Here is Charles Krauthammer today:

President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obama­care are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court….Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate — the individual mandate — this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage?

Now let’s imagine it is 2003, Democrats control the House of Representatives, and they have refused to allow the government to continue running unless President Bush’s tax cut is repealed. Under pressure, they have since “compromised,” and are now demanding only that the top rate cuts be repealed as their price for reopening the government. Here is Krauthammer:

President Bush indignantly insists that Democratic attempts to abolish or amend his tax cut are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court….Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the top end cuts, this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage?

Please raise your hand if you can imagine Krauthammer writing that. Anyone? Now please raise your hand if you’re pretty sure he’d have written the exact opposite.

On a related note, Krauthammer is part of the crowd that thinks it was foolish for Republicans to tie Obamacare defunding to a government shutdown. If they were going to do this at all, he figures they should have tied it to the debt ceiling increase instead. This is a hundred times more damaging, of course, the financial equivalent of threatening nuclear obliteration, but it polls better so he prefers it. It’s a pretty good example of the dissolute state of the highbrow end of the conservative commentariat these days.

Keep us relentless, independent, and free to read.

For 50 years, Mother Jones has offered honest, investigative reporting you can rely on:

    • Relentless in the pursuit of truth, unafraid to hold the powerful to account

    • Independent from influence or agenda from oligarchs and corporations

    • Freely accessible to every reader, never behind a paywall

But we can’t do any of this without you. Reader support powers our newsroom to stay nimble and fearless, ready for whatever story comes next. If you can, make a donation today.

Keep us relentless, independent, and free to read.

For 50 years, Mother Jones has offered honest, investigative reporting you can rely on:

    • Relentless in the pursuit of truth, unafraid to hold the powerful to account

    • Independent from influence or agenda from oligarchs and corporations

    • Freely accessible to every reader, never behind a paywall

But we can’t do any of this without you. Reader support powers our newsroom to stay nimble and fearless, ready for whatever story comes next. If you can, make a donation today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate