It was the one aspect of Physics I didn’t learn in graduate school and the lack has always bothered me.)
But your concern for us senile old people is duly noted.
Charles is a former liberal Democratic who leans consistently “right,” but whose center of gravity always takes him back “left.”
As you have noted, David, this causes him to oscillate rather unpredictably.
I once heard Krauthammer tell an Anti-Defamation League audience that Jews should not criticize those on the religious right, because, not only are they willing to fight and die in the Middle East and strongly support the existence of the State of Israel, but also because when the Messiah returns, we will simply ask him if he has been here before.
While this may be a lighthearted way to smooth over differences between liberal Jews and social and economic conservatives,
looked at a different way, it reveals a stunning callousness that is the very embodiment of what Krauthammer admires in Obama.
In any case, he is welcome on the right when he leans right, deserves extreme skepticism when he leans left, and is never so solid and reliable as when he is defending Israel.
For me, CK is a microcosm of conservative leaders, and many bloggers as well.
I come at everything from the same spot…Obama MUST be defeated. If he is not, then the way of life this country has enjoyed for many years will come to an end, and be replaced with something far worse, probably violently worse. The Obama cabal is not into incrementalism. It is blatantly clear that they are attempting one final, complete coup to convert the US to a centrally run statist society, and they are doing it against the express will of the people. ALL of the evidence points that way. EVERYTHING we know of the Obama’s past is a loudly ringing bell that this is what they intend, and we can see unequivocal evidence from the past several decades, and particularly from the last two years that this is exactly what they are about. A coup.
When I hear or see any intelligent person who doesn’t appear to recognize that, or who seems to dismiss those cold hard facts in order to further an agenda of his own, regardless of what it is, it frightens me. In CK’s case, because of the high regard in which he is held by so many, any declaration by him that doesn’t undercut Obama, is a horrible tragedy. If there is one person we need working tirelessly to forward the conservative philosophy, it is him. It is unbearably sad when he praises Obama, even if it just for patting a puppy. I see us in a war, and it’s not a rating war, it’s a war for the survival of the United States of America. There should be no quarter given, ever.
O’Reilly is another. Even though he doesn’t have an ounce of CK’s intellectual depth, O’Reilly has a large audience and can be one of the most persuasive advocates in the media. He is a solid conservative 95% of the time, but I view it as a veritable act of treason that he chooses not to condemn Obama in the starkest terms, particularly because he almost certainly does so in order to preserve his ratings. Tragic. Contemptible.
O’Really is a F..ing idiot.
CK is just disappointing.
Krauthammer is an analyst, not an activist.
I think he simply tends to overthink some things (e.g. strategy for defeating Obamacare), and on others I detect cynicism and disgust with the American public. “Obama is smart” is the converse of “Americans are gullible.”
As an analysis, CK ought to be the most aware of the danger the country is in, and there are indications he does see it. All the more reason for him to set aside his analyst side and do everything he can to stop the huns.
2 years left.
A great comment and I couldn’t agree with most of your words more. But, you missunderstand Bill O’Reilly’s treatment of Obama. In order to maintain the attention and trust of that vast middle of America that The Factor targets O’Reilly has to be very careful with his opinions. He is a valuable force for the truth even if he has to often provide balance with his opinion of Obama and the coup you are correctly postulating. Remember this is not a battle that is going to be won without the support of at least half of the American people and Bill O’Reilly controls and well uses one of the largest bully pulpits out there. If he became a one trick pony like many of the more rabid Obama critics he would not be able to talk to such a broad swath of the American electorate.
Your thought about O’Reilly sometimes flashes through my mind, particularly when he makes a particularly good point about little lenin’s agenda.
I realize that he is probably consciously eschewing the Hannity pit-bull approach, but even so, the pompous one is so consistently careful to set Obama above the fray and so careful to avoid some of the more obvious truths about this clearly devious and dangerous man that I believe it is more than a strategy to reach swing voters. O’Reilly could easily point out how ruthlessly consistent Obama has been with his far left / socialist policies,so perfectly radical with his appointments (other than a couple of high-profile Gates-types), and so grossly hypocritical in every single public utterance that it isn’t hard at all to portray him for what he is without resorting to harsher terms that people like me are free to employ.
O’Really is inconsistent and he wants another interview with the clown AKA barry
CK did not defend freedom of speech going back to the Rushdie fatwa and the disgraceful comments about Greet. he is an apoligist for islam whether he is aware of it or not.
his recent remarks about obama are off the mark.
J. Goldberg and S. Hayes have eclipsed Krauthammer in reasoned debate.
he reminds me of buckley in that …there is a dissonance in their words.
We are indeed in a war, and it is shocking that average hard-working Americans do not see that. It seems that otherwise intelligent Americans cannot break the mindset that, just because it hasn’t happened for 200 years doesn’t mean that war and the destruction of a once-great nation cannot happen. We have become the Eloi of H.G. Wells’s novel The Time Machine–futuristic humans who, having solved all problems that required strength, intelligence, or virtue, have slowly become dissolute and naive. The Muslims and other enemies of America are the Morlocks. Read the book if you don’t know how that worked out for the Eloi.
A man of Krauthammer’s intellect surely grasps this and is therefore avoiding educating his admirers for his own selfish purposes.
BINGO!!!! The time for endless debate is long past. America is in the throes of a bloodless coup. We need a LEADER, and we need a leader fast. I believe that leader is Sarah Palin, if for no other reason than she does now blow an UNCERTAIN TRUMPET. She hues relentlessly to the full conservative agenda like an energizer bunny. Her ability to take it is simply breathtaking. Although I would dispute the existence of any significant native intelligence in Obama, if it is indeed true, my Dad had a great line for folks like him: “It takes brains to be that stupid.” Sarah Palin would mop the floor with him in any real-time debate. She’s mopping the floor with him now! But she is also good for the long haul.
