Posted on 11/20/2011 9:30:50 AM PST by Kaslin
Ann Coulter, without question, holds a certain degree of "importance" in the weekly debate over the jot and tittles of the debate between the left and right in America.
She is perhaps one of the most identifiable personalities on the right in America, second only to Rush Limbaugh.
The collective conservative universe bows in homage as the Townhall.com, WorldNetDaily, and HumanEvents websites e-blast her newest missive to their respective distribution lists every Wednesday evening vying for the first set of eyeballs to come to their own landing page for her newest rant.
Radio hosts jump like school boys with a crush when her newest book comes out, always eagerly sacrificing their most valuable asset (their own platforms) entirely for her gain.
She draws large crowds at both conservative and homosexual political conferences. She speaks openly of her own faith (Christianity), while regularly misinterpreting and/or misleading others as to the meanings of Christ, specifically the most important Christian doctrine--Grace.
She's smart as whip, and can dish out an impromptu tongue lashing while delivering the destructive blow maintaining a bit of a devilish grin.
Often she throws rhetorical temper tantrums over issues she has no relationship to. In the Amanda Knox case she sided against an innocent American girl, who had wrongfully been skillfully framed for the murder of a roommate. In doing so she called Knox's defenders "liberals and progressives" doing so from a framework of ignorance or negligence--neither an attractive quality. But she was materially and expressly false in those assumptions and refused to apologize to the conservative, Christian, Republican families she slandered in the process.
Ann's best qualities come in post-election analysis, seldom has she been very good in pre-election prognostication. She backed Duncan Hunter in the 2008 primary, until he dropped out, and then she backed Mitt Romney, the guy who despite spending an enormous fortune could muster no better than third in the 2008 race--behind a very weak McCain candidacy.
In 2011 she had exclusively backed a candidate who wasn't even in the race (New Jersey Governor Chris Christie), and this week in her syndicated column she claims that none of the candidates in the race other than Mitt Romney have a chance of defeating incumbent Barack Obama in the general election.
In 2008 it was uncovered long after the primaries had been concluded that the Romney campaign staff had in unethical and covert ways infiltrated prominent conservative opinion sources like the National Review with leads and exclusives that were designed to adversely harm all the other candidacies minus Romney. Most specifically National Review repeated false assertions made by these Romney operatives about Governor Mike Huckabee. Coulter parroted them in her syndicated space and was never called to account to it until she appeared on the Huckabee television show--to tout her book of course--when the Governor politely, but assertively called her inaccuracies into question.
It caused such consternation to Coulter that she walked out after one segment, though she had been booked for two.
Now she is arguing that because former Speaker Newt Gingrich has some legitimate baggage in his past that he is unelectable--despite his notable and steady rise in recent polls. She even goes so far as to imply that the "non-Romneys" in the race are being propped up by the "mainstream media."
In other words, for all the prattle she has dished out over the last dozen years about conservative ideals and purity, she's willing to chuck it all for the convenience of not having to actually execute a primary election cycle. So she has decreed it, "Mitt will win." Therefore it must be.
Wrong!
It is important for Romney's considerable weaknesses to be exposed so that conservatives can pick the truly best narrative to oppose Obama.
Obama has lost 2 million jobs. The GOP needs a candidate who can help usher in an environment by which jobs will be created. That's mostly done through small business, and getting out of their way. That is not the record of the man who wrote the very blueprint for Obamacare. That is not the record of the man who cannibalized companies and sold the parts at Bain capital.
Romney's 25% poll ceiling is bad for a primary race, but his lack of appeal to Evangelicals, Hispanics, Blacks, pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-family constituencies is horrible for the GOP in the general election.
Most importantly if Romney is the nominee, Obama will be re-elected.
This doesn't make Coulter's criticism of Gingrich's dealings with Freddie Mac unimportant, but his association with the agency is no worse than Mitt Romney seeing to it that while most health care procedures now get rationed in Massachusetts, $50 state-subsidized abortions flow freely from Romneycare.
Maybe Ann is lazy. She is certainly disadvantaged. She definitely shrinks when challenged.
Rush Limbaugh talks to callers on a daily basis, this is the advantage of a talk show host--they are actually in touch with what conservatives are thinking. Ann has tried her hand at talk radio on a couple of fill-in stints, each attempt met with a ratings yawn. Perhaps it's the interaction with people that weren't waiting for her to sign a book that tripped her up.
