Coulter endorses Romney
posted at 9:58 pm on January 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As one of the handful of conservatives in America whose endorsement might actually move some votes, why on earth did she wait until after Michigan to do this?
I’ve been casually taking swipes at Mitt Romney for the past year based on the assumption that, in the end, Republicans would choose him as our nominee. My thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best candidate.
I had no idea that Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire planned to do absolutely zero research on the candidates and vote on the basis of random impulses.
Dear Republicans: Please do one-tenth as much research before casting a vote in a presidential election as you do before buying a new car…
The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide…
At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican – a high-IQ, articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican. Of the top five Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn’t dumped his first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) – except Huckabee. And unlike Huckabee, Romney doesn’t have a son who hanged a dog at summer camp.
Exit question request to Fredheads: Tell me how you feel right now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Aw crap, I was hoping you had been banned.
RushBaby on January 17, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Like the main Huckster’s lies, their lies are simplistic and are designed for gullible idiots. They are just pathetic when told to anyone with IQ above 70.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 12:56 AM
It’s funny that those people are wise enough to figure out Ann, but too dumb to select a candidate on his merits and not by who endorses him.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 12:56 AM
I will write-in Fred’s name if he is not on the ballot. That leaves my conscience clear that I stayed true to my conservative values. You guys can fight over the left-overs.
annexwcp on January 17, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Maybe so, I don’t know much about it. However, I find it surprising that missionary work qualified anybody for a draft deferment. What was the basis for that?
FloatingRock on January 17, 2008 at 12:59 AM
I’m for Fred but Mitt is the BY FAR the best after him.
jukin on January 17, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Who will pick a candidate based on Ann’s endorsement? Ann is in the business of selling Ann’s books by being outrageous, nobody seriously considers her opinion.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Something a group of Republican united in defense (finally) can thwart. Don’t kid yourself though, they are both true believers in their leftist nonsense. They have principles, i just disagree with them. More importantly though, since you’ve widened the principle base we are discussing, how about my principles? It comes down to this: I will no longer vote for a “Fill in the blank” Republican as i did when GWB was up. I simply won’t. If the party nominates Mitt, they walk away from my vote. No hard feelings, good luck to you.
No really? Who knew? ;) Hobson’s choice then? Take Mitt or none? I’ll take none. I do not owe the Republican party my vote, as I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. The Republican party has to earn my vote. McCain, Mitt, Huck… I do not believe they have a principle between them that they wouldn’t conveniently change to get elected.
Still, thats my view, yours may differ, but only your doctor can tell you if conservatism is for you. Side effects include sleeping well at night and succeeding in life on your terms. Do not take conservatism if you are on liberal medications as this can cause a rare side effect McCainhuckneyism, causing you to say anything to get elected.
TCJ on January 17, 2008 at 1:07 AM
There is some seriously funny chit on here tonight. I am one of the original Fredheads but I will ask my brethren to layoff the Mitt. He is by far the best man after Fred and if Fred shows poorly in SC and on Super Tuesday then it’s over. We can put Fred in as Mitt’s VP and win the general. That is what’s important. Fred can serve his 16 years and this country will be as good as new.
If you want to beat the he11 out of someone then have at it with Juan McCain and Geezus H. Huckachrist. They deserve anything we can throw at them. And more. Now… back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Griz on January 17, 2008 at 1:14 AM
This needs to be trademarked. Also, loved this
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 1:15 AM
I think Rush is right. I HONESTLY can’t believe that Ann wants me (a female) to make a determination about a candidate due to his marital status. I’m divorced. Does that make me a worse conservative? Was Nancy Ronald Reagan’s first wife? And is Michael his biological son? Process/Style over substance and even the hardcore Ann has been bamboozled! It’s the hair damnit, it’s that robot style hair!
Sultry Beauty on January 17, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Great commenting tonight from a few of you, and the endless new names for McCain/Huckabee are down right amazing.
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Ann still supports Duncan Hunter, she just knows that he has an absolute 0 chance of winning. She has said for a long time that she thinks that Romney is the only qualified candidate in the top tier for the presidency. Seriously. Who are the other options that actually have a chance? If Fred doesn’t WIN South Carolina he’s out. Done. Same goes for Giuliani in Florida. So then we’ve got a pool left of McCain, Hickabee, and Romney…which is kind of a duh!
I really like the article.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QRuSdzutm2w
NDConservative on January 17, 2008 at 1:18 AM
TJC..I am a registered republican, but I agree they have to earn my vote. I gave Bush 1 shot at it and he did a 180 so fast after getting in office I had to sew my head back on. Thats why in 2004 I went 3/4 Constitution Party and 1/4 Republican. If Fred doesn’t make it I will look closely at Mitt if he comes up less than 50% of what I expected (with certain issues weighted heavier), I will once again go the third party route…refuse to continue to choose the lesser of two evils.
RedLizard64 on January 17, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Unluckily for McCain, snowstorms in Michigan suppressed the turnout among Democratic “Independents” who planned to screw up the Republican primary by voting for our worst candidate. Democrats are notoriously unreliable voters in bad weather. Instead of putting on galoshes and going to the polls, they sit on their porches waiting for FEMA to rescue them.
Vintage Ann. Laugh out loud funny and spot on.
The only thing I didn’t like was the swipe at the thrice-married Giuliani. Reagan was twice-married and no one bats an eyelash about that.
Buy Danish on January 17, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Sounds like Ann is backing the Republican she can live with instead of the Republican she really wants…exactly as she’s chastised others for doing in the past.
If she really wants a true conservative, then Fred should be her man!
stonemeister on January 17, 2008 at 1:25 AM
This is true and funny, but Nov. ‘08 will be different. They’ll be out in droves, including the young. It’s going to be very hard to beat them because they are so famished.
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 1:25 AM
How do I feel? Fine, thank you. Ann is kind of a “shock jock,” who delights in saying controversial conservative things. Sometimes she’s absolutely right. Sometimes she’s a little wacky in trying to be over-the-top. She’s not exactly recognized as a calm, deliberative thinker.
She’s right about Mitt’s positives, even if she doesn’t adequately address his negatives. If Fred doesn’t make it, I’ll probably go with Mitt because of his competence.
cs89 on January 17, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Juanfredo “El Guerrero” McShamnesty y Miguelito “Jesus me habla” Huckabito
Hermanos por la amnestia!
Thought I would add my own nicknames for our liberal entrants to the GOP primary. Anywho I think the Coulter nomination will resonate with WSJ and Wall St. types, those who Romney has successfully courted thus far, quizzically. I’m still not convinced on Romney’s electability. Does anyone else think Rudy is still more electable than McVanityandShamnesty? Great comments tonight all.
FLcapitalistthug on January 17, 2008 at 1:46 AM
My entry? Snuck-a-fee (in and called it a tax… same/same in the end).
I’m emailing the NRA, or some contact thereof, to make them endorse Fred. If I have to whine and cry like Hillary, I will. I will, I swear! SWEEEEAR! /me holds breath and kicks the wall like a lib.
No, really, but no crying or whining or using the FredHead card; no identitee politiks for me.
LickyLicky on January 17, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Ann’s a big girl and she is free to choose Mitt over Fred.
I don’t know how famished they are for Hilllary. Fingers crossed.
Buy Danish on January 17, 2008 at 2:04 AM
They’re famished to win. They’d vote for a blow up doll, if it could win.
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 2:07 AM
I thought the Dems intended to vote for Mitt, or so went the Kos Konspiracy?
Sounds a bit spinny to me, Coulter
Reaps on January 17, 2008 at 2:08 AM
She can kiss all future book sales to me and mine goodbye!
Ann wants a Hildebeast victory so she can make hundreds of millions of dollars writing book after book about hillary’s numerous and assured scandals!
HaraldHardrada on January 17, 2008 at 2:20 AM
Ann is recommending to do the exact reverse of what the liberals say Republicans should do. In fact she says it:
Witteman on January 17, 2008 at 2:24 AM
You’re right! Don’t listen to the MSM, vote for Fred instead!
FloatingRock on January 17, 2008 at 2:27 AM
VinyFoxy, if Juan McCain doesn’t make it through the primaries, should we still learn Spanish?
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 2:36 AM
Methinks Ann is voting with her hormones instead of her brain.
Okay, I said it. Now crucify me.
Dave R. on January 17, 2008 at 2:36 AM
Sí, aunque aun debe usted tendra unos cuantos anos mas que hacerlo antes de tomar el relevo y deportar a todos los gringos que no hablan espanil a Alaska. Esto fue así hasta que Al Goracle del calentamiento de la Tierra se calienta las cosas y queremos Alaska. Entonces vamos a deportar a los que no hablan español Gringo’s a Nueva Orleans.
Oh, sorry, for the slow learners here.
Yes you still should although you will have a few more years to do it before we take over and deport all non Spanish speaking Gringos to Alaska. That is until Al Goracle’s global warming heats things up and we want Alaska too. Then we will deport the non Spanish speaking Gringo’s to New Orleans.
VinyFoxy on January 17, 2008 at 3:01 AM
In the meanwhile, Vivez!
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 3:19 AM
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 2:07 AM
Brilliant and funny, as always Lady E =)
mrfixit on January 17, 2008 at 3:29 AM
Ann isn’t voting with her hormones. She liked Duncan Hunter and he didn’t stand a chance. Who’s left? Mitt appears the most likely candidate. Do some research yourselves.
Like Curtis Mayfield said, Fred is dead.
Conservatives R Us on January 17, 2008 at 3:46 AM
Sorry, but that’s totally untrue. She has pointed out herself many times that she has actually sold more books without the Clintons in the WH than while they were there. She will always have plenty of material, she doesn’t rely on a couple of complete slimeballs to write awesome books.
And, by the way, I think she’ll be okay without you buying one book.
GO MITT!!!
Eclectic on January 17, 2008 at 4:52 AM
Considering Fredheads repeatedly concede that Fred doing nothing in the Senate is the conservative standard bearer, I’d rather not vote in a chief executive who spent 8 years in the Senate with his thumb up his butt. Only the Middle Eastern nations appreciate bodily odor emanating from extremities.
Fred is the consistent do-nothing choice. That may be fine if your philosophy in Republican Senators is that they take up space in a chair that would have been a statist Democrat, but as for me I want a chief executive with a record of doing something more than collecting dust.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 5:36 AM
Romney, huh? I’d have thunk she’d have gone for Fred.
morganfrost on January 17, 2008 at 6:34 AM
Anne Coulter is a salty old skag and I probably wouldn’t associate with her if I knew her in person, but she’s 100% right when she says:
I have two choices when confronted with the fact that so many people are smitten by that slimy charlatan Mike STFUabee. It seems to me that either their 1) the ignorant rubes that the Left has always claimed they were or 2) they’re incredibly lazy like Anne says they are. Confronting the idea that Leftist cant is correct is a bit much for me this early in the morning, so I’m going to side with Anne and assume they’re just lazy.
Lehosh on January 17, 2008 at 6:44 AM
I agree with Ann. If Mitt causes the Lamestream press to have a fit then he’s ok in my book. I’m supporting Fred for now because he’s a conservative but the next best candidate is Mitt, hand’s down!
sabbott on January 17, 2008 at 6:51 AM
I agree with Ms. Coulter. I wish she had given the nod to Fred, but I’m now more confident in my second choice, Mitt.
tgillian on January 17, 2008 at 6:54 AM
For me, if I could be swayed at all by someone other than my brother, it would be the gang here at Hot Air, Michelle, Bryan, Allah and some commenters. Ann is funny but…
Zorro on January 17, 2008 at 6:56 AM
Fred is a good guy, but he will drop out. Romney is the best candidate left, and would do a good job. I have no problem voting for him.
davecatbone on January 17, 2008 at 7:00 AM
Ann wrote why she wouldnt support Fred a while back. He refused to convict Bill Clinton in the Senate and sided with other RINOs to that effect.
Despite that I think he would make a better president than Romney.
dogsoldier on January 17, 2008 at 7:04 AM
How can she go from Duncan Hunter, whom she characterized as the only conservative in the field, to now endorsing Mitt? I think she is more worried about losing control of the White House then she is in supporting a real conservative. That is the dilemma all of us are facing in this election. Yes I am a Fredhead, but even with that I feel it is important to get the remnants of the Republican party back to it’s conservative standing. The thought of having any of these “I can get out of Iraq faster then you” Democrats scares the hell out of me, but trying to paint Mitt as a conservative is hard. Has Ann forgot his mandatory health insurance legislation in MA?
I think Ann is a smart gal but I think she is having an American Idol moment.
Just A Grunt on January 17, 2008 at 7:28 AM
I have read the Ann Coulter column endorsing Romney and ss one who has enjoyed many an Ann Coulter column, I must say that Ann Coulter is completely off base on this one, which is perhaps her most unpersuasive column ever.
Mitt Romney is NOT the strongest Republican candidate. The polls show that the Democrat candidates all beating Romney. The anti-McCain crowd may hate being reminded of this, but McCain is the only Republican candidate the polls show winning in November.
The Democrat candidates are not particularly attacking Romney. In fact, I think they like the idea of running a woman or a black against a rich white guy.
