CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER - A legend in his own mind.

[Fasglas]

Apparently, Charlie thinks people find his opinions useful. I don't agree, never have...

Charles Krauthammer: My Vote, Explained | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD


Charles Krauthammer: My Vote, Explained

10/21/2016

The case against Hillary Clinton could have been written before the recent WikiLeaks and FBI disclosures. But these documents do provide hard textual backup.

The most sensational disclosure was the proposed deal between the State Department and the FBI in which the FBI would declassify a Hillary Clinton email and State would give the FBI more slots in overseas stations.

What made it sensational was the rare appearance in an official account of the phrase "quid pro quo," which is the currently agreed-upon dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable corruption.

This is nonetheless an odd choice for most egregious offense. First, it occurred several layers removed from the campaign and from Clinton. It involved a career State Department official (he occupied the same position under Condoleezza Rice) covering not just for Clinton but for his own department.

Second, it's not clear which side originally offered the bargain.

Third, nothing tangible was supposed to exchange hands. There was no proposed personal enrichment -- a Rolex in return for your soul -- which tends to be our standard for punishable misconduct.

And finally, it never actually happened. The FBI turned down the declassification request.

In sum, a warm gun but nonsmoking. Indeed, if the phrase "quid pro quo" hadn't appeared, it would have received little attention. Moreover, it obscures the real scandal -- the bottomless cynicism of the campaign and of the candidate.

Among dozens of examples, the Qatari gambit. Qatar, one of the worst actors in the Middle East (having financially supported the Islamic State, for example), offered $1 million as a "birthday" gift to Bill Clinton in return for five minutes of his time. Who offers -- who takes -- $200,000 a minute? We don't know the "quid" here, but it's got to be big.

In the final debate, Clinton ran and hid when asked about pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation. And for good reason. The emails reveal how foundation donors were first in line for favors and contracts.

A governance review by an outside law firm reported that some donors "may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts." You need an outside law firm to tell you that? If your Sultanic heart bleeds for Haiti, why not give to Haiti directly? Because if you give through the Clintons, you have a claim on future favors.

The soullessness of this campaign -- all ambition and entitlement -- emerges almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign is about. In one largely overlooked passage, Clinton complains that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or rationale.

Isn't that the candidate's job? Asked one of her aides, Joel Benenson: "Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?"

It's that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and position negotiable and politically calculable. Hence the embarrassing about-face on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the popular winds swung decisively against free trade.

So too with financial regulation, as in Dodd-Frank. As she told a Goldman Sachs gathering, after the financial collapse there was "a need to do something because, for political reasons ... you can't sit idly by and do nothing."

Giving the appearance that something had to be done. That's not why Elizabeth Warren supported Dodd-Frank. Which is the difference between a conviction politician like Warren and a calculating machine like Clinton.

Of course, we knew all this. But we hadn't seen it so clearly laid out. Illicit and illegal as is WikiLeaks, it is the camera in the sausage factory. And what it reveals is surpassingly unpretty.

I didn't need the Wiki files to oppose Hillary Clinton. As a conservative, I have long disagreed with her worldview and the policies that flow from it.

As for character, I have watched her long enough to find her deeply flawed, to the point of unfitness. But for those heretofore unpersuaded, the recent disclosures should close the case.

A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it's a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I've explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.

The only question is whose name I'm going to write in. With Albert Schweitzer doubly unavailable (noncitizen, dead), I'm down to Paul Ryan or Ben Sasse. Two weeks to decide.

-------------------

Yep, write in some obscure person. THAT solves EVERYTHING. שמוק

[DAB]

he wants to be considered the smart guy in the room, no matter who wins. and he wants to keep getting invited to all the fancy parties.

i'm voting for Trump. i don't get invited to parties.

[Shrike6]

Krauthammer IS often the sharpest pencil in the box. His observations on the world situation and the actors involved are direct, to the point, and most often spot on.
If you read about his personal history, you will be impressed by his tenacity in the face of overwhelming obstacles. He has a fine sense of humor, and a wide span of knowledge.
He also knows politics, and is a true conservative. I disagree with his voting choice, but understand where it comes from. I grew up in the New York metropolitan area, and have long been familiar with Trump. There is so much to dislike about the guy's character, but he is no Clinton, and no career politician. That is greatly in his favor. I also know that he knows how to delegate wisely, and can get the right people for their jobs. I also know that he is not cynical about this country, and does care about it. He will do everything to get the best of any deal with foreign powers. He knows that he can do better than the political system we have now.
Krauthammer, however, cannot force himself to vote for a guy he has so much distaste for.
I think he is choosing the wrong course. I wish it were otherwise.
But Krauthammer IS a great mind, not perfect, but who is?
If I were to wake up as President, my first call would be to him. I would do everything I could to get him to be my Kissenger.

[Cybercowboy]

Paul Ryan? LOL just wow.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Shrike6

Krauthammer IS often the sharpest pencil in the box. His observations on the world situation and the actors involved are direct, to the point, and most often spot on.
If you read about his personal history, you will be impressed by his tenacity in the face of overwhelming obstacles. He has a fine sense of humor, and a wide span of knowledge.
He also knows politics, and is a true conservative. I disagree with his voting choice, but understand where it comes from. I grew up in the New York metropolitan area, and have long been familiar with Trump. There is so much to dislike about the guy's character, but he is no Clinton, and no career politician. That is greatly in his favor. I also know that he knows how to delegate wisely, and can get the right people for their jobs. I also know that he is not cynical about this country, and does care about it. He will do everything to get the best of any deal with foreign powers. He knows that he can do better than the political system we have now.
Krauthammer, however, cannot force himself to vote for a guy he has so much distaste for.
I think he is choosing the wrong course. I wish it were otherwise.
But Krauthammer IS a great mind, not perfect, but who is?
If I were to wake up as President, my first call would be to him. I would do everything I could to get him to be my Kissenger.

Eh, he's just one of the GOPe types that we are simply done with. They get nothing accomplished, don't fight back against the Democrats, are for ever-expanding government, and frankly suck. He defends that like his very life depends on it. He can't read the feelings of the electorate. The Tea Party tried to play nice and they were demonized, shunned, and had the IRS sicced after them. So now this is what they get, and oh are they going to get it. Charles can marinate in his loathing for Trump supporters, I couldn't care less.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by DAB

he wants to be considered the smart guy in the room, no matter who wins. and he wants to keep getting invited to all the fancy parties.

I know a person that is voting third party - simply because he can't handle the rejection from his cult-socialist family & friends if he were to vote for Trump.

puzzy.

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Eh, he's just one of the GOPe types that we are simply done with. They get nothing accomplished, don't fight back against the Democrats, are for ever-expanding government, and frankly suck. He defends that like his very life depends on it. He can't read the feelings of the electorate. The Tea Party tried to play nice and they were demonized, shunned, and had the IRS sicced after them. So now this is what they get, and oh are they going to get it. Charles can marinate in his loathing for Trump supporters, I couldn't care less.

This, except I think he understands how disgusted the electorate is with the establishment. His position is brilliant as far as preserving his career future and being able to say "I told you so" no matter who gets elected. In short, he is voting "Present"

[DAB]

sounds like he's not quite sure which way this is going to go. so this way, he's not on the losing side. either way.

[DAB]

if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

[Craig]

Because people that don't share your views aren't smart...

Kraut's opinion is held by a ton of us that feel like we got screwed out of a certain victory. Why waste a vote on a certain loser you can't stand anyway? I'm not selling my soul for this crap.

[SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84]

Originally Posted by Fasglas

Yep, write in some obscure person. THAT solves EVERYTHING. שמוק

Originally Posted by Fasglas

שמוק

[DAB]

Originally Posted by SQUIRMIN VERMIN 84

Care to tell the rest of the class?

[FasterTraffic]

I like Charles Krauthammer and he's published some great articles that skewer the Clinton campaign, her record in politics, and complicity of the media.

For an alternative to the vote third-party vote angle, however, I enjoyed this article from Derek Hunter:

Originally Posted by Derek Hunter

Last time a Clinton was on the ballot, I voted for Ross Perot. My vote didn’t deny Bob Dole the White House, but I confess I felt a smug sense of satisfaction in “refusing to settle.” I sure showed them, didn’t I?

I haven’t been as vocal as other “Never Trump” writers, but neither have I hidden my dislike or tempered my criticism. In a field of 17 Republican candidates, Donald Trump wouldn’t have been my 18th choice. I’m still not a fan. But they didn’t just ask me; they asked everyone. And more of everyone chose Donald Trump.

I couldn’t do it, I just couldn’t. For countless reasons I’ve covered over the last year, I dug in my heels and proudly basked in my self-satisfaction. I still defended Trump in this column and on social media when he was wrongly attacked by the left and the media, but I was steadfast in my opposition to the man.

So what changed?

Not Trump. He still gives rambling speeches with little focus and spends far too much time defending himself against insignificant slights when he should be focusing on policy (though his ethics reform proposal is excellent and will irritate all the people in Washington who need to be irritated).

Hillary hasn’t changed either. At least not in who she is – a corrupt, self-serving liar willing to do or say anything to win and/or sell out to the highest bidder. There isn’t enough Saudi Arabian money in the Clinton Foundation to get me to vote for someone who got rich off “public service” and a “commitment to helping the poor.”

No, what’s changed is me. Not through introspection and reflection, but through watching the sickening display of activism perpetrated by a covert army with press credentials.

Bias has always been a factor in journalism. It’s nearly impossible to remove. Humans have their thoughts, and keeping them out of your work is difficult. But 2016 saw the remaining veneer of credibility, thin as it was, stripped away and set on fire.