Interesting that someone alluded to CK’s being (having been?) a stutterer. I have this wild theory about Obama that is somewhat akin to the fantasies evoked by the “Manchurian President” epithet some are fond of. He strikes me as someone who is the product of a protracted course of intensive therapy or re-programming, if you will, for having either learned English as a second language, suffered from a severe learning disability, or had a speech impediment, and what we see is the final best therapeutic result that could be achieved. I find listening to him excruciatingly painful, no only because he says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 5,000 words, but because his intonation, cadence, and word emphasis is all wrong. The voice stresses the wrong words, goes up when it should go down, and in sum has a sing-song nature that reminds me of an aural equivalent of stimming. In sum, there is something robotic, or puppet-like and lifeless about the man (in striking contradistinction to Sarah Palin) that has raised the hairs on the back of my neck from the first moment I heard him, and I’m not sure what it’s signaling me, but I know there is something very plainly “off” about the man. I advance this arguably crack-brained theory because maybe it provides a clue to something he and CK may have in common.
When he sets his mind to it, Dr. Krauthammer can systematically tear Barak Obama and the left to pieces. But he is also a member of the beltway elite and thus has some blind spots.
I remember one article of his which I think was on healthcare in which he said to begin with, we can ask Sarah Palin to leave the room. Then he proceeded to agree with Sarah Palin’s main points on healthcare while refusing to give her credit. She is not a part of the beltway elite and thus any thought that she could be right is beyond the pale.
And his recent statements implying the November election was a failure based on the lame duck session are ridiculous. The next Congress and new Republicans who were elected had not even taken office yet. That is like saying they lost the game before they even took the field.
Krauthammer’s problem is simple: he reveres Ivy League intellect too much. Obama, the quintessential Ivy League intellectual, is simply too good at the use of Ivy Speak for Krauthammer to dismiss him entirely. Krauthammer, a stutterer, is utterly enamored with Obama’s articulation skills.
But he’s conflicted because he is, in most respects, a conservative. So Krauthammer’s is a war within between the core and the veneer. Sadly, we must witness it nightly on Fox.
Dr. K lost me long ago during the “torture” debates. Remember the whole “torture doesn’t work” meme? Well, he was of the opinion that squirting water up some scumbag’s nose is torture.
More recently he made some really bone-head comments about secret enrichment facilities discovered in Iran…referring to them as ‘nuclear’.
And his more recent disparagement of Sarah Palin is disgusting elitism in action. I am beginning to think that Codevilla really does have a point about the ‘ruling class’ vs. the ‘country class’.
CK has always had a very non-conservative, Gingrich-like pomposity about him. His off the wall criticism of Passion of the Christ demonstrated his tendency to slide off the rails for personal reasons known only to him.
I agree with John @28. I think there are many trusted “conservative voices” sprinkled throughout the media whose job is to steer opinion leftward. Fox News may be a large example of this experiment: gain trust with credible right-side anchors and then gradually head leftward, taking your viewership with you. CNN has no audience, so now here is the same choice. Rush once noted that statistically, FOX viewers were more likely to vote Democrat over time.
Another creepy thing no one is talking about–the ubiquitous propaganda that is the “Foundation For a Better Life”. The values are soft, squishy, lefty ones (am I the only one who wishes the Dad would take the piano playing youngster in the wings, give him a swat, and the tagline read,”discipline, pass it on”. All that money, production costs, time– that used to be dovoted to selling U.S. products.
I like Victor Hansen myself, but about Dr Krauthammer, you have to remember first and maybe foremost, he is a Psychiatrist, and obviously was a good one, too; as he still sees POTUS as the narcissist he is, even when he gives him credit for being “smart”. He knows POTUS is smart like a sneaky snake, and that POTUS’ narcissism will get him in the end, as Charles knows POTUS has no business sense; can’t handle anything complicated, like business, foreign affairs, wars, or ANYTHING that’s not on his teleprompter correctly. Charlees knows in his heart, there’s no Clintonian triangulation here and that will show itself soon enough, like a snake can’t hide its ugly head for long without it showing for what it really is. Charles may have made a few missteps lately, saying POTUS was so great in the short meningless Lame Duck session, but look who POTUS chose as his Vice President after all! One who is TOTALLY inept and delusional. Makes POTUS look even wiser; there’s a method to all the POTUS’ madness, after all. So Charles has it all figured out. O’Reilly plays it both ways, so as to get interviews with POTUS, etc., but Charles is not ego driven that way. You’ll see. This all comes from a 20 year Psychiatric nurse who has loved Dr. Krauthammer’s analysis as long as he’s been at the political round table. Enough said.
Could it be that he is not so much one of us as all of us? At times, dealing in a moral model and then shifting to an amoral model allows one to come to a deeper understanding and therefore a more thoughtful argument.
I still think Krauthammer an American treasure, but I never allow myself to forget that Krauthammer is also (1) a Washington insider: (2) a Social liberal.
And neither of these qualities, no matter how intelligent or worldly the author, will ever be able to completely represent me.
For instance, I disagree with Krauthammer that Obama highly intelligent. Obama is manipulative and cool, charismatic to many. But without the prepared script, it’s my opinion Obama is also one of the most superficial politicians of recent memory. I’ve never heard anything of depth concerning a response from Obama that hasn’t been written for him.
One of the sad consequences of being confined to a wheelchair and having limited mobility is that Charles must rely on second-hand information when it comes to the dynamics associated with anything Islamic. I suspect if he could still walk or even have full use of his arms, and see what has been happening in Holland, France, Egypt and other places, we would better appreciate the rapid shift towards the marauding hordes of the “religion of peace” that was stopped in France in 732 or the gates of Vienna in 1683.
There is nothing like finding Schiphol airport overwhelmed with praying Mecca-bound pilgrims who purposefully make checking in for your flight impossible, or finding the same thing happening on an increasing number of streets in Paris that are home to mini-mosques where thousands of Islamists threaten anyone who tries to get through on Friday prayers.
I find his articles interesting most of the time, but when it comes to understanding the rapid radicalization of an increasing number of followers of an already radical religion like Islam around the globe, he is sadly out of touch. Especially when he writes about someone like Wilders whose life has been destroyed for the sin of speaking his mind, like Krauthammer does for a living.
I doubt Stephen Hawking would agree with one word of your first paragraph.
A lot of attention is paid to the damage that is done by the non-conservatives in the media, but the damage done by the right-wing of the SRM is immense IMO. The Left led by Barack Obama is trying — whether knowingly or otherwise — to destroy this country, and being a member of the media does not exempt one from their patriotic duty.
“Islam, AS PRACTISED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others….”
The problem is elites, left & right, can’t do math. If ONLY 1/10 of 1% of 1.5 BILLION Muslims are “unpeaceful,” that means 1.5 MILLION radicals are running around loose…..& do you really think the number’s ONLY 1/10 of 1%?
I think it varies over time and place. It’s 0/10 of 0% for the muslims I know.
When we think about this kind of thing, it’s important to listen to Sarah palin when she says, “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”
Ms. Carolannie, maybe you and arhooley@#6 above, should have a little chat. Or, maybe you should teach him some math.
I understand the danger of the sheer numbers. That does not change the percentages. I don’t need a lesson in math, but you need one in reading.
He is an influential opinion provider, so you felt the need to dissect him for that reason. Sobeit. But I think your tone and degree suggests, perhaps, a slight bit of jealousy? I don’t agree with everything the good Doctor states, but to suggest that there is some terrible wrong in that he does not tow the main conservative line on every issue or that he changes his tune here or there is terribly wrong. He espouses his opinions and thoughts every day – mostly in real time. Although he seems to be one who has the ability to quickly reflect and utter what he truly thinks/believes, not always will that be the case. And besides, a person who does not change his mind on matters of importance from time to time, if based on reasonable reflection and/or new facts, is stuck in a set stage and cannot find the courage and will to admit they were wrong or not fully correct and change it. I believe Charles Krauthammer has the most lucid and insightful mind of all those in the talking sphere and though I don’t accept everything he says, I do agree with most of what he says and he has gotten me to think of matters in ways I had never thought about before. You people that disparage and dismiss him because he believes Obama is smart, or changed direction somewhat how to deal with Obamacare, or does not care for Geert Wilders (which I do wish he would reflect on further), are, I believe, misguided and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
All of the “conservative” commentators have become captives of their homes in the Boston-DC urban axis. If they live outside that, it is in some “precious” New England village with those of similar background. They are all pearl clutchers. It has become true of National Review, Weekly Standard and now Fox. This why Sara Palin scares them and they perceive Huckabee as a populist. None have been in a suburban mall, much less a Walmart, Tractor Supply or a hunting camp. Effete metrosexuals all
I stopped reading and listening to CK a long time ago. He is a typical left-wing elitist who leans slightly right of center on a few things, and then calls himself a conservative. I can find his opinion on any given subject by reading nearly any progressive website.
Krauthammer is an extremely sharp, solid conservative pundit and always worth reading even if I don´t agree with him all the time. I understand the damage that RINOs and elitists have done and are doing, but Krauthammer does not deserve to be so slandered. He´s not David Brooks. I will not be part of a movement that has no room for Krauthammer.
Calling anyone who disgrees with the hardest line a squishy elitist is convenient, but it´s also a ticket to the unmoored fringe. Where people would rather police their movement than win arguments and elections against liberals.
And it´s a game that two can play. For example: If you read pundits only to have your prejudices confirmed, you´re thinking like a liberal. So now suddenly YOU are the RINO. That was easy.
Whether aggressive Islamism is the ideology of a minority or inseparable from the religion itself is one of the big questions of our time. Anyone who attacks a thoughtful man like Krauthammer for differing on such a tough issue is suffering from an highly unconservative case of hubris. Only left-wingers believe they already know everything.
Sorry El Gordo. Once I was a great fun of him but Kraut has been WRONG too many times the be treated seriously.
Charles has become irrelevant. He is a pundit who’s time has past. While he has some decent insights, his and his kind are not much better than the lapdog press. He keeps good company with the likes of Carl Rove.
The crux of Charles is he doesn’t get Liberty.
He is a political dinosaur.
Ralph Waldo Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
Mr. Krauthammer is intelligent, yes. Though like EVERY columnist, a head scratcher is standard fare from time to time.
Not to mention working at WaPo, sitting beside Juan Williams every week-end and a myriad of other Left leaning writers, pollsters etc., will have any person question their leanings, actions.
A hat tip to the writer, Mr. Solway for his comment on Obama’s, ‘ZERO UNDERSTANDING OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS’.
This Egypt crisis speaks volumes of Obama’s incompetence not speaking to/encouraging our allies in the M E to step up!
CiC of the Free World DOES NOT play the ‘wait and see game’.
Obama is nothing more than a reactionary, not a visionary. And that is truly frightening..
So much incorrect opinion here.
There are, I believe, two main things driving CK’s seeming inconsistencies:
There are rules of discourse that were in place when he grew up. Civility was the watchword. That time has passed, but they cling to it. In one way they are right to do so, because one does not lightly cast aside decency. However, this sense of decency and fair-play, has been exploited by the subversives in order to undermine this country. So, CK tries to give the benefit of the doubt, consider the other side’s individual positions, without seeing them as part of a whole. O’Reilly does this.
A graphic example of these old rules was McCain during the financial meltdown of ’08. “The fundamentals are still strong.” That cost him the election. Why did he say it? Because the old rule was that a President does not talk down the economy. He cheer-leads. So, McCain tried to blow sunshine up the people’s posteriors. They rejected such nonsense. The old rules no longer apply.
The other reason for the seeming dissonance is that CK is an Atheist. It is hard to be a solid Conservative without a solid religious foundation of some sort. Religion is a civilizing influence. Without solid moral precepts, one lacks the necessary sonar to avoid some evil shoals. There are times when he is morally adrift. Plus, he did go to “excellent schools”, thus receiving a certain amount of indoctrination.
