Ann Coulter: NEWT: SPEAK BOMBASTICALLY AND CARRY A TINY STICK (Romney: STUCK)

ANNCOULTER.COM

NEWT: SPEAK BOMBASTICALLY AND CARRY A TINY STICK

December 14, 2011

Fellow right-wingers: Is our objective to taunt Obama by accusing him of "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior," of being "authentically dishonest" and a "wonderful con" -- and then lose the election -- or is it to defeat Obama, repeal Obamacare, secure the borders, enforce e-verify, reform entitlement programs, reduce the size of government and save the country?

If all you want is to lob rhetorical bombs at Obama and then lose, Newt Gingrich -- like recent favorite Donald Trump -- is your candidate. But if you want to save the country, Newt's not your guy.

Gingrich makes plenty of bombastic statements, but these never seem to translate into actual policy changes.

After becoming the first Republican speaker of the House in nearly half a century, for example, Newt promptly proposed orphanages and janitorial jobs for children on welfare.

It was true that welfare had destroyed generations of families shorn of the work ethic and led to soaring illegitimacy rates, child abuse and neglect. Maybe orphanages and child labor would have been better.

But we didn't get any orphanages. We didn't get jobs for children in families where no one works.

What we got was the cartoonish image of Republicans as hard-hearted brutes who hated poor kids.

Ronald Reagan was also accused of waging a war on the poor. But that was on account of his implementing historic tax cuts that produced not only record revenues for the government, but decades of prosperity for the entire nation.

With Newt, you get all the heat, blowback and acrimony, but you don't get the policy changes.

To the contrary, his pointless bloviating about orphanages and child janitors harmed the chances for welfare reform, despite the fact that the American people, the Republican Congress and the Democratic president (publicly, at least), supported it.

Indeed, when it came time to make vital changes to welfare policy, such as work requirements and anti-illegitimacy provisions, Gingrich tried to scuttle them. He denounced such provisions -- the very heart of welfare reform -- as, yes, "social engineering of the right" (e.g., Republican Governors Conference, Williamsburg, Va., Nov. 22, 1994).

The guy who wanted orphanages for children on welfare suddenly called work requirements for adults on welfare right-wing "social engineering."

Gingrich went on to lose almost every negotiation with Bill Clinton -- and that was with solid Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. His repeated capitulation to Clinton led former Vice President Dan Quayle to remark that the Republican "Contract With America" had become the "Contract With Clinton." (Not to be confused with Newt's book, "Contract With the Earth.")

Perfectly good policies are constantly being undermined by Newt's crazy statements -- such as his explanation that women couldn't be in combat because they get infections, whereas men "are basically little piglets," who are "biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

Hunt giraffes?

With Gingrich we get the worse of all worlds. He talks abrasively -- offending moderates and galvanizing liberals -- but then carries a teeny, tiny stick.

We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes. Even when Gingrich doesn't completely back off conservative positions, his nutty rhetoric undermines the ability of Republicans to get anything done.

CONT' AT WWW.ANNCOULTER.COM

I would not support Romney even if his track record were not so liberal. Has there ever been a truly conservative Mormon politician? I think not. The fraudulent foundations of the religion require duplicity in their dealings with the outside gentile world.

You are spot on...

Mormonism is a cult that has sent more souls to hell then Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other totalitarian leaders have killed physically combined.

This is refreshing, FReepers explaining candidly why they are against Romney, their antipathy towards Mormons.

What really is irksome when Freepers hide their anti-Mormon views, and instead claim to virulently oppose Romney only on politics.

So, with all the Romney loathing at FR, one cannot tell how much is hidden anti-Mormon views, and how much is sincere belief that Romney is a dastardly liberal.

At FR, there is zero-tolerance for any views supporting Romney, but indulgence of anti-Mormon views, even outright bigotry. This makes me suspect that the anti-Romney edicts at FR are not completely independent of Romney's religion.

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.