Whatever the case Republicans need a candidate who will demonstrate an ability to create jobs in the private sector. They need a candidate that can interact with groups of voters like blue-dog democrats who are demanding a balanced budget. They need a candidate who can appeal across ethnic and racial lines. They need a candidate who has a serious economic plan, a bold tax reduction plan, a plan to attract rapid small business growth, and a plan to revitalize the energy sector. They need a candidate who will downsize Washington DC, and return the power to the people that sent them there. They would even settle for a candidate that would start all foreign-aid at zero and force nations to prove loyalty in exchange for U.S. support.
Several of the non-Romneys have appeal on several of these levels.
Mitt Romney pretty much appeals to establishment Republicans with strong ties to the liberal northeast--almost all of them white.
Republicans a lot like Coulter.
Ah, you have hit it on the head. Ann is not a movement leader. She is fun. She takes it to the enemy even when they are us with great quips, and often good scholarship.
The article stated “Republicans need a candidate who will demonstrate an ability to create jobs in the private sector. They need a candidate that can interact with groups of voters like blue-dog democrats who are demanding a balanced budget. They need a candidate who can appeal across ethnic and racial lines. They need a candidate who has a serious economic plan, a bold tax reduction plan, a plan to attract rapid small business growth, and a plan to revitalize the energy sector. They need a candidate who will downsize Washington DC, and return the power to the people that sent them there. They would even settle for a candidate that would start all foreign-aid at zero and force nations to prove loyalty in exchange for U.S. support.”
Who is this author trying to kid? Who could possibly fill all those qualifications? By making us insist on perfection, he is dooming us to dissatisfaction, and then to failure.
I don’t know what we should do. I believe that this election coming is the end of the America I knew and loved, which is just barely hanging on now. And there is no man on a white horse coming to save us.
But why do we insist on being saved by a leader, a person? Why can’t we just assume responsibility ourselves? Elect the best we can get and goad them regularly with phone calls and letters about the issues they need to address or how you want them to vote, supplying them with the best information we can ferret out about why one vote is superior to another one.
If we can get control of the Senate this time as well, then it doesn’t matter as much if we have a less than stellar Republican in the White House. The Senate and the House, if defended by good conservatives, can hold the line against any WH Rinoism. (We can’t hold against an Obama WH, however, even for this last year we are slipping over a cliff.) So, to me now I think the Senate elections are the most important. And maybe then from these Senate and House candidates we are now electing we may be able to raise up a candidate we can all be proud of.
Meanwhile, all our Presidential candidates have got baggage, and each of us is faced with deciding which unfortunate fact about each candidate is the least disturbing to us and then go with that candidate.
But more than that, look at the Senate races and send money to Senate candidates that put a smile on your face.
She’s OK as a columnist. Her books suck. Not that the information they contain is off, it’s just that they ramble, veer, repeat, screech, repeat, etc., etc, etc...
I read two and decided that both of them could have been written in one third the pages without sacrificing anything except repetitions and controversial statements designed to get quoted and thus stir up sales.
I consider that sad because they do contain a lot of good eye-popping information that needs to get out into common knowledge, but because only her hardcore fans and enemies will ever bother to read them, they’re somewhat pointless.
Since she’s obviously a Romney supporter, I’m not really interested in her opinion on who is or is not electable and suspect that once Romney falters she will quickly scurry over to whoever becomes the nominee and pretend she was there all along.
I can’t believe anyone would be so short sighted to sit home because their candidate failed to win the nomination. I suspect that much of it is hyperbole used to emphasize their point. The trouble is, that when they use that method of emphasis, they steer other more soft-headed readers into actually doing it. That is the most disturbing aspect of the stay at home loud mouths.
I would vote for madoff or David Berkowitz over Obama if forced to.
The author is describing Rick Perry:
“Republicans need a candidate who will demonstrate an ability to create jobs in the private sector. They need a candidate that can interact with groups of voters like blue-dog democrats who are demanding a balanced budget. They need a candidate who can appeal across ethnic and racial lines. They need a candidate who has a serious economic plan, a bold tax reduction plan, a plan to attract rapid small business growth, and a plan to revitalize the energy sector. They need a candidate who will downsize Washington DC, and return the power to the people that sent them there. They would even settle for a candidate that would start all foreign-aid at zero and force nations to prove loyalty in exchange for U.S. support.”
Then you would be helping Obama, and have lost your right to complain about anything he does,... even now.
Many here have become a bunch of pseudo-conservative crybabies, or, of course, they are Dem Disruptors.
We on the right don't have one of these....and the Constitution prevents us from "hiring" a committee to run the country in place of a President.
We did have - or thought we had - a candidate who more than filled the requirements in the statement above. But that candidacy died on the vine.
At this point, we're empty.
No matter for me! Come next November, I will proudly, strongly, and resolutely vote AGAINST the stain and his regime!