New Hampshire voters did not vote the way they did for McCain because they did not do their research. New Hampshire voters voted after extensive Town hall meetings and other up close meetings with the candidates. The New Hampshire verdict was that McCain is the real thing, not Romney. New Hampshire voters know Romney; he has a home there. One New Hampshire newspaper called Romney a phony.
Romney did flip-flop on abortion. He did run as a pro-choice candidate for Governor of Massachusetts when it was convenient. No amount of “research” can change that.
Romney has no foreign policy experience; and while McCain faithfully supported the troops and their mission in Iraq, including speaking forcefully for the surge when it was politically unpopular, Romney was looking at his shoes on the subject. In this time of war with the jihadists, it makes no sense to have someone who lacks and knowledge and experience on military matters and foreign affairs at the helm. McCain, in contrast, has the endorsements of, among others, former Secretaries of State Schultz, Kissinger, Haig and Eagleburger because he is the most qualified of the candidates to be Commander in Chief.
What I suspect this comes down to is that Coulter is joining some conservatives in a short sighted stop McCain campaign. The trouble is that these so-called conservatives are now backing a loser in Romney and ripping up a patriot in McCain. To Romney, his sons serve America by working on his campaign. In contrast, McCain’s sons are in the military, one in the U.S. Marines and one at the Naval Academy.
Phil Byler on January 17, 2008 at 7:42 AM
If allah will sway you better get ready to vote for barry who is the least criticized candidate in allahs posts.
peacenprosperity on January 17, 2008 at 7:44 AM
Her article has made me chose. I have been trying to decide about a horse to back since the outset. Rudy was my man, but he seemed to melt before my eyes. I found myself humming out loud during the debates to avoid hearing him repeat the fact that he was the mayor of NYC on 9/11 repeatedly.
Ann Coulter has managed to put things in proper perspective. I’m not thrilled about Mitt since I already voted for him and was not too impressed, but there really is nobody else that will possibly rise to the occasion. Maybe Rudy for VP?
Writing in Fred is in essence voting Democratic, so good luck with that.
Hening on January 17, 2008 at 7:45 AM
Can’t figure out what the heck is wrong with Ann. Is she compromising for the sake of expediency? If she endorses Mitt, the conservative base of the Republican Party will forever be disenfranchised.
fossten on January 17, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Frankly, I’ve said this before, and apparently I need to say this again. I don’t care who is endorsed by whom. I don’t care a whit what anyone else thinks. I prefer to do my own thinking, and thus far, I don’t really like any of them. At the moment, I’m going to write in Herman Cain if I bother to go and vote. I may go and vote the Democratic Ticket just to give Obama another vote here in Georgia. OK, more a vote against Hillary.
The point is that I haven’t seen anything to vote FOR. I can write in a candidate and vote against all of the above. I can ignore election day and still manage to vote against all of them. If it’s McCain, I’m certainly not going to vote for him. I would rather vote for an admitted Democrat, then a RINO Democrat Lite. Perhaps Ann is right, perhaps Ann is wrong. In the end, I don’t care. The candidate has to give me something to vote for, and here’s a hint folks. Solid Conservative Values are what I want.
Before you begin to tell me how my planned actions are going to bring us President Hillary, the plague, the apocalypse, or peace without honor. Let me say this. I doubt very much that there would be a noticeable difference if you had Hillary, Kerry, Gore, or McCain in the white house. They are all loved by the media, which should be a warning sign for you as it is me.
Frankly, if I’m looking for an endorsement, I’ll pick the candidate that the NY Times says will set the country back fifty years. I’ll take the one that they say we can’t afford under any circumstances. McCain isn’t that candidate any more than Hillary is.
Snake307 on January 17, 2008 at 7:57 AM
I understand how you feel. I was talking to the wife the other day, and I said how the biggest mistake that I think Rudy made was not getting tackled by his team early on. He should have been drug off to some remote cabin, and have each of the topics, every nuance gone over for a week or more. Rudy is the guy I want around when the balloon goes up, but not the guy I want every day. He’s too far left for my tastes.
Instead of VP, perhaps we can send him over to the Emergency Management folks.
Snake307 on January 17, 2008 at 8:01 AM
I read the column… getting a little tired of her “I’m the sassiest girl in class” tone that she inflicts on us every time she pens a new one. With that said, she IS right about Hick and McKennedy… I just wish she could express her opinions w/out being so snarky about it.
