CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER.

Must he lie so often?

Who gives Charles Krauthammer the audacity to speak like that? He sounds as if he is speaking on Heaven's authority (as if he believes in Heaven), and yet, what comes out is just downright hogwash.

Whatever he thinks he is, we know that he is just an opinion writer for the Washington Post, and that he is a syndicated columnist; but he tends to assume airs of importance, which do not fit his position or personality.

Not everyone voted for President Barack Obama in the last 2008 election, or supported him in anyway; however, he has been given the right by the United States Constitution to lead the country and conduct its affairs as president.

For that reason alone, he must be offered the respect his office demanded; and therefore, one could not just open one's mouth and spout stupid remarks at him.

Charles Krauthammer does not realize the fact that everybody knows that he is doing what he does for money. That he is being paid by somebody to say or write any type of foolishness about his topics, and that he is a hired hand and under the control of those, who have hired him to do their bid. He can influence some of us some of the time; some of us all the time, but not all of us all the time.

However, as much as he will lambaste another person, he must not lie about him or her.

The case in point is the president's speech after the Standard and Poor's downgrade of America's credit rating. He, Obama, did not mention the Tea Party even once, when he was commenting on the reasons that have led the company to do what it did. He was not assigning blame to any entity, except to name a few incidents that have contributed to the present economic state of the country.

In every sense, he was not "passing the buck", and expecting people to believe that natural causes and other uncontrollable events had made the economy to become dysfunctional.

He, Krauthammer, said that was the president's aim; and that Obama was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. What?

He made that allegation among others on several televisions programs; on Fox News Special Report and in Bill O'Reilly's segment on Fox TV.

He has joined people like Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Donald Trump to vilify the president; and said that, "The president's performance on the economy is central to his re-election,".

Those people just wanted to savage him out of hatred; and for racial discrimination, which they have made as collateral in the ongoing political campaign for the 2012 general election.

They were doing so, or they have been hired to accomplish the obnoxious desires of those who want Obama to fail, by lying through their teeth; and maligning him before the American people.

They even called him a "weak" leader; and that the Democratic Party was looking for an alternate candidate to challenge him. That was complete balderdash, and they knew it.

Of course, Obama must do all he can to win his re-election, not because he just wants to be president, but that he has the ability to make America great once again, in spite of his race.

Again, not all of us voted for him in the last presidential election, and not everyone would want him to win a second term; but people, such as Krauthammer, must try and be fair in their political commentary, when their core reference was directed toward the office of the Presidency of the United States; and also toward a particular person, who happened to occupy that office. They should do so out of common decency.

Comments 1 comment

American View profile image

American View 5 years ago from Plano, Texas

Charles Krauthammer, MD is an American Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist, political commentator, and physician. His weekly column appears in The Washington Post and is syndicated to more than 200 newspapers and media outlets. He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. He is also a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington and a nightly panelist on Fox News's Special Report with Bret Baier. Seems to me if his columns were garbage or concocted, he would not be in such demand.

Now being someone who has followed him for years, long before he was on TV, he has shown a strong understanding of the topics he writes about or comments on. Now like all media he has changed. He too will on occasion give his personal opinion, but not often.

Now I find your hub interesting as it is a general consensus that his political ideals are for the left. Here are 2 comments by colleagues on him:

Hendrik Hertzberg, a former colleague of Krauthammer's at The New Republic during the 1980s, said that when the two first met in 1978, Krauthammer was "70 per cent Mondale liberal, 30 per cent 'Scoop Jackson Democrat.

Meg Greenfield, editorial page editor for The Washington Post who edited Krauthammer's columns for 15 years, called his weekly column "independent and hard to peg politically. It's a very tough column. There's no 'trendy' in it. You never know what is going to happen next."

Now you are correct, not everyone voted for Obama, But Charles did. He supported Obama strongly after he was elected. IF you look at past articles He pounded on John McCain for many reasons, but really rode him for that time he left the campaign trail to” solve the economy problems”. We can see how well that worked. But as time went on, Charles was disappointed and has said so on Fox. He still is objective when it comes to Obama. He does speak well of him on certain issues. Even with the economy, he does get on Obama for the mistakes he made, but does stick up for Obama on some parts of the budget he was not responsible for. Charles has said much worse about Bush on many subjects. And when ne did, he was correct. I never heard from the left then. But Charles has become more critical of Obamas’ policies or lack thereof. Charles has been very accurate with his reporting and now the left does not like it, but they say nothing as Charles is critical of the Republican Presidential candidates. So you may not like some of what Charles says or writes, but be honest and say he does it to everyone political, no matter what side they are on.

SO what was said in the press conference:

In fact, Warren Buffett, who knows a thing or two about good investments, said, "If there were a quadruple-A rating, I'd give the United States that." I, and most of the world's investors, agree.

Well, in fact, that was taken out of context. Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, a conglomerate holding company based in Omaha, said, "In Omaha, the U.S. is still triple A. In fact, if there were a quadruple-A rating, I'd give the U.S. that." In Omaha, not in the total US. In fact Investor Warren Buffett said Monday he still believes “U.S. credit rating ... of our government has not been AAA, but our debt is AAA," Buffett said to CNBC.

“It's a lack of political will in Washington. It's the insistence on drawing lines in the sand, a refusal to put what's best for the country ahead of self-interest or party or ideology. And that's what we need to change.” Lines in the sand, self interest, party, ideology, gee wonder who he is talking about. It is painfully obvious since he has created the new talking points.

“These are all ideas that traditionally Republicans have agreed to, have agreed to countless times in the past. There's no reason we shouldn't act on them now. None.” Sounds like a scolding to Republicans for not being for a new stimulus program.

Sounds like Charles had it right, but you do not agree. That is your right, after all we all agree and disagree on a lot of issues.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working