Skip to comments.Revealing Hang-ups [Alan Keyes on Ann Coulter's support for Mitt Romney]
Posted on 04/09/2009 10:05:28 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Among people who think of themselves as conservatives there are few names better known than Ann Coulter's. Through her successful books and frequent media appearances she has built a solid reputation for mercilessly exposing the illogic, inconsistencies and dangerous foolishness characteristic of liberal policies and personalities. Like many of the pundits in what I think of as the "Rupert Murdoch School" of media conservatives, her conservative credentials have more to do with her highly visible assaults against the opposition than with any renown for articulating conservative principles, or using them to develop and justify public policy. However, during the Republican primaries before the 2008 general election, her endorsement of Mitt Romney invited people to look beyond her proficient jabs at those she stands against, in order to consider who she stands for.
Read more HERE...
1. Failure to mitigate evil by inaction is evil. This is beyond dispute.
2. Neither McCain nor Romney is "evil". Obama, OTOH, . . .
I disagree. I think Alan Keyes is right when he says that politicians like McCain and Romney are “evil with a mask on.”
Bwahahahahahaha, those chips must be getting heavy on your shoulder! “... fringe people are also more motivated by a general hatred of people than by any real concern for unborn children. The Romney haters are likewise driven more by anti-Mormon bigotry and maybe some other assorted neuroses than by any real concern about the mistakes that Mr. Romney has made or wrong policies that he has supported.” I’m sure you would love to rewad the extensive documentation of Romney’s liberal ways ... what’s that? You don’t read that stuff? ... Figures
Sarah Palin: “...all of us, who consider ourselves progressive...”
Froofers United! :-)
You're so behind the times.
LOL. Birthers, froofers...all kindred spirits, no?
“everyone has blindspots”
And they accuse men of thinking with their third leg.
She’s so good at logical thinking and fighting hard from that position; but, when she applied it to the endorsement of Romney, it just didn’t work. In a way, it’s a very logical mistake, LOL.
As I think about it, she really can’t say anything now because it would be the quote liberals use to hurt her for years to come.
I’m not sure what is best for her to do at this point except never support Romney again!
Otherwise you are in the wrong “Kansas” for the POV...
I am not a Romney supporter but wonder what WingNut Keyes would say to the fact that
Tom Tancredo and Sheriff Joe Arpaio supported Romney.
Exactly! Just look at how well he did in Illinois in 2004.
The two most popular Froofer responses lately.... they were paid off or he’s sleeping with them.
Not to mention, some people consider a candidates positives, as well. Romney has the perfect experience to handle the situation America finds herself in today.
Maybe what YOU want, but for me 'almost' doesn't count. And Romney-Care, AIN'T conservative by any 'principle', except for Dems.
“He did help Michelle Bachmann raise money during the election and helped Chambliss and tedisco.”
During the Repub convention, Romney helped raise money for the eventual losing candidate Steve Pearce of NM. I know because I went to see Romney (don’t care about Pearce, I wanted Heather Wilson). I gave money just because Romney and Domenici said to. I really did not care for Pearce at all.
Yeah, and with just 50 more percent to go means ALAN KEYES WILL BE THE NEXT POTUS.
She was really, really anti McCain,probably figured Romney was a better choice, and was the most electable candidate in the field.
In your dreams.. Turd parties tend to get less than 1% of the vote..
However back here in the real world...
Um, Alan, she’s a honors grad of a top 5 law school and a former attorney who practiced constitutional law. She might know a thing or two more than you about conservative principles.
Alan Keyes is just a bit bitter and hes a self-promoter to boot. I dont disagree with his principled positions but he seems willing to skirt them when it suits him. I recall his moving from Maryland to Chicago to run for Senate against Barack Obama back a few years ago (after criticizing Hillary Clinton for doing the same thing a couple of years before).
I myself thought, from afar, that Keyes handled the Illinois senate race wrong.
There was a principled reason for his entry into the race, "carpet bagger" logic notwithstanding. The Republicans suddenly did not have a candidate for the office, because of illegitimate judicial interference with the civil rights of the candidate they previously had. Said candidate was entitled to have his divorce proceedings kept from the public, and Obama's operatives managed to find the judge who would accept some excuse for unsealing those records. Untrustworthy derogatory information, not unlike the raw FBI files that Craig Livingstone - and, presumably, Hillary - abused back in '93. Because of that abuse, the IL Republican party was suddenly embarrassed for a candidate. Under those conditions it was not wrong for Keyes to accept a nomination which under other circumstances he would not seek.
It's certain that Keyes is a self promoter; would we have ever heard of him otherwise? And Keyes does not have any executive experience - just like Obama, Biden, and McCain in the last election.
No way "The Supercilious One" would win.
You should all notice that Eternal Vigilance who belongs to the “Keyes is the next Messiah” fan club, has not commented to me.
Eternal Vigilance and I have had a few run ins, so I like to post “Keyes will be POTUS” as a joke.
I can’t help it, it amuses me.
By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer | Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:00:00 AM
BOSTON Sending a sharp rebuke to Gov. Mitt Romney, House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to overturn his vetoes to the state's landmark health care law, including the controversial $295 fee on businesses who don't offer insurance.
The Heritage Foundation: In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there. (Edmund F. Haislmaier, Mitt's Fit, The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org, 1/28/07)
The Club For Growth: Governor Romney Deserves Credit For Proposing A Plan That Encourages Individually-Owned Health Insurance Given these limitations, Governor Romney deserves credit for proposing (and to a lesser extent, enacting) a plan that encourages individually-owned health insurance and circumvents some of the inequities carved into the federal tax code. (The Club For Growth, Mitt Romney's Record On Economic Issues, Press Release, 8/21/07)
Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation: Romney's plan also got a thumbs up from an unlikely source yesterday Barbara Anderson, head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, a group that often looks with deep suspicion on government mandates and programs. The tax activist said that Romney is proposing universal insurance, not universal health care which Anderson said society effectively already has, as almost no one is denied care even if they can't pay for it. Let's just face that reality and deal with it, Anderson said, adding that covering more people will reduce costs to taxpayers. (Jay Fitzgerald, Romney Wins Health-Y Reviews, Boston Herald, 6/23/05)
Investor's Business Daily: Health Care: Massachusetts lawmakers have passed a universal-coverage bill. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney plans to sign it. Has Romney flipped? Not at all. He has won a victory for market-based reform. (Editorial, Blue-State Surprise, Investor's Business Daily, 4/6/06)
You do realize LF that the Heritage foundation helped craft Romney care? So are the Heritage Foundation, The Club For Growth, Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation, & the Investor's Business Daily all liberals w/ liberal ideology?
You may disagree w/ what he did, but at the time, Romney's idea was being hailed by conservatives. What remains of his plan is a shell of what he originally proposed due to the ultra liberal Mass. legislature & what they've done to it since it's inception.
Just food for thought.
Wow. What a moonbat.
There’s only one Messiah, and it’s not Alan Keyes. You’re grossly mistaken.
Thank you for observing the rule.
My feelings and actions exactly!
What’s conservative about backing Romney?
My recollection is that she supported Romney at the same time I did - when it was either McCain or anybody else. And ‘anybody else’ was either going to be Romney or nobody since Huckabee was a non-starter and has already sided with McCain against Romney.
I doubt Coulter is going to be on the Romney campaign faced with real conservatives like Jindal, Palin, Barbour or one of the young guns from Congress.
Except the gate to getting elected isn't narrow - it's very broad. 51% broad, in fact.
If a movement that include Ann Coulter is too broad, maybe Alan Keyes can just appoint himself President and be done with it.
If you look at the list of the candidates on both sides who have run for president for the last twenty years or so you'll see they all have one thing in common - they all have an ego the size of Texas. You can't blame him for self promotion.
Shy people don't get elected.
By the time it got down to that level of choices, I'd have to agree with her. He's a far cry from Duncan Hunter, but then again he's a vast improvement over Obama.
Yes the Heritage foundation is a strong force for good in the Conservative movement. It has been a great resource and an incubator for some great conservative ideas.
But that is also part of its weakness. Like all think tank ideas developed academically (for lack of a better term) the health care reform solution truly only worked in a completely ideal setting. Even then it had issues, but as a Conservative solution it had its possibilities.
But with precious few exceptions the very idea of a Government based Conservative Solution to anything is an oxymoron at best. And that is before any inherent weakness the plan had in the lab. Indeed such concepts are an anathema to true conservatives, even to the most idealistic save the world types. The biggest issue is that there is no way to create a government based solution that will not, either from the start or early in implementation, fall prey to liberal hands and the inevitable abuse there of. For this reason such should never even be attempted.
So any conservative worthy of the name knows to never even look towards such a thing because it instantly becomes a socialist solution by its very presence in the government fold.
Which leads us to Romneycare and why he even tried it.
For the sake of argument I will assume Mitt in his heart honestly wanted to do something about the situation and not just try and make some move for political gain (if that was the case he has really messed up there)
So then given that, there are only two possibilities on why he let this come to pass. One he knows as a conservative that plans such as this are avenues of abuse and are repulsive to conservatives but went ahead and did it any way to help (either the people or himself) or he really thought that the Government could promote a conservative solution and such would withstand the abuses of the left once in place.
So either Mitt was willfully and knowingly abandoning Conservative ideals or he was incompetent enough to not realize what every conservative seems to know, there is no such thing as Conservative Government Solutions especially in places that are dominated by liberals who are going to tamper with it from day one.
So name your poison, is Mitt slapping conservatives in the face or just stupid and gullible
If “a movement” doesn’t have a moral core, in this case one centered on America’s fundamental principles, it doesn’t matter how “broad” your coalition. If getting 51% is your only goal, you might as well support Obama. He did it.
Remember, Romney had NO VETO power. The Mass. legislature could have rammed down any plan they wanted to w/ no deference to Romnney what so ever. So, was it better to devise a plan that might work while keeping the private market at play, or just capitulate the the lib.’s desires? I think what they initially devised was a strong move towards keeping universal health-care off the table. Remember as well, “Romneycare” is really more universal insurance than universal heath-care. It is certainly NOT socialized health-care, even in it's current & bastardized version of what was initially set up by Romney. Also remember that the plan that was initially passed, was far from what the Heritage/Romney plan originally called for.
I don't have a problem w/ government being involved in SOME parts of our lives. Auto insurance for example. It's mandatory by the government, & thank goodness, that's a good thing. Did Romneycare take Insurance companies out of the picture? Did it end free market enterprise? Were doctors & hospitals forced to work for the government? Did all citizens have to get their insurance from the gov.?
I don't begrudge those who didn't like the Heritage Foundation/Romney plan. Opinions vary. But it was always meant to be a start, not a final solution. Circumstances warranted something be done. I'm sure had Romney had a conservative legislature to deal w/, other alternatives may have been explored. But that wasn't the case, so, he did what he could realizing the consequences of doing nothing. I applaud him for that. So did many conservatives & conservative organizations at the time. I'd rather stand w/ them than those here that misrepresent the situation at the time as well as the original plan.
Remember, Romney had NO VETO power.
So even more reason to avoid even the attempt and instead fight for the conservative ideal of true free market concepts. He had no control over his plan once presented. Failing while standing for what is right carries no shame, indeed it becomes part of the ultimate lesson that sadly the masses have to teach themselves at times. It's a double edged sword.
The auto insurance argument has been played here often and while a possible example in some respects, it really is not related since driving is not a right per se. The alternate question to yours, did Romneycare MANDATE individual choice or expenditure and it did.
The Romneycare fight has gone on here for a long time, and it still adds up to big government getting into health care, something that has failed or is failing miserably everywhere it is tried. The Heritage plan was indeed a 'start' but one down the wrong path in the real world.
Does something need to be done about health care, sure, but a government based solution of any stripe is no more a solution than suicide is a cure for cancer...
Reagan didn't just stand for principle. He did something, & sometimes incrementally, & sometimes the things he did were rather liberal on the face of it, i.e. amnesty, & raising taxes in Calif. & as POTUS. But he did something!
Bottom line? A lot of conservatives & conservative organizations liked Romneycare & what it stood for. You may disagree & I can respect that, but throwing out the socialized medicine mantra does your argument no good. As is often the case w/ you, you seem to buck the much of the conservative establishment. That in & of itself is not necessarily wrong, but when you hold parties to different standards, that's when you start looking a little whacky.
It was OK for Reagan to compromise w/ the dems but nobody else. As you would say, “that makes me a little ill in the tummy”. Let consistency be your friend.
Surrendering without a fight is another matter.
The question would be did Romney even attempt to fight for a more conservative non government approach or run to the shelf and pull out the Heritage plan covered in his notes. There is not one indication I have ever seen that he did so.
If calling Romneycare a form of socialized medicine is wacky, I am very much at home with my fellow conservative nut balls here at FR.
Here is why ARTL is missing the target on the life issue and has a litmus test that no candidate from 2008 can pass. Palin, Huckabee, Keyes, etc., - If we accept the hypothetical that Keyes had actually served in elected office and was Governor of Maryland.
Before Mitt came along as Governor abortions were free in MA. They overrode his veto. But even with 85% Dem. opposition Romney still forced the issue in the right direction and instituted a co-pay.
Because of Roe vs. Wade abortions are paid for in some form in every single state we had candidates from, NY, AZ, AR, CA, MD. i.e. Even the best of the best Pro-life Governors (Palin, Huckabee) from very conservative states have to deal with the same reality Mitt faced. If they cant get rid of abortions in the reddest of red states how can Romney be expected to get rid of them in the bluest of blue?
Keyes' homestate Maryland has free abortions from medicaid and planned parenthood as well. In fact Maryland has designated extra state funding beyond the federal funding for free abortions. Keyes can only dodge the bullet because he has never actually held elected office. If we accepted the hypothetical that he was the Governor of Maryland the Dem. legislature could have easily overridden his veto on the life issues just as it would have any other GOP or AIP Governor. The fact that Romney got the 85% Dem legislature in Mass. to move right on the issue is a miracle.
The ARTL could have just as easily criticized Palin or Keyes since even their home states don't pass their proposed litmus test. This begs the question what is their true motivation since on principle they should be targeting all former candidates from 2008 based on their own Litmus test. While they are criticizing Romney for pushing the Dems to the right on the issue years ago in Mass, right now President Obama is greatly expanding infanticide in the US and we are again paying for them internationally.
While the ARTL is busy trying to get air time bashing Ann Coulter Obama is greatly expanding our nations infanticide.
Now, you talk about socialized medicine. Let me ask you this, is it more socialized to be mandated to have/provide insurance, or for us to be mandated to pay for the health-care for those who don't have insurance, which is the case now? The 100% pure conservative response would be that if you don't have insurance, you don't get health-care, period. But how pragmatic is that? Most conservatives wouldn't even go for that.
IMHO, Romney's plan wasn't perfect, but it was a free market approach & far, far, better than the universal care being proposed by the other side. In other words, at least the wheels were moving, thought was being generated, ideas were being fostered. Right now, most of us are being forced to pay for others health-care. Talk about a form of socialized medicine!
My hope was that Romneycare would at least engender further thought for a solution. Romney got sandbagged so bad, that all that thought has gone completely out the window. Hear of any competing ideas that are working lately? Just yet another case of eating our own to our detriment. We've completely taken away the incentive for ideas for fear of being bushwacked by the radical conservatives who want all or nothing. That's a form of socialism. A shame really. Reagan, who understood compromise & the process would be really proud./sarc
If you really cared about any of that you wouldn’t be a supporter of the phony Mitt Romney.
Anyway, again you go on an assumption that I did not research Romney care, when in fact I would lay even odds that I read more on it then you have given that you seem to take Mitts word on things. I spent a large amount of time on the Heritage site, reviewing MA legislative records etc. I feel very confident in again pointing out that while I agree there was significant debate over the legislation itself, there was precious little if any attempt to keep the Government out of healthcare at all, which has been my point all along.
You are right, compromise is important and Regan did it when needed out of necessity. What he did not do was surrender without firing a shot.
As far as the rest, if Romenycare was so much better than the left's proposals, why did conservative luminaries such as Hilary Clinton and James Carville love Mitts plan so much.
That and is a government solution really the answer, the current system not with standing? Is there really not a truly free market plan that could reduce costs though such things as Tort Reform, reductions in useless regulations, incentives for doctors and non profits to provide medical care to the non insured with such things as tax credits and the like, that combined with the fact that health insurance is a benefit that any competitive company in an open market would want to offer to employees, would cover all the bases with nary a government bureaucrat in sight.
Just food for thought, from a Radical Conservative
As I've stated earlier, I like Romney & think he would made a good POTUS. But that's it. I started as a Fredhead but switched after Fred showed no stomach for the game & after researching Romney further & finding from those that knew him best that he wasn't what he was portrayed in the MSM & among other circles. If there was someone, or will be someone better, I will vote for them. I'm for whomever the best candidate is. Period.
As far as Romneycare, I hardly just took Romney's word for things as you falsely assert (not uncommon for you). I did a lot of research as I'm inclined to do on these types of issues. Some of my research came from politicos in Mass. that I know. I even named some of the sources of that research, & yet you claim what you do about me. Your mind really is clouded on this isn't it? Perhaps if you had actually talked to those involved in the process in Mass., which I can only assume you didn't due to your claims, you might not have made the silly claims you did. May I repeat, the Boston Globe is not your friend.