There is an argument made that one can be moral without religion, but it is demonstrably false, and CK is exhibit A. Society has imparted a certain amount of moral foundation in its overall cultural taboos, but these are shallow foundations, ones which are subject to faddish change. Anyone with a deep religious foundation can readily see how shallow are the moral foundations of others. The wind blows, and those with shallow roots like CK, are partially or totally uprooted. Your roots are showing, Chuck.
morals are not tied to religion.
religious people always say that but when they lose their religion they lose their morality (because sooner or later they realise even if there was a greater power it isn’t one of these earthly man made ones).
I am not in the least religious but I am moral.
Islam comes to mind when it comes to ‘rules’ of ‘morality’. “Religion” is often used to separate people rather than unite them. I personally believe in a higher power, in God and that Christ was the son of God, but, I don’t go to a church, I don’t insist on shoving my beliefs down other people’s throats in order to ‘save’ them, I don’t read the bible much any longer, but, I do talk and pray to God in my heart/mind/soul on an almost daily basis.
Religion doesn’t necessarily make people ‘moral’ (otherwise we wouldn’t have the Jimmy Swaggarts/Jim Joneses/Reverend Wrights/Jihadists/Pedo-Priests/et al).
Do I believe there is good and evil? Yes. Do I believe we are all capable of being good or evil? Yes. Do I believe being good or evil is a choice? Yes.
Uppity Krauthammer thinks he’s above it all by playing both sides of the fence and then pronouncing his own lofty conclusions and I don’t think that has anything to do with his atheism.
Delia, my practice is much like yours. However, I would go to Church, but for my disability, and I will spread the Word, if the time and person is right.
As for Islam, it is a political system masquerading as religion. There is no addressing of evil, except where evil means any kind of disobedience.
It claims to be Ibrahimic in origin, and they give lip-service to the Bible, but they don’t mean it anymore than does Obama when he talks of fiscal prudence. They co-opt enough of the other side’s words in order to obtain some veneer of respectability, but it is all lies.
Because of this, there is no consistency in the “morality” of Islam. For example, no raising your hand against another Muslim… unless you deem him to be insufficiently devout and has strayed the teensiest little bit. The morality of Islam is no more valid than the false morality of the political Left. They are both based on lies. In the end, they both rely on intimidation and violence to achieve their ends.
yes..
…I think there is good and evil as well but from a different perspective.
they are both relative. …that is relative to us as human beings.
The real problem of being Charles Krauthammer is that he is now going to have to read not only this article but all the comments. It must be tough.
CK is simply revealing his Jewish liberal roots. They are immutable – just watch the Jewish voters trying to change the world while continuing to vote for Obama. CK is no different. All we can do is watch, and shake our heads.
Isn’t this the guy who’s paralyzed from the neck up? Or is it, from the neck down?
My explanation for Charles to swing left is pretty simple,compared to the rest of the educated professors in our midst.
I believe that Charles enjoys an debate,maybe like a brandy after dinner. He enjoys it more if he has more people to argue with and if he is on the opposite end of the fork. He hears all day at his workplace how great the left is etc etc. When.he comes over to Fox,well here he has a chance to stir the pot so to speak.The second of Charles’s great loves is his funny bone. He loves a stir and has a great sense of humour.Maybe,I think he is just stirring the post to allow greater debate??? Maybe.
My opinion, and to be brief, is, Charles is always angling for the “Strange New Respect” award, the sophisticate that sees both sides, plus the occasional invitation to the WH, in short a straddler and just a touch eccentric.
I hope it’s just a touch, and I hope he ceases the crap about how smart this dumbass president is.
As those who know me on these pages, I am no shrinking violet. If I hold an opinion, I state…and take what comes back my way.
However, I truly like and respect David Solway…AND…Charles Krauthammer.
(I gravitate toward these two, VDH, Michael Barone, Dennis Prager, …and I’m here posting comments because of Roger Simon…if that gives anyone any sort of clue, or more of a clue than my own writings do)
It saddened me a bit to see David write this essay on CK.
The four main points I see in the essay and the comments are these:
1)CK believes that radical extremism in Islam is represented by a small percentage of the total followers:
2)CK believes that Geert Wilders is himself in the extreme range.
3)CK believes that Obama is smart.
4)CK does not hold Sarah Palin very high in his political assessment of her.
Please allow me to put forth this first…CK can fold, spindle, mutilate and shred leftist arguments as well as anyone who chooses to do so. I consider that so valuable, it cannot be stated strongly enough. When he tears into a distortion promoted by the left, there is little left to examine in his wake.
In addition, he is rarely, if ever…a “me too” writer. He gets out in front of issues and attacks them from new and often trailblazing angles. This is not a guy who merely piles on.
He is also a pretty plain spoken man. That’s rather unique in post modern society and completely unheard of in semi-polite political circles these days.
So…I would like to re-examine his “sins” above, in light of the above positives he brings to the party.
1)Geert Wilders believes that 5-15% is all that make up the radicalized portion of Islam. So do a vast amount of people in the know. I have no way of knowing. But the idea that it is a small segment is NOT unique to CK. It’s completely unfair to suggest that the notion is outside of center-right American thought.
2)Geert is a provocateur. People can judge whether that is a strategy, tactic or personal trait. They also can disagree with it. I consider this akin to having a favorite sports team…that plays “chippy”. Some people love their team no matter how they conduct themselves. Others don’t like “chippy” play, it offends their sense of honor, dignity, the “way you are supposed to conduct yourself on the field of play”.
I simply don’t hold this against CK.
3)Obama has some skills and we do no good by suggesting that he has none. He is shrewd. He sells empty rhetoric as well as anyone I’ve ever seen. He retains facts (he mangles many, but retention is different) and when he doesn’t ad lib, he can arrange them back into a forceful presentation. He can articulate ideas and hold his own in a debate against moderately skilled opponents. (especially when every debate moderator is rigged in his favor, as are almost all of the post-debate pundits). He can score enough points to “win” a rigged debate.
These are signs of intelligence. (not wisdom, experience, grace or ingenuity). Better to overestimate and over-prepare for 2012, in my opinion.
4)Let’s get to the fire starter. Sarah is a lightning rod for opinions. Let’s get to MY position first. She is a doll. Also a plain speaking, tell ‘em what you really feel, no holds barred type. Good on her.
