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

AnnCoulter.Com ^ | December 14, 2011 | Ann Coulter

[Syncro]

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

[Syncro]

This is not a small-government conservative talking. It is not a conservative at all.

Read the rest at AnnCoulter.Com

[TexasFreeper2009]

so long Ann! we hardly knew you.

[o2bfree]

Ann Coulter missuses the term Conservative when she calls herself one.

She’s a paid spokesperson for Mitt Romney.

[Psalm 144]

The northeastern tail still trying to wag the American dog. It worked for a long time.

[Syncro]

After Gingrich had been speaker for a brief two years, the Republican House voted 395-28 to reprimand him and fine him $300,000 for ethics violations.

Which they had no real reason to do.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The GOP is still kowtowing and giving in to the leftists.

[sheikdetailfeather]

Yep. She calls Romney a conservative.

[Track9]

Ouch..

[xzins]

Ann Coulter, it seems, has become a pro-gay, pro-Romney, anti-freedom systemite.

Too bad. I always thought she was a believer in a God of salvation through Jesus.

[silverleaf]

Ann Barnhardt in for Ann Coulter, please

If our GOP men lack balls, then step aside for the women

Ann Barnhardt on Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8O3EPOtT4

[muawiyah]

The truth about Welfare Reform was that an old FDR era rule required that if you were getting welfare and then submitted a change of address order (or the equivalent), your welfare was to be cut off until a case worker could get out to see you.

The theory then was that when welfare folks move it's probably for better circumstances so they may well no longer qualify.

That's probably still true, plus, as we've had to relearn many times, it may also be part of a welfare scam.

So, just before Welfare Reform was implemented USPS came out with a way to update mailing lists quickly and easily. The program was called MOVE UPDATE.

If a state welfare management team simply ran their address files for welfare recipients through MOVE UPDATE they'd instantly find out how many people should be CUT OFF pending that visit.

I was there when Richmond found that half the welfare recipients in Virginia had an address change order on file.

HALF HALF HALF HALF HALF HALF HALF

Ann is wrong ~ the heart of Welfare Reform was still the old fashioned FDR rule that hadn't been observed in decades. HALF the recipients had moved ~ suggesting fraud.

I would imagine the news was in every State welfare management team's office within the hour.

[org.whodat]

Amazing the grape drinkers here think all those statements will not be used by obummer in the election. I remember the storm he started about women and ditches and that time of the month and infections. How dumb can one person be.

[Belteshazzar]

So, Ann, who do you think you are helping? Really?

If your boy, Mitt, is the nominee, what do we get? Really?

The heartland of America is looking for a fight with Obama, a fight about the direction of the country, and you recommend to us John McCain with hair, movable arms, and a religion so wacky and easily targeted that Obama and his team will not even break a sweat beating him like a drum as he refuses to fight fire with fire. No thanks, Ann. No thanks. I used to be impressed with your logic ... no more.

[org.whodat]

Had no real reason to do. Man he negotiated it down to that. Wait all the info will be leaked.

[onyx]

Dear Ann,

The year is now 2011 and the election of 2012 requires a knowledgeable leader who’s not afraid to take it to the Marxist and to make certain the election is a referendum about him and his failed policies, and that knowledgeable leader is Newt Gingrich, not your man, Willard Mitt Romney, who would be a career politician but for his loss to Edward Ted Kennedy, back when your man was pro-abortion, remember?

Sincerely,

onyx

[Old Sarge]

And to think I admired this womyn once.

Ann, please be quiet and learn to make cookies.

[traderrob6]

Good bye, see ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya.

[Sudetenland]

If I'm not mistaken, Gingrich offered to pay $300K to cover the expenses the House Ethics Committee incurred from investigating the one document that was submitted to the committee which contained incorrect information.

He was not "fined" anything, nor what he found to be in violation of any House Ethics Rules or of any crime. Additionally, the IRS investigated his enterprise and found that he had not violated any tax laws either.

Clearly the Establishment/Romney machine is making a desperate attack against Newt in an attempt to prevent him from being nominated.

[ml/nj]

Go away Ann. You are a blot on the memory of President Ronald Reagan.

Can you say ANYTHING good about the person YOU support? (I mean other than that he presumably doesn't beat his wife.)

ML/NJ

[Sudetenland]

If you want a clue as towhere this attack is coming from, look at the title of her article “Bombastically,” where else have we just recently heard that word? Maybe like from Romney himself? Yesterday in his attack against Newt?

[all the best]

I think the new rule is that we never post her picture.