More than anything, I can’t sit idly by and allow these perpetrators of fraud to celebrate and leak tears of joy like they did when they helped elect Barack Obama in 2008. I have to know I weighed in not only in writing but in the voting booth.

The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won’t do it, it’s something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don’t want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.

I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.

After the last debate, when no outlet “fact checked” Hillary’s lie that her opposition to the Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn’t lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn’t hold out any longer.

A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don’t know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won’t even be a media to hold her accountable.

The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone, even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who’ve made their fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not be enough, but it’s all I can do and I have to do all I can do.


I won’t stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won’t pretend someone is handing out flowers when they’re shoveling BS. But I’d rather have BS shoveled out of a president than our tax dollars shoveled to a president’s friends and political allies.

The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political machine journalists would have been proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn’t happen – journalists are in on it. I can’t pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it.

This isn’t a call to arms for “Never Trumpers” to follow suit; this is a choice I had to make for myself after much reflection. I wouldn’t presume to tell others how to act any more than I would accept the same from someone else. I would encourage them to consider what awaits the country should Hillary win. If they can’t vote against her by voting for him, at least spend these last two weeks of the election directing their ire toward Clinton.

Although most are principled, far too many “Never Trump” conservatives spend more of their time attacking him than pointing out her corruption. I get it – in him, you see the fight you’ve been a part of being betrayed, and that leaves a mark.

I’m not saying you should support him, but you shouldn’t lose sight of the importance of opposing her. If, or when, Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office, she needs to have as little support as possible. Frankly, she needs to be damaged. The mainstream media won’t do it; they’re in on it.

This is my choice, what I must do. Each person has to come to this decision on their own terms. And the fact remains there simply aren’t enough “Never Trump” Republicans to make up Trump’s current deficit, and that’s on him. But I know what I’ve been wrestling with these past few weeks is not unique to me. And I don’t know about you, but I simply cannot sit around knowing there was something else I could have done to oppose Hillary Clinton and I didn’t do it.

A simple protest vote for a third party or a write-in of my favorite comic book character might feel good for a moment. It might even give me a sense of moral superiority that lasts until her first executive order damaging something I hold dear – or her first Supreme Court nominee. But the sting that will follow will far outlive that temporary satisfaction.

I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose everything Hillary Clinton has done and wants to do. And what someone says, no matter how objectionable, is less important than what someone does, especially when it’s so objectionable. A personal moral victory won’t suffice when the stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting for the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald Trump.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by DAB

Care to tell the rest of the class?

Copy/paste the symbol thing into Google.

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by DAB

Care to tell the rest of the class?

Per Google translate:

שמוק=dick

[DAB]

Originally Posted by Millenium Vette

Per Google translate:

שמוק=dick

Thanks. Don't know Hebrew.

[OddBall]

I Like Charles, he is intelligent. And he can take the libs to task on just about any subject. But what he and the old guard have to realize, is that the GOP and conservatives are going to have to stop putting up corpses as candidates, and stop fighting lost causes. For example, conservatives lost a lot of ground worrying about stupid shit like gay marriage. The baby got tossed out with the bathwater so to speak.

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by OddBall

I Like Charles, he is intelligent. And he can take the libs to task on just about any subject. But what he and the old guard have to realize, is that the GOP and conservatives are going to have to stop putting up corpses as candidates, and stop fighting lost causes. For example, conservatives lost a lot of ground worrying about stupid shit like gay marriage. The baby got tossed out with the bathwater so to speak.

Do you really think the dems give a shit about two queers being able to marry each other?

The liberals will keep on pushing the envelope until the conservatives object. Gay marriage not enough? Fine, they will bring forth something more objectionable and illogical.

[OddBall]

Originally Posted by Millenium Vette

Do you really think the dems give a shit about two queers being able to marry each other?

The liberals will keep on pushing the envelope until the conservatives object. Gay marriage not enough? Fine, they will bring forth something more objectionable and illogical.

Yes, It's just one of the venues that libs can demonize all conservatives on. And yes, I agree that they will keep on pushing the envelope until they have the socialist government they are after. They will literally tank the country for what "feels" good. We need to quit getting beat up over lost causes and start focusing on what's important. The libs didn't get this strong overnight, they aren't going to get beat back to sanity overnight either.

[Millenium Vette]

Originally Posted by OddBall

Yes, It's just one of the venues that libs can demonize all conservatives on. And yes, I agree that they will keep on pushing the envelope until they have the socialist government they are after. They will literally tank the country for what "feels" good. We need to quit getting beat up over lost causes and start focusing on what's important. The libs didn't get this strong overnight, they aren't going to get beat back to sanity overnight either.

It's not even about what "feels" good, it is about dividing and conquering. You could give them everything they want tomorrow, including a 100% socialist government and they still would demonize the opposition, even if it were non-existent. They will always need something to oppose.