Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats’ Outbreak of Lawlessness – The Washington Post

Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats’ outbreak of lawlessness – The Washington Post.

QUESTION: I wonder if Barack Hussein Obama announced that He was the new “Supreme Leader” of the United States would the mainline media and U.S. Senate be silent, applaud and approve the new announcement, or FINALLY say “Enough!”?


Just wondering? Because I really don’t know.

Does anyone (other than conservatives and libertarians) stand up against his rampant trampling of the foundations of American exceptionalism and lawless fiats?


5 responses

  1. Randy Thompson | Reply

    The Senate filibuster, which is at issue here, has become the venue for a minority to tyranize over the majority. Just the threat of it stops all debate and discussion. By way of reminder, it was once the means by which southern Senators attempted to block any and all civil rights legislation and to maintain the Jim Crow status quo. To redefine Senate rules or traditions regarding the filibuster does not mean the end of democracy as we know it, nor does it by any stretch of the imagination make President Obama the “Supreme Leader.” The President is in a separate branch of the government, and has no say or vote regarding how the Senate orders itself. Krauthammer’s piece strikes me as just another conservative hissy fit over things not going the way he wants them to, which, from what I can make out, means that there should be no presidential nominees approved until the Republicans take back the White House and can make their own nominations.

    In which case, the Democrats will probably start throwing their own hissy fits.

    A filibuster is little more than obstructionism and a venue for someone to throw a hissy fit. (I haven’t used the term “hissy fit” in decades, but it certainly seems to describe things well!)


    1. Randy, though I appreciate your answers, you didn’t answer my questions.


  2. Unfortunately, Charles Krauthammer is just another stereotypical Washington political reporter who makes his living writing opinion pieces and appearing on talk shows. Based on this piece I would guess he has very little knowledge of US Senate history and the history of the filibuster in particular. He seems to believe that things it’s one continuous, unchanging saga. It’s not. Also, the party currently in power followed the rules to the letter. In fact, I suspect that he would have had no objection if the roles were reversed.

    The Democrats position was this: the President had far more nominees for all positions stalled by the Senate than any previous US president. This is a fact. A great number of these nominations appear to have been stalled, not because of their qualifications but as some form of retribution because the President or his administration would not give on something else. This is not a new phenomenon, just increased frequency. Not surprising when the Republican leader of the Senate, shortly after the 2008 election, says that his number one job is to make sure that this president serves only one term. Remember, this came as the world was undergoing a major financial meltdown. While I am not sure that it was a wise move in the long run I am not convinced that it was done without provocation. Even so I am sure there were many Democrats who were at least a little uncomfortable voting to change the rules.

    Regarding Krauthammer’s position that the President is stepping on Congress’ toes I would simply remind him that the Legislative branch legislates and the Executive branch oversees day to day operations. Democrats made the same complaint about President Bush. Its the nature of the party that loses.

    I am sorely tempted to go on about Krauthammer’s idea of American Exceptionalism but l will refrain. I do know from reading his work that we are not even close on what it means.

    Thanks for the opportunity ….


    1. Now, if you would answer my questions, that would be a helpful participation in the dialog I’d like to create.


      1. So your questions didn’t have anything to do with Charles Krauthammer’s opinion piece? The simple answer to your first question would be yes, they would object if he said that. I’m not sure who the mainline media is, certainly Fox media must be mainline because they are the most powerful. I assume it would include all the major news outlets but hopefully none of the internet, print, radio and TV opinion writers who include only the information that supports their view. Certainly most, if not all Senators, both Democrat and Republican, would object.

        Regarding the second question: I believe that the assumption that executive orders and the exceptions or delays allowed in the in the ACA are in any way unlawful is incorrect. Again, I believe that the losing side will always claim foul play until they regain power only to claim its legal if they do it.

        Regarding American Exceptionalism: I am not sure what that meant originally. Lately it has become a code for America knows best and needs to have a say to make sure the rest of the world makes the right decisions. I know that may not be what was intended but that’s the message I keep hearing. If someone has perverted the original meaning we need to put a stop to it.


Please Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

The Real Book Spy

Full coverage of all your favorite thriller authors, and their characters, unlike anywhere else on the web! Apps

Apps for any screen

CA Feeney

Random reflections, wanderings, and ponderings..

Christian House Sitters

Posts about House Sitting, Our charity work and general articles of interest. Lots of variety.

jeannie's Cross Road

Stuck in the Muck of life? Be “Free to Walk” God’s Purpose and Plan for Your Life!

%d bloggers like this: