Ann! Hush! I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have you making the Tea Party angry!
Posted on 11/17/2011 11:41:45 AM PST by jenk
You know, if it weren't for Romney supporters, I might be able to support the guy.
On Tuesday night, Ann Coulter was a guest on the Sean Hannity Show where she said this: COULTER: I think the candidate, it is going to be and is the strongest candidate to beat Obama is Mitt Romney. And, you know, I'm a little tired of these Johnny-come-lately conservative purists.
She's talking about us, the tea party. She is calling us Johnny-come-latelys, saying, basically, "Where were you when we were fighting all this time, you just showed up on the scene in 2009, who are you to deign to come in and pick our candidate for us, you tea party morons." Then she has to go and throw in the "conservative purists" label. That got me angry.
Where were we, Ann? We were buying your books, learning. We were raising our families, trying to make a better life for them than we had, driving our trucks until gas cost $100 a fill-up, figuring that hard times were just a bump in the road, as usual. But then came Obama, and we can see, because we are parents and understand a little better how life operates, that no matter what we do to try to make our kids' lives better than ours, this spending and agenda for America means they will never have it as good as us. So yeah, we are going to pick your candidate for you. We are the ones who have the most to lose. We own property, work hard, and we aren't going anywhere. And you know what else, for somebody who is a lawyer and purported to be a great thinker, you couldn't come up with a more accurate phrase than 'conservative purists' to describe mainstream America? I'll give you a hint. We are Americans, and in America, the people are constitutionally mandated to be in charge of their government.
Coulter: Where were they when we were running John McCain? For Pete's sake, Romney is a million times better than McCain.John McCain isn't running. I agree Romney is better than John McCain, but you're not! You have decided to snipe at regular American people who have bought your books and learned the ropes while raising our families, and you call us Johnny-come-latelys?! Who the hell do you think reads your stuff?! So now you get to sit right next to McCain, who calls us hobbits.
Coulter: Romney speaks absolutely beautifully, he's been magnificent in the debates. I think he's a little bit of a country club Republican, too, but let's just get a Tepublican in there and get Obama out and as long as we have a Republican Senate -- by the way, Tea Partiers, that's what we need to be working on, Republicans picking up the Senate.Alright, what she is saying now is the same thing they said about O'Donnell, and Angle, and Palin, and anyone that the American People prefer over their pick. She is regurgitating verbatim what I heard on last November when my candidate won. All the little twenty-something consultants and beltway hacks were dumping on O'Donnell for losing the Senate. But the beltway and the Republican establishment in Delaware worked against her the entire campaign. Now, the mere mention of O'Donnell to these beltway losers creates convulsions. So that shoots a huge hole in the idea that Coulter is an original thinker.
HANNITY: But here's a problem he's facing. And this is important. He has had a hard time up until now. Now, it's fascinating in the polls, he's the one guy that has remained a frontrunner, has not lost that status from the very beginning. It seems like he is having -- it doesn't seem like, he's having problems with some of the conservative base in the polls there.This constant beating-up of Reagan by beltway losers is supremely irritating to me. I was a kid when Reagan was in office, and Coulter acts like 'Reagan was a one-timer, get over it.' No, it is conservatism we need, and your guy Romney is not one. He evokes zero ambition, zero emotion and zero faith that he will not acquiesce to those terrible, mean, nasty, Marxist, xenophobes that you have been writing about, and are running the government right now! For crying out loud! Oh, and Romney's such a nice guy, gee, he doesn't want to say those incendiary things that those crazy tea partiers say...that is exactly what McCain did. You cannot win a campaign against a Marxist that way, who will stop at nothing to get elected. Romney is getting such velvet glove treatment, that he'll be turned into mincemeat, and you know what else? When we are up against people who are trying to destroy America, nice guys finish last. How do you think Romney will react when they go for his short-and-curlies? Hmm, Coulter? Ever think of that? To think that you have been laying the case for years about how liberalism is destroying America, and how to talk to libs, and their agenda is Demonic, yet you say, hey everybody, let's throw some oatmeal at him, that'll really get him!COULTER: Right. That's what I'm saying. What the reason for that is, and I understand this, I agree, this seems, feels like 1980. If we had a Ronald Reagan out there, we could probably win with the Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is not available this year. We have to -- and Romney is well-known to --well the electorate generally and conservatives -- we know what his negatives are but we have to keep cycling through these other conservatives to find out what their negatives are. And boy, the Obama White House is loving this, keep Republicans fighting.
COULTER: What I think Republicans should be and conservatives, people who care about this country should be looking at, is not just can you check off this issue, this issue, this issue, but who can you send in, in the debates against Obama? I think hands down that is Mitt Romney.
What if Obama refuses to have a debate? His supporters don't watch debates, we do. Debates are for us to decide and discern, and weigh options and measure the candidates because we are thinkers. The leftists and anarchists are emotional. I actually think you were the first one to teach me that. So why the hell would Obama not just sidestep the debates? He is, after all, ignoring every proper and ethical way to run the nation, throwing separation of powers in the ditch, shredding the Constitution, WAKE UP! By the way, any Republican can win a debate against Obama, because it would only be watched by us!! But let's say Obama gives in and only has one debate, we'll all say for months that our guy won the debate, while him and his pukes pick Romney apart, pitting all groups of people against one another, making everyone afraid of everything, as usual.
The beginning of the segment on Hannity talks about Chris Christie warning Republicans not to underestimate Obama's campaign, and then Ann Coulter, Christie's biggest supporter, trips on in, and underestimates it completely.
They also told us the best thing to do after Reagan was to elect his vice president - who had been his main opponent in the primaries in 1980. By doing so we killed the momentum of the Conservative Counterrevolution we had started in the 80s.
I dropped extended cable to get rid of Fix News. I had a few panic attacks, but I quickly got over them. I don’t miss it.
Romney is so easy to beat even McCain did it. There is a reason the MSM wants him as the nominee.
Exactly.
They all just got their panties in a wad, when people stated to connect.
Internet is great. The Tea Party is the culmination of that process.
Maybe it’s unmarried woman syndrome. Unmarried Republicans like Coulter & Ingraham want Romney. Unmarried Democrat women swoon over Hillary.
In a battle between Hillary & Romney who will win? Clinton, hands down.
I suddenly got it. What you posted about country club republicans: The republicans were the Washington Generals. The team that was paid to travel around and get beaten by the Harlem Globetrotters. They had to try... that was they hook. They’d “try” and the globetrotters would run rings around them, etc. They came close sometimes... I think at least once they actually won. But it wasn’t their show - they were just foils for the rulers.
I'm tired of the purists who insist on only their brand of purity and that it be 100%....except for a candidate they like.
That is what I call hypocrisy.
And when they have a "peculiar to themselves" ultimate issue. (TOPIOC - Their Own Personal Interpretation Of Conservatism)
And when they are "Headline Hounds" who don't read and analyze the biases of the writer/editor producing the headline. They are also "Headline Juries" who convict on the basis of a headline.
And when they reject candidates who are long time Pro-God, Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-American Exceptionalism, Pro-Strong Defense, Pro-Fiscal Sanity and Solvency, Pro-Limited Government with the mindless application of the epithet "liberal" or "rino".
I was attacked weeks ago for exposing Coulter for what she really is.
Her supporters on this site are rabid. They need to check their principles.
I discarded Coulter when she began pushing GOProud homosexuals at CPAC.
Are you saying Ann “swings” for the “other” team that always seems to be gay and happy?
Ann, this simply is not a fact. Both Gingrich and Santorum have been better, deeper, more passionate, and more believable than has Romney. And if Bachmann would quit reminding us of her international lawyer with 23 kids opposing obamacare, then she has given better answers, too.
Bachmann, Cain and Perry have pretty much been their own worst enemies.
Newt will pulverize Romney in the debates, unless his head gets too big.
Then the dems will start in on Newt to try to usher Obama in for another four years.
Let's not forget ACORN, illegal alien votes, and the corruption in the voting booths, especially the machines that the Chicago Thug Mob Political Machine have software to hack the votes to dems.
The republicans have not been aggressive in making sure the voting process is close to 100% honest.
People who believe that think that the way you win elections is to keep to the broad middle as a "moderate" because that will gather more votes than taking a position at either end of the spectrum.
They are WRONG!
The American political continuum doesn't exist in 2 dimensions. Just it's 3 dimensional manifestation shows that it's a BIMODAL SADDLE.
It has two poles around which organized factions, or socio/politico/economic classes gravitate.
There is not a whole lot of active political life outside of the two poles ~ one of which is centered roughly on the Democrat party and the other of which is centered on the Republican party.
This structure is forced on us by the existence of SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS and STATES (which pretty much act like larger single member districts).
Add to that FIRST PAST THE POST standards for winning an election in one of those districts, and there's no way out of the two party structure, top to bottom.
The way you win in a bimodal saddle is you must first retain your base and then attract a significant number from a faction otherwise part of the structure of the other base.
How you lose an election in a Bimodal saddle is you give up on too many of your base's core values and seek to attract votes from the other party by subverting their own positions.
Back in 1964 we had TWO CANDIDATES, Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson, who both understood the dynamics of the bimodal saddle. Johnson held his base with the bloody shirt of JFK and attracted Republican voters from around the nation who were fearful of war. He didn't just pick up a region not otherwise voting for Democrats ~ he got a FACTION to switch.
But Goldwater was absolutely correct in how the political picture was organized ~ there was no normal curve with everybody in the middle.
Later Ronald Reagan approached the electorate the same way ~ this time he held the Republican base, much as Johnson had held the Democrat base, and then picked up Southerners ~ and not just Southerners in the South, but Southerners who'd moved to the North!
Political demographers had been imagining such a combination since the Louisiana Territory had begun organizing into states!
Again, hold your base, go after one of the other guy's factions, ignore the fringe ~ which is, at most 1 or 2 percent.
Romney's, and Coulter's approach to attracting votes is a guaranteed loser ~ first, they'll lose the Republicans, and you can see that in the 80% who consistently select anyone but Romney. Secondly you won't really attract any general selection of Democrats because you have nothing to offer them "in general". Doing that gives up on the idea of going after one of the Democrat factions.
Ann's worldview of politics is simply wrong. Else she'd understand that Romney is a guaranteed loss, as is Johnson, as is Huntsman, as is Paul, as are some of the others who fail to understand the Republican base!
Going Liberal doesn't serve Republican interests.
DIDN’T BUY HER BOOKS AND NEVER THOUGHT SHE WAS THE HOTTIE SO MANY HERE DID.
“gone rino, and wants the snobs inside the beltway to invite her to the parties. “
Ding ding ding...we have a winner.
Sadly it happens to Freepers as well. So desperate to be part of the “in crowd”, collecting autographs and taking photos at receptions. They worship certain media types and will absolutely attack anyone who dares criticize people like Coulter.
Ann! Hush! I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have you making the Tea Party angry!
to be clear, you are supporting Romney, right?
So far I've not gotten through to Ann but I got to Morris and Cain, and a large number of other people who do bother to think about political logistics in their spare time.
She'll come around eventually ~ she's not ineducable. Romney won't. Wrong class. Wrong occupation/career. Wrong experience. Guy never once thought of how it was he won in a state where there are no Republicans. Brown knows ~ he subverted several Democrat factions and with the very small Republican base intact, he won.
That can be taken more than one way.
Coulter was invited to speak at tea parties, and in fact has in he past.
On the last Tea Party Express tour ending in Sept of this year, we invited her to speak at any of the venues that she could make it to.
She consulted her book schedule and because of it's route, she could not speak at any of the tea parties along the route. She would have liked to if the two routes came close together.
I never got the impression that she wanted to be seen as a leader of the Tea Party Movement in any way at all.
When she did speak at the tea parties, it was as a favor to me and the TPX people.
She never asked for a speaking fee.
Tea party loathing Romney is the anti-Reagan.
That settles it, our course is clear!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.