Categorized | Opinion

Dr. Krauthammer and Gov. Palin: Analyzing the Analyst; Updated: Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin Weigh In

An interesting piece by Tom Rowan with the above title appears in today’s American Thinker.  In his piece, Rowan attempts to analyze Krauthammer’s proclivity to put his normally rational analysis aside and descend into irrational nonsense whenever the subject of Governor Palin comes up:

The most valuable characteristic an established "wise man" can have is the ability to see and tell the truth.  Speaking the truth about current events is where Krauthammer seems to hit all the right notes.  Only on very rare occasions does this maestro hit a decidedly sour note.  And these false notes are starting to become glaringly tinny when Krauthammer opines on Sarah Palin.  With Palin, Krauthammer’s reliable sights become suspect.  He lowers himself from wise man to wise guy.  He leaves his well positioned observation post to take up a sniper’s position in the mud. 

Why does he do this?  And why is he making a habit of it?  What exactly is Krauthammer’s beef with Governor Palin? 

I am guessing Krauthammer’s miserable failure as speechwriter for Walter Mondale has at least something to do with his ongoing campaign to delegitimize Palin.  I would wager that Krauthammer wrote the line that sank Mondale: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes; and so will I.  He won’t tell you.  I just did."  I suspect Krauthammer is still smarting from his colossal election failure and from time to time is re-fighting the campaign against that phony cowboy Reagan.

Perhaps this is where Krauthammer harvests his unseemly vitriol against Palin.  While the nation yearns for the "next Reagan," Krauthammer seemingly yearns to seek and destroy any true blue Reaganite.  His most recent oddball attack on Palin seems like only yesterday: 

The problem with her, I think, is that she is not schooled. I don’t mean she didn’t go to the right schools. I mean when you get into policy, beyond instincts — I like her political instincts, I like her political overall view of the world — but when it comes to policy, she had two-and-a-half years to school herself and she hasn’t and that’s a problem. … It’s not only the lack of schooling; it’s the lack of effort to school herself and the lack of insight to see that she needs it.

I like Krauthammer’s overall view of the world, but when did Charles go to school to become a schoolmarm scold?   Does he hand out homework assignments to Palin?  By what factual basis does Krauthammer make this charge?  For all anyone knows Sarah Palin has been taking tap dancing lessons from Henry Kissinger.  Krauthammer certainly has no way of knowing.  So why is Krauthammer shooting these gratuitous broadsides against Palin?  And why isn’t Krauthammer’s laser-like analysis focused on this nation’s biggest disaster on any policy, namely Obama?  

Why is Krauthammer so unjustly dismissive of Palin’s intellect?  She displayed more knowledge of the Constitution than Joe Biden did during their debate.  I cannot think of one single issue or "policy" that Palin does not hold the same position that most thinking conservatives hold.  On energy, taxation, and social and foreign policy matters, most conservative groups I speak to find her perspective of the political landscape a breath of fresh air.  What is Krauthammer sniffing?  And why is he sniffing at all?

Rowan makes an excellent point here, and one I’ve made many times in the past:  None of the other potential 2012 candidates have the impeccably conservative positions on the major issues that Governor Palin does.  Yet Krauthammer and those of his ilk choose to ignore this and attempt to make the case that we should support candidates who take decidedly non-conservative positions on such basic issues as cap and trade, ethanol subsidies, and government health care mandates, to name just three.  How does this advance the cause of conservatism?  It sounds more like unilateral disarmament to me.  With conservatives like this, we don’t need liberals. 

To win in 2012, Republicans need to run a candidate who can draw a sharp contrast to Obama’s disastrous policies, and Governor Palin is the only one who can credibly do that.  Bold colors, not pale pastels. Rowan ends his piece by suggesting it is not Palin who should leave the room, as Krauthammer once suggested, but Krauthammer:

As a political junkie myself, I have my own political heroes and villains.  My heroes always try to tell the truth in the political bubble populated with the usual crowd of liars.  The villains are vindictive gossips who lie by omission when they are not lying straight to your face.  In this real-life drama, America’s future is at stake.  And the stakes are too high to sabotage good people with unwarranted twaddle.  In the last analysis, a man like Dr. Krauthammer should know that gratuitous ankle-biting is unbecoming of one who has earned our respect.  Or perhaps when conservatives have thoughtful discussions of Governor Palin, we should start by asking Charles Krauthammer to leave the room.

Touché.  Read Rowan’s entire article here.  It’s excellent.

Update: I inadvertently posted this before I was ready, which explains the sudden appearance of my musings above.  I guess this is what happens when one gets on the computer before being fully awake.

(h/t Jack)

Update II: Rush Limbaugh discusses Rowan’s piece here.

Update III: Mark Levin weighs in on Rowan’s article:

Tags: , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • tomlyn

    I agree Charles has slipped off the wagon.  I think he truly wants Obama back in for another 4 years.

    • johnfromcanada

      I have come to believe this is true for all the RINO establishment. The reason they trash Sarah is because they KNOW, deep inside, that Sarah is the ONE with the energy, the ideas, the charisma,  and the leadership skills to defeat O. As someone so rightly pointed out here yesterday, they (and the liberals) consider not only the election of Obama but also his re-election as the event which will atone for America’s past racial failures.  O is as much a symbol as a President, which is why all O’s record in office does not count as much against him as it does for other Presidents. Any other President would be in deep and hot water, probably facing a challenge from within his own party, especially with the most recent economic news.

      • PJ_in_NC

        I agree with you — the RINOs are scared stiff because they know that if Sarah makes it to the White House, she will shake up everything and pretty much destroy their posh livelihood and then they won’t get any more cocktail party invites.  What’s the fate of America compared to the personal gratification of inside-the-Beltway pundits?  They have their priorities.

        I went to college at American University so I lived two years in DC (back when Reagan was in office and Marion Barry kept getting re-elected).  Even then, it was a generally accepted fact that "the Beltway cuts off oxygen to the brain" — it’s a whole different world in there than the one the rest of us deal with.  It’s unreal — literally.

      • Guest

        More than that, they fear  Palin’s coat-tails are long enough to drag a whole heapin’ passel o’ Conservatives into the House and Senate. A Palin POTUS with a more Conservative Congress is every Beltway Elite’s nightmare. That America will regain it’s rightful place in the world and its economic might? Why, that’s pale compared to Beltway Elite power.

    • Guest

      When Newt said, "the era of Reagan is dead," Krauthammer (long hoping for it) believed it.

  • gahanson

    CK needs to get a good psychiatrist.

  • BricesCrossroads

    Palin, Reagan, and Obama, according to Krauthammer

    Brices Crossroads

    While I read Charles Krauthammer from time to time, I am not a big
    fan of his. In reading his column entitled "Obama’s Next Act"
    yesterday, he pronounces Reaganism as good as dead, a victim of the
    first eighteen months of the Obama Administration. I rather think
    Krauthammer lacks standing to comment on "Reaganism" (whatever he means
    by that term) since he worked in Jimmy Carter’s White House and tried
    twice to defeat Ronald Reagan both in 1980 and 1984. He was a
    speechwriter for Walter Mondale and I often wondered if he penned the
    immortal line (or was it the mortal line), "President Reagan will raise
    your taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did."

    I have heard Krauthammer on CSPAN and elsewhere opine that Obama is among
    the most intelligent men ever to be President. I suspect that he held
    Reagan’s intelligence in somewhat less regard when the Gipper was
    running for President and while he was governing. Oh, Krauthammer did
    coin the term "Reagan Doctrine" and he came to favor the muscular
    foreign policy which Reagan pursued with remarkable (and virtually
    bloodless) success. This does not, however, entitle Krauthammer’s views
    on domestic policy to any great weight, given his antagonism to
    "Reaganism" in the past.

    Now, to his column. He begins by pronouncing ObamaCare both "historic" and "irrevocable", a definitive and everlasting change to one sixth of the American economy. Not only
    does he ignore the blatant unconstitutionality of the individual mandate requiring every citizen to purchase a private product (which is being challenged in the courts at this very moment), he completely ignores the mechanisms through which this program can be immediately
    defunded and neutered in 2011 when the GOP takes back the Congress. In 2013, the GOP will almost certainly have more than 60 senate seats and a filibuster will not be able to stop the outright repeal. This monstrosity has more than a few problems. But Krauthammer pronounces it
    final, res judicata, a fait accompli. It reminded me that Krauthammer was carrying water for ObamaCare in an August 21, 2009 column in the Washington Post when, in response to Sarah Palin’s "Death Panel" torpedo aimed at the rationing schemes in the very heart of ObamaCare,
    Krauthammer told her to sit down and shut up:

    "We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I’ve got nothing against her.
    She’s a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in
    the Democratic health-care bills, and to say that there are is to
    debase the debate."

