why he did not support reagan. why did you give up on the democrats? i was still one of those who wanted to save the soul of the democratic party and maintain a conservative element of the magazine. krauthammer wrote. reagan still had a lot to answer for on foreign policy and his domestic policy was far worse. the catalog of sins that the president has committed is too long to recapitulate. he wanted privately reagan to beat mondale. i liked him and respected him as a personal matter. i didn t want to vote against a man for whom i had affection or respect. you had a vote. i left that line blank. left it blank.
it is hard to believe now. but the democratic party had a powerful wing. those democrats were a dying breed and krauthammer found himself agreeing more with the president than his readers. i agreed with the reagan policy and boy, did we get reaction when i wrote a story on the nuclear freeze that caused a large number of cancellations in the history of the magazine that i was proud of. what was his writing like? it was always step by step logical. you can read a column by charles and still disagree with him after you are are through with it you have a good argument. that is why buckley wondered
he invented the reagan doctrine, not reagan. now, everyone has to have a doctrine. even after reagan s 49 state landslide, krauthammer was not sure of what to make of reagan the man, who he met at the white house in 1986. he invited me to lunch. all of a sudden, what i m hearing from him is a story about when he and nancy were in the guest house of president demard demarcos in the philippines. i don t get it. this is the most accessible president in my lifetime, he seems to be out to lunch. what s going on. it was later what alluded him about reagan. he had no need to show how smart he was. he knew what i was asking, he didn t want to talk about it.
it s hard for people to believe now, but the democratic party had a very powerful wing. those democrats were a dying breed. he agreed more with president reagan than his liberal readers. i supported almost every element of the reagan policy. boy did we get reaction from liberal group. what was his writing like? it s always been extremely step by step logical. if you can read a column about charles about something and you can still disagree with him, you know you have a good argument. the arguments conserved a columnist like buckley, wondering why krauthammer was not supporting reagan s
staff except he got a more intriguing offer as a speech writer for walter mondale. that lasted six months. when we got crushed in the general election, i got a call saying we think you are unemployed. would you like to work for us? i said yes, right away. the day reagan was sworn in, i starpted. so help me god. the new president was promising big changes, even starting the world anew. his inaugural signaled a clash of ideas. in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. government is the problem. and the new republic was right in the midst of it. it was overwhelmingly liberal. the writers were the best of that era. i m still a democrat at the time. traditional liberal democrat. i was hard line on it.