I did not know him, exactly, but I knew a bit of him (which is why I’m posting this). Charles Krauthammer was an excellent advocate, a good dude generally, and had a will of solid titanium. I mean, seriously, it was like he exhaled determination. We are, all of us, much worse for his passing.
My condolences and prayers for his family and loved ones.
We are pretty much at the “marvelous cynicism” part of the Obama era arc at this point: the punditocracy has stopped taking the President seriously and has started to visibly not care if he likes the way that they talk about him. I mention this, not because Charles Krauthammer has ever been shy about knocking a Democrat, but because he is increasingly losing his status as a voice in the wilderness in that regard. Expect more people to be this casually dismissive in the future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsHieql1Lz4
Continue reading Charles Krauthammer discusses the defenestration of Kathleen Sebelius.
(Via Instaundit) It’s a good article, but I’m linking to it primarily for the ending. To set the scene: Charles Krauthammer was noting that a lot of the Left gets seriously, genuinely confused when confronted with the idea that maybe, just maybe, there are limits to governmental power, and that encroachments on them can be pushed back. After noting the most infamous example (Rep. Nancy Pelosi), Charles goes on:
As was Representative Phil Hare (D., Ill.) As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don’t worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for reelection by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop.
:murmuring: You’re welcome, Charles. Always happy to help.
I thought that I knew how to be sophisticated in my political cruelty.
Interview with Charles Krauthammer
‘Obama Is Average’
Compared to Charles Krauthammer, I am a mere babe in the woods.
Via Hot Air Headlines; I also happen to agree with Smitty of The Other McCain that lacking an obvious leader on the Right is a feature, not a bug. If only because said lack is infuriating the people who’d quite like to have a consensus target to demonize.
[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers.
Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, in the process of telling the Democrats that they need to damn the torpedoes and go full speed ahead, drops this gem:
Charles Kraut-hammer doesn’t represent any swing voters.
Not having the print edition of Newsweek handy – like pretty much the rest of America – I don’t know if this is reproduced there. But I’m curious: is the ethnic sneer there Alter’s, or his editor’s? I suspect it’s the latter, actually, but you never know.
Moe Lane
PS: What? No, actually, the Democrats should totally listen to Alter. Really. Please.
Crossposted to RedState.
Somber opinions on the space program from Charles Krauthammer:
WASHINGTON — Michael Crichton once wrote that if you had told a physicist in 1899 that within a hundred years humankind would, among other wonders (nukes, commercial airlines), “travel to the moon, and then lose interest … the physicist would almost certainly pronounce you mad.” In 2000, I quoted these lines expressing Crichton’s incredulity at America’s abandonment of the moon. It is now 2009 and the moon recedes ever further.
Next week marks the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing. We say we will return in 2020. But that promise was made by a previous president, and this president has defined himself as the anti-matter to George Bush. Moreover, for all Obama’s Kennedyesque qualities, he has expressed none of Kennedy’s enthusiasm for human space exploration.
[UPDATE] Welcome, Instapundit readers. Not to be crass, but I’m doing a pledge drive. On the bright side, that link leads to the Riddler singing, so at least you’ll get your recommended daily dose of surrealism out of it.
Charles Krauthammer, a man who is apparently constitutionally incapable of suffering fools at all (and never mind ‘gladly’), waxed wroth on the implication that the President’s response to the ongoing Iranian crisis was in any way similar to Pope John Paul II’s response to the Solidarity strikers:
The president is also speaking in code. The Pope spoke in a code which was implicit and understood support for the forces of freedom.
The code the administration is using is implicit to support for this repressive, tyrannical regime.
We watched Gibbs say that what’s going on is vigorous debate. The shooting of eight demonstrators is not debate. The knocking of heads, bloodying of demonstrators by the Revolutionary Guards is not debate. The arbitrary arrest of journalists, political opposition, and students is not debate.
And to call it a debate and to use this neutral and denatured language is disgraceful.