    Palin has subsequently been proven right (Does the recess appointment of Donald Berwick to the CMS leave any doubt?) and Krauthammer has been proven wrong, but I have heard no
    apology from him. He is just as wrong about the permanency of ObamaCare and the end of Reaganism.

    Krauthammer goes on to pronounce the Financial Regulatory bill as a now permanent fixture that is unrepealable. Again, the "brilliant" Krauthammer ignores not only the constitutional problems with such a bill, but the political ones associated with them. For example, among other things, the Bill purports to delegate the authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to bail out any financial institutions at his discretion without the necessity to go back to Congress to appropriate the funds. This is a blatant unconstitutional delegation of Article I legislative authority to the Executive, which is certain to be challenged and likely to be stricken by the Courts. As the quid pro quo for the massive regulation of the financial industry will imperil not just the constitutionality
    of the rest of the bill but its political viability as well, that is: Since the financial industry will not be able to access bailout funds(the carrot) without going back to Congress, it will oppose the
    regulatory burdens (the stick) that go along with it. The Regulatory Bill thus has both constitutional and political infirmities which threaten its long term viability. It should be easy to repeal in 2013.

    Finally, Krauthammer sees the $1 trillion dollar stimulus as a "structural alteration of the U.S. Budget", whatever that means. Congress can decline to appropriate the funds, and a new GOP President can impound (that is, refuse to spend) whatever cannot be repealed outright.
    Krauthammer really demonstrates his ignorance (and his Mondale/Obama domestic ideology) with the following sentence:

    "Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama’s wild spending — and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief — will necessitate huge tax increases."

    Wrong, Charles. Reagan’s tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the federal government. A lot. The problem was not a paucity of revenue in the federal treasury but a Congress too willing and eager to spend it all, and then some. I am surprised you don’t know such basic economics. But, then you did work for Walter Mondale who as the Gipper once observed "never met a tax he didn’t
    like… or hike." I am not surprised that, as a devotee of "Coach Tax Hike" which is what we Reaganites (the real kind…not the ersatz, freshly minted versions) used to call your old boss, your first recourse has been, and will always be, tax increases. The solution is not a tax increase. It is tax cuts, massive, permanent tax cuts. It is not a return to pre-Obama Care. It is a massive pushback of government involvement in the healthcare market. This involves a further privatization of the health care system, especially minimization and eventual elimination of government distortions in the marketplace which drive up health care costs,chiefly the third party
    payer problem. And it is massive spending cuts and defunding of all Obama’s handiwork. It wasn’t tax hikes in 1980. It is not tax hikes in 2012. Sorry, Charlie.

    In a word, Krauthammer’s gloomy column should demoralize no one. Amazingly, he sees the massive GOP gains in the House and the Senate as a silver lining for Obama that will help him in much the same way the GOP takeover in 1994 helped Clinton. The problem with that analogy is that Clinton’s overreach with HillaryCare and overspending failed in 1993-4, so the economy recovered enough for him to win. Clinton did not win BECAUSE of the GOP Congress. He was
    aided by the worst GOP candidate in a long line of bad ones, the ancient Bob Dole and further aided by the Perot candidacy which siphoned off 10% of the vote. Obama will have to face Sarah Palin, the lady whom Krauthammer told to "leave the room" for "debasing" the health care debate. 2012 will not be analogous to 1996, but much closer to 1980. If Sarah Palin looks like Bob Dole to you, Charles, you really need to have your contacts cleaned.

    Krauthammer closes his column with another obtuse and insulting comparison of Obama to Reagan:

    "Obama is down, but it’s very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he’s done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days — those that come after reelection. The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril."

    Krauthammer, a statist at heart, sees Obama’s "accomplishments" as a political positive, even though they are toxic and wildly unpopular: "He got something done", even though it is the consensus of the American people that what he did was bad for the country and all its citizens. Reagan too accomplished things in his first term, notably the tax cuts of 1981 which were very popular and which had reinvigorated the severely ailing economy, which Reagan inherited, by late 1983.

