Charles Krauthammer: This may truly be nation's most important election

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    Would you give up land taken from previous land owners used to build roads? Would you dismantle public funding of education? Would you give up that police protect ALL people regardless of their income or taxes paid? Would you give up that the military protects the entire country, not just the landed or the rich?

    If not you are a Socialist, or at least a semi socialist as am I.

    I am a semi socialist and also a semi capitalist. Neither one of these philosophies has all the answers. We need both. We have both, we have for many decades now.

    The fact that the Soviet Union didn't (have both) explains their demise. We too would fall were we to embrace only one of these philosophies.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 7:17 a.m.

    Will the des news ever hold accountable their columnists ( including the ubiquitous Richards ) for continuous streams of inaccurate predictions and flat out mischaracterizations? I read with the same amusement I listen to AM radio with with ever-wrong prophets of doom.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    Nov. 6, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    What's this about comments not being posted on the DN's political articles until after the polls close? Does that apply to this article? I don't know if this article is considered "political" or not. In any case, I don't at all understand the reason for such a policy. Can someone explain it in a convincing way?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 6, 2012 6:53 a.m.

    Yes, If Obama wins he must stop his Hannity constant mean negative attacks and respect the results.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 6, 2012 5:02 a.m.

    "The Founding Fathers did not settle upon socialism as the route to utopia."

    the founding fathers also didn't see equality for all, particularly women. The founding fathers didn't see slavery as something that should have been prohibited. The founding fathers didn't see it that non-land holders should have the vote. We can go on and on with this..... the founding fathers didn't see much of the world we live in today. the didn't see our modern corporatized medical delivery system nor did they see how globalized the world would become.

    I am by no means a socialist, but to say we must live the vision of these men where over half the people of this nation didn't enjoy the same rights as male land holders.... I am not sure that is the utopia many of us want.... not in practicality what many founding fathers really envisioned.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 5, 2012 5:58 p.m.

    Mike Richards, You always get it right. Good for you. Those who want four more years of Obama should start over in kindergarten and see if you can learn something of America, its history and its Constitution. The Founding Fathers did not settle upon socialism as the route to utopia.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 5, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    What is Obama's true legacy? He's added $16,000 to the debt burden of every man, woman and child in America. He's reduced yearly income by $4,500 for every worker in America. He's added $2,500 to the yearly health cost of every family in America.

    Add to that the MILLIONS who are out of work and the MILLIONS who have had to go on welfare and you begin to see what he his policies have done to America.

    Who, in their right mind, would want another four years of Obama? Who would want an indecisive Commander in Chief who lies about a movie so that he can claim that there were no terrorist attacks during his watch?

    America will cease to exist if Obama's policies continue. His mythical "rich guy" cannot feed us all. His bankrupt "green energy" companies cannot heat our homes and light our offices.

    He has failed - completely.

    Charles Krauthammer got it right. No Democrat can claim that a continuation of Obama's policies will benefit America.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 5, 2012 7:01 a.m.

    To Mountanman 7:18 a.m. Nov. 4, 2012

    Another brilliant article by Charles Krauthammer. Should be mandatory reading in every civics class in America!


    I didn't realize civics classes were based on blatant fiction.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 7:47 p.m.

    To Eric Samuelson: Thank you, I've often felt the same about your posts.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Nov. 4, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    The author really had me going there until he got to the part about Romney enacting "a more equitable tax code." How does allowing the super-wealthy to be excused from paying the same tax bill as school teachers, construction workers, and fire fighters constitute a "more equitable tax code?"

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 10:45 a.m.

    Roland Kayser
    For maybe like the fiftieth time, I'm sitting here all ready to comment and I see that you've said exactly what I was going to say, but more eloquently and sensibly. Well done, sir!
    Absolutely. I would add 1968 and 1856 as crucial elections as well, though both went badly, based on who won. But this election? Moderately important, but only if Tea Party partisans do badly in Congressional races.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    The "Nationalization of Healthcare"? What a blatant, bald faced lie. If ACA is the nationalization of healthcare, all physicians, nurses and other clinicians would be getting their salaries from the federal government. This is simply, demonstrably untrue, a lie.

    ACA is essentially the best *Republican* ideas submitted as an alternative to HillaryCare (which would have followed the Canadian model, ie, government insurance, private clinical practice).

    Republicans, including Romney, we're so eager to defeat Obama they were willing to throw their own ideas - and accomplishments - under the bus.

    Hypocrisy on steroids.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    The only two elections that really changed the course of history were 1860 and 1932. 1828 and 1980 were also important, but do not reach the same level. This one will not change history, Romney will be George W Bush part II, and Obama is a pragmatic centrist, not the wild eyed radical portrayed in this piece.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    Hopefully we can continue the good work of President Obama, eh charles?

  • FreeMan Heber City, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 8:01 a.m.

    Yep. That about sums it up for me.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 4, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    Another brilliant article by Charles Krauthammer. Should be mandatory reading in every civics class in America!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 4, 2012 5:49 a.m.

    "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago."

    That all sounds good, but none of it is true about Reagan. The national deficit nearly tripled in the 8 years of Reagan. Government didn't shrink, it just changed the percentages on the budget headings. And it resulted in some rather costly unintended consequences - funding surrogate militaries that we latter had to deal with in Iraq and with the Taliban.

    In the authors constant deeply partisan political rant, he way over estimates any of these changes and swings. Reaganism didn't change any fundamentals like he claims... he changed nuances, but not the story. We have few Presidents that long term altered the course of American history - like what Washington and Lincoln did. In 100 years, no one will recall the details of the Reagan presidency like they do now Lincoln's. Reagan was no Lincoln.

    The sky isn't falling for either party..... the music may just be changing for a while.