PS, I'm far from a Romney supporter. I'm maxed out to Newt and Cain, but if either does not get the nomination, I won't help reelect Obama by sitting it out.
If you think that any of the R candidates, even Humtsman, is an “Obama clone”, then my sympathies to your perception ability
MB26, My fear is that people like you and Ann Coulter are seeking a "Nixon Clone". In other words, we don't want to be upstaged in fielding a disaster as a president.
Johnson like Soetoro were and are utter disasters to their Party, the Country and the World. Like Johnson, Soetoro's own handlers don't want him to run a second term because their policies and reputations are that bad. Johnson and Soetoro gave us nation destroying economic and social policies, dragged our country through pointless and unwinnable wars with suicidal ROE, and presided while hippies and counter-culture Marxists were ripping apart the social and economic fabric of our Country.
So along comes Nixon, a retread politician who exploits the contempt that America had for the Democrat Party's sprint to Communism.
What is interesting is that we have to worry about Trump coming in as a third party, the '68 election had Wallace. Nixon's main competitor for the GOP nomination was none other than Mitt's father and a true conservative Ronald Reagan.
It appears that MindBender26 wants to look past losers like Ronald Reagan and vote for the "polished politician" like Nixon who gave us the DEA, BATF, OSHA and the über-evil EPA. His brand of "conservatism" gave us wage and price controls, took us once and for all off the gold standard opening the doors to Barry's multi-trillion dollar annual budget deficits, and opened up China to be America's number one supplier of crap and garbage. Not wanting to ignore other Communists, Nixon also gave us the ABM treaty where the US voluntarily gave up military advantage to the Soviet Red Army.
Nixon also pretended to care about Israel, pissed off the Muslims and gave us the oil-embargo at the same time that he sent his Secretary of State over to Israel so that the Soviets and the Americans forced Israel to give up the land they won with blood in the Yom Kippur War.
This is what America got in exchange for choosing to go with the "safe" bet in choosing a Nixon over a Reagan.
I fear that short-sighted people like MindBender26 are begging for the worst parts of history to repeat itself by pushing a proven loser like Romney (who lost to McCain)
Stop blaming everyone for what could be your failure.
Republicans will decide who is the party nominee. It's not some smoke filled room in DC. It's primary voters across the country. If the more/most Conservative candidates for the nomination can't win that nomination, that's not the fault of the party, that's the fault of their political operation or their supporters who didn't work hard enough to get them nominated.
If your candidate doesn't get nominated, don't blame the people who worked harder for their man.
Once the nominees are selected, you, and every other voter have a choice to make; do I vote for the candidate who most closely mirrors my beliefs, although I may disagree with him on many points, or do I sit home and cry about the choices.... and help the Liberal get elected.
Dems are smarter than Conservatives in this regard. Few if any Hillary voters stayed home because Obama was the candidate.
They, like anyone in an election has the choice to vote for the candidate closest to their ideas, or help the other candidate by staying home. Ronald Reagan spoke to that issue repeatedly.
Those encouraging conservatives to sit out the election if Romney is the nominee either are trolls trying to diminish the Conservative vote, or simply crybabies who lost the Primary, so they think the rest of the world will be impressed by their angst.
It's simple. No candidate is perfect. Either vote for the one closest to your beliefs, or stop complaining about the results because you helped elect the liberal by sitting home.
I have said some simple facts. I am far from “for Romney.” I am maxed out to Can and Gingrich. However, please read the post below yours.
As much as we may dislike him, to not vote for Romney in the General IF HE IS THE PARTY NOMINEE, is to help reelect Obama.
And, by the way, anyone who posts a line such as “losers like Reagan” deserved my, and every other Conservatives, utter contempt, which you shall get, by being ignored in the future.
Well, if it’s any encouragement to you, my husband is leaning to Perry, despite the guv’s fatigued brain not remembering which departments he wanted to cut.
Wow, another 2010 Dem troll.
Where did you get the out-of-the-blue opinion? Projecting?
You were pretty hard on some other posters who didn't care for your fallback-to-failure position in pushing a Romney. Now you, not walk back your statements, but deny them as if the internet has no memory.
Is MindBender26 a public account where anybody can log in and burp out any wild statement?
I see Romney as this season's Nixon - how does that make me a 2010 Dem troll? Explaining that would be harder than trying to demonstrate how to stand a puddle on end.
But, the point is, we DIDN'T stay home in 2008 but, somehow, MB26's beloved Independents didn't come through.
Yet, WE still get the blame!
DemocRATS would love to play poker with guys like MB26. He folds before all the cards are even done being dealt.
It’s very encouraging!
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.