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 5 6 7 8

Ann’s next gig is at the NY Times.

Quite incredible. But then, Ann supported Hillary Clinton in the last election, so perhaps not so surprising afterall.

I wonder who she’s going to sell her next book to?

Portia46 on February 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Calling people nasty names is not “dealing crippling blows” you moron.

csdeven on February 2, 2012 at 8:17 AM

This sentence perfectly illustrates the consistency and intelligence of Romney supporters.

besser tot als rot on February 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM

“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.”

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM

QFT

Kent18 on February 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Apathy will be the legacy of Romney’s carpet bombing
by William A. Jacobson
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/apathy-will-be-the-legacy-of-romneys-carpet-bombing/

Mitt Romney had a strong win last night in Florida. There’s no way to spin it otherwise, just as there was no way to spin Newt’s South Carolina win otherwise.

But at what cost?

Financially the cost was about $17 million for Romney and his SuperPAC, almost entirely on negative ads. Of the $15 million in negative ads run by or for Romney, only one was positive, a radio ad in Spanish run only 15 times.

Last night, Brit Hume described the win appropriately:

“He beat Newt Gingrich by bombing him back into the stone age” with negative ads.

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.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/6799421261_d034489dd4.jpg

As noted yesterday by William McGurn at The Wall Street Journal, Romney’s campaign toughness is not a toughness of message but of personal attacks:

“Those of us who believed that a primary fight would toughen Mr. Romney up have little to show for it. Far from sharpening his proposals to reach out to a GOP electorate hungry for a candidate with a bold conservative agenda, Mr. Romney has limited his new toughness to increasingly negative attacks on Mr. Gingrich’s character. It’s beginning to make what we all assumed was a weakness look much more like arrogance.”

Romney’s strategy of carpet bombing rather than inspiring may result in the nomination, but at a heavy financial price which will leave him weakened in a general election. A strategy which depends on outspending rivals several times over in each state is a self-destructive path, as Alex Castellanos noted last night on Twitter:

Mitt Romney has about a week to turn FL into national momentum. or he’s trapped in tactical statebystate wars which will cost $100m.

Romney’s dependency on carpet bombing also is not a winning strategy in the general election where Obama will have more money. As Mark Levin noted the other day:

… while Romney can swamp his Republican opponents by 3 to 1 or more in every state with his spending advantage, Barack Obama will be raising more and spending more to beat him in the general election, meaning Romney’s financial advantage will be non-existent.

There were other costs to Romney’s victory, including the credibility of the conservative media. If ever a thumb were pressed hard on the scale, it was in the past two weeks as Drudge turned his banner over to the Romney campaign linking to an endless regurgitation of anti-Newt media pieces planted by the Romney campaign.

We expect the conservative media to be biased against Democrats just as we expect the mainstream media to be biased against Republicans. What was unexpected and disheartening, at least to those of us who are relatively new to Republican politics, was to find the conservative media biased against conservatives. There’s no going back.

The other loss was to our history and purpose.

You know we have gone astray as a party when even Michael Reagan had to come out and tell our presumptive nominee and his political and conservative media supporters to stop lying about the Reagan revolution and Newt’s role in it.

We have in Romney someone who was willing to carpet bomb the history of the Reagan revolution and the conservative insurgency of the 1990s, movements he stood against when he ran for office in 1994 and 2002.

Are we any closer to a nominee? Probably, although anything still could happen.

Are we any closer to defeating Barack Obama? I think we are farther away than ever, as many Republicans, particularly those who joined in politics in 2009-2010, just don’t care anymore.

Unless something changes soon, apathy will be the legacy of Romney’s carpet bombing.

Update: Turnout is even worse for Romney when you dig down county by county as George Mason Univ. Prof. Michael McDonald did (h/t @ErickErickson):

In counties where Gingrich did better, Republican turnout was up over 2008. In counties where Romney dominated, turnout was lower.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Ann’s next gig is at the NY Times.

Quite incredible. But then, Ann supported Hillary Clinton in the last election, so perhaps not so surprising afterall.

I wonder who she’s going to sell her next book to?

Portia46 on February 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Not anyone in my house :)

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:26 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

Yes. Some sanity, at last.

Priscilla on February 2, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I wonder who she’s going to sell her next book to?

We won’t be buying her books that’s for certain.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:30 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.

Rombot is a democrat. Why choose between two democrats? That’s not a choice. It’s a Faustian bargain.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I used to like Ann, but she just cra**ed in her nest IMO

Vodkanockers on February 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM

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

Why “quit” when there are more than two political parties from which to choose?
I’m sick of the “It’s My Turn” candidates and will not vote for them. Period.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 2, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Ann Coulter’s Laughably Weak Attempt To Defend RomneyCare
By Dan Rhiel

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/02/ann-coulters-laughable-weak-attempted-defense-of-romneycare.html

Poor Ann Coulter, one can only imagine how she must have struggled to come up with this bit of drivel: RomneyCare is teh Bomb! After all, Mitt Romney signed it into law, how could it possibly be bad? I wonder if Team Mitt made it mandatory for her to write, that being one of RomneyCare’s prime malefactions Coulter simply dances over as if it’s no big deal.

There really is nothing new in her item, nothing at all; it’s sophistry wrapped around old information, or argument, all of it dealt with previously and broadly. From a conservative perspective, the only difference being, rather than arguing as a conservative against over-reaching government perpetuated by elitist thinking, a misguided Coulter foolishly seems to have decided she’s now somehow one of said elite, competent, or qualified enough to tell us what’s good for us. Honestly, it really is that vapid in the sense of argument. But then, she didn’t have much to work with.

