• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Charles Krauthammer is voting for McCain

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Washington Post

Certainly, he hasn't been one that has been known to kiss up to McCain at all during this election. However, now, he's brought forth some great points to serve as his basis for deciding to vote for McCain.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,079
15,292
136
I'm somewhat surprised, I would have thought McCain too liberal and reasonable for Krauthammer.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
For the lazy :

Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
I started bolding the parts that stood out until I realized I almost completely agree with this entire article.

I'd say, even if McCain loses, this is a winning year as the republican party was able to purge itsself of those who only do what is politically advantageous at the time (referring to those the left touts as "abandoning the sinking ship". Dems, you can have them. We don't want them.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
Krauthammer, i think he's an injured vet political activist.. usually right leaning. on fox often. I like the guy.. I dont always agree, but he seems honest.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,501
23,422
136
Originally posted by: T2T III
Washington Post

Certainly, he hasn't been one that has been known to kiss up to McCain at all during this election. However, now, he's brought forth some great points to serve as his basis for deciding to vote for McCain.
Wait, what?

List of recent Krauthammer articles.

After looking through those, was there even the slightest doubt in your mind who he would endorse? Really?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Who?
some neo-con.

at the very least, he's more news-worthy than some guy who ran for president's granddaughter's college roommate's cousin.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,664
21
81
and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
I chuckled at that one.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
dee dee dee dee ... dee dee .... dee dee dee dee ... dee dee ... dee .... dee
(the old newsroom teletype noise)

BREAKING NEWS!

This just in (dee dee dee dee ... dee dee .... dee dee dee dee ...)

Water's wet.

(dee dee dee dee ... dee dee .... dee dee dee dee ... )
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: T2T III
Washington Post

Certainly, he hasn't been one that has been known to kiss up to McCain at all during this election. However, now, he's brought forth some great points to serve as his basis for deciding to vote for McCain.
Wait, what?

List of recent Krauthammer articles.

After looking through those, was there even the slightest doubt in your mind who he would endorse? Really?
Articles aside, when you see him on TV, he doesn't take the "hard right" stance. Even his input following the debates left it a bit hard to see who exactly he was rooting for.
 

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
0
0
What great points? Overall it's well written, but 90% is rhetoric and maybe 10% actually telling us why he's voting McCain. He offered no compelling argument as to why McCain is the better, other than to regurgitate the same statements against Obama that we've all heard ad nauseum.

Many of the points seem to also be misinformed. His dismissal of Obama's position on Georgia in favor of McCain seems to assume again that Russia was the aggressor. Perhaps I misread that or haven't been updated on the latest facts.

So, I'm underwhelmed. I was hoping for something compelling; instead, we got more empty rally speech.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
The REAL BREAKING NEWS:

A REPUBLICAN HAS NOT SWITCHED THEIR SUPPORT TO OBAMA.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
He's always been a conservative. Nothing surprising to me here. He's an interesting fellow, and usually wrong. He's wrong this time as well. He'd be better off not voting if he's worried about losing his 'bearings', shot as they are. McCain wouldn't know a bearing if his campaign staff put his wobbly mess of a campaign ON one. Talk about lost bearings....

-Robert
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,501
23,422
136
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: T2T III
Washington Post

Certainly, he hasn't been one that has been known to kiss up to McCain at all during this election. However, now, he's brought forth some great points to serve as his basis for deciding to vote for McCain.
Wait, what?

List of recent Krauthammer articles.

After looking through those, was there even the slightest doubt in your mind who he would endorse? Really?
Articles aside, when you see him on TV, he doesn't take the "hard right" stance. Even his input following the debates left it a bit hard to see who exactly he was rooting for.
Charles Krauthammer is one of the premier conservative opinion writers in America. While I would agree that an amusingly large percentage of the conservative intelligensia has jumped ship to Obama this year, having a conservative writer endorse the conservative candidate isn't exactly shocking to me.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: techs
A REPUBLICAN HAS NOT SWITCHED THEIR SUPPORT TO OBAMA.
more or less what I was thinking

....and I didn't see a shout out to Palin in his endorsement nor a nod to McCain for his good judgment on that matter. Shocking, that.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
This guy is a staunch Republican. And all during this campaign while on the panel with Brit Hume he gave no other impression other than the fact he was in McCain's corner. This is not even news.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
22,810
4,200
136
Sour grapes over Obama seriously out campaigning Mac, and a bunch of fear mongering about how we will all perish, just like Hillary said, if it isn't Mac answering the phone at 3 a.m. He does have an advantage there, as he will already be up to urinate for the 4th time that night.

 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Originally posted by: Corbett

I'd say, even if McCain loses, this is a winning year as the republican party was able to purge itsself of those who only do what is politically advantageous at the time (referring to those the left touts as "abandoning the sinking ship". Dems, you can have them. We don't want them.
Maybe they abandoned the ship, or maybe the ship abandoned them.

If McCain wants to preach about being a 'steady hand at the tiller' he might start by laying out a course for his own party. Instead he spends almost all of his time throwing out labels and attacks against the other guy. He's not giving the party a course, he's just trying to convince people that Obama is going to take them over a waterfall.

And make no mistake, the Republican Party needs direction. Unless they can discover how to get people's trust on economic issues again, most of their support is just going to come from the Christian Right.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
I've always thought this guy has had terrible positions, and this is consistent with that history. We have way too many terrible pundits and not enough progressive ones.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,893
1,229
126
The only place I see Charles Krauthammer is on Fox News and his columns on the right hand side of Investors Business Daily (a paper politically about as far right as you can get, which literally reserves the right hand side of the page for their most right hand columns).

This is about as unexpected as Ted Kennedy voting for Obama.

The news I got the most kick out of recently is that Barry Goldwater's grandkids (in their 30s & 40s) announced they are voting en masse for Obama. Particularly damaging since Goldwater was McCain's idol and the main reason he started his political career in Arizona.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Corbett
For the lazy :

Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
I started bolding the parts that stood out until I realized I almost completely agree with this entire article.

I'd say, even if McCain loses, this is a winning year as the republican party was able to purge itsself of those who only do what is politically advantageous at the time (referring to those the left touts as "abandoning the sinking ship". Dems, you can have them. We don't want them.
A loser backing a loser?

Now thats news!

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: Balt
Originally posted by: Corbett

I'd say, even if McCain loses, this is a winning year as the republican party was able to purge itsself of those who only do what is politically advantageous at the time (referring to those the left touts as "abandoning the sinking ship". Dems, you can have them. We don't want them.
Maybe they abandoned the ship, or maybe the ship abandoned them.

If McCain wants to preach about being a 'steady hand at the tiller' he might start by laying out a course for his own party. Instead he spends almost all of his time throwing out labels and attacks against the other guy. He's not giving the party a course, he's just trying to convince people that Obama is going to take them over a waterfall.

And make no mistake, the Republican Party needs direction. Unless they can discover how to get people's trust on economic issues again, most of their support is just going to come from the Christian Right.
I think the ship abandoned them - they abandoned me anyway. IMO the (R) party is too focused on trying to impose their religious morals on everyone. What happened to being fiscally responsible small government that keeps their nose out of peoples business?

To the OP: This isn't news. Next you're going to tell me Rush endorses McCain.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY