Charles Krauthammer: Obama 'seething,' may try to provoke impeachment

http://www.examiner.com/article/charles-krauthammer-obama-seething-may-try-to-provoke-impeachment



In an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News Wednesday night, psychiatrist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer told Bill O'Reilly that President Barack Obama is "seething" over the sweeping GOP victories in Tuesday's midterm elections, and may do something "reckless" in response. Krauthammer, who is widely respected in conservative circles, is also a Pulitzer Prize winner, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard.

Krauthammer referred to President Obama's defiant press conference after the elections. In rejecting the voters obvious discontent with Obama and the Democrat Party, the president vowed to move forward with an 'executive action' that could grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and also promised to move forward with his progressive agenda.

"The principles that we’re fighting for, the things that motivate me every single day and motivate my staff every day … those things aren't going to change," the president said.

Bill O'Reilly suggested at one point during the interview that Obama wants to "go out guns blazing," and Krauthammer wholeheartedly agreed, and also indicated he believes Obama is in denial over the election results.

"You’re absolutely right," Krauthammer responded. "He’s a strange combination of obliviousness and recklessness. It’s as if he doesn't know what happened." Krauthammer then warned, the president is “going to sort of get his revenge on everybody by doing a reckless thing which is to legalize millions of illegal aliens, I would say, unconstitutionally, in a way that he knows is going to create a crisis.”

Krauthammer said by provoking the GOP into starting impeachment proceedings Obama would hope to create backlash against Republicans, and put himself "back in the limelight … in the spotlight."

But Krauthammer also cautioned such a move by the Republicans would not be a good idea. "We’re talking about him," Krauthammer said. "That’s what he wants."

"This is time for Republicans to be very disciplined. They won the election because they were disciplined. They stayed on message. They made it a referendum on Obama, and they won," he continued. "What they have to do now is to go from being the party of no to the party with an agenda."

"The principles that we'��re fighting for, the things that motivate me every single day and motivate my staff every day … those things aren't going to change," the president said.


,,, Perfectly stated


"What they have to do now is to go from being the party of no to the party with an agenda."

,,I wholeheartedly agree

There won't be any impeachment attempts.

Two words that scare Americans,
more than any other words;
President Biden.

Perfectly stated?...Things aren't going to change? So much for running on "CHANGE"....lol


Obama makes himself a fool.

reading comprehension is our friend

the 'things' referenced were those discussed ,, namely what they fight for and believe in,,,

Best Impeachment-Insurance in this here Universe!

My comprehension is fine. He should think twice about using the word "change" in any instance.

really? the English language is amazing

most words including 'change' have many different contexts in which they can be used,, some appropriate and others not


for example,, if I say " I am going to change out of the dress and put on some pants',,,,is not dependent upon whether or not

'I am going to change my political views' or " I am going to change my values'


although, I could 'change my behaviors towards others' regardless of whether I am going to 'change my values'


Im not going to change how I feel about bigots , for instance, but I can change how I 'deal with bigots'


,.,,I could go on, but I'm sure its understood more than is let on here,,,

Obama bin laden, did promise change during his original campaign, and throughout his first term.

He kept that promise, though not in context he made it.

Most Americans have realised, they have less folding money in their pockets, and are having to scrounge for change to afford the higher prices for groceries, fuel, and health insurance.

the POTUS (regardless of who) does not set the prices for groceries

MOST Americans already could not afford health insurance

and

gas prices are also affected by a number of things BEYOND the president

,,change is a safe thing to run on, because things will always change(some things) and others wont,,,

or extremism,,,,but generally, similar

It's called spin..

ImPOTUS, does effect consumer prices, when he demands higher minimum wages. When he demands that "wealthy" farmers and ranchers pay their "fair share".

Increased costs during production, will reflect in higher costs on the consumer end.

Seriously?
If you haven't noticed the rise in fuel prices every time obama bin laden opens his mouth... Or the spike in health insurance costs, since obama bin laden-care became law,
you're either delusional, or you're simply dishonest.

Ok, get ready. Here comes the Spin.

Here comes the spin, or as some of us call it,, FACTS

lol

seems you have been drinking the kool aid , my friend

here is a quick reference

CPI :The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.

SINCE THIS PRESIDENT WAS INNAUGURATED,, the following CPI Trend has occurred

the avg for 2008: 3.8
2009: - 0.4
2010: 1.6
2011: 3.2
2012: 2.1
2013: 1.5


that's more than a 50% decrease in the price of goods since he was elected,,,so no,, the POTUS Has not contributed to an increase in consumer prices


COSTCO pays its employers some of the highest wages in the industry and maintains some of the lowest prices,,so that theory is kind of unproven too

I seldom ask someone to cite their source, but the above is averaged and, except for the purpose of spin, meaningless...

From The Bureau of Labor Statistics the most current ( September 2014) Consumer Price Index report(s) show substantial increases in food and 'housing' energy as well as all other items except food and energy...

From the report...

CONSUMER PRICE MOVEMENTS SEPTEMBER 2014

The all items index increased 1.7 percent over the last 12 months, the same increase as for the 12 months ending August. The 12- month change in the index for all items less food and energy also remained at 1.7 percent. The 12-month change in the shelter index has been gradually increasing, and reached 3.0 percent for the first time since January 2008. The food index has also risen 3.0 percent over the span, while the energy index has declined 0.6 percent.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables.htm

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1409.pdf...This is the page that show the index breakdown...

this president was inaugurated in January of 2009,, he didn't just start supporting raising the wages,, he has since day one

SO

if we COMPARE (for the sake of arguing whether a presidents support or non support of higher wage) whether the presidents stand on wages impacts prices ,,,

looking at bush who was no supporter of wage hikes, to Obama who is we see that the CPI under the former was actually HIGHER than that under the latter,,,,kind of puts a squash on such logic that OBAMA stand on wages (or bushes for that matter)is responsible for an increase or decrease in prices

Looking at current reports tells the real story...My numbers apply to his second term, '13 and '14.....Also, I would give previous administration credit for the '09 numbers..It's that delayed reaction spin you've used as a defense so many times in past debates....

Im not 'defending' anything, Im posting the numbers

and nothing is delayed when we are speaking about whether a POTUS has an impact, it is relevant to consider any and/or all presidents from which to draw a conclusion,,,

so

I believe you are completely missing my point.

the CURRENT report tells of the past twelve months,, this president has supported increased wages for the past 95 months,,,lol

so the assertion that a presidents stand on wages is somehow what causes prices to rise or fall is disproven by the obvious fluctuation over this presidency(and the one prior) in that trend,,,

during a time when we had a president who did not support wage hikes we had some of our highest CPI rates,, if the support was the cause of increase, inversely, a lack of support should be expected to cause decrease

and since the trend does not bare that out in any way,, its a false line of logic,,,

I thought your point was a sitting president has nothing to do with a chity economy...Silly me...