I’ve already dealt with the topic – see here – or here. I’m not going to spend much time revisiting it because Coulter has decided to augment her income from political punditry with political prostitution. The only surprise there is that she comes across as so cheap, if not downright tawdry. But, hey, the economy isn’t the best, so what the hey.

Here’s the core conservative critique Coulter doesn’t come anywhere close to raising, let alone answering. If you prefer audio, Mark Levin offers up a devastating point-by-point destruction of her silly effort. Phil Klein calls Coulter’s effort “shameful” and he’s right to do so. A gals gotta know her limitations. Ann Coulter has clearly tried to exceed her own. I don’t read much Coulter, but if this is representative of her thinking and style of would be serious argument, she needs to stick to bombast and mildly politically incorrect, or provocative statements to draw attention to herself and leave the genuine discussion of conservatism to the adults. By the way, any attempt at Tenth Amendment argument is nothing more than a red herring in an attempt to somehow deceive, or change the subject.

Paul A. Rahe holds The Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in the Western Heritage at Hillsdale College, where he is Professor of History.

The money left in our possession, however, is our own — to do with as we please. It is in this that our liberty largely lies. Romneycare and Obamacare, with the individual mandate, changes radically our relationship vis-a-vis the government. The former presupposes that state governments have the right to tell us how we are to spend our own money, and the latter presupposes that the federal government has that right as well. Both measures are tyrannical. They blur the distinction between public and private and extend the authority of the public over the disposition of that which is primordially private. Once this principle is accepted as legitimate, there is no limit to the authority of the government over us, and mandates of this sort will multiply — as do-gooders interested in improving our lives by directing them encroach further and further into the one sphere in which we have been left free hitherto.

Managerial progressives see only the end — preventing free-riders from riding for free. And they ignore the collateral damage done by way of the means selected. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have no understanding of first principles. For both of these social engineers, citizens are subjects to be worked-over by the government for their own good. Both men are inclined to treat us as children subject to the authority of a paternalistic state under the direction of a benevolent and omniscient managerial class.There is, however, this difference between Romney and Gingrich. The latter may or may not fully grasp why the Tea Party rose up against the individual mandate, but he recognizes that they did so, and he knows what is good for him — so he has now backed away from the fierce advocacy of this despotic measure that once characterized his posture. The former is more stubborn. Politically, he is tone deaf. He seems constitutionally incapable of grasping the argument, he insists that the individual mandate is consistent with conservative principle, and he will not back off.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Just because a state government can get away with imposing mandates that the Federal government should not (according to the 10th Amendment) doesn’t make them a good idea. Socialism is still socialism at any level.

Ann Coulter is from Connecticut, and she might want to come home from her book tour and educate herself on the result of unfettered states’ rights, Democrap style.

Connecticut has had a Democrat-dominated State Legislature for decades, but Republican Governors (John Rowland and Jodi Rell) from 1994 through 2010, who have repeatedly vetoed Democrat-passed budgets and tax increases to keep state spending down to tolerable levels. All this changed in 2010, when the popular Jodi Rell decided not to run, and Democrat Dannel (that’s not a typo) Malloy squeaked into the Governor’s office by 5,000 votes after several precincts in heavily-Democrat Bridgeport conveniently ran out of ballots, and the Malloy campaign convinced a judge to keep Bridgeport polls open three hours later than anywhere else in the state.

We’ve now undergone the largest state income tax increase in history, gasoline taxes are the highest in the nation, we pay property taxes on cars, and Gov. Malloy, who had promised to freeze wages of State employees, submitted the proposal to a vote–not by the Legislature, or by statewide referendum, but by State employee unions, who (of course!) rejected it. So, the State employees got their raises, and everybody else pays for them. Oh, the wonders of states’ rights!

But even Dannel Malloy hasn’t tried to force Nutmeggers to buy health insurance (not yet, anyway). If Romney was such a conservative, why didn’t he do what Rowland and Rell did with a Democrat Legislature–veto their bills to force spending down?

Steve Z on February 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Have you viewed any coverage of this topic on Fox News or Fox Business News?

If you flip over to CNN, they are reporting on republican primary voter apathy. Understandably so, this is what the democrats are counting on for Obama to get reelected, an apathetic republican voter cycle SEE Bob Dole, It’s my turn next. But hey let the rich guy buy the nomination – media geniuses reasoning, that makes him the most electable LOL! I am guessing the republicans aren’t serious about taking the Senate back, they are just looking at holding onto the House. There is no way anyone down ticket from a Mitt Romney nomination get’s a bump. It’s looking especially bad in Florida swing state, Iowa republican turnout was low in their caucus there were a large number of Independents voting for Ron Paul in their voter turnout making up for lack of republican participation. The Democrats think they can keep Iowa in the Democrat column for 2012. and of course in Virginia where only two candidates are allowed on their primary ballot. They aren’t doing George Allen (R) any favors alienating Virginia conservatives in the state primary. It’s almost as if the republican party is trying to throw the 2012 election? I guess they want their taxes to go up in 2013 GRIN.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:40 AM

As per usual, Broken Record Me would suggest a bit of perspective.

Shilling so hard for Romney does not become her, but Ann Coulter is not evil.

Nor does what she is saying (perhaps not quite correctly) about RomneyCare debase or devalue her life-long efforts to destroy Liberals.

If you haven’t already, please check out Demonic. It’s an amazing takedown of Liberalism.

A few stray positions here and there doesn’t make me hate anyone. Being a bit contradictory in one’s thinking is what makes us who we are. Myself, sometimes I am a strict Jeffersonian, and on other issues I am downright Hamiltonian. I don’t think it makes me inconsistent… just human.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Ann’s job is to sell opinion and books while keeping the greatest public interest in order to sell books and opinion. Controversy accomplishes this no matter if she believes what she writes or not. Like Rush who freely admits his job is to get the biggest audience and hold it in order to make money. Not to advance an ideology. The ideology is the vehicle to the audience and money. Nothing more nothing less.

elkchess on February 2, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Democrat Timothy Cahill was Massachusetts’ State Treasurer. He said on 3/16/10:

Our experiment has nearly bankrupted Massachusetts. Only federal aid is sustaining our law. We’re being propped up so that Obama can drive a similar plan through Congress.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Ann’s job is to sell opinion and books while keeping the greatest public interest in order to sell books and opinion. Controversy accomplishes this no matter if she believes what she writes or not. Like Rush who freely admits his job is to get the biggest audience and hold it in order to make money. Not to advance an ideology. The ideology is the vehicle to the audience and money. Nothing more nothing less.

elkchess on February 2, 2012 at 10:41 AM

The comparison is false. Rush has never strayed from his principles. I can say with absolute certainty that Ann has now.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 10:43 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

Yes. Some sanity,sock puppetting at last.

Priscilla on February 2, 2012 at 10:29 AM

B.S. Romney is a weak front runner, he’s running as a moderate in the republican primary and he’s acting like a wet blanket on republican voter turnout. No one is looking for a perfect candidate they are looking for a viable candidate, and that’s not Mitt Romney not in his previous incarnation anyway. Mitt Romney is a shape shifter. He’s what ever he has to be to get elected President.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM

It’s almost as if the republican party is trying to throw the 2012 election?

It’s becoming sadly obvious that the Republican Party likes big government just as much as the statists – they don’t even care if they are in charge of it, just so long as they get to be a part of it.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I fully support your right to vote your conscience during the primary season, even if that means not voting for anyone in the primary. My comment was focused on what we do after the GOP nominee is selected. Our focus in Novemeber has to be defeating Obama.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM

B.S. Romney is a weak front runner, he’s running as a moderate in the republican primary and he’s acting like a wet blanket on republican voter turnout.

I’ll go even farther. Willard Fillmoure is a Democrat, and will split the Republican party in ways that it will never recover from.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:47 AM

The comparison is false. Rush has never strayed from his principles. I can say with absolute certainty that Ann has now.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM

When Obama get’s reelected in 2012, everyone’s taxes go up in 2013, and Ann can console herself that she was pragmatic when she supported Romney, while she’s paying her fair share LOL!

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I fully support your right to vote your conscience during the primary season, even if that means not voting for anyone in the primary. My comment was focused on what we do after the GOP nominee is selected. Our focus in Novemeber has to be defeating Obama.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM

My focus is on returning to the constitution that our republic was based on at one time. Getting rid of Obama is important, but only as a means to an end.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Mitt Romney is a shape shifter.
Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Odo for President?

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Cutler is trying to make the best of a lousy situation. Obviously. The Choice is going to be between Romney and Obama. Lamenting that all the way to defeat will help re-elect Obama and that will be the end of any chance of recovering our republic.
Of Levin wants to complain all the way to defeat (Ironically like Cutler did the last time) well, he will be pure of principle but he will also be helping to re-elect the worst president in US history.

V7_Sport on February 2, 2012 at 10:49 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

Yet again, Mitt’s mafia decries the support of the Tea Party or anyone who may think well of Sarah Palin. You really think we’ll fall for the Fancher Fake? Again?

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mmm_familysecrets.htm

Portia46 on February 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM

You can tell peoples true feelings when there is preasure, I give you Pam Bondi, Ann Coulter and on her way Laura Iraham. After this is over we all can see who will have any credibility in the conservative movement.

KBird on February 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM

When Obama get’s reelected in 2012, everyone’s taxes go up in 2013, and Ann can console herself that she was pragmatic when she supported Romney, while she’s paying her fair share LOL!

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Oh I don’t think that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for anyone other than Mitt Romney. I’m not big on pretzel logic. But that is precisely why I’m not voting for Mitt Romney in the primaries or the general. If it comes down to Mitt vs. Obama, I vote AGAINST Obama. I still need to look at myself in the mirror.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills

EXCERPT:

A defining moment in Mitt Romney’s post-pro-life-conversion political career came in his third year as governor of Massachusetts, when he decided Catholic hospitals would be required under his interpretation of a new state law to give rape victims a drug that can induce abortions.

Romney announced this decision — saying it was the “right thing for hospitals” to do — just two days after he had taken the opposite position.

READ THE WHOLE THING

Kent18 on February 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Romney is viable, because the incumbent is weaker than he is. This is why any of our candidates stand a real chance of defeating Obama. If the CBO estimates concerning the economy are correct, the Obama boat will be sinking right about the time the election is held and the ABO candidate will win by default.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I fully support your right to vote your conscience during the primary season, even if that means not voting for anyone in the primary. My comment was focused on what we do after the GOP nominee is selected. Our focus in Novemeber has to be defeating Obama.

By choking down crap sandwich after crap sandwich, you tell the establishment that you will always eat crap sandwiches when they play the “we are the lesser evil game.”

No more of that game. The establishment has done it since Bush I, and were doing it before Reagan pissed in their Cheerios.

No more. When things get bad enough, then you have to be prepared to act against you short term best interests.

I would argue, a Democrat Mush like Willard Fillmoure Romney + the lily-livered moderait Congress could actually lead to MUCH worse things than Obama in a second term – who our callow non-representing representatives would at least have to put on the PRETENSE of opposing…

So no. Give me something worth voting FOR, or GTFO.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Myself, sometimes I am a strict Jeffersonian, and on other issues I am downright Hamiltonian. I don’t think it makes me inconsistent… just human. RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 10:40 AM

The schizophrenic straw man argument? I read Demonic, and Coulter’s position flies in the face of what she preaches. Period. She’s sold out, she’s jumped the shark. She’s sacrificed her reputation for what? The hope Chris Christie will be put on the Romney ticket if he wins? That’s not taking a contradictory it’s OCD. Mount Romney, this is the Hill Coulter has chosen to die on. Coulter is a satirist, it’s more pathetic than it is amusing.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Correction: That’s not taking a contradictory position it’s obsessive compulsive disorder. There is medical treatment available for OCD.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The schizophrenic straw man argument? I read Demonic, and Coulter’s position flies in the face of what she preaches. Period. She’s sold out, she’s jumped the shark. She’s sacrificed her reputation for what? The hope Chris Christie will be put on the Romney ticket if he wins? That’s not taking a contradictory it’s OCD. Mount Romney, this is the Hill Coulter has chosen to die on. Coulter is a satirist, it’s more pathetic than it is amusing.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark. Good post, Doc.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:53 AM

If Romney wins, I strongly suspect that you will be eating crow when he turns out to be a decent President. Your pessimism is depressing. I prefer optimism and engagement. But, to each his own.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 10:58 AM

If Romney wins, I strongly suspect that you will be eating crow when if he turns out to be a decent President. Your pessimism is depressing. I prefer optimism and engagement. But, to each his own.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 10:58 AM

If if if. You are of course free to throw the dice. But please don’t expect the rest of us to engage in this kind of wishcasting.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:00 AM

The schizophrenic straw man argument?
Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:54 AM

No straw men here (though I did play the Tin Man in High School).

As a Christian, I am an Absolutist on a lot of things.

Some things are unarguably black and white.

But to deny there is any grey does us no good.

My point is simply that no other person is going to agree 100% with every position you take. If they did, this would be scary. :-)

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Romney is viable, because the incumbent is weaker than he is. This is why any of our candidates stand a real chance of defeating Obama. If the CBO estimates concerning the economy are correct, the Obama boat will be sinking right about the time the election is held and the ABO candidate will win by default.

NuclearPhysicist on February 2, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Obama was elected by the people who read people magazine and watch American Idol, they don’t exactly pay attention to CBO reports/ Obama is going to run a class warfare, scorched earth campaign, and Mitt Romney is the perfect candidate for him to run against. Given Mitt Romney’s tax return showing his wealth, and than his statement about how he’s not concerned with the very poor. Romney is going to be turned into a get Obama reelected pinata, and the media will be doing everything they can to push Obama’s class warfare message.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Like Rush who freely admits his job is to get the biggest audience and hold it in order to make money. Not to advance an ideology. The ideology is the vehicle to the audience and money. Nothing more nothing less.

Sorry, but this is patently false. He states over and over again that he supports conservative principles…NOT candidates. And he has learned that staying true to that belief system, combined with his personal touches to the show, will grant him huge audiences and large sums of money.

search4truth on February 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM

My point is simply that no other person is going to agree 100% with every position you take. If they did, this would be scary. :-)

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Yes, but there has to be a place where the two overlap, and Romney’s not showing conservatives the republican base where that overlap is occurring. Romney is running as a centrist during the primary instead of running to the right during the primary, and the center during the general. It is intentional to split the conservative vote so he could win by whatever means necessary. This does not endear him to conservatives. There may be some who will vote for anyone but Obama, but that’s not the majority, Romney has to give people a reason to vote for him. Just because he wants to be President isn’t a good enough reason.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark. Good post, Doc.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM

That’s another thing.

Why are we trying to “leave marks” on each other?

At the end of the day, we are all on the same side. People can disagree about specifics, but that’s no reason to want to somehow damage the other person.

Sorry for the soapbox… all this silly and unnecessary infighting (from BOTH sides) is just getting to me.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 11:06 AM

That’s all fine and good.

But I have not even once been talking about Romney in this thread.

I think the only time I mentioned his name was to say the Ann shilling for him does not become her.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Sorry for the soapbox… all this silly and unnecessary infighting (from BOTH sides) is just getting to me.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I have some Preparation H if you need it for that butthurt, RightWay. I want one thing and one thing only: A chief executive who will goad the rest of the government from the bully pulpit into following the constitution. If this is “perfection” or in any way “unreasonable” or “fringe,” I wouldn’t shed a single tear for Obama’s re-election (and no, I still have no intention of voting for him).

Obama’s run at re-election is no less to me a referendum on whether we deserve another four years of him or not. I have the Preparation H stockpiled for those of you bothered by that thought.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I spent most of my time elsewhere but I know they have small, dark places at Cornell. They made “Bathtub Boy” there, after all.

Oh, the humanity….

IlikedAUH2O on February 2, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Sorry for the soapbox… all this silly and unnecessary infighting (from BOTH sides) is just getting to me.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I have some Preparation H if you need it for that butthurt, RightWay.
gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Let facts be submitted to a candid world…

I am simply trying to have a conversation. An engaged discussion here.

But there are some (on both sides) who wish to do nothing but attempt to belittle and demean others over differences of opinion.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Let facts be submitted to a candid world…

I am simply trying to have a conversation. An engaged discussion here.

But there are some (on both sides) who wish to do nothing but attempt to belittle and demean others over differences of opinion.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I’m having an “engaged discussion” too. If I’m hurting your feelings, you’re free to disengage at any time, take your binky, and go home for your afternoon nap.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I spent most of my time elsewhere but I know they have small, dark places at Cornell. They made “Bathtub Boy” there, after all.

Oh, the humanity….

IlikedAUH2O on February 2, 2012 at 11:12 AM

It wasn’t Cornell University. It was Cornell Agricultural College. I’m beginning to understand why Coulter dated him…

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Which of you wimps/whiners is going to call for my banning in this thread?

/ROFLMMFAO

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Obama was elected by the people who read people magazine and watch American Idol, they don’t exactly pay attention to CBO reports/ Obama is going to run a class warfare, scorched earth campaign, and Mitt Romney is the perfect candidate for him to run against. Given Mitt Romney’s tax return showing his wealth, and than his statement about how he’s not concerned with the very poor. Romney is going to be turned into a get Obama reelected pinata, and the media will be doing everything they can to push Obama’s class warfare message.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Spot on Evil.

Its scary that myopic folks on the right dont have the ability to see the strategy against Romney… it’s been written and utilized for over 100 years now.

As I mentionewd yesterday – McCain’s “I dont know how many houses we own” was the beginning of his end. At the time, McCain was actually leading – until the MSM and Dems went into full classwarefare mode – including Plumbing Joes – to a victory.

Now – are there ways he could defend himself – sure – but I have zero confidence in his team and the RNC’s ability to get tough.

Odie1941 on February 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I’m having an “engaged discussion” too. If I’m hurting your feelings, you’re free to disengage at any time, take your binky, and go home for your afternoon nap.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I’m not sure if you are just trying to make me angry and goad me into saying something stupid, or if you really think that my feelings have been hurt…in an internet comment section (?).

When i discuss things, I leave unneeded emotion out of the equation.

I just simply don’t understand why people have contempt for others who disagree on a few specific points (suce as who would make the best next President), but in the big picture are kindred spirits.

I’m truly not trying to sound smug, superior, or “above it all”… so I sincerely apologize if what i have said is taken that way.

My preference is to engender camaradrerie, even in the midst of “spirited discussion”.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:26 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

It’s the big issue of this campaign on our side and you think there is no reason to believe them on it? All of them are promising first day action and if they don’t act they will be politically destroyed……and do you really think any of them would veto legislation to overturn it?

You’re letting your cynicism of politicians get in the way of logic.

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM

You’re letting your cynicism of politicians get in the way of logic.

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM

“Logic?” I don’t think that word means what you think it means, Champ.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I’m truly not trying to sound smug, superior, or “above it all”… so I sincerely apologize if what i have said is taken that way.

My preference is to engender camaradrerie, even in the midst of “spirited discussion”.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I have no patience for wimps, whiners, or the self-righteous. If I think you’re full of sh!t, you can bet your sweet ass I’m going to say so. There’s too much at stake here to be all buddy-buddy.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Rombot is a democrat. Why choose between two democrats? That’s not a choice. It’s a Faustian bargain.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I have to agree with you there and one term vs two possible terms and blow a shot at getting a real conservative Senate and pres together.

I will have a very hard time wanting to hold my nose that hard. Once was more than enough and it did me no good, so this time I vote my conscience.

landowner on February 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM

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

Some of us are.

hawksruleva on February 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM

There are no good reasons to vote for socialist lite and I will never do it.

dogsoldier on February 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM

“Logic?” I don’t think that word means what you think it means, Champ.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:37 AM

That comeback is about as good as anything else you’ve written. Why address the argument when you can just fire back abuse in a vain attempt to show you are “right”.

I can only guess you are part of the “not-Romney” meltdown crew still smarting from the other night. Getting over emotional, not addressing others arguments, and whining endlessly while claiming others are whining seems to be strong with you.

Enough with the pious baloney, buck up and actually give me reasons why you think any of the Republican candidates would want to keep Obamacare in effect. It makes zero sense but you seems so certain that you must have a large trove of evidence to share.

Enlighten me.

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I have no patience for wimps, whiners, or the self-righteous. If I think you’re full of sh!t, you can bet your sweet ass I’m going to say so. There’s too much at stake here to be all buddy-buddy.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:38 AM

That’s your style (and your right).

I would offer a humble warning though, that taking that approach is not the best way effectively spread you opinion.

That’s my opinion (of course).

But… best of luck to you sir!

Here’s hoping for a Conservative re-re-emergence. :-)

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:48 AM

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

Wow. Um no Ann, the Constitution requires an amendment to force us to either buy or ban anything. Remember prohibition? Yeah that. It required an AMENDMENT to prevent us from buying a product.

The authority for the state or the fed to require us to buy a product is not among the enumerated powers given them and the framers explicitly and extensively wrote about this.

dogsoldier on February 2, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Enlighten me.

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 11:47 AM

You seem to think that campaign rhetoric, as you listen to it, makes you an enlightened voter. WRONG. Just look at all the unconstitutional garbage that was passed under six years of solid Republican rule (200-2006) and tell me again what all that glossy campaign rhetoric really means. You’re an optimist. And that’s fine. But go peddle your “logic” and “realism” bullshit somewhere else.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I would offer a humble warning though, that taking that approach is not the best way effectively spread you opinion.

That’s my opinion (of course).

But… best of luck to you sir!

Here’s hoping for a Conservative re-re-emergence. :-)

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Spreading my opinion is but a means to an end. I look at what happened in 2006 and 2008, and my patience rapidly wears thin. And so I will continue apace to mock calls for “civility.” We don’t need civility. We need leaders who are willing and able to do right by the constitution that is supposed to undergird our system of government. I’d say our chances of finding them this election cycle are pretty slim — civility or no.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:52 AM

You seem to think that campaign rhetoric, as you listen to it, makes you an enlightened voter. WRONG. Just look at all the unconstitutional garbage that was passed under six years of solid Republican rule (200-2006) and tell me again what all that glossy campaign rhetoric really means. You’re an optimist. And that’s fine. But go peddle your “logic” and “realism” bullshit somewhere else.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Big spending career politicians who have never had to balance a budget are a problem. I agree with you. It’s what led to 2010 and holding the GOP’s feet to the fire reminding them what will happen next time if they crossed us again.

I’ll give you another chance to answer the question again if you want….

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I’ll give you another chance to answer the question again if you want….

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM

What was the question? You claim “logic” where I see none. Every time I ask you what your reasons are for believing Romney would repeal Obamacare is, it boils down to the fact that he said he would. That’s not logic. That’s blind trust. It’s faith. It’s fallacious argument-by-assertion. What more do you want from me beyond pointing this out?

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM

SilverDeth

By choking down crap sandwich after crap sandwich, you tell the establishment that you will always eat crap sandwiches when they play the “we are the lesser evil game.”

So some establishment somewhere is preventing the people you want to run for office from running. That seems to be a common delusion here.

No more of that game. The establishment has done it since Bush I, and were doing it before Reagan pissed in their Cheerios.

Stay classy.

I would argue, a Democrat Mush like Willard Fillmoure Romney + the lily-livered moderait Congress could actually lead to MUCH worse things than Obama in a second term –

Moby?

V7_Sport on February 2, 2012 at 12:07 PM

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.

I for one will be applying pressure on my reps not to fall in line for that reason. If the winner turns RINO, I would hope there would be no second term.

EconomicNeocon on February 2, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Resist We Much on February 2, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Now that was one industrial strength takedown.

ElectricPhase on February 2, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I for one will be applying pressure on my reps not to fall in line for that reason. If the winner turns RINO, I would hope there would be no second term.

EconomicNeocon on February 2, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Mitt IS RINO. There’s no turning for him. He has to campaign by claiming to be something he’s not.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 12:16 PM

What was the question? You claim “logic” where I see none. Every time I ask you what your reasons are for believing Romney would repeal Obamacare is, it boils down to the fact that he said he would. That’s not logic. That’s blind trust. It’s faith. It’s fallacious argument-by-assertion. What more do you want from me beyond pointing this out?

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM

We’re both certain of our viewpoints and I gave you my reasons why.

It not just that he says he’s going to but that it’s entirely in his own interest to do so and he’d have to go completely out of the way not to, regardless of any ideology or outside pressure, which would be extreme.

You have not refuted this at all and claimed I was basing my opinion on rhetoric. I have stated it again so please enlighten me to why you don’t see Romney or any candidate eliminating Obamacare…or do you just think Romney should be singled out here?

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM

You have not refuted this at all and claimed I was basing my opinion on rhetoric. I have stated it again so please enlighten me to why you don’t see Romney or any candidate eliminating Obamacare…or do you just think Romney should be singled out here?

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I don’t have to prove a negative. None of the candidates running, save perhaps Rick Santorum, have shown any inclination towards repealing Obamacare in anything except Rhetoric (and in Santorum’s case, even that’s arguable). You claim that it would be nuts to make this kind of campaign promise and not follow through on it, but I got news for you, bub: there is a lot of precedence for that kind of stupidity.

Again, you’re being an optimist. And that’s fine. But don’t pretend you have history on your side or something. People putting trust in our politicians is what got us to this point in the first place, and putting trust in our politicians to fix this mess isn’t going to do any more good than it’s done in the last 47 years.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 12:22 PM

That’s another thing.

Why are we trying to “leave marks” on each other?

At the end of the day, we are all on the same side. People can disagree about specifics, but that’s no reason to want to somehow damage the other person.

Sorry for the soapbox… all this silly and unnecessary infighting (from BOTH sides) is just getting to me.

RightWay79 on February 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM

That is an incorrect assumption. There are all kinds of people who comment at Hot Air, not all share your political ideology. Take a look at one of PATRICK ISHMAEL’s Poll results it shows the different political ideological affiliation, going from percentage liberal to conservative, socially and fiscally.

Dr Evil on February 2, 2012 at 12:23 PM

ElectricPhase on February 2, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Thanks. I still have more of her columns to get through. I think there are 12 in the series.

Resist We Much on February 2, 2012 at 12:31 PM

I don’t have to prove a negative. None of the candidates running, save perhaps Rick Santorum, have shown any inclination towards repealing Obamacare in anything except Rhetoric (and in Santorum’s case, even that’s arguable). You claim that it would be nuts to make this kind of campaign promise and not follow through on it, but I got news for you, bub: there is a lot of precedence for that kind of stupidity.

Again, you’re being an optimist. And that’s fine. But don’t pretend you have history on your side or something. People putting trust in our politicians is what got us to this point in the first place, and putting trust in our politicians to fix this mess isn’t going to do any more good than it’s done in the last 47 years.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 12:22 PM

My original point was that there was no better way to both validate your biggest campaign promise and crush all of your enemies in both parties for Romney….and that for him not to do it would give him more grief than he ever had in his life.

I understand where you are coming from based on all the betrayals of the past and I only ask you to realize that Romney’s incentive is so strong, in fact stronger than any other candidate, to get rid of Obamacare that it’s guaranteed to happen in the Republicans control the other branches. Yes, I’m in fact arguing that a politician will choose whats best for him and I bet I can find evidence for that as well.

My big worry is that Republicans will not come out as hard and my optimism goes down quite a bit if the Democrats have any control. W

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM

It’s becoming sadly obvious that the Republican Party likes big government just as much as the statists – they don’t even care if they are in charge of it, just so long as they get to be a part of it.

SilverDeth on February 2, 2012 at 10:45 AM

That’s it in a nutshell. There isn’t a hairbreadths difference between them any more. Just cut to the chase: let them join with the statists and call their party some euphemistic name to distinguish them from an actual conservative party and be done with it.

PatriotGal2257 on February 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Out of 36 judges Romney picked, I think maybe 7 were republicans.
He’s for increasing the minimum wage.
He won’t dismantle obamacare.
He is anti-gun when you check his actions on the issue.

But yeah, he’s the best candidate we have and a sure winner./

Hard Right on February 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Like a mindless celebrity groupie, coulter flits from one RINO repub to another proclaiming that “this one is our savior and nobody else could possibly win”. First christy (PRO-AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS, PRO-ABORTION, PRO-MAN-MADE GLOBULL WARMING HOAX, PRO-GUN-CONTROL, DOESN’T WORRY ABOUT SHARIA LAW….) then the equally BAD romney(care). coulter is now TOTALLY, COMPLETELY irrelevant to conservatism. She should go back to dating leftist sewer-rat bill maher – they deserve each other.

TeaPartyNation on February 2, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Yes, I’m in fact arguing that a politician will choose whats best for him and I bet I can find evidence for that as well.

What is best for a politician =/= following the constitution.

My big worry is that Republicans will not come out as hard and my optimism goes down quite a bit if the Democrats have any control. W

Zybalto on February 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Again, you assert that the Republicans have a vested interest in correcting what is wrong with our government. I hope you are right, but I don’t see much outside of blind trust and blank assertion to support your optimism.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM

If she can turn them around on RomneyCare, she can turn them around on anything.

Allahpundit on Feb 1, 2012 8:55 PM

She’s preying on casual’s and RINO Zombies…

apocalypse on February 2, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Again, you assert that the Republicans have a vested interest in correcting what is wrong with our government. I hope you are right, but I don’t see much outside of blind trust and blank assertion to support your optimism.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM

There’s no grounds whatsoever for optimism.

If Romney is the nominee – the Establishment WINS … the Tea Party movement LOSES – and probably for good.

Now … people can say that an Establishment Republican President is somehow better than Obama. But, that is FANTASY.

The fact is – the economic collapse came after six years of total governmental control by the Establishment GOP. Medicare Part D – came to us (unfunded) courtesy of an Establishment GOP government. Freddie and Fannie were identified as problematic early in the last decade – yet the GOP Establishment did NOTHING about it but pathetically token “verbal” complaints. An attempt at AMNESTY – courtesy of Establishment GOP. “No Child Left Behind” – courtesy of an establishment GOP. TARP, and picking “winners and losers” – courtesy of an Establishment GOP.

In fact – the Establishment GOP governed SO MUCH like Democrats – that Obama even kept many of the Bush administration officials around to help run his economic recovery plan.

It was Establishment GOP that created RomneyCare. Obama liked it so much he called in Romney’s advisors and bought the entire RomneyCare package.

So my question … to the GOP establishment is … “Can You Fix This?”

And the answer is – “NO”.

Oh, they may be able to spend LESS money that Obama has – but that will not help us at this point. We are speeding toward the cliff and this car IS GOING OVER THE CLIFF. Letting up on the accelerator will do nothing – an IMMEDIATE APPLICATION OF BRAKES and throwing this vehicle into reverse is what is required.

But the Establishment GOP can’t do that. If they can’t do that – then we Conservatives are better off donning a helmet and preparing ourselves to go over the cliff with the Democrats in the driver’s seat.

Which is why I will vote OBAMA if the GOP produces Mittens RomneyCare as it’s nominee.

HondaV65 on February 2, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I understand where you are coming from based on all the betrayals of the past and I only ask you to realize that Romney’s incentive is so strong, in fact stronger than any other candidate, to get rid of Obamacare that it’s guaranteed to happen in the Republicans control the other branches. Yes, I’m in fact arguing that a politician will choose whats best for him and I bet I can find evidence for that as well.

The only guarantee is that there is no guarantees. You cannot predict what Romney or any other so-called Republican in Congress will do to repeal Obamacare any more than anyone else can. In fact, I don’t think Romney will repeal it at all and recent evidence for that is strong, right from Norm Coleman’s mouth. You can hope it will happen and that’s fine, but where politicians are concerned, I wouldn’t count on it. The only thing you can count on is that they will always vote their own self-interest — yes, what is best for that politician only, not necessarily what is best for his constituents or the country.

PatriotGal2257 on February 2, 2012 at 1:39 PM

That’s it in a nutshell. There isn’t a hairbreadths difference between them any more. Just cut to the chase: let them join with the statists and call their party some euphemistic name to distinguish them from an actual conservative party and be done with it.

PatriotGal2257 on February 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM

And libertarians are for Big Judiciary. Whereas the founders wrote The Federalist Papers to try to convince the populations of the various states the problems that could be solved under the drafted Constitution, you guys prefer–just as much as progressives–experts telling communities what is and is not self-government.

As the federal government would become de-powered with less money to spend, how exactly would the fed enforce the judge fiats we regularly see these days? If you’re talking armies, then you need to read your Hamilton and Madison a little closer.

So who makes sure that all the little liberal-tarian taboos are upheld against the upstart citizens of each state who might want to mess with the balance put forth in your Holy Writ? Face it, Big Government upholds Big Judiciary. And you’ll eventually see states reason that they didn’t sign on to any ubiquitous “Incorporation” principle by ratifying the 14th amendment.

I doubt you even realize that there is a problem, there.

Axeman on February 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM

LEGENDARY post btw allahpundit…

apocalypse on February 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Things like this piece from Ann confirm to me that I made the right decision to kill my cable TV and Fox News with it. I just could no longer stomach the BS we are fed on a daily basis.

ornery_independent on February 2, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Axeman on February 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM

How did you deduce I was Libertarian from my post? For the record, I’m not. The ones I know are so all over the map in terms of what they believe government should do or not that it’s hard to tell where they stand at any given moment.

I was merely saying that Big Government statist Republicans should just quit pretending they are somehow different because they are Republicans and not Democrats when in fact their big government tendencies and attitudes are the same. They might as well just be Democrats, since that’s what they are in all but name.

PatriotGal2257 on February 2, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Ann Coulter: Romney White House spokesperson

Roy Rogers on February 1, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Agree – It is so obvious that employment in a Romney administration is what this woman is seeking. She is a vapid establishment Republican opportunist who is clinging like a blood sucking leach to the person with “the best odds” of nomination.

She is all about the advancement of Ann Coulter, not about the advancement of conservative values. Shallow, self-absorbed Americans like her are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Bill O gives her far too much credibility by having her on his show. I switch channels when she is on.

AttaBoyLuther on February 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM

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

As far as I’m concerned this is the crux of her argument and she’s not wrong.

You can love or hate Romneycare, but, it’s not appropriate to compare it to Obamacare because one was done by the feds (which would violate the constitution) and one was done by a state (which, as long as it didn’t violate the state’s constitution would be fine).

Conservatives of all people should be able to recognize an argument from federalism when they see one.

Does that mean we should like Romneycare and hope that it is copied into our own states? Absolutely not. Conservatives can hate state government sucking their freedom away just as much as they hate the federal government sucking their freedom away.

But, when we’re being honest, we should at least acknowledge that the governor of a very liberal state not vetoing legislation passed by the legislature of that state and overwhelmingly supported by the people in that state is not at all the same as the president of a center-right country not vetoing legislation passed by the most liberal legislature that country has ever had in spite of it being overwhelmingly disliked by the people of that country and against that country’s founding documents.

JadeNYU on February 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Which is why I will vote OBAMA if the GOP produces Mittens RomneyCare as it’s nominee.

HondaV65 on February 2, 2012 at 1:30 PM

That’s a bridge too far for me, but I will not shed a single tear for America or any of her citizens if Obama wins a second term. It will just be proof to me that we deserved Barack Obama before he won his first.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

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

As far as I’m concerned this is the crux of her argument and she’s not wrong.

JadeNYU on February 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM

The problem is that the courts insert legal opinions into policy making where they have no business doing so. Whether a law is constitutional or not is a fact that stands on its own regardless of what some group of black robes says.

gryphon202 on February 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Big government waste, fraud, delays, service issues, fewer choices, and the usual bureaucracy is now the “conservative” choice?

When did we redefine “conservative” to be this? Is there a word for what conservative meant last week? Because I’m still for that, and not whatever foolishness this is.

Sorry Ann, I don’t think you’ve got that many followers who are willing to follow you off this cliff.

gekkobear on February 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I gave her a chance and started reading the article. It started:

If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, Romneycare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles — as it was at the time.

And for me, it ended there, too. I’m not wasting time on people rewriting history to pretend that socialized medicine is free-market.

What a disgrace for Coulter!

tom on February 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Zombie Mark Levin calls Ann aka Vincent Schiavelli Coulter a ZOMBIE ..lol…awesome

apocalypse on February 2, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Does that mean we should like Romneycare and hope that it is copied into our own states? Absolutely not. Conservatives can hate state government sucking their freedom away just as much as they hate the federal government sucking their freedom away.

JadeNYU on February 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM

But Ann doesn’t hate the individual mandate… in her opinion if “the Democrats” hadn’t ruined it it would have been a great idea, a bastion of Conservatism, and a great idea in general. And without Obama ruining the image it still would be such a beacon of Conservative ideals, according to Ann.

She doesn’t oppose the state government sucking away our freedoms, and doesn’t even think that is what RomenyCare was… she doesn’t believe any freedoms are lost by having the government control the market and force purchase of a sub-standard overpriced product.

Defending Federalism doesn’t mean defending everything anyone does as a state… I believe California has the right to do most if not all of the budget busting stupidity they’ve done in recent years… that doesn’t mean I need to write an article saying how great and conservative all of those policies are… or how they’d have been brilliant if only Democrats hadn’t ruined them.

I’m not disagreeing with you, except where you attribute your thoughts to Ann when she doesn’t seem to agree with any of them.

gekkobear on February 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

And for me, it ended there, too. I’m not wasting time on people rewriting history to pretend that socialized medicine is free-market.

What a disgrace for Coulter!

tom on February 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I agree. There is no way to make that case. He signed yet more socialism into law. He could have chosen not to. Everything after he put his name on it makes no difference at all.

Romney is a socialist. He’s just a moderate democrat. We need to get all the democrats OUT OF THE PARTY, or we leave and start a new party. The tea party must cohere and ramp itself up.

dogsoldier on February 2, 2012 at 3:40 PM

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

Um, yes, we are.

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.

And, what, dear Annie, happened when Mitt Romney socialised healthcare in Massachusetts? You hated Bill Clinton for attempting to socialise healthcare. You hate Barack Obama for socialising healthcare. But, you love Chris Christie, who is the only Republican governor that did not challenge Obamacare, and you want us to vote for Mitt Romney, who did socialise healthcare in Massachusetts.

Please, please, please, do not go with the Tenth Amendment excuse. Technically, it is correct, but ideologically and principally, it is an anathema to anyone, who is a champion of limited government and liberty.

Plus, look at how lovely (/s) the “little, temporary safety” obtained by RomneyCare is for those in Massachusetts who gave “up essential liberty.”

Methinks that Ben Franklin, in addition to most certainly being appalled, would say that they “deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/02/ann-coulter-disaster_02.html

Resist We Much on February 2, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Just heard Annie on with Hannity and she’s blowing off her big gaffe with the lame explanation that she was presenting facts. These are facts? In what perverse alternate reality? And she believes Romney will get rid of Obamascare if he gets elected President. Me, not so much.

stukinIL4now on February 2, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8