not to bore you, but out of curiosity I did some digging/collected some information on Krauthammer to see if I could understand why he was dispairaging Fred's campaign.
On Charles Krauthammer (neocon):
"Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, "Disarm the Citizenry," The Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996, page A19
Also, from Wiki on Krauthammer:
Krauthammer is generally considered a conservative or neoconservative. However, he is a supporter of legalized abortion[8][9][10], an opponent of the death penalty[11][12][13][14], an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution, calling the creation-evolution controversy a "false conflict" [15][16], a supporter of embryonic stem cell research (involving embryos discarded by fertility clinics)[17][18][19], a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation[20][21][22][23]...
+++++
My reaction: I did not know that.
I have been so disillusioned with Krauthammer lately. I used to think he was so great.
From what I can tell, he’s not for embryonic stem cell research. Read the column he wrote in today’s Washington Post.
That other stuff is scary. I usually enjoy his political analysis, but every now and then he says something that makes me go, “What the heck?” I do enjoy his insights more than I do those of Fred B., Mort K., and Mara A.
Neither did I. Thanks for the 411.
Good grief — I didn’t know that about Krauthammer — he’s a radical gun-grabber???
That’s a real shame — I’ve always had a lot of respect for him. I don’t say he’s a bad person because of these views, but I certainly lose any regard for his commentary if he is that ignorant about history, tyranny and the Constitution.
Whatever happens with this election, I am seeing a major realignment in the GOP-sphere. The truth is bursting out all over, and in many cases it’s not pretty.
"Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, "Disarm the Citizenry," The Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996, page A19
*****************
I had no idea. Thanks.