Gartrip on January 17, 2008 at 8:06 AM
That is not what I saw in interviews with some of the man on street footage I saw. One woman said she wasn’t going to vote for Rudy because he didn’t come visit. She felt snubbed. Another woman said she was voting McCain because basically she felt sorry for him. In interview after interview I heard people citing personal reasons for voting for or against somebody but very few who stated an opposition to a candidates position on something or because of their support.
After watching so much of the focus groups and townhall meeting interviews I have come to realize that to the vast majority of voters issues don’t matter, just personality and the candidate who promises the most. Look at the shameless campaigning in MI. Everybody, and I mean everybody was promising them folks a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and the salesman with the most convincing spiel won.
Today all those politicians have blown town and none of them, even those currently in congress who could do something to back up what they said, has done a thing.
That my friends is the Greek tragedy of American politics today. Instant gratification over long term gains.
Just A Grunt on January 17, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Apparently a lot of HotAir commenters think the country runs itself, and there’s no harm to be done with a Democrat in the White House, and Dems controlling Congress.
You’ll “sleep well” and with a “clear conscience” because you voted righteously for ************. Interesting. I thought that if we had learned anything since 1980, it was that it does matter who the President is.
Jaibones on January 17, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Coulter, you magnificent bastard, I read your book! In fact, I’ve read all of your books and I never miss your column. The gal is a genius, a hoot, and as true a conservative as this country knows. Therefore: Go Mitt!
argos on January 17, 2008 at 8:23 AM
How do I feel? Now that Coulter has made her choice, I’ve never been more confident that Fred! should be our nominee.
Mark V. on January 17, 2008 at 8:27 AM
PS, I was one of the original “Fred heads” but I lost my patience with our candidate when he kept putting off his decision-to-run announcement. It was all just a little too coy. I would happily vote for him, but what can I say, he screwed the pooch at the git go. Mitt, meanwhile is right on all the positions and he’s most definitely got the fire in his belly.
argos on January 17, 2008 at 8:29 AM
JustAGrunt re 8:10 AM post: excuse me, but you say you saw a few interviews on television of a few voters, and on the basis of that tiny sample, you reject my description based on what is the very nature of the New Hampshire presidential primary and what in fact went on in New Hampshire late last year and early this year? Sorry, but you are engaged in wishful thinking. I know some New Hampshire residents, and they will tell you what I wrote at 7:42 AM this morning.
Phil Byler on January 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM
The point of Ann’s first paragraph is that McCain is a liberal who depends on liberals to get elected, not what idiotic plot the KOS Kidz tried and failed to hatch.
Who knew Ann had that much power!
Buy Danish on January 17, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Just to be a little snarky, I live in a city that has a larger population then the entire state of NH, almost bigger then IA and NH combined.
On a serious note. It was more then a few people, and I will concede that everything is not what it appears when it comes to TV coverage, but I just cited a couple that I could remember. There were many more examples, but in every case whether group settings or just folks on the streets, on different channels, I didn’t limit myself to just Fox News, I heard people citing some sort of personal reason and in some cases appearance, more then I did issues. There were a few who cited issues but there were also quite a few who relished the idea of NH being different from others and seemed to be more in love of the idea of going against the grain more then anything else, hence a lot of support for the “Maverick”.
Just A Grunt on January 17, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Sorry to disappoint Viny but since Katrina New Orleans has already been annexed by Mexico. On the plus side, you can find really good Mexican food here now!
Next up Cajun/Mexican fusion cuisine!
highhopes on January 17, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Hey that’s not fair! It’s more like 45.
srhoades on January 17, 2008 at 8:46 AM
2008 wouldn’t be the first time I had to write in my choice. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Fred has the ability to attract the conservative Democrats whom Hillary and Obama repulse. He’s being ignored and ridiculed because he scares the daylights out of the Democrats and the media. This election isn’t about the chances of the candidate, but the soul of the party.
Putting up a McCain would end the two-party system in America. It’s not much of a gap as it stands, but that would close the gap. Putting up Romney would demonstrate that image is everything, substance is nothing.
Conservative Republicans, I find, are relatively comfortable with who they are and what they believe. Selecting a candidate who reflects that image isn’t a soul-searching, difficult process. A mere glance at core issues points away from Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and McCain.
windbag on January 17, 2008 at 8:47 AM
One trouble with your 8:01 AM post, snake307, is that some endoresements do have value. I would agree with you about not caring about the endorsement of the New York Times or a pundit such as Ann Coulter. But I do care about people who are experienced public officials. When endorsements for John McCain come from former Secretaries of State Schultz, Kissinger, Haig and Eagleburger, former national security officials MacFarlane, Inman, Woolsey and Kean, former Cabinet officers (outside State) Schlesinger, Mosbacher and Kemp, former Navy Secretaries Lehman and Ball, Senators and former Senators Coburn, Gramm, Burr, Domenici, Thune, Graham, Brownback, Coats, Lieberman, DeWine, and Kyl, then you get the picture of someone in whom public officials have confidence and whose support — coming from a pretty conservative group — belies the anti-McCain rhetoric seen on this site.
Another trouble with your 8:01 AM post is that as much as you complain about not having a reason to vote for a candidate, all I see is a negativity toward McCain groupng him with Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is an anti-military socialist who is pro-choice, who will increase government spending and who will nominate left wing judges ot the federal bench. John McCain is the oppposite: he is a genuine war hero who is a pro-life fiscal conservative who will cut federal spending and will nominate strict constructionist judges to the federal bench.
Phil Byler on January 17, 2008 at 8:48 AM
I heard Ann semi-endorse Romney at least six months ago on Hannity and Colmes. I was very surprised at the time. I believe that Ann thinks Fred is more conservative than Mitt, but not as electable.
Ann’s endorsement should be a huge boost for Mitt. Many people have their doubts about Mitt’s true ideology with his history of flip-flopping, but this should comfort many conservatives. Ann is not the type to sell-out to anyone.
Should Rush come out for Mitt, he should become the clear front-runner.
orlandocajun on January 17, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Phil, McCain could get Michael Savage’s endorsement and he would still be a Democrat in Republican clothing.
orlandocajun on January 17, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Why wouldn’t Senators and former senators endorse McAmnesty? They want to maintain the status quo and quit all this nonsense talk about change. They want to be able to continue on their earmark porkbarrel spending scaring AARP members every election cycle with Social Security and Medicare horror stories and McKennedy is just the man for the job.
We need to clean out congress more then just worry about who is going to be the next president.
But pork buys votes and judging by the latest budget passed, there are a lot of votes being bought.
Just A Grunt on January 17, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Ditto!
["Ditto? Ditto, you provincial putz?!"]
thejackal on January 17, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Kyl is not a “former” Senator, Phil Byler. Although, given his support for the horrendous McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, he may well enjoy that status after he next comes up for re-election here in Arizona, in 2012.
AZCoyote on January 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Fred has no ability to attract moderates or Democrats, and he’s being ignored because he can’t run a campaign worth a crap, is better known as a pretend DA than an actual Senator, and he squandered and fumbled every advantage given to him.
In contrast, Huckabee, although I dispise the man, never started out with Fred’s notoriety or name recognition. He’s beaten Fred by double digits in every single state thus far, except Wyoming.
The only one to blame for Fred’s failure is Fred Thompson. All Fred wants to do is be annointed as the record-devoid, empty vessel of conservative hope. There’s no “there” there, it’s all election time rhetoric backed by a forgettable, irrelevant existence in the Senate.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 9:28 AM
By the way, I found the Coulter column where she discusses Fred. She also disses HuckaShmuck.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 9:47 AM
I am not convinced, but Coulter’s endorsement (to me) is pretty much the political equivalent of a consumer reports good buy. So, needless to say I’m conflicted.
infidel2 on January 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM
You’ve got that right! I took a blow torch to him and National Right Your Congressman only to get the Luigi treatment that I don’t somehow know what’s good for me in my own backyard. Screw him and McCain come re-election.
SkinnerVic on January 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM
You got it baby…she and Talk Radio stand to make millions with the opposition at the helm, she is no dummy and she figures the adoring sycophants will take their marching orders with relish.
AprilOrit on January 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM
I’m with Mitt!
madmonkphotog on January 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Why wouldn’t Senators and former senators endorse McAmnesty? They want to maintain the status quo and quit all this nonsense talk about change. They want to be able to continue on their earmark porkbarrel spending scaring
Excellent display of truth. And there is very little of it when it comes to McCain.
Griz on January 17, 2008 at 10:18 AM
…and people like you who go by two truths:
1. If they aren’t a good campaigner, they can’t be a good president.
2. He can’t win, so don’t even bother supporting him or voting for him in the primaries.
You are one of the reasons we can’t get a good conservative elected. You’re settling for less based on your belief that the election is all about pizzazz and image. If that were true, Obama would be crushing Hillary. He’s not.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Right, because when a Republican is in the WH, there’s nothing for them to talk about? There are no other dems anywhere from whom they can get material? That argument is crap, and I am quite certain that Ann, Rush, etc., care more about the country than if their sales might go up 2%.
