Krauthammer Smacks Down Inside Washington Panel Over GOP Campaign Contributions
Charles Krauthammer on Friday called the entire panel of PBS's "Inside Washington" a bunch of whiners for complaining about anonymous campaign contributions Republicans are receiving this election cycle.
After host Gordon Peterson briefly explained the impact of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling earlier this year, NPR's Nina Totenberg called it a "scandal in the making...this is the kind of thing that led to Watergate."
Peterson then surprisingly asked, "Are you aware of any Democrats turning down soft money like this?"
Totenberg hypocritically answered, "No, but the Democrats aren't getting - it's eight to one is the, is the disproportion here."
Krauthammer marvelously jumped in, "So in other words, it's whining," and that's when the fun started (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Thanks to the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling earlier this year, 501(c) nonprofits can pump millions of dollars into our elections and they don't have to tell us where the money is coming from. The best government money can buy, Nina.
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Well, you know, really, this is the next scandal. It's a, the scandal in the making. They don't have to disclose anything. And eventually, this is the kind of thing that led to Watergate.
PETERSON: Are you aware of any Democrats turning down soft money like this?
TOTENBERG: No, but the Democrats aren't getting - it's eight to one is the, is the disproportion here.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: So in other words, it's whining. [...]
After Totenberg and the other panelists - the Washington Post's Colby King and PBS's Mark Shields - made mostly similar points about how terrible these anonymous contributions are, Krauthammer struck back:
KRAUTHAMMER: This is whining squared. First of all, eight to one, well, there is a "one" obviously. Democrats are also in the game, but they are losing the game, so they are very unhappy. Secondly, the law came from the Supreme Court. It decided that this kind of disclosure is not required. I am not a fan of the ruling, but it is the law, so it's within the law. Secondly, you know, Democrats are complaining about how much Republicans are raising. In the last election cycle, Obama alone raised $600 million, breaking all records in the galaxy, and he raised another 300 for the DNC.
TOTENBERG: But we know from where.
KRAUTHAMMER: When he runs next time, I'm saying the Supreme Court has decided it's not required.
TOTENBERG: The question is we know from where.
KRAUTHAMMER: The question is what's affecting, the implication is that the President, you showed that clip of the President, and the implication is that the Republicans are purchasing this election. This is nonsense. One example: Rove has raised $50 million; the unions have set aside $100 million in this election, and the difference is...
PETERSON: I think it's more like $200 million.
KRAUTHAMMER: ...that a union member doesn't have a say in whether it goes to a Democrat or Republican even if he is a Republican. So let's not hear this whining about how the money is (unintelligible). That's not why Republicans lost in '08 and not why Democrats are going to lose in '10.
Indeed. Obama and the Democrats set all kinds of campaign finance records during the last election cycle, and now that these numbers are favoring Republicans, liberal media members are crying "foul!"
As Krauthammer also pointed out, the press never seems to have any problem with contributions made by America's labor unions which almost exclusively go to Democrats.
As such, Krauthammer properly identified what all this media hyperventilation is concerning this year's campaign finance issue: whining squared.