Skip to comments.Ann Coulter at Cpac Vanity
Posted on 02/10/2012 9:24:21 AM PST by estrogen
Coulter’s salivating with “h-o-p-e” over Romney pretty much cements it for me that in 2008 she voted for Obama. There is no other conceivable explanation for her thinking than that she’s been a well-camoflaged globalist liberal all along.
That's gonna be a good trick.
"If it (Obamacare) is not repealed in the next administration, thats it. It is here to stay. People start receiving their treats, Newt Gingrich will be denouncing plans to reform it as right-wing social engineering, and American begins its inexorable decline into Western Europe without the charming cafés and cobblestone streets.
So I ask you, CPACers, who are you willing to stake the future of this country on winning? Who is going to appeal to the most Independents? Because, if were betting the future of this country on Next Gingrich not being repellent to Independents, I want my money back. Im not taking that bet."
This might get be banned, but I agree with every word.
You may agree..but since when is it Coulter’s job to shill for Mittens at CPAC? and why would she leave Santorum out of her sights? She’s so stupid she doesn’t even know he is a contender.
Have a few more drinks, Annie.
NOW before you think what I just typed has anything to do with being against the 1% you could not be further from the truth. Independents are the most ‘sensitive’ bunch on earth and if the majority of the people they know are unemployed and the ‘you're fired’ bunch is the option to Obama they vote for Obama.
If you Republicans don’t trust or like Mitt Romney, I don’t know why you think we Independents will trust and like him.
One thing that is becoming very clear nationally, is the fact that his own party distrusts the man, and thinks of him as a sleazy phony, a fake of a man with no ideology or convictions, or character, simply a raw, unexplained obsession to be President of all of us, that is unlikely to endear him to the people who don’t fully trust the GOP anyway.
Her job is political and social commentary. That's what she was doing. She thinks Romney is the best of the field. I don't think that makes her a shill.
I'm not sure why she didn't choose to go after Santorum as she did Newt, but I doubt she's unaware of his recent successes.
As does Newt.
I see no reason to think that Romney's wealth is an even bigger negative.
I know I fear that.
But that might actually help him with self-styled "moderates" and other left-leaning independents, who view "right wing conservatives" unfavorably.
She is now the Dixie Chick of Books.
She and Laura Ingraham have also been nasty in sneering about Gov. Palin. I don’t care anymore what Coulter has to say at CPAC.
She has lost her way. Put her words together at different places and she just becomes another snarkey tart that needs a cheeseburger.
The big problem for Romney is with conservatives, and it is mostly related to social conservatism, not taxes.
I heard Ann on Medved’s radio show. She claims that conservatives don’t like Mitt because he’s too square. Coulter has not only jumped the shark, she’s gone stupid. Conservatives don’t like Mitt because he can’t be trusted. Besides being the architect of Ubama’s communist health care, Mitt called HIMSELF a “moderate” and said he “doesn’t want to go back to Reagan”.
Ann has become expert at making lame excuses and “explanations” for Mitt’s past liberalism and proclamations, most of which amount to, “He was running for Governor of Massachusetts! He HAD to say those things!” Okay. Most conservatives have seen enough TV cop shows to know that if Mittens was on the stand the first thing any lawyer would do is lean over, stare Mittens in the eye, and ask sternly, “Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”
And it is a perfectly valid question.
If Mittens “only said those things because he was running for governor of a liberal state”, then why shouldn’t it be presumed that what Mittens is saying NOW he is saying only because he is running for the GOP nomination?
That's a good point and I think it's true. A lot of what he says now is simply designed to sway the primary voters he needs. It seems artificial to many of us. "Severe" conservative"?
But I think he's more conservative than he's letting on. It appears to me that he's made a calculation that to sway the independents and win the general election, he cannot be the the mean spirited budget cutting conservative media caricature.
He may be right, though I think he could be more bold on economic growth and not lose his happy warrior image. Reagan did it.
In any case, if he wins, I do not think he'll transmogrify into a leftist. He's a businessman, not a Washington lawyer.
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.