Posts Tagged ‘Charles Krauthammer’
Conservative columnist and FOX News commentator Charles Krauthammer has been critical of Trump’s potential candidacy for President, calling Trump a circus act, a clown, unserious, and “the Al Sharpton of the Republican Party.”
The thin skinned Trump struck back, calling Krauthammer a “sad fool.”
MORE CONTEXT: Krauthammer is a paraplegic.
QUESTION: Will Krauthammer now counterstrike with the classic “Your mother wears Army boots” comeback?
Here was the Krauthammer comment that got Trump so roiled
DAILY CALLER: It’s been just a few hours since President Barack Obama has finished his budget address at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. and there already been significant pushback from the right.
First, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan lashed out at Obama and shared his disappointment in a press conference earlier today. However, Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer took it to the next step on Wednesday’s broadcast of “Special Report” and criticized the speech as being focused on politics and not policy.
“I thought it was a disgrace,” he said. “I rarely heard a speech by a president so shallow, so hyper-partisan and so intellectually dishonest, outside the last couple of weeks of a presidential election where you are allowed to call your opponent anything short of a traitor. But, we’re a year-and-a-half away from Election Day and it was supposed to be a speech about policy. He didn’t even get to his own alternative until more than halfway through the speech. And when he did, he threw out numbers suspended in mid-air with nothing under them with all kinds of goals and guidelines and triggers that mean nothing. The speech was really about and entirely an attack on the [Rep. Paul] Ryan plan.”
EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK: It’s, it’s a flawed bill. I mean, it does good things. It does help people who were denied insurance, but it has a fundamental flaw in it, which is that it doesn’t deal with the underlying problems of the healthcare system, because they, Congress ducked on the big issue of…
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: But that’s not the constitutional issue.
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: But the question is, is it unconstitutional in ordering people, demanding that people buy health insurance? Is that unconstitutional?
MARK SHIELDS: I am not a lawyer and I’m not going to play one on television, but it, it’s, it isn’t asking people to buy a Ford automobile or to buy a Sony television, or demanding that they do it. It is saying you buy this, in fact that judge in Florida acknowledged that the bill and the law depends upon the mandate. Without the mandate, that the law does not work.
SHIELDS: But, what it is saying is you buy this because it’s in the public good. It’s going to prevent early illness, early death. It’s going to prevent widespread illness and suffering, and that’s the purpose of it.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, but that doesn’t answer the constitutional issue.
KRAUTHAMMER: Of course it’s in the public good, or it wouldn’t have been attempted in the first place. But the Constitution says there are some things in the public good that the Congress cannot do because we have the limited government and powers are restricted. And the question is, is this over the line? The view I have is that the Commerce Clause has been expanded for 80 years, and there’s now a sense in the country, interestingly over the last two years I think in part as a push back against Obama and the liberal agenda over the last two years, which says it isn’t only that the law is inefficient or that it’s going to bankrupt us, but there is something wrong about extending the power of the federal government to compel you to enter into a contract with a private entity, i.e. an insurance company, and to argue that if you allow this, then there are no limits whatsoever on what the Congress can actually order an individual to do.
PETERSON: Does that give you a hint to which way they’ll go?
TOTENBERG: No, but, here I’m just, I think this quote sort of summarizes it all. Charles Fried, who was solicitor general during the Reagan administration, said on television, “I sat at counsel table attacking the Violence Against Women Act as a violation of the Constitution, because as odious as it is to slap a woman around, I didn’t think it was, it involved the economy and regulation of the economy. But,” he said, “insurance, regulating insurance does involve the national economy and is exactly the kind of thing that the Commerce Clause contemplated.” That’s what he said anyway.
THOMAS: Here’s the thing…
KRAUTHAMMER: Here’s our one lawyer.
THOMAS: Here’s the thing.
KRAUTHAMMER: You are a lawyer.
THOMAS: Yeah, but here’s what I learned in law school: The Supreme Court follows the election returns. They’ll couch it in high, constitutional principle, but in fact, their judgment will be based on the realities of how the act is working or not working. And as I think enough justices perceive that it’s not going to work, that will incline them to reach this high constitutional principle and throw it out.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I agree.
PETERSON: What I learned in law school: the Supreme Court follows the election returns, Mark.
SHIELDS: He didn’t have to go to law school. All he needed to do was read Finley Peter Dunne who said that in 1896, and that is the truth. I’d say it really is going to come down to one individual in this country of 310 million, and it’s justice Anthony Kennedy. I think we probably know…
KRAUTHAMMER: He is our Mubarak.
SHIELDS: He is. He’s the one who’s going to decide…
KRAUTHAMMER: He decides, he decides everything.
SHIELDS: Four- four, Tony Kennedy, thank you, Ronald Reagan.
THOMAS: And he does follow the election returns.
JFK gave us the moon landing. Obama hopes to give us solar shingles. Is there a better illustration of American decline?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The November election sent a clear message to Washington: less government, less debt, less spending. President Obama certainly heard it, but judging from his State of the Union address, he doesn’t believe a word of it. The people say they want cuts? Sure they do – in the abstract. But any party that actually dares carry them out will be punished severely. On that, Obama stakes his reelection.
No other conclusion can be drawn from a speech that didn’t even address the debt issue until 35 minutes in. And then what did he offer? A freeze on domestic discretionary spending that he himself admitted would affect a mere one-eighth of the budget.
Obama seemed impressed, however, that it would produce $400 billion in savings over 10 years. That’s an average of $40 billion a year. The deficit for last year alone was more than 30 times as much. And total federal spending was more than 85 times that amount. A $40 billion annual savings for a government that just racked up $3 trillion in new debt over the past two years is deeply unserious. It’s spillage, a rounding error.