Krauthammer seems to be yet another either a victom of or purveyor of fear

The other day a neighbor and former column reader forward me an email they'd received and asked me what I thought about it. What follows is that forwarded email, followed by my reply.

Dr. Krauthammer is on Fox News. He is an M.D. and a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.

Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free.

Summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty by a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA toGreat Britain or Canada

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid!

5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.

Do yourself a long term favor, send this to all who will listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC, and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!! Start with educating your friends and neighbors!!!

What I hope to do is share my perspective on a few things. Hopefully you will feel like I’m filling-out your own knowledge, even if you still disagree with me on anything I write here.

First a little bit of background.

Krauthammer may be a Pulitzer prize winning, widely syndicated columnist, however his two main venues are FOX NEWS and the Weekly Standard- both of which are extremely conservative and not exactly balance. Just as many are suspicious of a so-called “liberal media,” one should probably also be leery of any “conservative media” too. Do they really mean to inform, or to persuade?

For the most part, Krauthammer is a neoconservative (meaning he agreed with much of George W. Bush's foreign policy, expansion of American ideology by military means). However, on domestic issues, Krauthammer is a supporter of legalized abortion; an opponent of the death penalty. He describes himself as "not religious," and is a critic of intelligent design, and creationism. So I'm not sure he's your kind of conservative.

Now, what I think about the email.

Considering some of what we know about Krauthammer, one has to wonder if this is really a very accurate summary of his views or if whoever put this together is just using him to try to lend their opinions more credibility. Just a suspicion, but it could be exactly the way he thinks.

My personal reaction to the summarized points 1-3 are that either he, or whoever is reporting this is paranoid and frustrated that the neocons lost power. Obama is a young, charismatic speaker, but I think that it is the ideals in his speeches that are inspiring, and that he actually believes what he says. Krauthammer seems to believe that he is a sinister megalomaniac bent on world domination. At best this is fear, at worst it is propaganda.

Point 4 is false and misleading. Progressives would like the government to initiate programs that would lead to a "green economy" which would 1. create jobs, 2. improve the environment and 3. free us from our dependence on foreign oil (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, & Russia). That's not the same as total control. I've actually been disappointed that Obama is so far continuing much of the education policies of W. which have created a lot of problems for schools with unfounded regulations and unfunded mandates. And we could obviously go rounds forever about health care reform but essentially Obama is weak on this as far as REAL Liberals are concerned, making too many concessions.

In a nut shell, the public option would've just been an independent (govt. contracted and initiated, but not controlled) non-profit insurance company meant to promote competition among the big insurance corporations. Krauthammer says that adding 46M people would make costs skyrocket, but the way that insurance already works is that the more people contributing to the pool, the lower the average costs for everybody. That's why Denison schools have lower premiums than Charter Oak-Ute, bigger pool, lower costs- not higher. Again, at best FOX and/or Krauthammer are scared, at worst, they're lying in order to scare viewers. Either way, Obama is not George Orwell's 'Big Brother,' he does not want to control everything.

On point 5- so far he's been governing from the corporate middle, just like Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Committee, the pro-business wing of the party. The thing is, since 92 or so we have become more and more polarized not so much by actual policy and/or ideology but by team or camp or tribe. People hate the opposition not because they think differently but just because they're not on the same side. I know nothing about Oklahoma except that I'm a Nebraska fan.

6.What they wrote here is nonsense and probably is meant to evoke anxieties about a one-world government or the antichrist smears some fringe people were emailing around during the campaign. The ironic thing is that neoconservatives like Krauthammer are part of something called the project for a new American Century, which envisioned the U.S. as the leader of the world. The difference is that Bush hoped to do it with momentum created by our victory in Iraq whereas Obama probably received the Nobel Peace Prize today because he appeals to the same kind of values of peaceful cooperation and diplomatic negotiations which Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall did in the aftermath of WWII.

If with #7 they're talking about TARP and the bailouts, those were started under Bush and probably prevented a much deeper collapse than we had. No one runs for President without a huge ego, but I've observed President Obama being much more humble, self-effacing and understated than almost any of his predecessors except maybe President Carter.

8. Just as someone who watches politics like other people watch sports, I'd say that it would be unwise to count the GOP out, but that Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl have more of a future than Romney, Gingrich or Palin. She may be sincere, but not intelligent. Gingrich may be a genius, but I think too many people mistrust him as too many people find Romney two-dimensional. I also think that it may be that what the GOP needs is more than just a repackaging or a re-branding. People still share and seek many conservative values, family, country, suspicion of bureaucracy- but I suspect (could be wrong) that more and more people are skeptical of if not fed up with Reaganomics and are ready for something new.

Using "Redistribution of wealth" as an accusation used to work to make people frightened of communism, but with the Goldman Sacs and Lehman Brothers and AIGs out there, I think that maybe voters realize that Reaganomics has redistributed wealth to the people who already had too much of it. The progressive tax structure we had from FDR through Ford really promoted a more sustainable economy and allowed the middle class to grow and flourish. That may or may not be "socialism," but Republican Teddy Roosevelt might call it fair, like his "Square Deal," which the Democrat's Fair Deal was modeled after. And government intervention and regulation of some of those big banks and huge corporations is needed to SAVE capitalism, not destroy it or replace it.

They may be right about how a Republican couldn't win in 2008 and how 2012 will be closer than people think, however Obama had over 50% of the youth vote (18-25 yr old first time voters) in 2008 and that's kind of like being the brand of your first car, first beer, first cigarette, first gum or cola. People tend to build a brand loyalty. Just as Reagan's election in 1980 meant that the pendulum had finally swung back to the right, it might just be that the Republican party will be fighting an uphill battle for the next 12-20 years. Only time will tell. With a 24-hour news cycle thanks to cable/satellite/internet and such short attention spans-anything is possible.

I hope since you know me and know that I love the Lord and the Bible and my family and community- and believe it or not, I also love our country and cherish our history, because you know this about me, I hope that even if you never agree with another “Liberal” on anything or oppose President Obama on most every one of his policies or proposals, I hope that you will at least remember that most Democrats, moderates, progressives, and liberals are not out to destroy America. They genuinely want what they think is best for our country, just as much as you do. And probably, that goes for President Obama too- he’s not an evil maniacal genius bent on world domination, he may even be the servant that God intended to lead us through these times. I’m not saying you have to believe that- but I guess I think that he’s a decent man with good intentions who has one hell of a huge job and needs our prayers- even when he makes us mad.

Sorry this turned into a 3 page epic. I guess I miss writing (especially run-on sentences).

Stay warm this week!

Crass comment cuts off debate

In case you didn't hear, last week Rev. Jesse Jackson was waiting to be interviewed on FOX and whispered his frustrations with Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama, including a pretty graphic and gruesome description of how he'd like to neuter the Illinois Senator.

It really is unfortunate that the focus from the left will be that Fox is practicing shabby journalism and that the focus from the right will be that Jackson must be a hypocrite for using such vulgar language while complaining that a Black political leader would encourage personal morality and responsibility in the Black community.

It's sad because one of the important differences between Republicans and Democrats is the emphasis of the right on individual morality (sexual orientation, drug use, abortion) and the emphasis of the left on collective/societal morality (justice, poverty, war, corporate and government responsibility, environmental stewardship).

Both are legitimate and both are important, but both sides seem to argue past each other, discount each other's concerns and even accuse each other of being somehow amoral or even immoral when in fact both camps are have deeply held "values."

As someone who majored in History at a Lutheran university, as someone who's faith and country are both very important to him, I think that these is things which we need to be able to discuss openly and civilly.

Recently a prominent Black pastor commented on this balance (or imbalance):

"My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility,"

This pastor's concern is that lecturing people that they need to be better parents or get a job or stay away from drugs or stop listening to Gansta Rap isn't needed as much as addressing the problems of institutional racism, housing and job discrimination and the failures of education and government to provide equal opportunity to minorities. You may not agree with him, but in essence, he's saying, "stop picking at the specks in other people's eyes and worry about the log in our collective national eye (Matthew 7:1-6)."

One side wants to prevent abortions, the other wants to help parents be able to afford to keep and care for the babies they have. One side wants to incarcerate young men who commit crime or sell or use drugs, while the other wants to provide a better education and a better chance for those young men to get a decent job and feel valued by and involved in something other than a gang.

One side is reactive, the other side would like to be proactive. One side wants to prohibit sin, the other wants to actively do good. Both have their own idea of how to make "Thy kingdom come."

It's a never ending debate. Way back in the 16 and 1700's political philosopher John Locke believed that all men were created equal and capable of self government while Thomas Hobbes believed that we're all selfish and in conflict and need to be governed forcibly. Both sides are partly right but both sides are missing half the picture.

Whichever side you agree with, it's about time that we recognize that the James Dobsons and John Haggees do not represent ALL Christian thinking. Not all liberals and progressives are atheists bent on debasing all our traditions. I'll betchya anything that when you die and go to Heaven, youíll be surprised by how many different political viewpoints are represented by the other people there.

Both Republican Mike Hukabee and Democrat Obama have shown that Christians are concerned about more issues than white, Fundamentalist Southern Baptist extremists may like to admit. Of course we also have to be careful to not assume that the likes of Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright represent all Black people let alone all Black Christians.

Like it or not, if Jesus were here today, he'd probably be cavorting with freaks and sinners (Mark 2:14-17). Granted that's not to say that He'd condone any of their sin, but I for one think that His grace, love and forgiveness are messier than Jerry Fawell's Moral Majority would approved of.

The new, younger faith talk focuses on helping the community (Matthew 25:39-46), whereas the traditional "family values" talk of the last 30 years or so has been much more focused on how America is going to Hell in a hand-basket (Romans 1:18-32).

It's too bad that we can't "come reason together (Isaiah 1:18)" and find out how we can work together instead of accusing each other of being bad, wrong, evil, or a tool of the Devil all the time. I know, I know, who am I to talk when I draw cartoons like last week's that throw Dr. Dobson's words about Obama back at him? But that's what cartoonists do.

That pastor who made the statement about wanting Obama to deal with "collective moral responsibility?" ... Jesse Jackson.

If only he had had the manhood to say it that way BEFORE Fox caught him saying it in such a base, offensive manor, maybe then he could've castrated the arguments of his opponents instead of emasculating his own credibility.

Conservative commentator Rod Dreher chastises FOX in Dallas Morning News

I don't know that I've ever typed these words, but here they are: I feel sorry for Jesse Jackson. Some words he uttered disparaging of Barack Obama, words that were clearly intended to be private, were picked up by a Fox News microphone on a Fox set...Fox is playing dirty here...why would anybody left of center appear on Fox, knowing that the network has no scruples about playing off-air conversations to embarrass them?

Read More

Ted's take-

It really is unfortunate that the focus from the left will be that Fox is practicing shabby journalism and that the focus from the right will be that Jackson must be a hypocrite for using such vulgar language while that a Black political leader would encourage personal morality and responsibility in the Black community. It's sad because one of the important differences between Republicans and Democrats is the between individual morality (sexual orientation, drug use, abortion) and collective/societal morality (justice, poverty, war, corporate and government responsibility, environmental stewardship).

Both are legitimate and both are important, both sides seem to argue past each other, discount each other's concerns and even accuse each other of being somehow amoral or even immoral when in fact both camps are have deeply held "values."

Recently a prominent Black pastor commented on this balance (or imbalance):

"My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility,"

This pastor's concern is that lecturing people that they need to be better parents or get a job or stay away from drugs or stop listening to Gansta Rap isn't as needed as addressing institutional racism, housing and job discrimination and the failures of education and government to provide equal opportunity to all groups. You may not agree with him, but in essence, he's saying, "stop picking at the specks in other people's eyes and worry about the log in our collective national eye (Matt 7:1-6).

One side want to prevent abortions, the other wants to help parents be able to afford to keep and care for the babies they have. One side wants to incarcerate young men who commit crime or sell or use drugs, the other wants to provide a better education and a better chance for those young men to get a decent job and feel valued by an involved in something other than a gang in the first place.

It's a never ending debate, because in the 16 and 1700's John Locke believed that all men were created equal and capable of self government and Thomas Hobbes believed that they're all selfish and in conflict and need to be governed forcibly. Both sides are partly right and both sides are missing half the picture.

That pastor who made the statement about wanting Obama to deal with "collective moral responsibility?" ... Jessee Jackson. If only he had had the balls to say it that way BEFORE Fox caught him saying it in such a base, offensive manor, he could've castrated the bullies on the right instead of emasculating his own credibility.

Fair, Balanced, Circus Freaks

This month, politics seems to be less real and more surreal then ever before. It’s a dirty business, politics. Lately it’s been raw, violent and faster paced than ever before.

On the Democrat’s side we have the arrival of Candidate retired General Wesley Clark. Former Democratic front-runner Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry are eating Clark’s dust. The party buzz is that New York Senator Hillary and former President William Jefferson Clinton brought Clark into the race because they thought Dean didn’t have what it takes to beat George W. Bush.

The Republican side is a wild ride too. Way back last summer already arch conservative columnist George Will said that if there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) found in Iraq, then Bush’s decision to go to war is seriously suspect. Lately Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Powell have both been grilled about this on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Seeing as the President just asked Congress for more than eighty BILLION dollars just for Iraqi reconstruction and at least one American is being killed there every day, more since Bush declared the war over than during the course of the war itself- it might be time to think about the hole we’ve dug ourselves into. If there were no WMD, was the war for oil? No question the world’s a better place without Saddam Hussein, but there never was a 9-11 connection. There are probably more Alqueda terrorists in Iraq now than while Hussein was in power. Hussein and Bin Ladden hated each other.

Is it traitorous or treasonous to talk this way? There are people who will say that criticizing the President’s decision to invade Iraq “gives comfort to the enemy.” But isn’t it patriotic to want to save the lives and reunite the families of American service men and women by bringing them home?

Remember the 1980’s patriotic rock anthem “Born in the U.S.A.?” Singer/Song writer Bruce “the Boss” Springsteen recently weighed in on Iraq:

"The question of whether we were misled into the war in Iraq isn't a liberal or conservative or Republican or Democratic question, it's an American one. Protecting the democracy that we ask our sons and daughters to die for is our responsibility and our trust. Demanding accountability from our leaders is our job as citizens. It's the American way. So may the truth win out."

The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” I believe that this is what American soldiers should die for, not for political polling points or for cheap gasoline.

So now, it looks like someone in the White House leaked the identity of a CIA operative as revenge for their spouse’s opposition to the war. Holy Guacamole! If it’s not true, then everything that Bill O’Rielly and Rush Limbaugh say about the “liberal media” is right, but if it IS true (and it sounds like it may be), then Holy Guacamole! That’s what I call traitorous and treasonous! That makes the Monica Lewinski scandal look like middle school!

Do you see now why I consider myself a post-partisan centrist? When you’re honest about it, are either parties REALLY any cleaner than the other?

Just when it couldn’t get any weirder…As of yesterday my old home of California got a new governor. At the time I wrote this it looked like it was going to be “the Terminator.”

I thought it was weird that New Age Priestess and former arch conservative, turned “independent” political commentator Ariara Huffington debated Arnold Schwartzenagger (or however you spell that). Let’s face it, we needed sub-titles.

Then she dropped out of the race to defeat the Action Hero and support embattled Democratic Governor Grey Davis in his recall battle.

Then we heard that Arnold sexually harassed half a dozen women. No huge surprise, but conveniently brought to light just before the election (bad liberal press, bad press, no biscuit!).

Then we heard that he said that he admired Adolf Hitler in his first muscle movie back in the 1970s. Again, very good reason NOT to vote for him, but again, very conveniently brought to our attention just before the election.

Sigh.

Then came Rush Hour. My friends used to tell me they just listen to him because he’s funny, and sometimes they think he’s right. I used to warn them that he’ll suck them in, just like pro wresting. You say you’re just gonna watch because it’s so fake and so stupid, you want to make fun of it. Then you get caught up in the excitement. Then you get caught up in the soap-opera aspect. The next thing you know, you’re running for governor of Minnesota!

I don’t know why he’s so popular. It’s partisan propaganda infotainment that feeds off our fears and frustrations. I was relieved when his TV show faded and he was isolated to am radio. Then ESPN asked him to become a color commentator for NFL football. Because he knew so little about football.

Then he resigned because he said he thought that the “liberal media” supported Philadelphia Eagle’s QB Donovan McNabb just because he’s black. Forget about his records, his awards, or the fact that there’s like 18 other starting quarterbacks in the NFL today!

And THEN, it comes to light that Rush has been abusing prescription drugs, even involved in some kind of illegal drug trafficking ring for years! I wondered how he lost all that weight!

Of course the king of preaching personal responsibility to the rest of us is not a racist addict, it’s all the “liberal media’s” fault. Watch, he’ll find a way to blame the Clintons or some “feminazi.”
I sincerely hope he gets the help he needs. I hear the founder of the Betty Ford clinic was a Republican. I don’t think it’s fair that the media latches on to people’s personal lives, their mistakes or their hypocrisies. But I don’t think it’s because their anymore liberal than FOX and Bill O’Rielly are “fair and balanced.”

I think it’s because we the readers love a good fight and when sharks smell blood they start to circle, regardless of political persuasion.

I’ll admit, that while I honestly don’t want to gloat or say “I told you so,” I have got this overwhelming urge to say, “what goes around, comes around.”