    Don’t underestimate Obama. (Seriously, is this possible?) And don’t overestimate Krauthammer. He was wrong about the death panels, wrong about Reagan, wrong about tax cuts, wrong about Palin and he is dead wrong about Obama. With a record like that, maybe he is the one who should leave the room.

    For those interested, here is Krauthammer’s column I was criticizing, which is so gushing in its praise of Obama

    • tingale12

      I sincerely believe Krautie chooses what’s he wants to hear. In my simple understanding of CK’  disdain towards ALL things about the  governor IMHO boils down to nothing but a Sunday supplement frame of mind.

      My centavo worth…


    • AFinch

      Excellent analysis.  If I were a cynic, I would have to conclude that Kraut is laying the foundation for a Romney candidacy–healthcare is done, no need to even talk about it, just accept it. 

      Which reminds me, I received an NRSC survey yesterday asking for input on the most important issues for 2012 (while simultaneously begging for $$$).  Of the many choices, there was not one mention of Obamacare.  Have you noticed that they have stopped talking about it completely?  It’s almost as if they know their chosen candidate will not be able to take O’Bama on head-to-head on the most controversial legislation of his presidency. 

      • BricesCrossroads

        I think Kraut would be completely comfortable with Romney as the candidate.
        He knows Romney would likely lose to Obama, who is his real candidate. And
        if Romney won, he wouldn’t be bad either from Kraut’s "Walter Mondale"

    • Guest

      Great piece but you’re too polite here: "Krauthammer, a statist at heart,…" Call it what it is. "Krauthammer, a Communist at heart,…"

      • BricesCrossroads

        LOL, apodaca. You will get no quarrel from me on that. Kraut is a puffed
        up blowhard. And he is wrong more often than he is right.

  • ellebb

    Excellent article.  Love the last line, "start by asking Charles to leave the room."

    CK obviously has "women" issues.

  • Pete Petretich

    Very interesting about the direct Reagan-Palin link. I hope CK comments on this sometime.

    Also, I wonder how many of Reagan’s long-time enemies also feel this way about Palin. If there were actual evidence of this then it might help her get elected.

    "Oh no! I REMEMBER THIS FEELING! She’s another Reagan, we have to stop her!" quoth some dusty old (fill in the blank).

  • NY59Giants

    There seems to be a growing number of Republican and Conservative MALE voices that are less than objective when it comes to female Conservative candidates. Is it because the women are steadily making progress in taking over prominent positions within the GOP like governors and heaven forbid, Presidential candidates??  

    • Guest

      The men checked their tighty whities and discovered they were missing their marbles. Then, they discovered the females all have healthy pairs. What’s a man without peanuts or the gumption to grow a pair to do? Bitch, whine, and moan about the women. Not attractive at all.

  • conservativeBC

    Piper Palin Blocking Press For Mom!

    Little Piper caught giving a hip check to an annoying news reporter.

    • tingale12

      Now, Piper that’s determination with convection to conserve energy. Priceless!

    • Greg Legakis

      Absolutely wonderful piece!  Way to go CNN!  Did I just say that?

      • Guest

        Crazy to have to say that huh?!  Great piece!

    • puma_for_life

      I just loved this video…hilarious.

    • Raceaford

      You’ve got to love Piper.  It will be fun to watch her grow up in the White House.

    • cuttingboardblues

      OMG Piper is hysterical. 

      • Guest

        Yeh, she’s not down with the media BS; she’ll give them space and time but not too much.

  • RefudiateGOPe

    While this article is very good, the writer still doesn’t get it.  In it, he writes:

    Much to Dr. K’s chagrin (I’m sure), the Democrats immediately cut out the exact "death panel" provisions Palin was speaking about from ObamaCare.  But you could not miss the dripping sarcasm and smarmy condescension aimed at Palin.

    Here it is over a year later, and people still don’t understand that when Sarah used the term "death panel", it was not a metaphor for end-of-life counseling.  She even wrote a follow-up FB post to explain that.  It makes me wonder how many writers and talking heads bothered to read what she wrote or whether they took the lazy way out and parroted what they heard.

  • danielvito

    Charles Krauthammer, thinks he’s smarter than us, that he needs to tell us who we should have as our leaders and how to think on every issue. I’m so tired of him every night telling us strategically how republicans should act on everything. What happened to principle. Of course, we are dealing w/a guy that worked for Jimmy Carter and was the chief speechwriter for Walter Mondale in 1984 vs. Ronald Reagan. Mondale/Krauthammer lost 49 states to Reagan. Let’s look at some of the issues Krauthammer supported in 1984;

    *Ran a liberal campaign
    *For a nuclear freeze
    *Raising taxes
    *pro choice
    *unfairness of reagan economic policies- lowering taxes, cutting corporate rates etc.

    So Krauthammer, wrote glowing speeches about these liberal policies, he missed the Reagan revolution. Fast forward to today, now he’s reinvented himself as a conservative, how does one do this. As a 30 year old you support one of the biggest liberals in American history and now you act like a conservative and I’m suppose to listen to you.

    Fox made krauthammer into a "conservative" along w/his weekly standard/national review friends. He’s a phoney. Regarding Sarah, he sees her as another Ronald Reagan, so like in 1984 he has to stop her.

    Fox, stop saying Krauthammer is a conservative, he’s not, he’s a rino elitest. It’s no joke, that is what he is.

    • wodiej

      Actually I’m tired of all of them trying to herd us like a bunch of sheep.  I’m a bright person and I don’t have the patience for a bunch of nonsense nor do I allow people to look down their nose at me like they are better than me.  I stopped watching most of the news unless Gov. Palin is going to be a guest and I switch the channel as soon as that segment is over.  I’m not going to support them belittling me and millions of other patriots.

      • danielvito

        Excellent post, wodiej! I still haven’t figured out why fox keeps telling me Krauthammer’s opinions matter. Is it because liberals and Rino’s suck up to him at the cocktail parties in DC.. Has krauthammer actually left the beltway in the last 30 years, does he actually understand what the rif raf in flyover country actually feel. He is so full of crap. We are being played, the National review/weekly standard hacks & krauthammer don’t speak for me. I didn’t want TARP, I didn’t want the $1 trillion stimulus, I wasn’t happy when the GOP caved and got only a few billion in cuts in the 2011 budget when they promised $100 billion in cuts, I don’t want an increase in the Debt Ceiling. I’m still trying to figure out Einstein Krauthammer telling me every night I’ll like increasing the debt ceiling and making some cuts. How can you increase FREAKING something (debt) and then say your cutting something. What is in the water in DC.

        Wodiej, sorry, I just got worked but talking about that phoney Krauthammer!

    • Leroy Whitby

      Krauthammer attacks CPAC (2011) as "wierd."

      CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: That’s because it’s a weird group that we’re talking about here.You know, these are Ron Paul libertarians. You know Ron Paul. He’s the guy who wants to repeal the Patriot Act. He wants to demolish the Fed. He wants to get out of all of our involvements overseas. I’m not sure what Ron Paul is on the Louisiana Purchase, but I’m sure it’s a kind of iffy position.And what you’ve got of the group CPAC, what you’re talking about is a lot of college students who all want to be Ayn Rand. And, you know, soon they’ll grow up and become conservatives.So I wouldn’t put a lot into this poll, because the group is a kind of a fringe group. It’s not Twilight Zone fringe. It’s more short sort of offshore. You know, sort of floating on a raft out there in the Gulf of Mexico.Mainline conservatives are not going to elect a Ron Paul. Nobody ever heard of Gary Johnson, and legalizing pot is not going to be a big agenda for the Republicans in 2012.O’REILLY: The liberal media, though, loves this, because they can go in there and cover it and say, Look, this is what, really, Republicans are like. And that’s why CPAC gets a lot of attention.KRAUTHAMMER: Exactly.O’REILLY: Mitt Romney did show up. You know? He’s absolutely a mainline guy. And so lent it a little bit of legitimacy, did he not?KRAUTHAMMER: Yes. There was Romney. There was Mitch Daniels. There was John Thune, Tim Pawlenty. You had a lot of respectable guys. Why not — why not go there?It’s not as if there are no conservatives there. There’s not any constituency at all. And, in the end, those college students and their buddies in the end will vote for the Republican candidate whoever is he in November 2012.

      What was Reagan’s opinion of CPAC? REAGAN SPEAKS AT CPAC:

      • danielvito

        Leroy, excellent fine. That is another example of Krauthammer picking our candidate. He’s a rino elitest. His policies have been wrong for 30 years. The freakin emporer has no clothes. He is no friend to conservatives!

