It’s not like Charles Krauthammer wasn’t already scathing about President Obama’s immigration action.
Krauthammer slammed Obama for his executive order that, in Krauthammer’s opinion could have and should have been done when Obama had a Democratic House of Representatives and Senate. Krauthammer also accused Obama of using the subject for political purposes and making “chumps” out of legal immigrants.
When Krauthammer finished, Bill O’Reilly said, “Anyone listening to you tonight, and what you just said, will then take away that the president is a complete phony, that he’s doing this for venal reasons, not compassionate reasons and that, if you put that together, he’s a bad person. Is that what you mean to say?”
“No, of course not,” Krauthammer answered. He explained that he thinks Obama is a “very skilled politician who has used the issue for six years” and that it is “somewhat offensive” for Obama to pretend that he acted out of high-mindedness tonight.
O’Reilly continued pressing Krauthammer: “So you don’t think he’s a principled man, though. You think he’s doing this for political reasons.”
Krauthammer still didn’t want to go there. He said, “Look, whatever the motives are, the fact is that you can have honorable debates about the substance of a policy. He went on to discuss the nuts and bolts of what immigration policy he’d support.
Watch it below.
Does he remember the last time that Obama had that “Democratic House and Senate?” That was an era in which Senate leader Reid had NOT changed the filibuster rules that would require a minority holdout to block ANY legislation by the simple threat of a filibuster. See, Krauthammer obviously forgets that, since Obama was elected, the Dems NEVER had a filibuster-proof majority (ie, 60 votes) so a single, lone GOPer could threaten to shut down even the mere talk of immigration reform by merely saying, “This legislation will never make it to the floor because I’ll filibuster it” and that simple threat would stop the legislation in its tracks.
Hell, even when it came to confirming NON-controversial nominees, GOPers would routinely threaten to filibuster the nomination (usually for little more than the publicity it got them) and still wind up voting to confirm the nominee they’d threatened to filibuster in the first place. McConnell made it clear—on Day One of Obama’s Presidency—that the GOP would do anything AND everything they could to obstruct Obama’s agenda.
I also recall the fact that the Dems almost never (especially in the House) vote in the same lock-step manner that is all too common for the GOP so that even when Obama “had” Dem majorities in both Houses of Congress, he still had to overcome the obstacle that “his” party members in Congress would still vote the way they wanted to, instead of the way he wanted. Even with the Affordable Care Act, all three of Alabama’s Democratic members of Congress voted against it; that includes Parker Griffith who switched from being a Democrat to being a GOPer—and who was roundly defeated in his first race as a GOPer.
Then again, I have a bit of a long-term memory, and have no real problem with rechecking facts when I might be a bit hazy. Unlike certain right-wing hacks I could mention.
;^)
