Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Krauthammer, Obama, One Term » Krauthammer Hammers Obama and the Dems

Krauthammer Hammers Obama and the Dems

Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite political pundits.  First off, he is says what he means and means what he says and he doesn’t mince words.  You gotta love that.  In the clip below he rips into the Democrats and President with a perfectly executed analysis of the aftermath of the Massachusetts election.

The “Hammer” delivers another rock solid assessment of the Democrats and their arrogance.

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed under: Krauthammer, Obama, One Term

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • Anonymous January 27, 2010 at 12:09 AM

    I don't think it's their arrogance that their downfall, it's their hypocritical pussines.

  • John Carey January 27, 2010 at 6:00 AM

    Anonymous,

    Please don't tell me that you believe the American people want this progressive take over. Do you really believe the reason the polls numbers for the Dems and Obama have dropped so significantly is because they are not bold enough to press forward with their progressive agenda? Look at the Tea Party movement. These are folks that want limited government, fiscal responsibility, and lower taxes. What the progressive are try sell is just the opposite and they’re doing in the face of all the recent voter outrage. I would call that pretty darn arrogant. Thanks for the comments.

  • Right Hand Man January 27, 2010 at 7:13 AM

    John,

    The left doesn't take the "teabaggers" as they constantly call them, seriously. They are in a constant denial of the legitimacy of the movement, which is why your argument will likely fall on deaf ears. This, of course, goes back to your arrogance argument.

  • Matt January 27, 2010 at 7:20 AM

    That is a hard hitting analysis.

    Anon may have part of the point though. The dems were for things that were beyond the legislation they proposed, or they were hidden little time-bombs, like the public option leading to single payer. They cut so many deals, made so many compromises, and hid so much crap, they ended up voting on bills that no one really liked, not even their own base.

    Your point, John, is also spot on. People have awakened, and at least publicly, the progressives are in denial.

  • Anonymous January 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM

    I don't think the Americans want a "progressive takeover". I think Americans want politicians that will fix the financial disaster (including the national debt) we have created in this country, everything else (health care, social issues, climate change, foreign policy, big government…) is secondary.

    Starting in 1980 with Carter and continuing with Reagan (most notably), Greenspan, and Clinton a massive deregulation of banks accelerated mortgages, credit, bank profits, bankers pocketbooks, and risk in the country. The influx of credit and false profits famously hit a monumental bust in 2008 but has since stabilized.

    The most important issue Obama faces is figuring out our financial mess, taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again, not allow the bankers to make unprecedented amount selling to people who don't have the money to buy; all while improving the job market. Tough task. He stupidly tried to parlay his election victory into health care reform and has lost some serious political capital. Can he get it back?

    The middle class has had wage stagnation for 30 years while the wealth in this country continues to grow (bankers). Throw in the accelerating costs and America desperately needs a transformative figure to right the ship.

    Just my 2 cents.

    One question, what do you mean by the "progressive agenda"?

  • Ron Russell January 27, 2010 at 6:13 PM

    I saw this earlier and I too must admit to being impressed by Charles. He certainly has a way with words and knows how to drive home a point. I think he is my favorite also.

  • John Carey January 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM

    Anonymous,

    I agree with you when you say that most Americans do not want a progressive take over. And that most feel that getting a handle on our national debt should be one of our top priorities. I don’t think the current administration got the memo on that one. But the way I see it is in order to get a handle on our national debt we need to be willing to face some tough truths. One truth is that our unfunded liabilities are absolutely unsustainable and we had better start looking at some different options other than social security, prescription drugs, and Medicare. In the long run we simply cannot afford these programs.

    I also know that the root cause of our current financial crisis can be traced back to the subprime mortgage mess. And the subprime mortgage mess can be traced back to the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter which was strengthened by Clinton. Banks were pressured by the government to make risky loans to low income families. Wall Street saw an opportunity to make money because the real estate market continued to increase in value. The housing bubble continued to grow larger as government pressure on banks to make these loans increased. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the main backers of these risky loans had absolutely no government oversight. The dominos began to fall when the housing bubble burst.

    The fact is this mess started with government intervention in the housing market, so why would we think more government can fix this disaster. Maybe if we allowed the free market to adjust, we wouldn't be in it as deep as we are today? Instead we turn to the folks that created this mess and ask them to make it all better and then point out the failures of capitalism. That’s just insane.

    Anyway you asked what the progressive agenda is; in one word, "Control."

    Thanks for the comments. You are always welcome to stop by and debate.

  • Anonymous January 28, 2010 at 11:11 AM

    John Carey,

    What you are failing to understand is that the banks are the crux to our economy and can not be left to purely free-market principles. That's why after the Great Depression the government enacted many regulatory functions for the banking industry (FDIC etc). The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 systematically stripped regulations off the banks and allowed them to charge whatever interest rate they wanted among others. That opened up a new market and vast opportunities for bankers to make money and they took advantage, leading to the S&L crisis of the 80's. You think we would have learned and returned some of these regulations so it wouldn't happen again, but we didn't.

    The Community Reinvestment Act didn't require banks to make sub-prime loans, contrary to many beliefs. The Act allowed the feds to make sure financial institutions met the needs of communities where they were charted in, and no empirical evidence has been presented to show this had any effect on the S&L or current crisis. In fact, many economist deemed the Act "irrelevant".

    Unless you want a boom and bust cycle with bankers making an obscene amount of money while leaving the average person worse off than they were before, I suggest you reevaluate your view of bank regulations.

    As for the debt, Jimmy Carter decreased the debt/gdp ratio by 3.2% and Clinton by 8.8%. Reagan increased it by 20.5%, H.W Bush by 13.1%, and W. by 18.1%.

    This mess started with government intervention in bank deregulation, NOT intervention in the housing market.

    Thanks for your opinions.

  • John Carey January 29, 2010 at 6:27 AM

    Anonymous,

    You and I can throw figures that we can both back at each other until we're blue in the faces. There are many differing opinions we can find that will support both our positions. But in the end it really doesn’t solve squat.

    The Founding Fathers were not all on the same page when they gathered in Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation, our first attempt at self-governance. Some believed that an all powerful government would lead to tyranny and the weak Articles of Confederation were already too strong. Others were at the opposite end of the spectrum and believed that an all power government was needed to keep the nation together. Both sides were entrenched in their position.

    I would consider myself a Patrick Henry type. You appear to me as a James Madison type, both were good men but on different ends of the spectrum. Patrick Henry was an ardent supporter of states sovereignty, while Madison was a supporter of a more powerful government to keep it all together. In the summer of 1787 these great men came together and crafted one of the most incredible documents this world has ever seen, our Constitution.

    You see these men disagreed with each other on almost everything and they put forward their arguments in a manner that was well thought out and persuasive. But in the end they placed the "cause" above their own political differences and came together.

    I think that is what we are missing today. Washington is so polarized and partisan these days that the people are forgetting about the "cause" or the "great experiment" we know as the United States of America. There is common ground to be found, but if one moves from their position it is seen more as a weakness than strength. I take a very polarizing position for the most part, but it doesn't mean I'm not willing to debate the real issues and do what is best for our Republic. The problem is we are not debating the real issues. And real issue is about the role of government and what relationship it should have with the states and people. Just as it was over 200 years ago. I say we have the debate and if it gets heated then so be it. But in the end it’s not about you or me, it's about the "cause." And if we want to solve the major issues that are eating this country up like a cancer, we have to be willing to have a discussion and work through our differences. We must take off our party goggles and see things as Americans and not Dems or Repubs.

    Thank you for your comments Anonymous.

  • ThirstyJon January 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM

    I finally heard Obama say something I agree with: "One-term President."

    Lets stand with the president on that and vote him out in 2012, and then never make such a horrific mistake again.