I LOVE that she is an American and on my side on virtually every issue.
She is not my first choice for high office. I like other candidates better. CK and Rove were counting votes in the Senate and she took a vote away (at least) in their minds…and having the majority in the Senate is a big deal. (Reid could not keep the repeal vote from coming up, just for one example). They thought supporting “the witch” was a bit over the top.
It’s ok to have those kinds of disagreements in house.
It’s also ok to not have Sarah as my first choice, or it ought to be. It is NOT ok to shirk from protecting her from the despicable bullying and slandering that she endures. We ALL ought to be getting in front of that…and it ought to be raising every red blooded American male’s protective instincts.
We take our victims where we find them on this side of the political ledger. Those who are center-right do not believe in picking on people and REALLY don’t believe in picking on a lady. That has to be confronted.
CK is a man. He understands where the line is. I don’t believe he has crossed it. And he will place himself in front of those who are bullying Sarah along with the rest of us. Again, she is not my first choice for high office, but anyone who wants to keep bullying her has raised my protective instincts and will have to go through me to get at her from here on.
How about you?
(I feel the same way about CK. There is no need to pick on him. They are both on OUR side)
I LOVE that she is an American and on my side on virtually every issue.
She is not my first choice for high office. I like other candidates better. CK and Rove were counting votes in the Senate and she took a vote away (at least) in their minds…and having the majority in the Senate is a big deal. (Reid could not keep the repeal vote from coming up, just for one example). They thought supporting “the witch” was a bit over the top.
It’s ok to have those kinds of disagreements in house.
I agree,but I find it troubling to dismiss her as a candidate of merit.
while I agree with many of your points ..consider the senate issue.
…what would have been like if CK and Rove ..said about O’Donnell and Angel ..”they would make good senators”
what would that have done …made 2 more senators for the republicans IMHO
…so too with the Palin issue. Does CK think obama is smarter then Palin?
that is a WTF moment for me. obama is just a charlatan, a fraud …a manipulative pr!ck ..but HE IS NOT smart.
…so CK is an elitist in my book …incidently I want Christopher Hitchens to square the circle as how he could have voted for obama (and subsequently never talked about his greatness again)..I know he said he could not bring himself to vote for McCain, and don’t argue that point …but he could have written in his own name or wiped his as$ with the ballot.
Great points, Gen. P.!
To me it’s a shame that both Charles Krauthammer and George Will have gone out of their way to declare Sarah Palin “not presidential” material.
Such demeaning observations belong in the category of Barbara Bush’s ignorant remark that she hopes Palin…”stays in Alaska”
Compared to the bumbling man child currently sitting as President of the United States, it seems to me a rag doll would be “presidential” material.
“that is a WTF moment for me. obama is just a charlatan, a fraud …a manipulative pr!ck ..but HE IS NOT smart.”
I am so glad to hear someone else say this! Even my friends repeat the phrases that Obama is so eloquent and so brilliant, that they just don’t like his politics. Not only no, but HELL NO! To me he is very average except for an over-abundance of conceit and an “under-abundance” of conscience. Anyone who repeats the meaningless phrase that Obama is eloquent/brilliant is (1) stupid, (2) jumping on a politically profitable band wagon, or (3) sheepishly baaaing out the same things everyone else does because they’re afraid they’ll be considered racist. I can think of no other explanations for this bizarre behavior.
When Abbas took over after Arafat’s death, he was being toted as a good guy in comparison, someone more amenable to Israel’s existence. But Krauthammer on Fox was right on the spot to dispel that notion, and I cheered, because as a supporter of Israel he pointed to the same rhetoric I also was hearing loud and clear coming from Abbas, referring to Israel pejoratively as the “Zionist Entity” etc., all the usual bad-mouthing.
But almost in the same breath, on the then current issue of unilateral “disengagement” from Gaza being vigorously advocated by Sharon in a double-cross of not only his own oarty, but also the vast majority of the electorate who voted with him against such a sordid act of of national self-mutilation, Krauthammer showered Sharon with such cloying high praise and admiration for his military and political wisdom, and statesmanship, that I gagged and nearly threw up. It was sickening.
Krauthammer never took that back, or apologized for it, either.
Dr.Krauthammer is and was trained in the field of psychiatry and thus revels in the field and language of psychology. That lingua franca is not common folk speak. It is the language of substitution and resistant substantive explanation. Which is, say one thing but often say and mean something else. Examples; disciplined relaxation is relaxed disciplined which can be answerable as both good or bad, or anti-ethical or ethical.
This double speak and think is rife in their mine-field. And he is academically astute and able. Easily justifying his opinions and politics. Always coming up with the trump card despite their being two sides to any argument. Their reasoning is rarely subject to the grimness of doubtfulness due to it being (so called) deeply reflective, thus sympathetic. Try arguing with a psych-major, slippery as slipping a silk bow tie on a snails snout.
Undoubtedly, Dr. Krauthammer is smart witty and well thought out. However his language and reasoning is psychologically suspect.
hallmonitor, I believe all it takes to be a psychiatrist is to earn a medical degree {MD}, and you can hang out your shingle as Psychiatrist. To be a psychologist you must take the requisite courses in psychology to earn your master’s or PHD. But Dr. Smith PHD can’t call himself a psychiatrist or prescribe medication. And Dr. Jones MD, with or without courses in psychology, can practice psychiatry and prescribe drugs. Let’s hope most psychiatrists study psychology, but last I heard it’s not required. And, as to “common folk speak”, what does “the language of substitution and ‘resistant substantive explanation’” mean in your first paragraph? Is that psychological jargon? It certainly isn’t the “common folk speak” you seem to be advocating. And what is “the grimness of doubtfulness” and why is something “deeply reflective, thus sympathetic”? I find Dr. Krauthammer’s statements clear as a bell.
Well, at least it is not my imagination that Charles has taken an unfathomable turn. Wow. It has been like losing a great friend. I hope the old Charles reappears soon, I truly miss him.
All the adulation has gone to his head.
cfbleachers really nailed it. I totally agree with his comments about both Solway and Krauthammer. I especially agree with his comments on Sarah Palin. I love her and defend her, but don’t want her nominated for the 2012 race. But I must add that the purple prose in Solway’s article is over the top. “Penetralia”, for Pete’s sake. Give me a break. The first few comments followed suit, as if it was catching. Thank goodness, I continued reading and found cfbleachers and some others who can write clearly, directly, and to the point. P.S. I hear and see CK on Fox, but have never read his comments in the WaPo. I would really like to know why he disapproves of Gert Wilders. That’s very disappointing, if true.
I think it’s enough to discern the change in Dr. K’s writing and speaking.
We don’t live in a static world and he’s been at this for quite a while now. I’m not completely happy about what I’m hearing and reading from the man, but I won’t build a pyramid of surmise upon a foundation of ignorance. Currently we live, by choice or necessity, in a world so dominated by politics that we tend to view it through that lens. It may be that he is simply remaining rationally consistent through eyes that are no longer focused on the same things or in the same way as his readers, for whatever reason. I should guess, as time goes on, that the “why” of Dr. K’s transformation will become more apparent, if not transparent.
I believe that his health issues, which he has bravely managed for many years, may have finally overcome his formally rapier sharp mind.
A critic gets attention from being critical, so the larger and more popular his target the more attention he gets. So his fame is derivative. As shown by this critique, Solway’s intelect does not amount to a pimple on CK’s ass.
As for you Palin fans who can’t abide any criticism of her and for that reason have the red ass for CK — listen to her resignation speach, her Curick interview, her Gibson interview and watch her handle herself on Saturday Night Live with an unfriendly cast. Do you really think she has the stuff to be President? To represent the USA to a hostile audience? That being said, I am certain that Obama is less qualified than Sarah Palin to be President, but that is no reason to set the bar low enough for her.
My opinion of C.K. has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel about Sarah Palin. LOL! I’ve repeatedly said here [much to the chagrin of Palin supporting commenters] on PJM that I don’t believe Palin is ready to be president but I greatly admire her otherwise. But, I certainly won’t tear her down or not support her if she runs and she is all we have!
Krauthammer’s opinions used to always perk my ears up when I had Fox News on in the background and I’d always come rushing into my family room to hear what he had to say (and, usually agreed with him). As of late, Charles has gone whackadoodle, Lefty-boot-lcikin’, bizarro-world douchey and it’s depressing as hades when he denigrates conservatives and praises doh-bammy.
This is an odd piece to respond to, as it seems to me to be an attack piece without actually being an attack piece. I only call it an “attack piece” simply that it is an article here at all. I personally see Dr. Krauthammer as a brilliant man that I sometimes disagree with, admittedly for similar reasons, in that as a blue-collar sort of guy I sometimes read his work as having more than a faint tinge of Beltway elitism. But, as someone far wiser than me has said (and I paraphrase), someone that agrees with you most of the time is your friend. Heck, as far as I can see having someone like that that one can sometimes disagree with only helps being able to critically think.
Mr. Horne, if I may address your piece, being the most recent above me at the time of writing, I obviously can speak for no one save myself, but supporters of Mrs. Palin are not looking for a genius polymath who can know all things at all times. As far as I can reckon, that’s pretty much impossible from anyone not born of a virgin into the House of David. What I believe that’s far more important than that elusive omniscient genius is someone who has shown true love for the country and its core values despite an adversity that most of us wouldn’t wish upon our worst enemies. If that desire to keep America truly America is strong in a person, then I’d back that candidate with my last ounce of breath.
Bill Buckley wrote a column saying pretty much the same things back in the 80′s when Charles Krauthammer was writing for Peretz’s
“contrarian” New Republic. (circa ’85-’88?) And I haven’t noticed Krauthammer’s views changing much since then; pay’s better on the right I guess…
There’s a certain whiff of mumpsimus about C.K. that wreaks of Liberal left-overs and your post is just more proof that for some folks, Leftism is truly an incurable disease of the mind.
You do realize that Victor Davis Hanson, much praised on this thread as an alternative to CK, is also a former Democrat?
arhooley writes:
You do realize that Victor Davis Hanson, much praised on this thread as an alternative to CK, is also a former Democrat?
Of course I do! Has your reading comprehension gone daft? What part of “for some folks, Leftism is truly an incurable disease of the mind” do you not comprehend?
Hell, a good portion of the writers here on PJM are ex-Lefties including the founder [Roger L. Simon] himself.
Are grades and test scores an accurate indicator of intelligence? Was Sid Sawyer smarter than Tom?
“It takes someone very special to remain fully grounded in ones own principals…”
See, Mr. Ed ain’t so smart — he misspelled one’s and principles
And Jonah Greenburg ALWAYS;-)
Sorry for the cutoff. Have you all noticed how Jonah Greenburg ALWAYS spells possessive “its” as “it’s” ? What’s his excuse rather than it MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER ?
–Sid Sawyer
Fred Zarguna,
Fred, have you read “The Emperor’s New Mind”, by Roger Penrose (1990)? You’d enjoy it! (popularized science, kinda Einstein meets Godel meets Turing meets Penrose, quite good)
I’ve read everything published by Roger Penrose, in both the trade and popular press, I believe. As a (former) condensed matter guy, I won’t pretend to understand everything he’s gotten into The Physical Review but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed his popular work, and as a “physicist gone bad” who now develops software for a living, I particular enjoyed The Emperor’s New Mind as well as his subsequent (but not quite as convincing) books on the topic of consciousness. Oddly enough, it was reading Penrose’s (fairly deep) survey of modern Physics, The Road to Reality that prompted me to return to General Relativity after thirty years.
Penrose was a visiting Professor at PSU around the time of the publication of TENM, but sadly I was no longer there, so I didn’t get a chance to meet him. I will tell you apropos a number of loose threads in this discussion that Feynman still haunted the halls and seminars at Cal Tech when I was there. I believe he was 63-65 during that time and it was thoroughly demoralizing to hear him ask questions in seminars well removed from his area as if he were a 26 year old grad student current in the field. Maybe one of the reasons I’m a coder now…
I am fifty-six, but “half-part Charlie” sounded better. I have no doubts by the gentleman’s lights that this makes me severely impaired. Oh well.
