Ann Coulter: “Three cheers for RomneyCare”

posted at 8:55 pm on February 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

Remember what I said in the minimum-wage thread about conservatives gradually being forced to play ideological Twister to defend Romney if he’s the nominee? Here’s Exhibit AAA1.

I don’t understand. I don’t understand why, if you support one of these candidates, it can’t simply be because they’re the best of a bad lot. This happens endlessly in the comments here as Romney fans and Gingrich fans insult each other into digging in ever deeper behind their guy, but I can’t fathom why that mindset would affect Coulter. She has a million arguments for Romney over Gingrich or Santorum if she wants them: He’s a better fundraiser and organizer, he polls better against Obama head to head, he’s good enough at debates to have thwarted Newt twice in Florida, he’s got private sector experience, etc. There’s simply no need to cheer him on for the least conservative thing he ever did in public life. Either she’s so sick of people dumping on her for backing Mitt that she decided to write this as a rhetorical middle finger to her critics or she’s curious to see just how strong her persuasive powers over the right are. If she can turn them around on RomneyCare, she can turn them around on anything.

Read it all, but here’s the worst part. Turns out government coercion isn’t so bad as long as it’s not coming from the feds:

As Rick Santorum has pointed out, states can enact all sorts of laws — including laws banning contraception — without violating the Constitution. That document places strict limits on what Congress can do, not what the states can do. Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally…

No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.

States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive.

There’s no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today’s world to equip themselves with health insurance.

The hyperventilating over government-mandated health insurance confuses a legal argument with a policy objection.

Once you accept that State Mandate Y should be tolerated because people already tolerate State Mandate X, you’ve built yourself a self-perpetuating government expansion machine. Why not let the state mandate people’s diets while we’re at it? After all, we let them force militia-age males to carry guns. And the punchline, of course, is that the federal/state distinction she’s drawing isn’t nearly as bright as we wish. Fully half of RomneyCare was paid for with federal tax dollars through Medicaid, i.e. by you and me. Romney’s ostensible big solution to Massachusetts’s free-rider health-care problem actually required Massachusetts to be something of a free rider.

A lot of people are going to end up writing about this, so rather than me blathering on, let me point you to two of them for further reading. One: Inveterate RomneyCare critic Philip Klein has a lengthy rebuttal to Coulter, part of which is devoted to reminding her that RomneyCare actually wasn’t designed as a solution to the free-rider problem. It was designed to grow the pool of premiums in order to offset the costs of expanding coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Go see how the math turned out on that. And two: Mark Levin spent half an hour of his radio show tonight rebutting Coulter point by point. I’ve only been able to listen to the first 10 minutes so far but the time was well spent. Carve out 30 minutes and settle in. Exit question: Her CPAC speech next week should really be something, huh? Click the image to listen.

Update: Actually, as a counterweight to Coulter’s piece, go read Laura Ingraham’s lament about tea-party impotence in the presidential race. The great expectation on the right is that we’ll elect a conservative Senate this year that’ll hold Romney in check even if he reverts to his RINO-ier ways as president. I’m not as sure of that as other people are. The pressure to fall in line behind a first-term president will be enormous lest he be undercut publicly before the following election, and it’s not clear how bold Romney would be in stumping for conservative measures that originate in the Senate.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 4 5 6 7 8

Sounds to me that libertarians have bait-and-switched the word “conservative” long enough, that people don’t have a sense of what actually is conservative.

I am not a libertarian. That said, I am however very rapidly becoming “not a republican” as well.

I blame democrats like Willard Filmoure running in the “conservative” party.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 3:10 AM

And their cheerleaders.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 3:10 AM

I very much agree. Wild horses couldn’t drag Newt, much less Wrongney, to repeal Obamacare in the first place, and there is zero reason to trust the Rebumblicans to actually take a stand.

It’s the SC or nothing…and let me tell you I’m not feeling too darn enthusiastic about the prospect.

I echo these sentiments. Willard Fillmoure and Salamander love the exercise, grooming, perks, and rank of power – and these sorts of overreaches feed them exactly what they desire. They don’t care if they are at the pinnacle – just so long as they can be a part of the gentry class. The dinner invites, the flashing cameras, the VIP treatment in the end, feeds their Ego, and even if they are marginalized, they are content to be marginalized and pampered, the rest of us be except when they ned to placate -r threaten us – into voting for them.

(If you don’t vote for our “guy” their “guy” wins and you are evil!!!)

Sound familiar?

point blank – If the supreme court fails us, neither of these Statists – salamander or Willard Fillmoure Romney – will have the will or the testicular fortitude to release the unlimited power that Obamacare gives them to impose their will on our lives.

Because they LOVE the exercise and trappings of power the way a meth-head loves their candy.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 3:20 AM

nd if the Supremes (i.e., Anthony Kennedy) actually uphold the individual mandate, we are so beyond screwed.

Myron Falwell on February 2, 2012 at 1:30 AM

The Supreme Court WILL uphold ObamaCare WITH the mandate.

And it won’t be just Kennedy. Scalia will lead the way.

Review Scalia’s opinions in Commerce Clause cases. They all point in that direction.

6-3, with Alito, Roberts and Thomas in the minority.

The Repub Congress won’t touch it after that. Too a’skeered of the government-controlled media.

Horace on February 2, 2012 at 3:27 AM

I am done with Ann Coulter.

Theophile on February 2, 2012 at 4:02 AM

Levin is a nasty mouthed bomb thrower whose only goal is to agitate the like minded. And boy is he good at it!

csdeven on February 2, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal foundation is on the forefront of the legal battle to undo Obamacare, and his group has dealt crippling blows to organizations like the NEA and CAIR. Not to mention he served with distinction under Ronald Reagan on Meese’s Staff – what conservative accomplishments do you have under your belt that compare, you vile little troll?

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 2:51 AM

+1

Good post.

Burke on February 2, 2012 at 4:57 AM

No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance

I’m sure that in six pages of comments, someone has pointed out that the Constitution doesn’t give rights, it binds governments. If the Constitution does not give the government authority to do something, the government doesn’t have it. Miss Coulter is pro-life, but the Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion, either, so perhaps that means the state has the authority to force women to have abortions, too–hmm, Annie? Tyrants at the state level are no better than tyrants at the national level.

Theophile, I’m with you.

DrMagnolias on February 2, 2012 at 5:01 AM

Coulter’s Shameful Defense of RomneyCare

EXCERPT:

Then she eventually gets to her final defense of Romneycare: “What went wrong with Romneycare wasn’t a problem in the bill, but a problem in Massachusetts: Democrats.”

This is more silliness. To start, Romney signed the health care law with a smiling Ted Kennedy at his side, knowing that Democrats had the votes to override any symbolic line-item vetoes of certain provisions. Furthermore, when he signed the law, he had already announced he wasn’t seeking reelection as governor and knew that it would almost certainly fall on Democrats to implement the law. Part of being a limited government Republican is realizing that once you put the infrastructure in place, successors can always add to it.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

(MittBots and other shills: … or, have a patient and obliging older person read the whole thing TO you.)

Kent18 on February 2, 2012 at 5:04 AM

Ann Coulter is going to end up hijacking CPAC against this year as she always does. Usually it revolves around gays (John Edwards is gay implication one year, last year she turned it into a pander to gays convention of some sort, I assume to make amends for her John Edwards is gay joke).

This year it’s going to be her double downing on RomneyCare and attacking conservatives as stupid for not liking Romney.

Dr. Tesla on February 2, 2012 at 5:11 AM

For somebody so concerned about beating Obama, it never seems to occur to Ann Coulter that blurring the lines b/t conservatism and liberalism on government involved healthcare schemes does us no good if the objective is to beat Obama.

Dr. Tesla on February 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM

I think I have found a workable solution. You pretend Romney is a Conservative. I’ll pretend to vote for him.

SurferDoc on February 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM

Whoever said “Thoughts are free” (“Die Gedanken sind frei”)
never had to pay Ann Coulter to shill for Romney.

Czar of Defenestration on February 2, 2012 at 5:18 AM

think I have found a workable solution. You pretend Romney is a Conservative. I’ll pretend to vote for him.

SurferDoc on February 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM

That’s about where I am at at this point. McCain is starting to look pretty good in retrospect as I have learned more about Romney’s record.

Dr. Tesla on February 2, 2012 at 5:21 AM

Who’s Ann Coulter?

jephthah on February 2, 2012 at 5:46 AM

It’s too bad. Treason is one of the best books out there. I can’t support her anymore.

JellyToast on February 2, 2012 at 5:54 AM

jephthah

Coulter is Romneys daughter from another mother.
See what I did there?

angrymike on February 2, 2012 at 5:54 AM

Dr tesla
How ya doing buddy?
Its been awhile.

angrymike on February 2, 2012 at 5:56 AM

A lot of commentators are upset at Coulter and wonder what happened to her. Nothing’s happened to her. She’s stayed the same and been consistent. Ten years ago she supported Bush-style conservatism (which promoted big government to accomplish conservative social and military goals), and I haven’t heard anything from her to indicate she’s changed her mind on this.

It was only at the end of Bush’s term when TARP was passed and the auto companies were given bailouts and when capitalism was thrown under the bus “to save the free market system,” that the Tea Party movement emerged. It grew exponentially when the Marxist came into office.

Coulter is a talented satirist and I think her first three books (Crimes and Misdemeanors, Treason and Slander) are among the finest of that ten-year-period, but you’ll look in vain for Tea Party sentiment in them. Crimes and Misdemeanors is essentially scathing socon derision of Clinton’s moral turpitude, and Treason is a witty and solid defense of neocon military hawkishness. Slander is superb, but it’s more of the same.

We laughed when Coulter derided Olbermann for pointing out that he was nothing more than an agricultural studies graduate, but in retrospect we can see that that criticism was elitist; and many nodded approvingly when Coulter called Edwards a f*g, but that was intended as a moral and character objection, not a fiscal one.

Coulter is not part of the grassroots Tea Party, and if she’d defended Sarah Palin as some of us expected she would, it would have contradicted everything she’d stood for up until then.

She’s an elitist, big-government “Bushie” which makes her more or less irrelevant to the current base. She’s talented and entertaining but something of an anachronism. If a time machine could send all of us back ten years before the debt crisis and the recent Marxist push in this country, Coulter would be a fine and legitimate advocate of, say, a Romney candidacy versus one of Kerry. But we’re ten years later, a lot has passed under the bridge, and Coulter now irritates more than she enlightens.

Burke on February 2, 2012 at 6:00 AM

Coulter has become as irrelevant as Meghan McCain-and just as liberal too!

redware on February 2, 2012 at 6:11 AM

I like Dan Riehl’s take: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/02/ann-coulters-laughable-weak-attempted-defense-of-romneycare.html

Whether it is at the state or at the federal level, we should not cede our liberties to the social engineers who assume that they know the best ways to live our lives.

onlineanalyst on February 2, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Burke on February 2, 2012 at 6:00 AM

Well said!

onlineanalyst on February 2, 2012 at 6:26 AM

Coulter’s columns have faded. Haven’t made a point of reading them in something like a year. That eases the WTF! impact of her support for Mitt Emptysuit some. Not a as jaw-dripping, no, but still, inconsistent. Perhaps she’s been offered a cabinet position. Attorney General of the United States Ann Coulter. Hm.

curved space on February 2, 2012 at 6:32 AM

“not as jaw-dropping” D’oh!

curved space on February 2, 2012 at 6:33 AM

Always thought Coulterrrr with her extreeeeme affectations was a bit unhinged. What is up
with that and herrrrr??

Sherman1864 on February 2, 2012 at 6:35 AM

Allahpundit, you can sneer all you like, but Coulter has a point..DeMint thought Romneycare was a good idea..the same Heritage Foundation that Rush Limbaugh shills for on a daily basis did help write the bill and did support it..at the time it was not considered a horrid thing at all.

But in an attempt to hate on Mitt Romney people like you have decided it is a bridge too far….but hey, if Gingrich wants to support national mandates vs a state mandate or if Santorum wants to support Medicare Part D, even though conservatives hate it too..well that is okay. After all, they are not Romney. Hence they do not have live up to the same standards.

The truth is that Romneycare is different from Obamacare for many reasons..the biggest one being it is a state program and it was and is supported by the people of that state. Needless to say the Democrats have done everything they could to add to the costs of healthcare in that state..but that was the case before there was any Romneycare. That is just who they are.

But if the purists want to go on looking for the nonexistent perfect candidate, fine go ahead, the rest of us who live in the real world will go with the best man available. And Romney is way better than Obama for conservatives, he really is.

Terrye on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM

I have my doubts about the veracity of the Twitter anyway.

claudius on February 2, 2012 at 1:53 AM

That letter between E and G You!

Flora Duh on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Distrust All Ideologies … they disrupt thinking for ones self.
In high school the they’s called it peer pressure. Really, we were under pressure to do something stupid. Apparently it didn’t stop there.

How about the sign of the times? Employees must wash hands before returning to work Honestly? This is what government did to earn it’s keep? How do we know if they wash their hands? Did they use anti-bacterial soap? Did/can they read the sign? To put it another way, does a tree falling on a bear crapping in the woods make a sound?

We have all of these idiotic government departments (local/state/fed) forming our daily narrative, telling us what to do in nearly every aspect of our lives and these departments were given to us in baby steps.

HMO’s were the baby steps.
Romneycare was the teenaged angst driven stride.
Obamacare is the proletarian amble.

Sorry Ann, you’re wrong on this just like you are on evolution. Everything evolves, or it dies.
Romney care was the missing link.

kregg on February 2, 2012 at 6:59 AM

….The truth is that Romneycare is different from Obamacare for many reasons..the biggest one being it is a state program and it was and is supported by the people of that state. Needless to say the Democrats have done everything they could to add to the costs of healthcare in that state..but that was the case before there was any Romneycare. That is just who they are…
Terrye on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Try and rationalize big govt intrusion all you want, Romneycare was,is and ALWAYS will be BIG Govt overreach into folks` lives, it will be THE reason Romney gets his butt handed to him in the general.

NY Conservative on February 2, 2012 at 7:01 AM

I don’t blame Ann for becoming such a gigantic fan of Romney when considering the alternatives. Newt has all the discipline of Sonny from the Godfather and Rick Santorum would need something more… he is much more ready to become and excellent State prosecutor rather than a President.

TonyR on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 AM

….The truth is that Romneycare is different from Obamacare for many reasons..the biggest one being it is a state program and it was and is supported by the people of that state.
Terrye on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Just as Obamacare is supported by the people of the nation–at least that’s what Democrats claim. And I guess that ends all arguments concerning government intrusion, since the “people” want it.

But in response, I hear you arguing that the “people” didn’t really want Obamacare, because it was rammed through Congress. But didn’t the “people” vote for the Democrats who implemented it? Of course they did. So goes the end of the argument against Obamacare.

Burke on February 2, 2012 at 7:10 AM

Could this have anything to do with the roomer than Ann is dead broke.Her last book sold almost no copies.Roomers abound about bad checks.Maybe she thinks if goes down this path she will get more payed interviews.

logman1 on February 2, 2012 at 7:27 AM

I don’t blame Ann for becoming such a gigantic fan of Romney when considering the alternatives. Newt has all the discipline of Sonny from the Godfather and Rick Santorum would need something more… he is much more ready to become and excellent State prosecutor rather than a President.

TonyR on February 2, 2012 at 7:05 AM

I can buy into that excuse for Coulter to a certain extent, but there is no excuse for stooping to defend Romneycare. By doing that, she has become an intellectual whore with no more conservative cred than Romney himself.

I still haven’t seen anyone call her out on her prediction that Romney would win the nomination and go on to lose the general election. Of course, she might leave the set if someone did that…but it would be great to watch.

DRayRaven on February 2, 2012 at 7:29 AM

I think I have found a workable solution. You pretend Romney is a Conservative. I’ll pretend to vote for him.

SurferDoc on February 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM

+100

Midas on February 2, 2012 at 7:32 AM

The truth is that Romneycare is different from Obamacare for many reasons..the biggest one being it is a state program and it was and is supported by the people of that state.

Terrye on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM

BullMitt. Educate yourself:

Half of RomneyCare’s new spending was financed by the federal government through the Medicaid program, which is financed through federal taxes, which fall on taxpayers in all 50 states. That means that when Romney financed half of RomneyCare’s new spending by pulling down more federal Medicaid dollars, he increased taxes on residents of all 50 states.

RomneyCare was borne of, and expanded, a corrupt scheme by Massachusetts politicians to tax residents of all 50 states. What motivated Romney to enact RomneyCare, as former Romney/Obama adviser Jonathan Gruber explains here, was the widespread desire (within Massachusetts) to hang on to $385 million of federal Medicaid money that Massachusetts had secured using one of Medicaid’s notorious and fraudulent “provider tax” scams. In other words, the whole purpose of RomneyCare was to enable Massachusetts to hold on to $385 million that it received by defrauding and taxing residents of other states. And of course, Romney/RomneyCare caused the tax burden that Massachusetts effectively imposes on non-Massachusetts residents to grow.

Weak, weak sauce.

Kent18 on February 2, 2012 at 7:35 AM

The truth is that Romneycare is different from Obamacare for many reasons..the biggest one being it is a state program and it was and is supported by the people of that state. Needless to say the Democrats have done everything they could to add to the costs of healthcare in that state..but that was the case before there was any Romneycare. That is just who they are.

But if the purists want to go on looking for the nonexistent perfect candidate, fine go ahead, the rest of us who live in the real world will go with the best man available. And Romney is way better than Obama for conservatives, he really is.

Terrye on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Any form of government which forces you to buy an elective product or perform a personal act is TYRANNY. It doesn’t matter if it is state or federal it is exactly what the constitution was written to protect against.

Health care is a personal choice only unsound and/or immature minds fail to see this. Any action requiring a person to buy a personal choice item or to supplement other persons personal choice items violates the essential liberty of the individual to make their own personal choice. Rationalize all you want it shows a total failure of reason on your part.

Politicians who fail to recognize this are unfit for office and when made aware but continue to push for it becuase of the social conscience issues are guilty of soft tyranny and are the worst tyrants of all becuase they enforce their will on you with a clear conscience.

C.S. Lewis
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Skwor on February 2, 2012 at 7:39 AM

“… the biggest one being it is a state program and it was and is supported by the people of that state.”

[Terrye on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM]

I guess you missed this:

Fully half of RomneyCare was paid for with federal tax dollars through Medicaid, i.e. by you and me. Romney’s ostensible big solution to Massachusetts’s free-rider health-care problem actually required Massachusetts to be something of a free rider.

Read it and re-read it until it sinks in.

Dusty on February 2, 2012 at 7:41 AM

I think I have found a workable solution. You pretend Romney is a Conservative. I’ll pretend to vote for him.

SurferDoc on February 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM

That’s funny.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM

I will never take Ann Coulter OR Matt Drudge seriously again.

They’ve done the Charles Johnson sort of shark jumping.

wildcat72 on February 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM

I think if you look up traitor in the dictionary……

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 2, 2012 at 7:43 AM

I will never take Ann Coulter OR Matt Drudge seriously again.

They’ve done the Charles Johnson sort of shark jumping.

wildcat72 on February 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM

I want to know why this keeps happening to some of our best people. Sullivan is another one. I recall in the distant past David Frum didn’t used to be so bad either.

Doomberg on February 2, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Let’s see if we can name the number of her own books that Ann Coulter has rendered meaningless … Enough of them that I’d like my money back.
Of all people to support freaky Mittens, I would have guessed Ann would be the last. Assuming of course she has any core principles left.
(sigh)
I wonder what flavor of Kool-Ade she indulged in?

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 2, 2012 at 7:54 AM

I want to know why this keeps happening to some of our best people. Sullivan is another one. I recall in the distant past David Frum didn’t used to be so bad either.

[Doomberg on February 2, 2012 at 7:50 AM]

Common interests is not the same as overlapping interests.

Dusty on February 2, 2012 at 8:03 AM

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Calling people nasty names is not “dealing crippling blows” you moron. Let me guess, every time you visit Landmark Legal, you click on the donate button and send your rent money.

People like you are the reason they started Landmark Legal. Dopy rubes who revel in acrimonious rants and will donate all their money to them to beat back evil in the world.

Hahahahahahaha

They saw you coming from a mile away!

csdeven on February 2, 2012 at 8:17 AM

So who are you non-Romney’s going to vote for to beat Obama?

GeorgieGirl9 on February 2, 2012 at 8:23 AM

After reading the excuses for RomneyCare that Ann Coulter posted, I realize I have lost those minutes forever.

With h/t to Dan Akroyd:
Ann. You ignorant s!ut! !

WhatNot on February 2, 2012 at 8:32 AM

Burke on February 2, 2012 at 6:00 AM

Good analysis.

mankai on February 2, 2012 at 8:32 AM

So who are you non-Romney’s going to vote for to beat Obama?

GeorgieGirl9 on February 2, 2012 at 8:23 AM
===============================================

All you need to do is look at the Gallup numbers by state yesterday and you will see that Romney has nearly ZERO chance of beating Obama

The only person now between Obama and his getting 4 more years is Newt.

So keep bashing away at him and propping up Romney so he can lose gracefully like McCain did.

georgealbert on February 2, 2012 at 8:32 AM

I want to know why this keeps happening to some of our best people. Sullivan is another one. I recall in the distant past David Frum didn’t used to be so bad either.

Doomberg on February 2, 2012 at 7:50 AM

The only thing I can think of is that they want to be liked combined with wanting to feel a sense of superiority above the great unwashed.

mankai on February 2, 2012 at 8:33 AM

I am not a libertarian. That said, I am however very rapidly becoming “not a republican” as well.

I blame democrats like Willard Filmoure running in the “conservative” party.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 3:10 AM

Me too! As far as Coulter is concerned, she’s lost all credibility with me. I will not watch, listen to, or read anything she has to say. She’s become a hysterical, screaming loon! Her support for Romney was just icing on the cake!

Boats48 on February 2, 2012 at 8:39 AM

“… the biggest one being it is a state program and it was and is supported by the people of that state.”

[Terrye on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM]

I guess you missed this:

Fully half of RomneyCare was paid for with federal tax dollars through Medicaid, i.e. by you and me. Romney’s ostensible big solution to Massachusetts’s free-rider health-care problem actually required Massachusetts to be something of a free rider.

Read it and re-read it until it sinks in.

Dusty on February 2, 2012 at 7:41 AM

Nice post, worth repeating.

tinkerthinker on February 2, 2012 at 8:40 AM

But if the purists want to go on looking for the nonexistent perfect candidate, fine go ahead, the rest of us who live in the real world will go with the best man available. And Romney is way better than Obama for conservatives, he really is.

Terrye on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Speak for yourself… they’re the exact same.

So who are you non-Romney’s going to vote for to beat Obama?

GeorgieGirl9 on February 2, 2012 at 8:23 AM

No effing clue. Romney’s bad but Newt and Santorum are too. I’m not going to lower my self to vote for a pseudo-conservative like Romney though just to “vote against Obama”. I don’t “vote against” people. If the GOP wants me to vote for their party, give me a real conservative who I can vote for. Going to the polls to vote against someone is what liberals do.

Burke on February 2, 2012 at 6:00 AM

Perfectly stated. +1

Nelsen on February 2, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Third party.

joshlbetts on February 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM

This is what bugs me about Coulter. She almost seems like an opportunist here. She really loved Christie, but Christie is not a true conservative either on a lot of issues.

jeffn21 on February 2, 2012 at 8:50 AM

No effing clue. Romney’s bad but Newt and Santorum are too. I’m not going to lower my self to vote for a pseudo-conservative like Romney though just to “vote against Obama”. I don’t “vote against” people. If the GOP wants me to vote for their party, give me a real conservative who I can vote for. Going to the polls to vote against someone is what liberals do.Nelsen on February 2, 2012 at 8:45 AM

The Florida turn out for the primary was lower than in 2008. Chances are they will stay home for the general or vote for a third party.

I am an Independent, I am looking at the Libertarian ticket. When it doesn’t matter which Liberal you vote for – you don’t.


Nearly 280,000 fewer Republicans cast ballots in this year’s contest than in the 2008 GOP primary. The number dropped from 1.95 million to 1.67 million.

Mr Vanilla doesn’t exactly inspire the conservative base.
People can thank sell outs like Coulter for thinking people are stupid enough to buy her schtick….they think you’re stupid, really, really stupid.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Burke on February 2, 2012 at 6:00 AM

Burke: Great analysis, and one I plan to share. Thanks.

Mutnodjmet on February 2, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I don’t “vote against” people. If the GOP wants me to vote for their party, give me a real conservative who I can vote for. Going to the polls to vote against someone is what liberals do.

Nelsen on February 2, 2012 at 8:45 AM

You, sir, are a genuine and principled conservative.

My hat, sir. ;)

Kent18 on February 2, 2012 at 9:02 AM

When someone has to become a contortionist to thread the needle on their convictions, they become no better than those we rail against for the same process.

I used not be able to wait for Ann Coulter to go on a show and mentally break the ankles of show hosts. Now all I can think of is she’s become another Newt, another Romney, who’s convictions are open for interpretation.

Okay, it’s Rick Santorum or bust now.

itsspideyman on February 2, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I think I have found a workable solution. You pretend Romney is a Conservative. I’ll pretend to vote for him.

SurferDoc on February 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM

I like that idea.

Coulter has gone off the reservation with her support for Romney. She’s exposed herself as one of the establishment along with all the other pretend conservatives who support him. We had a golden opportunity to elect a conservative this time, but the establishment won out again. They put all of their money, and people, behind Romney.

At this point, I’m almost hoping Obama wins again and Republicans take control of the Senate. Then, maybe we can get Rubio or Jindal in four years. Of course they would have to go up against whomever the establishment shoves down our throats then too, but I would welcome that contest.

cajunpatriot on February 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

With h/t to Dan Akroyd:
Ann. You ignorant s!ut! !

WhatNot on February 2, 2012 at 8:32 AM

Kudos!
I wonder how many of us remember where that segment of SNL’s Weekend Update came from?
THAT back and forth was a hoot too!

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 2, 2012 at 9:05 AM

I think I have found a workable solution. You pretend Romney is a Conservative. I’ll pretend to vote for him.

SurferDoc on February 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM

Nominate for post of the year.

Even though we’re on opposite sides, I have to give Coulter credit for showing clearly where the lines are drawn.

ElectricPhase on February 2, 2012 at 9:08 AM

“States Rights” is not a conservative point. It’s a Proud Southerner talking point. The rest of we conservatives (including most Southerners) believe that government coercion and socialization is wrong and (beliefs aside) KNOW that it is economically destructive – and in this case destructive to a vital industry that we all depend on – regardless of which state entity is doing the coercing.

As for Mitt Romney’s record, he is on record as opposing a national health care mandate. He’s also on record as supporting a national health care mandate.

In case you hadn’t noticed, Mitt Romney is on record as supporting and opposing, very literally, every major political proposition of his adult life, except presumably whether or not Mormons are swell (probably).

Furthermore, in July, it may well turn out that the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate is “constitutional.” So will the argument then be that Mitt Romney is perfectly justified in tinkering a bit with Obamacare because the SCOTUS said it wasn’t a violation of states’ rights?
HitNRun on February 1, 2012 at 11:41 PM

1. Everyone’s health care costs something, and is payed for by someone.
2. Romney wants the states to decide and oversee. I agree with him as a principled conservative.
3. Health care is already a government mandate and has been for decades.
4. Individuals – even in America – are subject to all sorts of government coercion which may be argued about, adjudicated, and voted on. But at least we are still free to do so.
Randy

williars on February 2, 2012 at 9:14 AM

As much as government compulsion distrubs me, the strongest bulwark against it is a constitutional one. That by definition only applies (in this example) at the federal level, and the US constitution says that (paraphrased) ‘all powers not enumerated herein are left to’–wait for it–’the states.’ Which means that unless a state’s constitution specifically bars that state from compelling its citizens to do something, and if the compulsion doesn’t violate a guaranteed right in the US constitution, then that state CAN do it. Massachusetts’ compulsion violates no federal constitutional protection, and is not prohibited by the Massachusetts state constitution.

This is why states are laboratories for solving problems–they can try all sorts of things that might be considered dopey or ineffective or unconstitutional at the federal level. And they can copy each other or reject each other’s programs as their citizenry demands.

You might not like it, but Ann is right, and she is conservative.
You might think Romney’s state vs. federal defense was weak, but on the facts, he is absolutely correct; it is perfectly legitimate to do something like that at a state level, and perfectly illegitimate to do it at a federal level. That may not satisfy our army of pitchfork wielding conservatives, and I happily join that throng in our attempt to overturn ObamaCare, but in the quiet of my own home I must admit the defense is correct. That doesn’t weaken my resolve or passion to overturn ObamaCare at the federal level one bit. Nor should it Romney’s.

Now, as to whether compulsory insurance/bureaucratized care decisions/subsidized premiums are EFFECTIVE at the state level, Romney’s experiment will tell us. I’ll be the first to admit that a) I wouldn’t have proposed his plan
b) I don’t like his plan
c) His plan doesn’t appear to be working well

Think about this: How would you like a federal fire department? Or a city department of defense? These things are perfectly appropriate roles for government, just not at the level of government just imagined. Most things in government are like this–appropriate at one level, inappropriate or illegal at another.

Dial down your indignation. If you’re afraid the pitchfork-wielding throng will disperse if you don’t keep yelling, you’re mistaken.

Jude in FL on February 2, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Ann Coulter (who I otherwise love) has gone completely off her nut when it comes to Romney.

The Rogue Tomato on February 2, 2012 at 9:16 AM

In the end they’re all out for themselves. Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck. They’re entertainers. Their #1 goal is to make money. They do that by being outrageous.

Coulter figures the way to make money in 2012 is shill for Rommney while attacking conservatives. In 2 years when nobody can remember Romney’s name, she’ll magically rediscover her conservative roots and write a book titled WHY THE TEA PARTY IS THE GREATEST GROUP OF PEOPLE EVER.

angryed on February 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM

The Florida turn out for the primary was lower than in 2008. Chances are they will stay home for the general or vote for a third party.

I am an Independent, I am looking at the Libertarian ticket. When it doesn’t matter which Liberal you vote for – you don’t.

check. For me its ABR in the Primary, Libertarian in the general.
There is only one issue on my radar screen for 12–shrinking government at all levels.

james23 on February 2, 2012 at 9:24 AM

MR: a liberal in ‘faux-conservative’ clothing.

yhxqqsn on February 2, 2012 at 9:26 AM

But if the purists want to go on looking for the nonexistent perfect candidate, fine go ahead, the rest of us who live in the real world will go with the best man available. And Romney is way better than Obama for conservatives, he really is.

Terrye on February 2, 2012 at 6:54 AM

I want a candidate who will follow the constitution. I think “perfect” does not mean what you think it means.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 9:26 AM

I think Coulter knows what all of us should know….

That Romney is going to fight harder than anyone to destroy Obamacare.

Regardless of what it means to the country, repealing Obamacare makes Romney a Conservative hero, humiliates his enemies, and destroys all the myths surrounding his agenda. For Romney, ideology isn’t going to come into play on this….It’s business, and Romney is a damn good businessman.

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 9:27 AM

She’s become a hysterical, screaming loon!

Boats48 on February 2, 2012 at 8:39 AM

That is how the rest of the country sees Palin. Except Ann is actually able to string coherent thoughts together.

csdeven on February 2, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Who is this woman, and what has she done with the real Ann Coulter?

ZK on February 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I think Coulter knows what all of us should know….

That Romney is going to fight harder than anyone to destroy Obamacare.

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Ann Coulter has no rational reason for believing that. And neither do you. It’s a hope with no foundation whatsoever in reality.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

angryed on February 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM

The only two claiming to be some kind of conservative Hannity and Rush haven’t jumped the shark yet. If Romney get’s the nomination they will jump on the band wagon. It won’t matter Romney’s not a conservative. I think Romney is smart not to run as a conservative, because he knows even with all the money he throws at the media to smooth the way for him, there is no way to square his record with conservative values. Apparently Coulter thinks it’s worth her reputation. My husband is a huge Coulter fan, we have a stack of her books, and he listens to her now, and thinks she’s batsh1t crazy, and he is highly unimpressed with Chris Christie. So her fans are not interested with what she’s humping, fat boy or rich boy.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM

The only two claiming to be some kind of conservative Hannity and Rush haven’t jumped the shark yet.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM

There’s a reason that Rush doesn’t do primary endorsements. I’ve been listening to him for 19 years, and he has yet to tip his hand ahead of a general election.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Burke on February 2, 2012 at 6:00 AM

+10

Of course Ann likes/backs mittens, he is a mousey Christie, but in the GOP field the closest thing to him and or today’s version of a conservative. We have as a citizenry been so bamboozled with liberal slant and the PC take on thoughts and ideas that someone who doesn’t go to far against the grain and will attempt to open markets and at least slow the rate of growth in gov’t appears to be a conservative. If you don’t mind the yacht club types running your town as long as they spring for the summer barbeque, then mittens is your guy.

smitty41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Ann Coulter has no rational reason for believing that. And neither do you. It’s a hope with no foundation whatsoever in reality.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I thought I just gave a rational reason to believe it.

I believe all the candidates will try to get rid of Obamacare as as rational Conservative should believe, I just think Romney has the most to gain by fighting for it as hard as he can.

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 9:37 AM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/02/three-cheers-for-ann-coulter.html

For your pleasures my friends!

HerneTheHunter on February 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

According to RedState, “Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying, ‘We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal… You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.’”

http://www.election2012newsblog.com/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-indicates-he-will-not-repeal-obamacare/

Norm the likely replacement at HHS should mittens be elected, so the choice for Romney is basically agreeing with Ann and saying yes Romneycare was a good thing and we want more of it.

I happen to disagree

smitty41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I thought I just gave a rational reason to believe it.

I believe all the candidates will try to get rid of Obamacare as as rational Conservative should believe, I just think Romney has the most to gain by fighting for it as hard as he can.

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 9:37 AM

No, I think you can rationally believe that all the candidates will SAY they will get rid of Obamacare. There is no rational reason to believe that they WILL. And the only rational reason to even think that they should SAY they will is that they are running for president. Unless you think they all seriously want what’s best for the country, and are running out of the goodness of their hearts.

/guffaw

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Ann hasn’t left the conservative reservation. She is simply pointing out that States are not limited by the Federal Constitution with respect to the laws that they can impose on their citizens as long as they stay clear of rights and powers that the Constitution clearly gives to the Federal government or to the people. What limits the States with respect to the use of their powers are the voters in each State. MA got Romneycare, because the voters wanted it and voted for the politicians who passes it. Obamacare was imposed against the wishes of the voters and may be determined to be an unconstitutional abuse of Federal power. This is the main difference between the two. It is a big difference. And, for those who decry the medicare funding of Romneycare, MA was going to get this funding with or without the passage of Romneycare. Medicare funding was already in place when Romneycare became law. Romneycare simply directed the medicare funding to support a health care system that was imposed by MA lawmakers. Romney haters criticism of Romney that is rooted in his support of Romneycare is irrational and illogical. Romney gave the liberal voters of MA what they wanted. This does not lead to the conclusion that he will support Obamacare against the wishes of the US electorate. He opposes Federal mandates for a healthcare system and says that he will begin by giving all 50 States a waiver from its provisions and then work with Congress for its repeal. You may not believe that he will do it, but allowing Obama another term will ensure that Obamacare remains with us until we reach the crisis that the European socialist governments are facing right now.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 9:47 AM

If you argue that the state can make you do anything, then you are arguing for a totalitarian government.

Tantor on February 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Romney gave the liberal voters of MA what they wanted. This does not lead to the conclusion that he will support Obamacare against the wishes of the US electorate.

Oh? It doesn’t? You think that just because he says he would do something, we can trust him to do it? Cause I don’t see anything else in his record outside of rhetoric to suggest that he would do anything meaningful towards repeal.

He opposes Federal mandates for a healthcare system and says that he will begin by giving all 50 States a waiver from its provisions and then work with Congress for its repeal. You may not believe that he will do it, but allowing Obama another term will ensure that Obamacare remains with us until we reach the crisis that the European socialist governments are facing right now.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Or I could vote for Rick Santorum in the primaries, who is the closest thing we have to a principled conservative.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 9:51 AM

And now the world clearly sees Ann as the recreant she truly is.

barton on February 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/02/three-cheers-for-ann-coulter.html

For your pleasures my friends!

HerneTheHunter on February 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

David Frum (“The Male Meghan McCain”), exchanging raised fists of Big Nanny State solidarity with Ann (“The Male David Frum”) Coulter.

It’s like watching two moppets sitting in the back row of kindergarten class, competing as to which one can wolf down the most paste.

Kent18 on February 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Yes, Coulter jumped the shark on this one.

She sure lost a lot of credibility with me.

WannabeAnglican on February 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM

If you oppose Mitt Romney you are not a conservative.

petunia on February 2, 2012 at 1:45 AM

I’m a born and bred conservative…and I will support In the TX primary WHOMEVER I DAMN WELL PLEASE!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 2, 2012 at 10:05 AM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/02/three-cheers-for-ann-coulter.html

For your pleasures my friends!

HerneTheHunter on February 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Romney and his acolytes can cheer the dissolution of Conservatism, I prefer to cheer its distillation.

NY Conservative on February 2, 2012 at 10:06 AM

If you argue that the state can make you do anything, then you are arguing for a totalitarian government.

Tantor on February 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM

…at the state level. Just have to add that qualifier, though it makes it no less true.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I think I have found a workable solution. You pretend Romney is a Conservative. I’ll pretend to vote for him.

I can’t argue with this logic.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:12 AM

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 9:51 AM

If you like Santorum, you should vote for him. I’m not telling you to support Romney. I’m simply pointing out the logical fallacy in opposing Romney because he signed off on Romneycare in a liberal State. But, if Romney does win the nomination, we should all support him, because the alternative is full implementation of Obamacare with little or no chance of rolling it back. Whoever our nominee is, our best hope for repeal of Obamacare is to support him and demand accountability after Obama is defeated. It’s really that simple. We either play with the cards that we are dealt or we quit. If you want to be a quitter, that is your choice. But, I have never seen a quitter who was part of the solution. The opposite is usually the case.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The great expectation on the right is that we’ll elect a conservative Senate this year that’ll hold Romney in check even if he reverts to his RINO-ier ways as president. I’m not as sure of that as other people are.

Only Romney supporters think that this argument has any merit. I look at McConnell and know that it is a pipe dream, even if enough Republicans are elected to the Senate (especially with Romney on the top of the ticket and GOP turnout duly suppressed).

besser tot als rot on February 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Calling people nasty names is not “dealing crippling blows” you moron. Let me guess, every time you visit Landmark Legal, you click on the donate button and send your rent money.

People like you are the reason they started Landmark Legal. Dopy rubes who revel in acrimonious rants and will donate all their money to them to beat back evil in the world.

Hahahahahahaha

They saw you coming from a mile away!

csdeven on February 2, 2012 at 8:17 AM

And csdeven doesn’t even see it. “Dopy rube”. Such erudition. Must have majored in Totally Falacious Logic…BYU actually does award a BS in that subject.

Portia46 on February 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Ann Coulter AKA Vincent Schiavelli is as establishment as they come

apocalypse on February 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Can we please stop pretending now that Coulter is some bedrock of conservatism now?

besser tot als rot on February 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Troll Troll Troll Troll Hey… why are you all ignoring me… Troll Troll Troll Troll…

csdeven

Back to the topic at hand: Nice post at Daily Pundit -

Gentry GOP Suicide Wish
Bill Quick

http://www.dailypundit.com/2012/02/01/gentry-gop-suicide-wish/

» Apathy will be the legacy of Romney’s carpet bombing – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

“Despite Romney’s apparently straight-faced yet completely false assertions that he tried to run a positive campaign and only went negative because Newt outspent him in South Carolina, Romney showed himself to be devoid of the ability to inspire the conservative base. Tellingly, turnout in Florida was down significantly from 2008; by contrast, in South Carolina turnout was up significantly.

The Gentry GOP’s maniacal effort to impose yet another next-in-line crap sandwich on the party may end up destroying the party itself. But they don’t care. They’d rather commit suicide than lose power to conservatives. And, like Charlie Crist, they’d leave the party entirely rather than support a conservative political organization.”

UPDATE: The local news morons are reporting that Mitt’s nomination is now “inevitable.” Remember when the winner of Iowa and South Carolina was the inevitable nominee, back when Mittens had a big lead there, but when he lost, it was just another primary, not indicative of anything? And when Newt was crushing Mitt in the Florida polls, it wasn’t indicative or predictive, either? Funny how that works, eh?

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM

We either play with the cards that we are dealt or we quit. If you want to be a quitter, that is your choice. But, I have never seen a quitter who was part of the solution. The opposite is usually the case.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Your entire argument is predicated on the assertion that our choice is either Mitt or Newt. I’m not playing that game. I find that equally odious, and will be voting for neither of them in the primaries. If I have to, I will vote against Obama in the general. But along the way, I am going to do everything in my power to ensure that I don’t have to settle. And if that bothers you, I can FedEx you a tube of Preparation H.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8