You ask “Is there really not a truly free market plan that could reduce costs though such things as Tort Reform, reductions in useless regulations, incentives for doctors and non profits to provide medical care to the non insured with such things as tax credits and the like, that combined with the fact that health insurance is a benefit that any competitive company in an open market would want to offer to employees, would cover all the bases with nary a government bureaucrat in sight.”
I would answer, not yet. Could there be? Absolutely! Would your proposal have passed in Mass.? Absolutely not! So what's your point? Romney did the best he could w/ input from some of the best conservative thinkers in the world. Given the circumstances, I think he did well. Some disagree. That's ok. But at least he did something in a better direction than what we have now which is you & I paying for the health-care for others w/o insurance.
Since Romney's attempt, has there been any implementation of a plan of which you speak? No. Why do you think that is? Why didn't Reagan get something like that passed? There is a reason. That reason may be why Romney/Heritage Foundation went the route they did. Remember Reagan's comments about taking a little at a time & then continuing the fight another day? Remember what he said about the radical conservatives wanting all or nothing?
You never did answer the question as to what was a more socialist leaning, mandates to have insurance, or mandates to pay for the health-care of those who don't have insurance.
I love your conservative core. Real world implementation of those ideas is what you have yet to learn. Reagan had some pearls of wisdom along those lines. Reagan didn't “surrender w/o firing the first shot” when he did virtually nothing to change the current health-care system, nor did Romney w/ his incremental attempt.
Just food for thought my FRiend. Have a great Easter weekend & enjoy all that this season represents..... Our Savior's atonement for all.
But put in another way, what has he done within our own borders at the executive, judicial, legislative, or policy level since 1984 besides "talk" (or in this case "blog" from his basement, much like I am typing right now)?
If we illustrate the battle against infanticide to trench warfare we can take Gov. Palin, Gov. Romney and Ambassador Keyes as good examples of those who have moved the Maginot Line forward against the enemy. Sure in some cases it is only measurred in inches, yards or miles but they all have had tactical victories in the trenches under their belt.
In Palin's time as Governor of Alaska she put into place a mandatory parental consent law for teenagers seeking abortions. For a time she moved the trench warfare forward. It was later shot down by an activist judge. Mitt Romney in Mass moved the trench warfare into the enemies territory by forcing the 85% Dem legislatrue to the right by instituting a co-pay. Sure it is a small victory in only one state but Romney has a tactical success. Likewise Keyes can cite his own victory of moving of the Maginot line for international abortions in mexico in 1984.
Keyes has been blogging from the safety of his own basement about what a great job he would do in the trenchwarfare today. But unless he gets out of his basement and gets elected (or at least appointed as an Ambassador again) his words are starting to sound like an old veteran pooh poohing the current officers who are still fighting in the trenches. It seems he is content to rest on his tactical victory of 25 years ago whilst griping about the newer officers on the battlefield.
Keyes does have excellent ideas and passion in his speeches about breaking the stalemate, but in this blog his first suggestion seems to be shooting Coulter and other soldiers in the trenches who have already gained tactical victories in the back.
What is irnoic about Keyes "path to victory" by shooting our own soldiers in the back is that Obama has reversed his victory on the international adoption front. We are paying for out of country abortions again.
Given the realities on the ground of Roe V Wade and free abortions in states, if Keyes has the real answer to ending the trench warfare I am all ears. But I think walking down the line shooting our own is the wrong way to go.
Given that of the three tactical victories cited only Mitt's is still standing. I would suggest Keyes spends his blogging time going after those who actually reversed his own tactical victory.
Put simply Keyes should be praised for his own tactical victory in 1984. But he should not be praised for shooting others who have their own tactical victories in the last few years.
Yeah, and with just 50 more percent to go means ALAN KEYES WILL BE THE NEXT POTUS.
He’ll have to find that 50% from somewhere else as the bulk of their [America’s Independent Party] registration comes from the American Independent Party out in CA that has supported various candidates over the years including the Constitutional Party. That big registration number is in CA and has been that way for years and made up of a wide range of supporters. It’s not like the Keyes group founded this party and suddenly have some 300,000 new registrants. They’ll take your money any way you want to send it in but just send it so they can live the good life.