    • Burke2

      Good post, Danielvito, but telling Fox to quit calling Krauthammer a conservative is as futile as telling Obama to stop calling Andy Stern, Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones and Cass Sunstein "mainstream"–as if these radicals are in place despite Obama rather than because of him.   Fox knows full well who and what K is and they support him to the hilt. Yes, Krauthammer is RINO elitist,  but a much deeper problem is that Fox is that as well. 

      What we need and unfortunately don’t have is a conservative network.

      • danielvito

        Burke2, youhit the nail on the head. The problem is fox employing this hack Krauthammer. I’ve always said, a conservative news network would make a fortune. Maybe, we at c4p should pool our resources and finance one. Have michelle malkin, tammy, Jed, Mark levin, rush, etc.

  • latinchic

    I just think it makes Dr. K feel like a smart man. I love that he never points to examples of what he accuses her of. 

    Put up or shut up, Charles.

  • John_Frank

    Doug, thanks for bringing this article to our attention.

  • FredHeadBill

    The Misogynistic Hater of Reagan in High Heels or what? Hey, I’m an old white guy and I get
    it, these guys are misogynists. Ted Baxter, Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris are manning the fire-hose against Governor Palin, they just don’t realize how repulsive this image is to the American people.
    What will make these guys see, that America has a pure leader available, who’s love of country rivals the love of her children.
    When I go back and review Krauthammer’s criticism of Newt it’s about the Ryan Plan, it’s all about policy and not obeying Reagan’s 11th commandment. But the very person who should be exemplified as following Reagan’s example and articulating the Ryan plan in the simplest most understandable terms ($1.2 B a day less spending) needs to be schooled and has no desire to be schooled. Governor Palin can be comforted by Margaret Thatcher’s words "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
    Charles drop your hoity-toity prejudices, and people will have more respect of your opinions.

    • Guest

      Totally agree. The Krauthammers etc. (i’ll still give Brit Hume some more rope…) just don’t get it! Do they want Obama for another 4yrs? The Country won’t survive it.

      But when they attack Sarah, without facts, they attack our daugthers’ mothers’ wives’ and i for one (i know there are millions) won’t stand for it! CK doesn’t have a clue what Sarah Palin has done for the last few years, just as he had no idea who she was or her history before being choosen  by that old fudidunity!

      I would love to see him debate anyone that knows her record, one on one, no notes, he would be reduced to a drooling old fool.

  • illegalpointofview

    who gives a #$%# what they think if it’s not base on her record or facts Sarah will easily replace those opinions with the TRUTH

  • 4rcane

    the establishment conservative enjoy the status quo. 

  • Cotton Picker

    I am sick of Sourkraut and his crapola about Sarah Palin.  Methinks the man needs a good psychiatrist, his doctor/patient PDS self help program ain’t working, the boy is losing it.
    Some may think he is a conservative, I say balderdash, the WaPo does not allow true conservatives on their payroll, nuff said

    • wodiej

      actually they say most psychiatrists are in need of mental help themselves.  take it for what it’s worth.

  • 36763

    The piece was too kind to this jerk. 

  • Gina

    Good piece. I love the tap-dancing line. :-) I’ve long liked and respected Krauthammer, and I think he’s a good person, but when he comes to Palin, he’s just wrong. I sincerely hope he comes around.

  • Laddie_Blah_Blah

    It has become quite clear that Krauthammer has a paranoid fear of female grizzlies and is in dire need of radical psychiatric intervention before his brain explodes from fear-induced trauma. One more growl from a Mama Griz and the insane frenzy induced by his pathological obsession could prove fatal.

    On that note, I am emailing CK a link to this remedial material from O4P:

    Please, please, CK, seek professional help before it is too late.

  • polarfan

    Sarah is not one of the club as in Alaska!  Her positions don’t matter -she cannot be manipulated and intimidated and worse of all she’ll not listen to the establishment.  RINOS, DINOS, and LSM are scared of an outsider steering things up and not of one of them..

    What do Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman all in common -right, they’re big time RINOS and will do what the establishment wants them to do…  

  • Leroy Whitby

    Krauthammer opposed Reagan, writing speeches for Mondale as a VP candidate. Krauthammer opposes Palin as well. He’s not a conservative. He opposes actual conservatives. He can support Republicans . . . but not conservatives. Wolf in sheeps clothing perhaps.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets