Sleeping Prophet Krauthammer Bemoans O'Donnell Win

I don't watch TV news or read newspapers so I depend on friends for interesting points. Glenda McGee mentioned that Charles Krauthammer has fumed about Christie O'Donnell's victory (O'Donnell is a Tea Party social conservative) and other Tea Party victors this week.  See the video excerpt below.

In a Washington Post article Krauthammer quotes what he calls  the "Buckley Rule":  vote for the most conservative candidate who is electable. This year's polls though have been inaccurate. New York pollsters were predicting a one point Lazio victory the day before the election and virtually all of the GOP and Conservative Party hacks were supporting Lazio on the basis of the Krauthammer/Buckley rule, yet Paladino defeated Lazio by 65-35%.  This outcome does not influence Krauthammer's analysis because he has a different, unspoken motivation (greed), as did many of Lazio's supporters.

But Krauthammer is smarter than any polling company, and he is better at predicting election outcomes than was Edgar Cayce, remembered as "the sleeping prophet." He can predict election outcomes so well that he can apply the self-destructive Buckley rule every time.  It doesn't occur to Krauthammer that if conservatives are right then the big government policies will eventually implode.  At that point, the conservative alternative will be preferable.

 The "Buckley rule" led directly to the bailout and directly to the failure of post 1980 Republicans to limit the size of government.  Government expands because both parties favor expansive policies. The Democrats do so because they don't care about the Republicans and elect candidates who believe in big government and the Republicans do so because they believe in the absurd principle that you should adopt the beliefs of your political opponents because doing so makes you more likely to win.

Krauthammer is a great adviser to people who like big government.  That said, there is a reason why I don't bother reading newspapers or watching television news.  Their ideas are out of date, just like the Krauthammer/Buckley rule.  The policies of the big government establishment have become evidently harmful.  The cat is out of the bag.  People are being made poorer by those who claim to act in their interests.  For instance, Krauthammer/Buckley favored George W. Bush.  Would it have made any difference if Kerry had won? I doubt it. There probably would have been less expansion of government under Kerry. I say that as someone who voted for Bush and started to feel like a fool soon thereafter.


I very much doubt that Krauthammer and his allies have ever supported any candidate who has not supported the bailout or inflation.  They are very much part of the same establishment that the Democrats are.  They have no intention of stopping Obama in principle, just in practice.  Krauthammer dislikes Obama because he would like his cronies to be doing the same things that Obama is doing except that his cronies be the ones doing them.  Was Dick Cheney really that much better than Rahm Emanuel?  Why would anyone vote for a fat fascist rather than a thin one?  Why would I care if the candidates whom Krauthammer supports are elected over the candidates whom the Democrats offer?  They are equally garbage.

 

  Krauthammer Attacks Both Sharron Angle & Christine O’Donnell
- Watch more Politics Videos at Vodpod.

Who Knows Where the Voter Fraud Goes?

On August 6 I noted that the McCain campaign needs to think carefully about fraud prevention. Yesterday, Pamela Geller(h/t Bob Robbins) covered an interesting story along the same lines:

PUMA* members were out and about in Denver trying to savor some of the ambiance when they were approached by a group of young people registering voters in Denver. They tried to register this group to vote — all of them are registered voters in other states. The young people never asked where they lived, only if they wanted to register to vote.

Bob also sent me a link to a Charles Krauthammer article in which Mr. Krauthammer wonders why there are no testimonials to Barack Obama's character. Whereas John Kerry could find a bunch of veterans and McCain has dozens of associates who will stand behind him, Obama has no one--he stands alone. Indeed, we cannot even figure out where he was born.

The mainstream media has been clownish with respect to its coverage of Mr. Obama because it has not functioned as one would expect of competent news sources. There have been few or no questions about Mr. Obama's past, his ethics, his associations in Chicago and the small matter of potential deception concerning his early life, to include allegations of forgery of his birth certificate.

The absence of "character witnesses" is consistent with my suspicion that Mr. Obama is a man who lacks character. What better way for a publicist to manage such a man's candidacy than to omit all history. This is very similar to how con men operate, and this is also why I have been suspicious for several months now about whether Mr. Obama may be exhibiting traits associated with sociopathy (also see here and here).





*PUMA stands for "Party Unity Up MY A** and is associated with disenchanted Clinton supporters.