Krauthammer Challenges Obama on ‘Europe’s Leading Role’ Remark

Bob, I wouldn't say this is true at all. The President has often recognized the important role Europe continues to play in global affairs. After all, he wouldn't have bothered traveling there this past week, if he didn't think they mattered so much.

Anyway, enjoy the rest of your weekend!

I'm not sure you get the point of this article, Macgregor. I don't really doubt that President Obama thinks Europe plays an important role in global affairs.

What Krauthammer and I contend is that regardless of what Obama says, Europe has really played the coward, in the "leadership-by-finger-in-the-wind" model, or the "wait-until-the-United-States-takes-leadership-and-bears-the-brunt-of-military-commitment-and-cost-and-then-say-me-too" kind of leadership.

In other words, Europe doesn't do a whole lot of leading.

The last time Europe had a "Leading role in the world" was when the National Socialist Party (that's NAZI, for you public school products) ran Germany. Obama has been an embarrassment for America with statements like this. Krauthammer's characterization is true in that the US rebuilt Europe after WWII and has subsidized their defense for more than 55 years. This allowed them to squander resources on their socialist states and they don't want to give that up. So, Prez O gets no serious help in Afghanistan. Their all laughing at him.
In fairness, PO may have been referring to the establishment of the EU, with it's trade standardization agreements and united currency. It even comes with a constitution. Wonderful isn't it? That Europe tries to emulate the United States of America? Perhaps, one day, they will have a leading role in the world.

Hi Bob, I just came upon your site this morning, and I am impressed with what I've seen. I'm writing from the Socialist Republic of Minnesota. I particularly like your style of interacting with commenters by confronting them with direct questions. And while I couldn't possibly agree more with the remarks made by Mr. Krauthammer (I can't stomach watching our chief narcissist’s arrogance on camera any more), I'd like to get your take on a thought I have. I've argued with liberals in various blogs and chat rooms for a couple of years now, and I've come across very, very few capable of carrying on a civil exchange of defending respective claims and substantiating opinions. Invariably, they either disappear, lose their cool, or resort to sarcasm and name calling once they find themselves painted into a corner with no escape other than admitting they’re wrong.

My question is, do you think remarks like Krauthammer’s (sucking on your tit), as spot on as it is, is the best style to use in sending a message to the Obama loving American libs and their ilk, the European socialists? My experience has been that carefully chosen, matter of fact, and non-inflammatory language is essential if there is to be any hope of finding ANYTHING that resembles conciliation or common ground with our liberal friends. The moment you lower yourself to their name calling, cynicism, sarcasm, and aloofness, all hope of a constructive outcome is lost.

I agree with the vast majority of the underlying messages of people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Jason Lewis. But I’m beginning to wonder if the often times attention grabbing, sensationalistic, and offensive delivery style ultimately hurts our cause because of the total alienation of our (voting) adversaries. There’s an old saying that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. The attention is often extremely beneficial for the careers of the individuals making these remarks. But would our cause be better served if they chose a more light-hearted, less offensive approach, more like Reagan’s famous remark, “the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Any thoughts…

Thanks, Minnesota Guy. I have a good conservative friend in Minnesota (a few, actually), so I sympathize with your plight.

You bring up a good point about the blunt language used by Krauthammer, and I'll be honest: I'm somewhat divided on the best approach to use.

In the end, I think I take an "Ecclesiastes" approach: there is a time and a season for all things. In other words, sometimes a softer approach can work better, sometimes a humorous one (like Regan's approach often was), and at other times, direct, blunt language is called for (though I think profanity should be avoided).

Being a Christian, I try to follow the example of Christ, and it seems that Christ's approach was much like the "Ecclesiastes" method I mentioned. He was often sympathetic and soft-spoken...and at other times he lit into obstinate people with a vigor that could make a bystander cringe just to hear it.

I've always had the kind of personality that's geared toward directness; I've always been a "cut-to-the-chase" kind of person. Spending many years as a cop, and several more years in the collections industry only served to further that tendency; in those occupations you tend to hear a whole lot of bull and you get very tired of humoring the bullspitter...especially when you know it's not going to change the outcome.

And sometimes that's the only thing that can get someone's attention. Just like the bully you faced on the playground--or the international bully who has tanks and missiles at his disposal--sometimes those who are practicing and promoting evil will only knock it off when faced with bluntness and directness. In other words, they view soft-spoken, conciliatory language as weakness.

And if you don't mind getting beat up by the schoolyard bully, that's your business. But if your job (as a president or other national leader) is to keep this nation safe, that's something you need to remember.

And if you're interested in countering some of the most obstinate, vitriolic, hateful and destructive elements on the Left that want to take our country down the path to sure destruction, sometimes bluntness is called for.

The Bible says if you answer a fool according to his folly, it'll make him think he's wise in his own eyes. I take that to mean that if you answer the fool (and I'm not talking about someone with a simple disagreement on policy nuances, but one whose worldview foundation is deadly and destructive) in language that lends any credibility whatsoever to that dangerous philosophy, the fool will walk away feeling justified.

For what it's worth, that's my take on the varied approaches to dealing with liberals.

Thanks for stopping by! I hope you come back.

It is just amazing that anyone thinks losers like Krauthammer and Kristol have anything useful to say on anything anymore. These guys are stuck in the post WW2 "my way or the highway" mentality that has not figured out yet that in the age of globalization when you shoot at someone else you are shooting yourself in the foot. The idea that we can rule the world with military power is kind of ludicrous when the parts of the world that we are most nervous about are the ones that either own most of our debt or have most of the fuel we need to stay alive.

A "loser" like Charles Krauthammer? You mean the Pulitzer Prize winning "loser"? You mean the Commonwealth Scholar at Oxford "loser"? The Harvard Medical School graduate "loser"--who incidentally finished medical school after being paralyzed in a diving accident "loser"?

It seems rather rational and reasonable to me that a real "loser" is someone with a loser's mentality. Someone who doesn't want to excel. Someone ashamed of doing well. Someone ashamed of succeeding. Someone ashamed of leading.

You know: ashamed of all the qualities exemplified by the United States.

If you are ashamed of all these successful virtues, who is the real loser?

I guess I thought that a loser was a person who loses, and the ideas that Krauthammer has been selling for years are antiquated cold war paranoia that has no place in the modern world with interconnected economies and concerns.

National defense and keeping our nation safe from our enemies has no place in a modern world with interconnected economies and concerns, eh?

I'm glad there are still a few people remaining with the intellect and grasp on reality exhibited by Krauthammer. Some other folks have their heads shoved so deeply in the sand it's only a matter of time before their butts are shot off.