The Lameness of Charles Krauthammer’s Writing

We’re picking on Charles Krauthammer again today. Here’s his latest column, The Audacity of Vanity, over at the Washington Post.

First, before we get to the column, does everything written about Obama have to include “audacity” somewhere in the title? That got old about two months into the primary, and now it’s just a hackneyed cliche. And that doesn’t just include Chuck Krauthammer, but every member of the media. No more audacity, please.

Now to the meat and potatoes, Chuck is at it again with this piece, doing his best to find something to rail about against Obama. Today’s subject is vanity. The Kraut Hammer takes issue with Obama’s plans to speak at the Brandenburg Gate– where Kennedy spoke, and where Reagan said “tear down this wall”–Chucky says that Obama hasn’t earned his stripes enough to deserve a speech at such a historic venue. The mere fact that Obama would give a speech at this particular landmark just shows his extreme vanity. His audacious vanity of audacity, maybe? No that’s the title of Chuck Krauthammer’s next piece.

To be fair, Chuck has a bit of a case with the whole vanity thing, Obama is pretty full of himself. But, as he is wont to do, Krauthammer takes a legitimate point and then stretches it and exaggerates as much as possible, ultimately making him look petulant and angry. Case in point:

“After all, in the words of his own slogan, ‘we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,’ which, translating the royal ‘we,’ means: ’ I am the one we’ve been waiting for.’

Here’s our problem with Chucky Krauthammer: even when he is right he treads into the realm of absurdity, seemingly for no reason. The quoted sentence above makes no sense and is a completely unnecessary and unfounded attack. When Obama says “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” he’s referring to himself? And he’s using the royal we? But wait, “we” is used twice in that sentence, shouldn’t that translate to “I am the one I’ve been waiting for?” Not a great campaign slogan. Not very subtle, either.

There are other instances of exaggeration, as well as some where Chuck exhibits some actual insight. But, overall this is just another Kraut Hammer piece, full of childish attacks as always. Charles Krauthammer, even when you may be right, you find a way to sabotage yourself so that you are always wrong. And your writing is hackneyed and only mildly coherent.