I might be thinking of Penrose’s later (popular) work(s) whose name(s) escape me…
BTW Fred, what does “half-past Charles Krauthammer” mean? He’s 60.
Are you: a) 30 b) 90 c) 60 1/2 or d) None of the above ?
Marc Malone wrote “No, Dwight, truth is always simple. It is eloquent in its simplicity. When all the fog and mirrors are cleared away, truth shines forth brightly. When the answer to a complex problem with which you have been struggling comes forth, it is blinding in its evident rightness and simplicity. It is why we slap our foreheads. Truth is the result of clear thinking. It is only sloppy thinking which makes it seem complicated.”
So the process by which we developed a Constitution, then a Bill of Rights and then a Civil War to create our mega-government was a simple truth full of clear thinking folks, or a complicated truth full of sloppy thinking by HUMAN beings? Let’s just take step one with a Constitution beig ratified without a Bill of Rights and the 3/5ths rule in place. There was the simple truth that we needed to form a more powerful government, and a background truth that we were sowing the seeds of a mega-Civil War.
Let’s take GWB’s Presidency and its legacy. Is the “truth” about it, simple or complicated? Your visionary description of truth may be describing how YOUR mind works, but any connection between it and the real world is difficult to follow.
As for Fred’s logic that a simple statement about life being complicated is inherently untrue, or at least contradictory, then I will complicate it for him. Truth is USUALLY complicated. Believers are quite capable of arbitrarily closing their eyes to the part of reality they wish to deny, and we all do that to some degree, just to be able to function. There comes a time when an up or down decision has to be made, a vote cast, a trigger pulled. Evidently, clear thinking Marc is always bathed in the light of truth when he makes such decisions. I will plead guilty to being a flawed human being who has to make many decisions hoping that they are the right ones, but in any case, knowing that I will have to live with the consequences.
Check it out. D-White goes “Moderate” Contortionist to attempt to justify the “blather” which bounces from The Ping Pong Tongue into a Pick It Fence induced Special Zone of D-White existential “logic”.
Could it be possible that all those years of hanging out in the faculty lounge of life have produced an abstraction that cannot determine the validity of the existence of concretes?
Or to simplify, truth is whatever D-White wishes.
Is that Pick It poking a perpetual Ping Pong panderer posing placidly picking points, pronouncements and positions promoting…??? Oh well.
Gosh D-White, for once I think the Ping Pong Tongue could say what ever it is, more betterer.
But Lather still finds it a nice thing to do,
To lie about nude in the sand…
Ah, at least you have your fantasies!
Of course D-White. Once again…
Or to simplify, truth is whatever D-White wishes.
Drawing pictures of mountains that look like bumps,
And thrashing the air with his hands.
The Islam v. Islamism distinction is too fine for me, especially given “respectable” Islam’s failure to convincingly condemn the several decades now of (modern) carnage committed in its name.
“It is a misfortune to human nature when religion is given by a
conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts
still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.”
~Montesquieu
As I recall (rightly or wrongly) Wilders started out with a reputation as something of a hothead and has gained more respectability in recent years.
Krauthammer’s point about not nickel and dimeing “Obamacare” to death makes sense to me. The best course for repeal lies in the courts. Over half the US states have joined the Florida lawsuit.
But even in his more balanced columns, a latent current of misplaced respect for a divisive and destructive president willy-nilly tends to emerge.
In his regular nightly gig on the Fox news panel, Krauthammer sometimes refers to Obama as “elegant”…which I consider the David Brooks’ syndrome, Brooks being so im-pressed with the perfect crease in Obama’s pants one day as he was sitting next to him on a couch.
Despite occasional seeming contradictions, Charles Krauthammer is the best commentator and writer on the American political scene today. He can be counted on for honesty, and humor that is seriously lacking in today’s politicians, who are so personally insecure that they must keep up the pretense of always taking themselves seriously.
I think J. Goldberg and S. Hayes have better analysis then CK has on recent developments.
CK looks to be going out on a low note. He is an apologist for muslims and islam going back to S. Rushdie fatwa times.
if he is as smart as people say he is why the dissonance over islam.
he is also wrong on obama and obamacare. so it isn’t just one thing one time.
I offer an explanation for the shifting Mr. Krauthammer. It is this – he is not shifting. The key to understanding Mr. Krauthammer’s apparent shifts
is to keep a tight focus on whom Mr Krauthammer is writing about.
Mr. Krauthammer is part of a Conservative movement that coalesced around Conservative components that were left after Mr. William Buckley’s expulsion of the Birchers, and along with them, the entire American Right.
Maintaining this expulsion is one of Mr. Krauthammer’s jobs.
The Conservative movement of which Mr. Krauthammer is a member is a creation of those wishing it to remain friendly with the liberal establishment – a national establishment, and friendly with the anti-Bolshevik elements on the left.
These Conservatives share, with liberals, the left’s concept of the Right in America – it’s evilness, its radical nature, its out-of- touchness with reality, their unfitness to ascend to national power. Hence they can;t be elected, they are wrong, they are anti-democratic.
This explains why Mr. Krauthammer writes what hge writes when he writes.
doesn’t that mean he cannot be correct on certain issues. (rhetorical question)
that just makes him a hypocritter
“hypocritter”
LMAO! Awesome word, Gen P.!
What drives me bat sh!t crazy is when a Lefty turns ‘supposedly’ right but continues to espouse Lefty-Speak “out of the blue”. It’s almost as if they purposely establish themselves as upstanding, respectable “conservatives” and when everyone has given said person their undivided attention and respect…”said person” starts coming out berating conservatives with zingers that are utterly harmful. It’s one thing to give constructive criticism of one’s own political party but, Charles goes waaaaaaay beyond that into RINO territory and his biggest criticisms seem to always be of folks who are truly conservative.
Charles should just call himself a fence-riding, left-leaning “independent” because that’s exactly what he is, and, he can take his “0bama pant-crease” licking opinions and shove ‘em where the sun don’t shine because 0bie is an idiot and for a vaunted “intellectual” to be so blind to that fact is a mind-numbing exercise in gratuitous namby-pambying of the lowest order.
Die telepromter, DIE!
Lawrence in NY wrote: “These Conservatives share, with liberals, the left’s concept of the Right in America – it’s evilness, its radical nature, its out-of- touchness with reality, their unfitness to ascend to national power.”
You mean the ones who realized that when Robert Welch wrote of Ike being a card-carrying Commie that he had gone off the deep end? I would hope so. I read “The Politician” when I was in my late teens, early twenties, and I too realized that I was not going down that wing-nut road.
Can “We the People” propose an option for a “kill switch” of 0bama’s teleprompter via the internet? I would love to see the spin on the melt-down that would inevitably ensue.
Sour Kraut would have more egg on his face after his praise of 0bie’s “intellect”. Bwahahahahahahaha
A few recent Krauthammer-isms I have jotted down…
“…ideological overreach and incompetence of governing democrats”
Obama’s problems are “…completely self-inflicted by a man who doesn’t have executive experience”
Obama newly discovered willingness to get along amounts to “…repositioning for perception”
I think it was Charles K who said Obama wears “…a mask as slippery as the online identites of his online supporters”
What’s not to love ?
”The Conservative movement of which Mr. Krauthammer is a member is a creation of those wishing it to remain friendly with the liberal establishment – a national establishment, and friendly with the anti-Bolshevik elements on the left.”
================================
I always thought Krauthammer was a modern day Leo Trotsky.
Yes, I vividly recall Krauthammer’s infatuation with Obama at about the time of the Greek Columns speech. He, like Peggy Noonan, was Mad about the boy. Which is a perspective that I will NEVER understand. How can they be such fools as to miss the fraudulence of the Obama media/academia creation? It is all so OBVIOUS that this guy is an empty suit with no bona fides whatsoever. How can they be so STUPID as to take this pampered schmuck seriously?
I have admired the the tough-minded Charles Krauthammer for many years now, but the easily-duped, Washington-cocktail-club Krauthhammer never ceases to amaze me. Will the real Chuck please stand up.
Mr. Solway’s ponderous and overwrought prose demonstrably needs two or even three levels of editing. And maybe also two or even three levels of fact-checking.
Whatever else might be said of Krauthammer’s ideological purity, leanings, and distaste for certain flaming characters on the right, he’s a superb writer and stylist.
Can’t understand how anyone could criticize Geert Wilders, who’s standing up against having his country, Europe, and the world taken over by extremists, unless they’re being paid to do so. Lots.
Thank you for the extensive reply Mr. Fred Z. You are really a good neighbor for it. Thought the answer was probably d); physics tests had a nice way of separating yourselves from us also-rans. Thanks! (no reply necessary — How I Need A Drink, Alcoholic of course, After the Heavy Chapters Involving Quantum Mechanics — then pie for dessert
(and sorry Jonah GOLDberg, knew something didn’t quite fit…)
Oh, and you got one or two on me, in all or both senses of the word FWIW. I don’t know, you don’t care, and it doesn’t make any difference (sorry jack, wouldn’t it be kerouac…)
(an obscure reference to i think my first exposure to MAD, maybe the Nov ’63 issue? Pres. Kennedy due to publishing lead-time)
This articled reminds me of the old saying “opinions are like assholes, everyone has one”
I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this, but in March 2010 after Obamacare was signed into law, Krauthammer spent about a week trying to convince everyone that we needed a VAT tax. I thought he might be “warning” us that the VAT was what Democrats would try next, but he switched to language like “ee need it, it’s inevitable, it’s the only way we can sustain our government, it’s coming, get ready for it.” In that moment the Dems had spent their last iota of political capital, so just as only Nixon could go to China, only a conservative could have proposed the VAT. Krauthammer did, and within days, the White House was commenting that they’d be open to considering the idea.
That, along with his insulting attitude toward Palin and Wilders, is the main reason I’m suspicious of Krauthammer. He knows where his paycheck comes from, and it’s not from you and me.
I noticed this problem in the fall elections when he and Rove were PO’d about Tea Party candidates interfering with a possible GOP Senate majority. I swore I would never watch him again, and actually wrote to both of them to inform them that the American people are in charge of electing our representatives. The majority of the Senate was not at issue because the American people favored a constitutional government represented by the people based on conservative values for sure.
He has been all over the map on his ideals, and hard to know where he might stand on any OLD or new political issue any more. He confusing me anymore so my family waits to see where he stands and if in the middle or LEFT then we change channels is all. We certainly practice the channel swap ANYTIME we see our failed presidents doing lip service.
“Will the real Charles Krauthammer please stand up?” That is the cover line on the webpage before you click and come to this link. Perhaps someone should inform writer David Solway that Krauthammer is paralyzed from the waist down. Ever hear of putting your foot in your mouth?
Hey Solway. Nice going on the title, “Will the Real Charles Krauthammer Please Stand Up? Perhaps someone should tell you that Charles Krauthammer is paralzed from the waist down. Ever hear of foot in mouth?
Actually, I forgot. I believe that Charles is paralyzed from a higher portion on his body than from the waist. Ever see him move an arm? No.
I realize the title of this article goes back at least as far as the old “To Tell The Truth” TV show. And since then, “Will The Real _____ Please Stand Up?” has been used countless times to question people who seem to have inconsistent opinions.
My question is this: Did the author choose the title as a play on words to doubly jab Dr. Krauthammer, who was paralyzed many years ago? Was he unaware of Dr. Krauthammer’s disability, or did he decide to use the title as he might against any ablebodied person?
I’m not a usually champion of political correctness, but all things considered, this title would seem more at home on some hateful liberal blog.
It’s no surprise.
It’s who he is.
This boils down to “CK is not vitriolic enough against Obama.” Acknowledging Obama’s strengths and successes (clearly, he has some if he was able to con the American people into electing him and then getting the largest expansion of government in generations passed) does not a liberal make.