Eclectic on January 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Her ‘endorsement’ is one of the most bizarre I’ve read. To base so much and still being married to the first wife (which I am), considering the modern world?? Just plain goofy.
“At worst, a moderate Republican…” Moderate Republicans want to leave the 8-lane one-way express way running across our borders and have been spending worse than drunken sailors (who at least spend their own money). That’s definitely ‘at worst’ for me.
michaelo on January 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I didn’t know Huckabee’s son killed a dog. Great, other President with goofy relations (i.e. Roger Clinton). What is it with these people from Hope?
Go Mitt/Thompson!
ctmom on January 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Actually, my criticism of Fred is:
1. If he can’t run a freaking campaign for President when his starting point was higher than any other candidate, and he has no prior record of running any enterprise, he’s too incompetent to be president.
2. Because of his immense incompetence, he can’t win, so stop praying and hoping for the Fredalanche, because it’s clear Fred has never utilized the strength and energy of the people who will do anything to help him.
The President is the most powerful office in the world. Given the choice between a competent person who gets most of it right and an incompetent person who can’t even capitalize on his strengths, I’m going with option A.
Option B is settling for less, because all the proper policy wonkery in the world won’t help you if you aren’t competent enough to implement it.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM
So. Who cares who she likes, learn the facts and think for yourself people. For me her credibility has just plummeted. If Fred weren’t running perhaps I could see why she’d pick Momney.
Buttercup on January 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I decided on Mitt a few months ago, and when I saw that Ann had endorsed him, it was big smile time. Ann is right once more: look at the guy the left seems the most rabid over, and vote for him. Romney is the best candidate,and will make the best President. If a socially liberal President like George Bush can raise the Lefts ire, an actual Conservative in the White House should make their heads implode.
Startling Prediction time: When Hillary loses her bid for the White House, she will quickly dump Bill and retire from the Senate. Both the Senate and Bill were supposed to be stepping stones to the Presidency; with that dream gone, I see her going the Howard Hughes route, with the Kleenex boxes on her feet,fingernails like Sylvia Browne, living in darkness and attended to by Mormons.
You young people out there, check out Howard and see what wielding Power can do to a person. Betcha five bucks.
Doug on January 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
1. Starting points are the hardest to maintain. Ask Rudy about his huge starting point. Ask Huck about his 35-40% polling numbers and where they’ve gone. Don’t kid yourself.
2. Wow. Nothing but a hate-laden diatribe with absolutely nothing to say but your own opinion of how much you hate him. SHOCKA.
And explain to me how going with someone who gets MOST of it right as opposed to someone who gets ALL of it right is not settling for less.
Face it, you’re settling for less because you haven’t got the guts to stand up and demand a candidate who isn’t vying for the left’s vote.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Settling for Fred would be settling for less. He has completely misread the electorate and is too hardheaded to admit it. Instead of articulating his strengths by utilizing the media, he attacks them in turn makes himself look like a constipated cranky old man who can’t keep the kids off the lawn. You guys see it as a strength, but in the world of politics, it’s a weakness.
csdeven on January 17, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Anyone who has actually kept up with what Ann writes knows that this is hardly anything new. She’s been pretty open about her Romney support for a long while.
bj1126 on January 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Ann’s endorsement for Romney is actually faint praise, and if that’s all she thinks of him then I’m certainly not convinced that he is the man for the job. But I don’t base my vote on Ann’s opinions, and I doubt very many other real live adults will either. She can be comical and satirical and good for a laugh sometimes, but there is a venomous side that is a turn-off.
fgmorley on January 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Face it, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face because you haven’t realized you can’t win an election with only the conservative base behind you. The perfect is sometimes the enemy of the good, Fred isn’t even perfect to begin with, and for the “clear conservative choice,” he sure has managed to kill his own campaign.
Believe it or not, the left does vote, and we do need some of them to cross over and join us. Reagan wouldn’t have won in a landside if he couldn’t win converts from the left. You refuse to see that and are blind to Fred’s weaknesses. It shows you are doing this intentionally more and more each day.
Keep hope alive, MadCon. You’ll need it.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Cranky old man? Let’s talk 70 year old Ronald “I’m PAYING for this microphone!” Reagan. Landslide.
Yes, but he didn’t win their votes through pandering. He won it on his previous term, and on Mondale being a big enough dink to go on television and tell people he was going to raise their taxes.
MadisonConservative on January 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Me too. Tancredo for Mitt, for example.
Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Ah, the red on red conspiracy theory!
Spirit of 1776 on January 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Ronaldus Maximus had the charisma and charm to pull it off. Fred just looks like an angry old man straight from the set of The Odd Couple.
BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 12:20 PM
mrfixit on January 17, 2008 at 3:29 AM
Thank you mrfixit – glad I made you smile – love your nic.
Entelechy on January 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM
To AZCoyote re 9:20 AM post: if you would read my 8:51 AM post with comprehension, I list Senators and former Senators as a group. Kyl, Coburn, Burr, Brownback, Thune, Graham and Domenici are current Senators. Gramm, DeWine and Coats are former Senators. It is a pretty conservative group. Your response of misreading my post to avoid my point is wholly unimpressive.
To orlandocajun re 8:51 AM post: given what I wrote at 8:51 AM pointing out the fundamental differences between Clinton and McCain, your blanket assertion that McCain is a Democrat is just plain dumb. Also, the endorsements referenced in my 8:51 AM post and above here in this post further show that you are just plain wrong; McCain would not have those endorsements if you were right (which you are not).
Phil Byler on January 17, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I agree with your take on Ann about Mitt. In one respect, Ann simply pushing the meme of my enemy’s enemy is my friend. I saw this best stated as true, only when “insofar as mutual self-interest remains secure, otherwise the enemy of my enemy will become yet another enemy later on.” I’m pretty confident that dynamic is secure with Ann or she’ll be tarred and feathered.
It’s fun looking back to see that the enemy hasn’t changed – maybe that is a good indicator?
SkinnerVic on January 17, 2008 at 12:47 PM
If you’re going to pull the Congressional Endorsement Card for McCain, please get your facts right on who is getting a more broad-based conservative backing.
As for SC, I would venture a guess a lot more true conservatives place more weight on Jim DeMint than Lindsay Graham right about now with respect to Shamnesty. Don’t even think of waving Kyl as a flag bearer to me – he sold his constituency out (read: me).
Yea, I’ll admit – I’m bitter about it = Table of 1 (or more).
SkinnerVic on January 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Given some of the posts here, I have re-read Ann Coulter’s column, and I think that I got it right in my 12:05 AM, 7:42 AM and 8:48 AM posts. Ms. Coulter is just completely off base in her column, which may be her worst column ever. Romney is not the best Republican candidate. In fact, Ms. Coulter is insulting to New Hampshire voters in a way that the New York Times is insulting to people with whom that paper disagrees and thus is assine on Ms. Coulter’s part. Also, there is an irrational hostility to John McCain at work among certain so-called conservatives. I think that all of you who think that Romney can win in November are kidding yourselves.
Phil Byler on January 17, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Not when you consider that he said this:
He’s trying to present an image of himself as a coiled-and-ready-to-pounce mighty warrior who wanted to join the fight. He said if he was drafted, he would have served. Easy to say in hindsight, considering that he wasn’t drafted. And if true, it makes the deferment unnecessary. If he were against the war (or the draft), the deferment would be okay. If he had no deferment and wasn’t drafted, that’s fine. What’s not fine is him getting insurance against the draft and then claiming that he would have served if called upon. That’s duplicitous.
Mark Jaquith on January 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I’m not trying to dis on Fred, but you gotta think about this outside in, big picture-wise:
If he is to be the chief executive of the country, literally running the government, he needs executive talent…the ability to run a large organization. And for all his undeniable virtues and values, he has failed to do just that with his own campaign, miserably so. If he can’t run his own campaign, how can he run the country? He just doesn’t have that skill-set apparently. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just him.
He has all the qualities that’d make him a fantastic Senator. Absolutely no offense meant, but that’s where he needs to be.
TheGoblinKing on January 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
They might as well vote for a blow up doll for all the substance there is with the candidates they’ve got.
Of course sound byte Huckaboob isn’t much better.
Speakup on January 17, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Fred was also a strong vocal supporter of the McCain/Feingold act.
Jens on January 17, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Anns BIG BLONDE moment. GO FRED!
serenity on January 17, 2008 at 1:30 PM
He wasn’t going to be drafted, even before the drawing of his numbers. The Mormon church had made a deal with the Selective Service, that the SS would not draft (and I may be a little wrong on the numbers) 4 mishies (Mormon missionary) from each state (dependent on the number of mishies each state has) and a larger number from the more populate states. It just “happened” that Michigan was one of those states that did not draft any mishies (Mitts father helped broker the deal…just a coincidence).
right2bright on January 17, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »