Opinion

# Charles Krauthammer: A small and simple strategy for a struggling Republican House

• Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
Jan. 21, 2013 11:17 p.m.

Pagan,

Wasn't the day Bush left office the same day Obama took office? So the debt after Bush, \$10,699,804,864,612 is the same debt Obama started with.

Why did you jump the starting debt for Obama by 1.6 trillion dollars? That is the 2009 deficit, and it goes in the Obama column.

Is this the way democrats do math to protect their dear Obama?

Is it so hard to be truthful?

Quoting Pagan,

"You give Obama half the time, and expect him to do more, with less. That is not a solution.

You go even further, claiming Obama should resolve the debt in ONE year, when you gave Bush eight years to double it."

No where did I say or intimate any of that. What I wrote is clearly here, in writing. All can see you have totally twisted my words.

Again, is it so hard to be truthful?

Apparently it is for you.

Obama has a history to predict from, but if you don't like projections, compare 1 term to 1 term, for a fair and honest comparison.

See you in 2017, the year of hope and change.

• Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
Jan. 21, 2013 8:27 p.m.

More than double yes, but triple is a lie?

Now we are simply arguing semantics.

National debt was \$1,028,729,000,000 when Regan took office.

When Regan left office: the national debt was \$2,684,392,000,000.

An increase of 188%.

When W. Bush took office, the national debt was: \$5,943,438,563,436

When W. Bush left office, the national debt was: \$10,699,804,864,612.

An increase of 89%.

When Obama took office, the national debt was: \$12,311,349,677,512

Today, the national debt is: \$16,432,730,050,569

An increase of: 53.6%.

So, which is greater?

188%.?

Or 54%?

You give Obama half the time, and expect him to do more, with less. That is not a solution.

You go even further, claiming Obama should resolve the debt in ONE year, when you gave Bush eight years to double it.

Ok, lets use your own rhetoric.

Regan doubled the debt.

W. Bush, almost doubled the debt.

Obama, has done neither.

Why is Obama different?

I cannot debate someone who claims to want the 'truth' and then use claims like someone is 'on track'. Projections.

Good day.

• Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
Jan. 21, 2013 6:31 p.m.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT
"Ronald Regan tripled the national debt.

W. Bush doubled the national debt.

Obama, factually has done neither.

So, why all the outrage over Obama's spending of the national debt?

What is the difference?"

I am sure that was a rhetorical question, since you choose to compare 8 year term of the republicans to 4 years of Obama, and you lied about Reagan tripling the debt.

But others might be interested in the truth.

The truth is that Reagan didn't triple the debt. More than double yes, but triple is a lie.

Obama incurred more debt HIS FIRST YEAR than Reagan did in 8 years, and in his first term more than Bush did in 2 terms.

Obama has taken the debt higher than the GDP, for the first time in history.

Obama is on track to more than double the debt before he leaves office.

All the things you complain about, Obama has done them and has escalated them to whole new levels, completely intentionally and apologetically.

The past cannot be changed, but we could make some changes now. This president and his followers don't want make anything better.

• Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
Jan. 21, 2013 11:48 a.m.

Ronald Regan tripled the national debt.

W. Bush doubled the national debt.

Obama, factually has done neither.

So, why all the outrage over Obama's spending of the national debt?

What is the difference? Barring that Obama has spent less than Republican Presidents to date?

• Copy Cat Murray, UT
Jan. 21, 2013 9:25 a.m.

liberal larry,

"Obama has cut government spending for each of the last 3 years"

False!!

2009 Fed gov spending rose 11%
2010 Fed gov spending dropped 1%
2011 Fed gov spending rose 4%
2010 Fed gov spending rose 5% (estimated, firm figures are not released yet)

Spending rose every year but one, and total raise in spending 19%!

To quote Maverick (parantheses added), "Somewhere sometime you have to have credibility. ...(Liberal larry) hasn't any."

EMajor,"Lying with rhetoric: how to make a dishonest partisan argument using selective (or false) statistics and reasoning". Or perhaps "The echo chamber: how to... (promote the liberal agenda)"

Charles isn't the one lying here.

• Copy Cat Murray, UT
Jan. 21, 2013 9:03 a.m.

Screwdriver

"We'll fix the fillibuster rule pretty soon, count on that."

You sound like Orin Hatch, seeking all the power. Except you want to do it in an underhanded way.

Thanks for revealing yourself.

• Truthseeker SLO, CA
Jan. 21, 2013 12:32 a.m.

Obama has demonstrated he is willing and capable of compromising with Republicans. Republicans, on the other hand, gave him the fist to his out-stretched hand soon after he took the oath of office. Republican's stated goal was to deny success to Obama--no matter the cost to the country.

A majority of Americans see the growing inequality and no longer believe the "trickle-down" policies that Republicans continue to promote. They resent being portrayed as just looking for "hand-outs" while working long hours in low-paying jobs, or receiving the benefits they paid into during their careers.

• one vote Salt Lake City, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 8:44 p.m.

I guess they gerrymandered themselves out. Time to start creating fair districts.

• Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
Jan. 20, 2013 8:01 p.m.

Kosimov you don't understand the tactics that republicans have used in the senate to keep bills from being voted on.

The republicans have shredded the constitution and require 60 votes on every subject. They simply don't care about the people or the constitution. (to use republican rhetoric)

We'll fix the fillibuster rule pretty soon, count on that. It's going to be a rough 4 years for the t-party.

• John C. C. Payson, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 7:27 p.m.

Mr. Krauthammer is dreaming if he thinks the Republican Party is not split by ideological differences. The far right of our party is stubborn, and not willing to accept any compromise in its doctrinaire approach to policy. Bit by bit, members of the formerly big tent have pealed off, disappointed. This last election it was most notably the Hispanics who had supported Bush and believed conservatives could be compassionate. There are others who are looking elsewhere for a home. Learn to get along with the rest of our nation or we will continue to shrink.

• There You Go Again Saint George, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 4:26 p.m.

ck hits it out of the park with insighful analysis...

"...The party establishment is coming around to the view that if you try to govern from one house — e.g., force spending cuts with cliff-hanging brinkmanship — you lose. You not only don't get the cuts. You get the blame for rattled markets and economic uncertainty. You get humiliated by having to cave in the end. And you get opinion polls ranking you below head lice and colonoscopies in popularity...".

Another great, insightful and accurate article by Dr. Krauthammer. Should be required reading in every school in America!

• Furry1993 Ogden, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 4:18 p.m.

To Mountanman 7:02 a.m. Jan. 20, 2013

Another great, insightful and accurate article by Dr. Krauthammer. Should be required reading in every school in America!

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

Yes it should be read "in every school in America" -- that way the students will be taught to recognize political fiction, and duplicitous writing, when they see it.

• kosimov Riverdale, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 2:29 p.m.

The only thing statistics showing one party much more popular than the other prove is that the country may not be thinking hard enough about either one. Examine the polls during times when America was doing well (I seem to remember those, at least, they SEEMED better than now....). The approval numbers for each party tend to be more balanced; then they are unbalanced, as they are now, I worry that we are not examining what is going on in Washington, and especially, what the consequences may be later on.

Obama's administration has promised Americans, especially low-income, less informed Americans, a utopian welfare state which will give them a better standard of living without requiring sacrifices or that they work for it. Why wouldn't the people approve of that? Only those with enough experience in life to know that "there is no free lunch", and other realities, pause and wonder what is going on when the country is careening uncontrolled toward ruin, while the polls show most Americans approve of this. If it doesn't make sense, guess what? Something fishy is going on!

• kosimov Riverdale, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 2:22 p.m.

The democrat controlled Senate has failed in its Constitutional duty to prepare a budget for four years. They block everything the House tries to do, regardless of how "balanced" it is or could be made, unless everything is exactly as Obama specifies. The Senate is merely an Obama rubber-stamp, pushing for whatever Obama wants, blocking everything else. I don't profess to be a Congressional scholar, but this doesn't seem to be a useful function for the Senate to perform.

On top of this, the Republican dominated House is constantly criticized and condemned when it does not automatically rubber-stamp agreement with whatever Obama wants. If the democrat Senate and the Republican House are each doing the same thing: preventing the "minority" party from passing anything, how is it that the GOP is tagged as the only party doing this? Why isn't the Senate examined with as critical an eye as the House? Is it because the country is caught up in the "free lunch" Obama actions which seems to ignore the facts about what the ever-increasing debt will do to us, so they give democrats a free pass and focus on the GOP?

• Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 1:21 p.m.

What should struggling Republicans do?

Vote Democrat.

• Truthseeker SLO, CA
Jan. 20, 2013 10:38 a.m.

In a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 26% of respondents said they have a positive opinion of the GOP, including just 6% who said they have a "very" positive impression of the party. What's more, 49% said they view the party negatively — the highest negative rating given to Republicans in the NBC/WSJ survey since 2008.

The poll showed the Democratic Party, by contrast boasting, an above-water favorability rating: 44% of those polled said they have a positive opinion of Dems, compared with 38% who said they have a negative opinion.

Obama has a 52% approval rating.

The Tea Party has a 47% disapproval rating, 23% approval rating.

• Truthseeker SLO, CA
Jan. 20, 2013 10:26 a.m.

In a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 26% of respondents said they have a positive opinion of the GOP, including just 6% who said they have a "very" positive impression of the party. What's more, 49% said they view the party negatively — the highest negative rating given to Republicans in the NBC/WSJ survey since 2008.

The poll showed the Democratic Party, by contrast boasting, an above-water favorability rating: 44% of those polled said they have a positive opinion of Dems, compared with 38% who said they have a negative opinion.

Obama has a 52% approval rating.

The Tea Party has a 47% disapproval rating, 23% approval rating.

• Emajor Ogden, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 10:01 a.m.

"Another great, insightful and accurate article by Dr. Krauthammer. Should be required reading in every school in America!"

Yes, required reading in a new course titled "Lying with rhetoric: how to make a dishonest partisan argument using selective statistics and reasoning". Or perhaps "The echo chamber: how to get a posh writing job as a partisan hack preaching to the choir".

• Shaun Sandy, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 9:55 a.m.

@mountainman. This article should be required reading in every school in America? Really? Republicans are no different than democrats. Why do they try to pretend to be? Ron Paul was the only true conservative and republicans kicked him to the curb.

• The Real Maverick Orem, UT
Jan. 20, 2013 8:30 a.m.

Somewhere sometime you have to have credibility. Chuck hasn't any. He has been wrong so many times. Why does the dnews still print his garbage?

• liberal larry salt lake City, utah
Jan. 20, 2013 7:38 a.m.

While Bush was in office he created the 68 billion dollar a year homeland security agency, he increased Medicare drug yearly spending to the tune of 40 billion dollars, he got us ensnared in the two foreign war which should cost an estimated 4 TRILLION DOLLARS, and then to top it all off he cut taxes!

Obama has cut government spending for each of the last 3 years, we need a mature and rational GOP to come to the table work with the Democrats and get spending back under control. You remember like when Bill Clinton was in office.

• Mountanman Hayden, ID
Jan. 20, 2013 7:02 a.m.

Another great, insightful and accurate article by Dr. Krauthammer. Should be required reading in every school in America!