Charles Farthammer

[Perianne]

Charles Krauthammer is an establishment hack. As a broken (mechanical) clock is correct twice a day, he might be occasionally right on some things. I always record The O'Reilly Factor. When Krauthummer comes on, I fast-forward through his segment.

After Trump skipped the FOX debate, Farthammer stated,


There’s going to be a lot of attention now, to what Cruz is saying, and Rubio is saying.”
And by missing the debate "[Trump] allowed the others to come out and shine, and I thought it really helped Rubio...

Gashammer continues with his (establishment) love for little Marco:



Krauthammer added of Iowa caucusgoers, “When they think about it seriously, at the caucus, they have to make the case, they give speeches and listen, I think the Rubio message prevailed.

Oh, really, Hammerdude? The Rubio message prevailed? You mean the message that caused Rubio to finish in third place? You are a genius!


Krauthammer added, “This is now a three-man race. There is no establishment lane. There’s the Cruz campaign, which is sort of austere conservatism. There’s the Trump campaign, which is populist Trumpistic, if you want, because it’s extremely idiosyncratic. And you’ve got Rubio, who’s the mainstream, more moderate conservative.

"There is no establishment lane." lol

A comment: Of course Krauthammer doesn’t acknowledge such a thing as an establishment. He’s a part of it, in the guise of a “conservative”.

This post is a public service for those of you who can't recognize RINOs.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/02/krauthammer-gop-nomination-a-three-man-race-there-is-no-establishment-lane/

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2016/02/05/enough-with-the-establishment-nonsense/

[jimnyc]

I don't do anything on the TV side, didn't even know he was anywhere on there. I've posted a lot of his writing over the years and I've always like him. I'm sure we're going to find a lot of great conservative/republican writers that are going to disagree in various ways.

[Perianne]

I don't do anything on the TV side, didn't even know he was anywhere on there. I've posted a lot of his writing over the years and I've always like him. I'm sure we're going to find a lot of great conservative/republican writers that are going to disagree in various ways.

Sure, he is pleasant when his folks are in control. His vendetta against Trump has caused him to reveal his true, establishment side.

[glockmail]

Charles is one of the smartest pundits out there, and rarely wrong.

[Kathianne]

Charles is one of the smartest pundits out there, and rarely wrong.

Criticizing Trump deserves being called a poopy head. :coffee:

[jimnyc]

Criticizing Trump deserves being called a poopy head. :coffee:

I don't know about all of that, or why. But I think folks are getting more and more angry at how the 'establishment' has been handling this election season, and believe it or not, there has been some getting angry at those that step in behind them, and blindly, IMO.

For example, the Cruz thing and blaming Trump. The numbers are growing of those who blame the left and those actually involved in recruiting and then the shutting down of the event. And now folks are speaking out against those who tried to hold him responsible - Cruz for starters and his comment (I'm sure because he's the only other one with a chance).

[Perianne]

Charles is one of the smartest pundits out there, and rarely wrong.

We are both talking about the same guy? The one who voted for Mondale over Reagan?

[Kathianne]

I don't know about all of that, or why. But I think folks are getting more and more angry at how the 'establishment' has been handling this election season, and believe it or not, there has been some getting angry at those that step in behind them, and blindly, IMO.

For example, the Cruz thing and blaming Trump. The numbers are growing of those who blame the left and those actually involved in recruiting and then the shutting down of the event. And now folks are speaking out against those who tried to hold him responsible - Cruz for starters and his comment (I'm sure because he's the only other one with a chance).

I've maintained that the actions of his supporters is on them, not Trump. I also think both the media for ratings and Trump for votes have contributed to creating an expectation of violence. Sanders too has entered into this and Surprise! is getting an increase in media attention.

There are underlying messages being sent by several candidates, it's creating something that has the possibility of resulting in actions none of us want to see.

BTW, I saw something last night that the media, consciously or not, is behaving in ways that encourage whackos to take a shot at Trump in particular, but really any candidate in general. They have cameras on him from just about any angle possible. Then there is the 'coverage' of phone videos.

[jimnyc]

AND, I've read like 20 articles this season talking about an assassination of Trump. And then forget about it on Facebook and Twitter, as I imagine a bunch have received visits from the SS.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sure, he is pleasant when his folks are in control. His vendetta against Trump has caused him to reveal his true, establishment side.


His vendetta against Trump has caused him to reveal his true,

As it has others, almost non-stop..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

AND, I've read like 20 articles this season talking about an assassination of Trump. And then forget about it on Facebook and Twitter, as I imagine a bunch have received visits from the SS.

Yet the Trump haters cry out how its Trump stirring up violence!
Then offer no real proof..
Defending oneself is not stirring violence.
Removing organized disrupters that are attempting to STOP election campaigning is not stirring up violence.
Want to see violence put me in charge with a crew I'd pick to stop the leftist, dem /lib, Obama, Hillary mobs sent to interfere in the Republican
candidates campaigning.
I'd have my guys armed with baseball bats and hitting home runs on arms and legs...!

Yes, I can be a violent person when its called for......-Tyr

[glockmail]

We are both talking about the same guy? The one who voted for Mondale over Reagan?

How is voting for a candidate that lost wrong, or relevant at all to this discussion?

[glockmail]

AND, I've read like 20 articles this season talking about an assassination of Trump. And then forget about it on Facebook and Twitter, as I imagine a bunch have received visits from the SS.

Libs love to fantasize about killing their enemies. Only very few actually have the 'nads.

[fj1200]

Eventually the fundamentalist ends up completely alone because they've condemned everyone else.

[Abbey Marie]

Libs love to fantasize about killing their enemies. Only very few actually have the 'nads.

Do they fantasize using a knife, or those nasty 2nd Amendment firearms? ;)

[Kathianne]

Libs love to fantasize about killing their enemies. Only very few actually have the 'nads.

Good thing then. Hopefully true for everyone.

[NightTrain]

Do they fantasize using a knife, or those nasty 2nd Amendment firearms? ;)

Undoubtedly a policeman... they're the only ones who should be armed, you know.

[glockmail]

Do they fantasize using a knife, or those nasty 2nd Amendment firearms? ;)

Based on my vast knowledge of the liberal mind, the answer is undoubtedly guns. It's what they claim to hate most that they actually cherish.

[hjmick]

Charles is one of the smartest pundits out there, and rarely wrong.


I agree, he is one of, if not the, smartest man on the scene. I like the guy. Not just for his views but for all he has accomplished since landing in that chair. And for getting an apology from the Obama White house, Props! Usually Obama only apologizes to rogue nations!

[NightTrain]

I've always liked Krauthammer. Very smart guy and on the mark, usually.

He gets bonus points for a mega cool name, too.

[Perianne]

Charles Krauthammer is an establishment hack.

Perianne, I wish I were you. You are all-seeing when it comes to RINOs. Bless your heart.

Tonight on The O'Reilly Factor Krauthammer strongly defended Bill Clinton on this:


In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. The reason for Clinton’s immediate departure: Clinton Cash revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative.

While defending the Clintons on this issue, Krauthammer also took a shot at "Trump University".

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/

[fj1200]

Perianne, I wish I were you. You are all-seeing when it comes to RINOs. Bless your heart.

Tonight on The O'Reilly Factor Krauthammer strongly defended Bill Clinton on this:

While defending the Clintons on this issue, Krauthammer also took a shot at "Trump University".

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/

Is this Krauthammer "strongly defending" a Clinton?


Charles Krauthammer scrutinized the situation. "Bill Clinton used his name and reputation to cash in," Dr. K said. "It's unsavory when a president is doing it, but even if his wife were not Secretary of State, he would have been doing something like this. He's saying, 'I will endorse your product so you can grow the business,' and he got paid a lot of money. I don't think this will have a major effect on her, but the bigger story is that this keeps coming out. There is nothing that escapes the smothering cloud of these stories."
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=latestTVShow

:confused: