Ann Coulter on 2016: Second look at Mitt Romney?

posted at 3:21 pm on April 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via MofoPolitics, which is responsible for the clip, and Free Republic, where the Romney 3.0 movement is, shall we say, off to a bad start in the comments. I’m 90 percent sure she’s joking but there’s no way to be sure: Any conservative willing to offer three cheers for RomneyCare qualifies, indisputably, as a true blue Mitt fan. I didn’t think they existed, but they do. Even among people who knew all along that, if nominated, he would lose.

Why Romney instead of someone else, though? One big reason, she says, is immigration. He was the guy who hammered Rick Perry in the debates for supporting in-state tuition for illegals; he was also the guy who made attrition through enforcement — a.k.a. “self-deportation” — the foundation of his immigration policy, despite endless bleating from the media. Call him a squish on other matters if you like but on amnesty he was rock-solid. But see, this was the whole problem with Romney: Was he rock-solid on immigration or was he merely telling primary voters what he thought they wanted to hear? You never really knew with Mitt. He already had one gigantic, potentially fatal political liability with health care. He likely reasoned, correctly, that he couldn’t afford another one by taking a centrist line on immigration. So he became a staunch conservative on legalization and citizenship and it worked for him — for awhile.

How about after the election, though, when he no longer had to worry about offending voters? Here’s what he told a WaPo reporter for a book on the 2012 campaign that came out last year:

On his plan for self-deportation, Romney said, “I still don’t know whether it’s seen as being punitive in the Hispanic community. I mean, I know it is in the Anglo community … I didn’t recognize how negative and punitive that term would be seen by the voting community.”…

When Romney started to trail Gingrich in polls ahead of the South Carolina primary, the book explains that his advisers want to run immigration-themed ads against Gingrich — but Romney refused to “run an immigration campaign.”

Balz also reports in Collision 2012 that Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, thought that the immigration attacks on Perry were “both damaging and unnecessary.”

“Looking back, I think that’s right,” Romney told Balz. “I think that I was ineffective in being able to bring Hispanic voters into our circle and that had I been less pointed on that in the debates, I would have been more likely to get more Hispanic voters.”

That sounds to me like a man who regrets having taken such a hard line. Here he is again in November 2013, months after the Gang of Eight bill passed the Senate:

Another issue — immigration — is something the Republican Party must deal with, Mitt Romney said. Asked if there should be a pathway to citizenship put forward, he said, “I do believe those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else. I don’t think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance just like anybody else to get in line and to become a citizen if they’d like to do so.”

It’s not entirely clear what he means there. Does he think illegals should be allowed to stay, with legal status, while they get in line to apply for citizenship, or does he think they should be removed and then try applying for a visa while back in their own country just like every other aspiring American in the world? Come to think of it, that’s not the right question. The right question is, how would President Romney, having just won a squeaker over Obama but having lost 70+ percent of the Latino vote, respond to a concerted push by congressional Democrats for immigration reform? Would he have held firm to “self-deportation” or, having been chastened by the Latino reaction to “self-deportation” during the campaign and with Republican leaders breathing down his neck about changing demographics and 2016, would he have tried to broker some sort of deal involving legalization? Which seems truer to the Romney ethos to you? Reagan signed an amnesty but Mitt the Unconquerable wouldn’t have?

I do think she’s right that it’ll probably be a governor in 2016, though. Are there any of those on the Republican bench who are as firmly opposed to amnesty as Romney 2012 was?


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 2 3

I think I see the problem. The bold text in your quote only mentions residence. That us not the same as citizenship.
anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM
No, but in order to establish your legal residence for the purpose of getting in-state tuition, you need to get or do things that require you to be in the US legally.
You’re tap dancing around the fact that the first step is to prove you are a legal resident (regardless of citizenship) of the US and the state you live in.
dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Actually, you don’t at all have to prove that you’re a citizen of the country. That has nothing to do with which state you may or may not have been living in for x amount of time.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM

I think I see the problem. The bold text in your quote only mentions residence. That us not the same as citizenship.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM

No, but in order to establish your legal residence for the purpose of getting in-state tuition, you need to get or do things that require you to be in the US legally.

You’re tap dancing around the fact that the first step is to prove you are a legal resident (regardless of citizenship) of the US and the state you live in.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:37 PM

When I registered for college, I memorized my SS number by the end of the day. Everybody wanted it. Unless you stole your number, if you’re an illegal alien, you don’t have a SS number. Hence, you’re from out of the state, country, and not subject to the benefit of in state tuition.

Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Actually, you don’t at all have to prove that you’re a citizen of the country. That has nothing to do with which state you may or may not have been living in for x amount of time.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Are you not reading what I posted?
Try again.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Right….because 30 million new democrat voters is the key to having a smaller government, lol.

What I find depressing is geniuses who believe all issues are equal.

xblade on April 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

I don’t know of a single Republican candidate that wants to give illegals CITIZENSHIP. The argument is generally over work permits.

PS. Romney was one of the toughest GOP presidential candidates on the “illegal” issue.

Tater Salad on April 3, 2014 at 6:52 PM

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:48 PM

I did. First, state colleges don’t care what citizen you are of any country, let alone this country. To qualify for in-state tuition to that school you must prove that you’ve been living in said state for x amount of time. Citizen or not.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Hence, you’re from out of the state, country, and not subject to the benefit of in state tuition.
Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 6:46 PM

That’s simply not true. Foreign nationals who are not citizens of this country can and do get in-state tuition. They also don’t have social security numbers.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:57 PM

I did. First, state colleges don’t care what citizen you are of any country, let alone this country. To qualify for in-state tuition to that school you must prove that you’ve been living in said state for x amount of time. Citizen or not.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM

You’re still failing – and trying to argue something different than what I said.
Here’s the part that you even copied for reference – emphasis added to help you out:

No, but in order to establish your legal residence for the purpose of getting in-state tuition, you need to get or do things that require you to be in the US legally.
You’re tap dancing around the fact that the first step is to prove you are a legal resident (regardless of citizenship) of the US and the state you live in.
dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:37 PM

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:57 PM

First class action Obamacare lawsuit was filed against Nevada’s State Health Exchange & Zerox who won the contract to build and manage the site.

More and more states will be sued in these class action lawsuits.

Texas doesn’t have an Obamacare state health exchange…and Texas has Tort Reform.

Gov. Perry resisted the pressure to cave on Obamacare.

workingclass artist on April 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

I can’t wait for the pile up that comes to the courts. I hope Oregon and Maryland are up next.

Re: Gov. Perry, I can’t think of another candidate for 2016 who is a stronger defender of 10A. I like Ted Cruz but I feel like he is not quite ready yet. He is just not seasoned enough. Can a Senator be appointed to SCOTUS?

jffree1 on April 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM

That’s simply not true. Foreign nationals who are not citizens of this country can and do get in-state tuition. They also don’t have social security numbers.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:57 PM

True – but they have to be in the country legally – i.e. resident alien, green card, work visa, etc.
Well, except for the Dem run states that are allowing illegals to get in-state tuition – but denying that tuition rate to legal US citizens from other states.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Right….because 30 million new democrat voters is the key to having a smaller government, lol.

What I find depressing is geniuses who believe all issues are equal.

xblade on April 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

I don’t know of a single Republican candidate that wants to give illegals CITIZENSHIP. The argument is generally over work permits.

PS. Romney was one of the toughest GOP presidential candidates on the “illegal” issue.

Tater Salad on April 3, 2014 at 6:52 PM

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/11/15/in-about-face-mitt-romney-says-undocumented-immigrants-should-have-path-to/

Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who took a restrictionist hard line on illegal immigration during last year’s campaign, said Friday that undocumented immigrants should have a chance to obtain legal status.

Romney’s support for a path to legal status is in stark contrast to the position many in his own Republican Party have taken on the issue, and a dramatic departure from the views he expressed last year while running for president.

On the campaign trail, Romney said he was against giving undocumented immigrants a break, and that he favored making life so difficult for them that they would opt for “self-deportation.”

But in an interview Friday with CBS News, the former Massachusetts governor said: “I do believe those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else.”

Romney continued: “I don’t think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance just like anybody else to get in line and to become a citizen if they’d like to do so,” he said.

Romney also said that the Republican Party must address immigration and work on legislation to reform the system.

They don’t call him flip flop for nothing. I posted this on page one.

Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 7:02 PM

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Apologies. Admittedly, I’m not 100% sure whether colleges actually a) look into that and b) if it even disqualifies you. Can you say for certain that they do (for a) and that it would (for b)?

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Hence, you’re from out of the state, country, and not subject to the benefit of in state tuition.
Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 6:46 PM

That’s simply not true. Foreign nationals who are not citizens of this country can and do get in-state tuition. They also don’t have social security numbers.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Yes, because of liberal led for the children drives, despite the objections of the citizens who actually pay for the college.

Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Romney was an awful, awful candidate. Worse than McCain. Possibly the worst GOP candidate since Al Landon.

And Coulter is a complete joke at this point. Her credibility is nearing Anthony Weiner levels.

Norwegian on April 3, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Apologies. Admittedly, I’m not 100% sure whether colleges actually a) look into that and b) if it even disqualifies you. Can you say for certain that they do (for a) and that it would (for b)?

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Citizenship is not the issue – and never has been, at least not in my arguments.
As I spelled out earlier, the state run colleges, in Colorado anyway, require proof of long term legal residency in the state to get in-state tuition. In order to be able to provide proof of long term legal residency, you have to be able to prove you are living in the state legally.
As I agreed to just above – foreigners who are here legally, and can prove such, can get in-state tuition.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 7:10 PM

We had a Secretary of War cabinet position starting with George Washington’s administration. The name was changed to Secretary of Defense in 1949.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM

You are correct, of course, and if I hadn’t been ‘drive-by posting’ and had taken the time to think, at least back to the Civil War, I would have recalled Secretary Stanton. I didn’t mean to run off without a reply but I had to go earn my keep.

My main point was that we have too many departments, agencies, rules and laws which need to be pruned… severely.

jffree1 on April 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM

My main point was that we have too many departments, agencies, rules and laws which need to be pruned… severely.

jffree1 on April 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM

THAT, I fully agree with.
First to go should be EPA, Dept of Energy, and Dept of Education.
But those are by no means the only ones that should go.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Norwegian on April 3, 2014 at 7:05 PM

She (Ann) could have been joking..And no she is not even close to Anthony Weiner’s level..:)

Dire Straits on April 3, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Add Jindal and maybe even Kasic to your list and drop Christie and I think you have a pretty good slate. Oh and you can throw Huckabee in there if you want to make the religion crowd feels like they had a dog in the fight.

MJBrutus on April 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Kasich may be the most boring politician in U.S. history.

bw222 on April 3, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Coulter is nuts. Romney’s great on immigration? Yeah, and he would have ended Obamacare as president too. She’s a female O’Reilly – puts on an act of being anti-establishment, while, in fact, agreeing with the establishment.

rickv404 on April 3, 2014 at 7:37 PM

America is so screwed up, if I were Romney, I wouldn’t agree to run again unless I were drafted.

flataffect on April 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Romney WOULD have made a good, and possibly a great president. I will admit that he is not a particularly good candidate in the sense that he lacks the knowhow or charisma to appeal to today’s electorate. But I don’t view that as insurmountable, because Romney DID lose because Republicans were so lukewarm in their support of him. Even those who didn’t stay home and did vote for him picked at him for every little failing, as though everyone else ALWAYS runs such a great race. Romney carried the Independents in most of the battleground states; it was the spoiled conservatives who elected Obama.

I am certain that he and his planners believed that his stand on illegal immigration and amnesty would carry the day, because he COUNTED on the Republican vote and thought he’d get enough crossover voters on anti-amnesty, because the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are adamantly against amnesty, especially in a time of such high unemployment as we have now. The Republicans, especially conservatives (some even spouted that Rubio should be the candidate instead) were just so lukewarm in their support that the campaign fizzled. (Although I will have to say that here in Florida I was shocked that Obama won. Bumper stickers and rallies had Romney far, far more popular than Obama. To me it was a given that Romney would win here).

As to Romneycare, which so many people picked at him for, wise up folks. First of all, he explained that it was okay for states but not for the national level. Moreover, did these people NOT understand that Massachusetts is a hotbed of liberals and they WANTED that kind of health insurance? So he gave it to them.

As to the notion that he would now be granting an amnesty, that is even greater stupidity. He RAN on self-deportation. It was a greater part of his campaign than that of ANY major candidate of any kind in recent history. He would have been ELECTED on that issue. It would have been political and presidential suicide to betray so many Americans after getting into the White House. His resume suggests instead that he would have immediately been working on jobs. That was his stock in trade: fixing sick companies, and the badly run Olympics.

And, really, I researched the issue, and Romney had never been high on amnesty. Remember the previous primary? He ran against McCain on the issue. And the worst thing I could find about him is that the landscaper that he hired employed illegal aliens. Big deal. Compared to what every other Republican candidate in recent years has done and said, this was by far the mildest thing anyone could claim.

As to the somewhat concessionary statements he’s made lately. They are still not statements that are high for amnesty. And he wanted to be conciliatory in some way, after he was accused of being so mean to those wonderful so well-loved illegals. But of course I don’t agree that he should have done that.

I don’t see how running again would turn out any better, since people on sites like these STILL lump him in with McCain, and soundly ridicule him as though he were the village idiot. Too bad. It’s the village idiots who didn’t vote for him. Any one of them couldn’t light a candle to his record. But the low-information voters have had their say.

memyselfni on April 3, 2014 at 8:25 PM

NO ! ! !

Nat George on April 3, 2014 at 8:30 PM

But see, this was the whole problem with Romney: Was he rock-solid on immigration or was he merely telling primary voters what he thought they wanted to hear?

This would be a valid point if, and only if, there was a long tale of Romney promising one thing while campaigning and then doing another thing as Governor. I suspect that if this were the case I would have seen ample evidence of it so far on this site.

Romney’s critics are confused by him taking one position while running for office in the most liberal state in America and taking another position while running for the Presidency 10 or 20 years later. These people don’t accept that the art of politics is the art of the possible.

Basilsbest on April 3, 2014 at 8:48 PM

The likelyhood of reformed egyptian hieroglyphics becoming the official American language have cratered.

Murphy9 on April 3, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Uh, let’s see … According to Mitt Romney’s son, in 2012, Mitt did not want to run, and had no interest in being president, and he went on to lose what should have been an easily winnable race against the worst “president” in U.S. history, because he refused to fight, and he was not in it to win it.

The answer is NO – Romney does not deserve a “second look”, or another chance, and surely, Romney is even less interested in running in 2016, than he was in 2012.

Pork-Chop on April 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM

…………………………………^ This. ^
Why would anyone go for someone who isn’t interested in the position?

rottenrobbie on April 3, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Oh, please no!

Spare me the agony!!

OneConservative on April 3, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Ann Coulter on 2016: Second look at Mitt Romney?

LOL… no.

Seriously why would anyone suggest this even in jest? Is the Republican bench so shallow that they choose between Two Time Loser Romney (who by the way didn’t come across as really hungry for the office considering the kid gloves he treated Obama with after the first debate), Obama’s BFF Christie, and the Bush Dynasty? If this is the seriousness of the next election get ready for Hillary to be wheeled across the finish line by her Republican pals in 2016.

Ukiah on April 3, 2014 at 9:26 PM

BTW, does anyone really take Coulter too seriously these days? Jumped the same shark as Rove.

Ukiah on April 3, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Kasich may be the most boring politician in U.S. history.

bw222 on April 3, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Also at this point pretty much a de facto progressive.

rrpjr on April 3, 2014 at 9:31 PM

BTW, does anyone really take Coulter too seriously these days? Jumped the same shark as Rove.
Ukiah on April 3, 2014 at 9:28 PM

I know I don’t.

Probably the only good thing to come out of the age of Obama is that it has allowed we true conservatives to separate the wheat from the chaff as it has caused many of our own to reveal what they truly are.

Look at the depravity that defended here everyday.

frank on April 3, 2014 at 9:55 PM

I’m of two minds. The first is that Romney is a great man who did great things, and between his state, his company and the Olympics proved that he could do well in any endeavor he pursues.

But on the other hand, he had his chance and lost.

I would like him to run again and I would like him to win this time. But show me a better candidate, and I might reconsider.

Johnny 100 Pesos on April 3, 2014 at 10:14 PM

Why don’t I hear the GOPrank&filers saying anything about rallying behind a far-right Conservative candidate for President? About how they would be delighted to vote Winger if a foot-washin’ hard rock Fiscal Baptist kind of a candidate appeard to be what the electorate was interested in. How come we don’t hear anything like that?

They appear here only to try to convince sofiscons that its just foolish, foolish, you hear? to not support the Oh-so-Electable Whoever the elite and the Big Doners have decided to run as the GOP Nom.

Even though the GOP candidate will be some tired old Moderate retread from the failed past, or even a squishy new northeastern Purple Warrior, sofiscons just need to man up and hand over that vote, dammit!

The GOP knows what its doing! Its the sofiscons fault anyway. We hate you! Vote for us!

Pless1foEngrish on April 3, 2014 at 10:21 PM

If phony agitators want to push so lame candidate whose only qualification is that they can scream “Constitution” real loud, then I’m down for Romney 3.0

swamp_yankee on April 3, 2014

If we had 535 folks in Congress screaming “Constitution” We the People would not be in 2/3rds of the fixes we are in now.

Dr. Dog on April 3, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Look at the depravity that defended here everyday.

You be genius.

I’ll stick to the ‘n’beans.

Murphy9 on April 3, 2014 at 10:51 PM

Look at the depravity that defended here everyday.
You be genius.
I’ll stick to the ‘n’beans.
Murphy9 on April 3, 2014 at 10:51 PM

But of course you will. In what way is this a shocking revelation?

frank on April 3, 2014 at 10:55 PM

Ann Coulter on 2016: Second look at Mitt Romney?

Matters little to me. I’m done voting for these mobsters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 3, 2014 at 10:59 PM

BTW, does anyone really take Coulter too seriously these days? Jumped the same shark as Rove.

Ukiah on April 3, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Did she abort that child she wanted from Krispy Kreame?

This bimbo is the last voice we need to hear since her last round of RINO cheer leading. Is Cheney unavailable to take Coulter and Rove hunting?

riddick on April 3, 2014 at 11:26 PM

Free Republic is anti-Mormon. Their hatred for Romney is a big reason why he lost and we got Obama.

Dr B on April 4, 2014 at 12:23 AM

Mitt and Ann Coulter, just go away, and stay.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 12:55 AM

Mitt and Ann Coulter, just go away, and stay.
Schadenfreude on April 4, 2014 at 12:55 AM

And take their friends with them,

frank on April 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM

I can sum this up simply and succinctly for myself: not just no, but F#CK NO! I lost what little interest I had in him when his son revealed after the election that Mitt didn’t really want to run anyway.

I won’t be staying home in ’16, but the real possibility exists that I will be leaving that ballot spot blank, or writing someone in. Call me what you will, but I am damn sick of having to vote for the lessor of two evils, rather than having someone I can vote for. I am tired of reaching “across the aisle”, only to pull back a bloody stump. I am tired of electing someone who is putatively a “Republican”, only to find they are a Socialist Lite.

Ted Cruz so far hasn’t disappointed, and if we can elect a Kenyan to office, we can certainly have a Canadian. At least he’ll have a better grasp of what First World means.

BillH on April 4, 2014 at 2:46 AM

I can sum this up simply and succinctly for myself: not just no, but F##K NO! I lost what little interest I had in him when his son revealed after the election that Mitt didn’t really want to run anyway.

I won’t be staying home in ’16, but the real possibility exists that I will be leaving that ballot spot blank, or writing someone in. Call me what you will, but I am damn sick of having to vote for the lessor of two evils, rather than having someone I can vote for. I am tired of reaching “across the aisle”, only to pull back a bloody stump. I am tired of electing someone who is putatively a “Republican”, only to find they are a Socialist Lite.

Ted Cruz so far hasn’t disappointed, and if we can elect a Ken:yan to office, we can certainly have a Canadian. At least he’ll have a better grasp of what First World means.

BillH on April 4, 2014 at 2:48 AM

There are a million colors of Hell No in this.

Go away you RINO (leftest as possible) Coulter.

Go away “Romney-Care” Romney.

Theophile on April 4, 2014 at 3:20 AM

Free Republic is anti-Mormon. Their hatred for Romney is a big reason why he lost and we got Obama.

Dr B on April 4, 2014 at 12:23 AM

Dr B You might want to consider a do over on your post. Just reflect for a moment on what you wrote.

celtic warrior on April 4, 2014 at 4:13 AM

True – but they have to be in the country legally – i.e. resident alien, green card, work visa, etc.
Well, except for the Dem run states that are allowing illegals to get in-state tuition – but denying that tuition rate to legal US citizens from other states.

…you’re dead wrong, and have made it clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

i’m in texas — that dem-run, liberal-utopian paradise — and there are plenty of undocumented-immigrant undergraduates at my university; what follows, in fact, is my university’s helpful advice to the undocumented immigrants who wish to apply for in-state tuition deductions:

Texas House Bill 1403, state legislation passed in 2001, enabled students, including those who were undocumented, to qualify as Texas residents and pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities in the state. In-state tuition is much lower than non-resident tuition and has allowed thousands of immigrants in Texas access to education. In 2011, over 16,000 students attended college under HB1403. 75% of HB1403 students are at community colleges and 25% are at 4-year institutions.

that is, for a decade and a half, undocumented immigrants in the dem-run exception that is texas.

but it gets worse for you:

As I spelled out earlier, the state run colleges, in Colorado anyway, require proof of long term legal residency in the state to get in-state tuition. In order to be able to provide proof of long term legal residency, you have to be able to prove you are living in the state legally.

nope!

At least sixteen states have laws permitting certain undocumented students who have attended and graduated from their primary and secondary schools to pay the same tuition as their classmates at public institutions of higher education. The states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

nebraska. oklahoma. kansas, texas — UTAH.

all these dem-run exceptions to the stalwart conservative rule of denying in-state tuition to undocumented students.

google has now been around for how many years, now?

jaxisaneurophysicist on April 4, 2014 at 7:01 AM

… was he merely telling primary voters what he thought they wanted to hear?”

What Republicans need are candidates who adopt the Democratic strategy of lying just enough to convince Independents and a few Democrats that they are left-center, moderates and who if elected will govern as conservatives.

Unfortunately the perception of the Republican establishment as Democrat-Lite and their pandering to Hispanics has so damaged the brand that it may be impossible for someone who campaigns as a moderate to get the nomination.

Nomas on April 4, 2014 at 7:04 AM

Coulter is right. Immigration is the critical issue of our day. Every candidate being considered by either party at this time favors immigration policies that will continue the massive influx of socialists whose children will be overwhelmingly Democrat voters.

I voted for Romney. If the GOP nominates an invasion supporter in 2016, I’ll be voting third party.

fadetogray on April 4, 2014 at 7:17 AM

Ann Coulter on 2016: Second look at Mitt Romney?

The guy who was a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-cap-and-trade, pro-gun-control governor, and a vulture capitalist? The guy who served as the architect for Obamacare, flip-flopped like no tomorrow, liked being able to fire people, didn’t care about the very poor, disdained the 47%, and came up with terms like “severely conservative”?

No thanks, even if he thinks that all the trees are the right height.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2014 at 7:22 AM

The right question is, how would President Romney, having just won a squeaker over Obama but having lost 70+ percent of the Latino vote, respond to a concerted push by congressional Democrats for immigration reform?

Given that once he was the nominee he also said that he’d staple a green card to every college diploma for illegal aliens, you tell me.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2014 at 7:27 AM

HA!

mybcjazz on April 4, 2014 at 7:31 AM

“None of them are as good… on immigration as Mitt Romney.”

Since Ann included the possibility of senators when she made that remark (she only strictly excluded house members), what about Senator Jeff Sessions, Ann? Why don’t you promote him?

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2014 at 7:32 AM

One word: Oromneycare.

Don L on April 4, 2014 at 7:32 AM

what about Senator Jeff Sessions, Ann? Why don’t you promote him?

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2014 at 7:32 AM

What and leave Chris Christie without a chaperone.

Don L on April 4, 2014 at 7:35 AM

We could use Romney in DC right now fixing the mess. Short of that, Obama should bring in Bain to save the country.

Fleuries on April 4, 2014 at 8:08 AM

You need to look at Massachusetts in 2006 to size up Romney care, the state of MA has had the worst governor, Duval Patrick and one party rule, with 3 speakers of the legislature going to prison, since Romney left office. The state qualified for an exemption from Obama care. Now MA healthcare is broken. Where low income people could buy cheap subsidized mini plans under the Romney plan, they are being invited to free Medicaid. Illegals get free care. And while Obamacare raised the max threashold of coverage to $750K per plan, the geniuses in MA have raised that figure to $2 million per plan. MA does not have Romney Care, it has Obama Care on steroids. To defend MA on a certain point, medicine is not rationed here, because there is an overabundance of doctors, and even when they say you have to wait to get an appointment, they are talking about your scheduled annual appointment. If you have a fever, your doctor can see you this afternoon. But all the demands on doctors, more of them work Mon-Friday and take weekends off. On the weekend, you might have to use the emergency room. In MA we all wish we could go back to Romney care, which was intended to preserve health insurance as a benefit at your employment. I like that. I hear republicans dissing that benefit today, and I don’t agree. Why can’t your employer do that if they want to? If you leave, you can take it with you for a time, on COBRA. Have done, it’s expensive, but you are not denied coverage.

Fleuries on April 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM

Romney was an awful, awful candidate. Worse than McCain. Possibly the worst GOP candidate since Al Landon.

Norwegian on April 3, 2014 at 7:05 PM

.
Heh……go ahead a name a better one ( uh – and no McCain wasn’t – that was Palin) – one who is not a career political crony hack, one who is more accomplished in the PRIVATE sector, more intelligent and more of a family role model.
Feel free to choose from the list below.
.
McCain Obama
GBush Kerry
GBush Ghore
Dole Clinton
GHBush Clinton
GHBush Dukaki
Reagan Mondale
Reagan Carter
Ford Carter

See what I did here.
And these guys were the WINNERS.
Sans Reagan here, you’ve planted some sort of fantasy/revisionist world in your mind, to make your claim about Romney seem Truthful……when all it is – is a leftover self inflicted tantrum.
Get over it Francis.

FlaMurph on April 4, 2014 at 8:40 AM

what about Senator Jeff Sessions, Ann? Why don’t you promote him?
Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2014 at 7:32 AM

Good question.

She says she’s really only into governors, but Sessions has been as solid as anyone on the amnesty issue.

bluegill on April 4, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Coulter is right. Immigration is the critical issue of our day. Every candidate being considered by either party at this time favors immigration policies that will continue the massive influx of socialists whose children will be overwhelmingly Democrat voters.
I voted for Romney. If the GOP nominates an invasion supporter in 2016, I’ll be voting third party.
fadetogray on April 4, 2014 at 7:17 AM

Same here.

bluegill on April 4, 2014 at 8:48 AM

Never thought I’d go third party, but I just cannot support a pro-amnesty candidate. I’m still hopeful someone solid will emerge, though.

bluegill on April 4, 2014 at 8:52 AM

The Romneys still own that dressage horse, Rafalca.
It’s so much worse than Jon Cary’s rowboat.

vityas on April 4, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Ann is 100% correct. The country needs Romney more than ever. He has the executive skills and is good on immigration.

Whitey Ford on April 4, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Well, I’m sure Romney would be a better President than Obama has been.

(In case any one misses it, the saying is “Damning with…”)

Over50 on April 4, 2014 at 9:19 AM

They’re going to threaten you with Romney if you don’t support Jeb. But heaven forfend you actually support your own candidates and throw these party bosses out on their ears.

Another Libertarian on April 4, 2014 at 11:32 AM

NO NO NO NO AND NO

Why must there be re-tread MUSH?

geocon on April 4, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Love Ann Coulter. Nobody is better at skewering the Left. But on picking candidates she’s a little iffy sometimes. This is the same woman who, three years ago at CPAC (?) said we better nominate Chris Christie or Romney would get the nomination and we will lose.

There are so many layers of fail in that prediction it’s hard to know where to begin. To her credit, at least if Christie were the nominee, it’s less likely he’d have been humping Obama’s leg a week prior to the election.

SAMinVA on April 4, 2014 at 12:11 PM

we better nominate Chris Christie or Romney would get the nomination and we will lose.
SAMinVA on April 4, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Well then, I guess she was right – Romney got the nomination, and we lost.
And yet, she wants Romney again.?!?.?

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM

The guy has a psychological disorder — something to do with his father and a sense of inferiority. He never should have been the nominee. He did the same collapsing act against Ted Kennedy in his senate run. In the final debate, he folded like a K-Mart lawn chair. He only won the governor race because he had a no-name democrat opponent who got a late start. The only race he ever won in his life.

rrpjr on April 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM

and yet there are those on this very site that told us over and over
how wonder and inevitable president Romney would be.
and then he refused to go for the throat during the debate with
the Iwon. it makes me ashamed to admit I voted for this SOB.
only because I knew how bad Obama had proven to be in his
first 4 years … I did not want to give him another 4.

conservative tarheel on April 4, 2014 at 2:10 PM

My main point was that we have too many departments, agencies, rules and laws which need to be pruned… severely.

jffree1 on April 3, 2014 at 7:11 PM

THAT, I fully agree with.
First to go should be EPA, Dept of Energy, and Dept of Education.
But those are by no means the only ones that should go.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 7:13 PM

those are the first to go … along with the czars …

conservative tarheel on April 4, 2014 at 2:23 PM

..all ah gots to say is that this is YET ANOTHER instance of the skinny, white, blonde broad with wet panties.

If invited to the Romney vacation lodge, will she be busy sniffing Da Mittster’s bike seat?

The War Planner on April 4, 2014 at 3:15 PM

I stopped paying attention to Coulter when she admitted Bill Maher was her best bud and former boyfriend.

If her RINO sensibilities werent clear with her love of Romney, she is now cheerleading for Mitch McConnell, arguably the worst piece of garbage the GOP has to offer.

She plays a role to sell books. Phony is the nicest thing i could call her.

alecj on April 4, 2014 at 5:38 PM

The media still hides the fraud of the voting, it’s a lot worse than you would think.

mixplix on April 4, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Kasich may be the most boring politician in U.S. history.

bw222 on April 3, 2014 at 7:26 PM

And he stands a good chance of losing to Ed Fitzgerald come November. I can’t tell the difference between the two.

Myron Falwell on April 4, 2014 at 10:06 PM

I’d vote for Romney again because he’s still better than all the other hopefuls, and considering the alternative of another Clinton, you can’t get any better than a proven businessman…

stacman on April 5, 2014 at 12:19 AM

I stopped paying attention to Coulter when she admitted Bill Maher was her best bud and former boyfriend.

If her RINO sensibilities werent clear with her love of Romney, she is now cheerleading for Mitch McConnell, arguably the worst piece of garbage the GOP has to offer.
alecj on April 4, 2014 at 5:38 PM

You might be one of these people with an all or nothing attitude. AC is the best on immigration of any mainstream pundit I’ve heard anywhere. She is very incisive on race relations, the Democrat mob mentality, etc etc.

Stop calling people RINO based on who they support, rather than the actual positions they take. AC is as conservative as you can get. Most of the time, our choices on who to support is really guesswork. Example – the tea parties supported Rubio and then he supported amnesty. The decision on what candidate to support encompasses a ton of different variables.

cimbri on April 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Adlai Stevenson II

technopeasant on April 5, 2014 at 2:43 PM

In the words of elvis: Return to Sender.

technopeasant on April 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Romney would have been a great president. I am angry at so called conservatives who stayed home or voted third party ensuring another Obama term. Romney is the only viable candidate in 2016. I fear another clown show with fourth tier candidates being pushed by the media in order to make the GOP look like idiots. Santorum, Gingrich, Bachman all won primaries and ruined any credibility the GOP had. 2016 is looking like a repeat with Cruz, rand Paul and others who have 0 chance of winning a national election muddying the field. If I had 100 million dollars to save this country, I would finance Romney.

fishstick on April 5, 2014 at 6:12 PM

“I do believe those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else. I don’t think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance just like anybody else to get in line and to become a citizen if they’d like to do so.”

former Gov Mitt Romney

.
It’s not entirely clear what he means there. Does he think illegals should be allowed to stay, with legal status, while they get in line to apply for citizenship, or does he think they should be removed and then try applying for a visa while back in their own country just like every other aspiring American in the world?

Allahpundit on April 3, 2014 at 3:21 PM

.
I also kinda’ wish that was ‘more clear’.

listens2glenn on April 5, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Romney would have been a great president.

fishstick on April 5, 2014 at 6:12 PM

.
I’m going to replace the word “great” with ‘much better’.
.

I am angry at so called conservatives who stayed home or voted third party ensuring another Obama term.

fishstick on April 5, 2014 at 6:12 PM

.
Dittos . . . . . totally.
.

Romney is the only viable candidate in 2016. I fear another clown show with fourth tier candidates being pushed by the media in order to make the GOP look like idiots.

fishstick on April 5, 2014 at 6:12 PM

.
I can NOT agree with you, on that . . . . .
.

Santorum, Gingrich, Bachman all won primaries and ruined any credibility the GOP had.

fishstick on April 5, 2014 at 6:12 PM

.
. . . . . or that . . . . .
.

2016 is looking like a repeat with Cruz, Rand Paul and others who have 0 chance of winning a national election muddying the field.

fishstick on April 5, 2014 at 6:12 PM

.
. . . . . or that.
.

If I had 100 million dollars to save this country, I would finance Romney.

fishstick on April 5, 2014 at 6:12 PM

.
Okay … if Mitt Romney wins the 2016 Republican primary, I will most likely vote for him again . . . . . BUT … if Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or Rick Santorum (Sarah ?) were to win the 2016 Republican primary, would you vote for them in the “general” ?

listens2glenn on April 5, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Okay … if Mitt Romney wins the 2016 Republican primary, I will most likely vote for him again . . . . . BUT … if Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or Rick Santorum (Sarah ?) were to win the 2016 Republican primary, would you vote for them in the “general” ?

listens2glenn on April 5, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Can I jump in here. I would vote for Sarah, you betcha, the snowmobiles, the whole deal over HRC. We can’t afford to lose another presidential election.

cimbri on April 6, 2014 at 2:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3