Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Ann Coulter to the faux conservative birther baby Hobbit crowd who just won’t rally behind the architect of state-run healthcare

“But he’s inevitable, for Chrissakes!

“And for those of you who don’t find 1 out of 3 inevitable, well, you all suck suck suck and are stupid stupid stupid, like Leftists.

“I hate you.

“Now snap to it and back Mitt. He’s the only guy who can beat Obama. And a failure to vote for Mitt is essentially a vote for Obama. Who you must want to see re-elected.

“So tell me, neo-leftists who won’t fall in behind Romney: Why do you hate conservatism?”

56 Replies to “Ann Coulter to the faux conservative birther baby Hobbit crowd who just won’t rally behind the architect of state-run healthcare”

  1. MarkO says:

    Just do this thought experiment she suggested. Close your eyes. Can you really envision Newt and Calista as President and First Lady?

    He’s like that old girlfriend who wants to go steady again after sleeping around with Freddie and some chicks, Fannie and Nancy. But, she says she’s grown and changed and wants you back. No, really. She’s made mistakes but, come on.

    How does that usually work out, Jeff?

  2. happyfeet says:

    what seems inevitable is that Team R is gonna nominate an egregious whore

    I don’t buy this brokered convention thing

  3. Ella says:

    But didn’t you read the defense over at Ace’s? See, Coulter isn’t a RINO hack who is supporting Romney because she’s a RINO. No, she is a reasonable and reasoned, seasoned political strategist who understands that Romney is electable and Newt/Santorum isn’t, and therefore she is sacrificing her pure desires for the greater good.

    Seriously, I wonder why I read Ace’s any more at all.

  4. JHoward says:

    the defense over at Ace’s

    That middle can’t exist, much less stand.

  5. cranky-d says:

    what seems inevitable is that Team R is gonna nominate an egregious whore

    You mean either Romney or Gingrich? Yeah, it looks that way.

  6. happyfeet says:

    Yeah it’s been looking that way for awhile

  7. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Wow. Strange New Respect for Ann Coulter from Ace and crew. Imagine that.

  8. Squid says:

    Coulter, like many, is finding out that it’s a lot easier to attack a common enemy than it is to take on your own allies. You can be forgiven a lot of sloppy thinking and broad generalities when they don’t apply to you and yours. Your abrasive tone and dismissive posture can be endearing when they’re pointed outside the circle. Perhaps Ann should stick to attacking the Left and pointing out the absurdity of their arguments and proposals, and leave it to us Hobbits to sort out our domestic issues on our own terms.

  9. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Saturday was three whole days ago.

  10. Tresjin says:

    As far as I can tell, here’s what we’re being told about the candidates.

    – We can’t nominate Gingrich, because his extreme baggage will alienate the Good Moral Folk that we need to win, so a vote for Gingrich is a vote to reelect Obama

    – We can’t nominate Romney, because his inability to denounce Romneycare will alienate the core conservative voters that we need to win, so a vote for Romney is a vote to reelect Obama.
    – We can’t nominate Santorum, because his socially religious views will fire up the young college base that will turn out heavily for Obama, so a vote for Santorum is a vote to reelect Obama.

    – We can’t nominate Paul, because…well, it’s Ron Paul.

    So apparently we can’t nominate anybody. And since we don’t get a primary vote over here in Oregon until the middle of May, currently just sitting around and waiting to see whose “we can’t nominate _______ because…” argument falls through first.

  11. JHoward says:

    Perhaps Ann should stick to attacking the Left and pointing out the absurdity of their arguments and proposals…

    Instead of joining them.

    The problem is with integrity.

    Like so many conservatives, Coulter has now functionally joined the left because half the country is shamelessly on the make for government-as-service-provider and nanny and parent and the other half is divided about what to do about them. Her problem, which is also the problem with Team R voters in general, is failing to put forth a product: A candidate positively demanded to be to moral, structural, original, American architecture what Manchurean Barry so very clearly is to socialist grifters and corporatist one-worlders, whether it’s in that progg 20% or in the independent 30% that along with them is using Free Federal Shit and the emerging Religion of Statism’s stifling psycho-moral baggage as their fundamental value touchstone.

    Like life, politics are asymmetrical. Liberty is forever a war against not much less than death.

  12. Pablo says:

    Just do this thought experiment she suggested. Close your eyes. Can you really envision Newt and Calista as President and First Lady?

    Where did you get the notion that Newt or Romney are the only options?

  13. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The problem with Team R is that there is no Team R. Not in the same way that there’s a Team D there’s not.

  14. EBL says:

    There is an answer to Ann’s insanity (other than hormones): She does not want to be wrong. It is her ego she is defending. It explains what is going on with Hugh, it explains Karl, it explains Chris Christie. These folks (all with big fat egos) staked their position for Mitt, so like some sport fans, they do not want to be wrong. And it has clouded their judgment.

    I could think of a few Perry fans who acted that way too.

  15. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I think what has Ann’s judgement clouded is fear of Obama.

  16. George Orwell says:

    “Seriously, I wonder why I read Ace’s any more at all.”

    Yup. Used to comment there frequently. Much less lately. Yesterday morning’s posts were incoherent temper tantrums about the fallout from the SC debate.

    Also, Coulter’s self-defense about her conversion to Romneyism on a recent Ricochet podcast was risible and elliptical.

  17. JHoward says:

    The problem with Team R is that there is no Team R. Not in the same way that there’s a Team D there’s not.

    Just that. Team R’s dis-integration comes from not asserting original principles wall to wall. If ever there were a time for employing a majority to retake the press and the academy, it began three years ago.

  18. pdbuttons says:

    close your eyes and think of England

  19. leigh says:

    Ann has always been about selling books and making money. There is nothing wrong with that, just don’t try to cloak it in the Voice of Authority.

  20. JHoward says:

    Ann has always been about selling books and making money.

    Sure, leigh. And only that.

  21. B. Moe says:

    Just do this thought experiment she suggested. Close your eyes. Can you really envision Newt and Calista as President and First Lady?

    I couldn’t envision Urkel and Worf either, but that’s we got.

  22. McGehee says:

    His Inevitableness is inevitable. Mitt Romney, LOLcandidate.

  23. Matt says:

    I agree with her about all of it, not as it relates to Romney, but as it relates to people who will refuse to vote if his/her preferred candidate does not get nomination.

    How did our choices end up as Gingrich and Romney? I wonder what would have happened if Palin had run.

  24. LBascom says:

    “There is nothing wrong with that, just don’t try to cloak it in the Voice of Authority.”

    No, that would be wrong. Best to voice your opinions anonymously, not as a best selling author and long time high profile republican advocate.

    That would be unseemly.

  25. leigh says:

    Her voice of authority shifts with the political winds. She has outlived her useful life as a kingmaker.

  26. sdferr says:

    I listened to RedEye last night, on which Coulter was a guest, while attempting to fall asleep, and though I can’t guarantee what I heard wasn’t due to delirium, I’d swear she asserted Mitt Romney won Iowa, despite the ruling of the State’s vote counting apparatus. She’s whack.

  27. JHoward says:

    Her voice of authority shifts with the political winds.

    Consistently? Because that’d mean Ann has always been about selling books and making money.

  28. Jeff G. says:

    I agree with her about all of it, not as it relates to Romney, but as it relates to people who will refuse to vote if his/her preferred candidate does not get nomination.

    My preferred candidate hasn’t gotten the nomination. But I’ll only NOT vote for President if the GOP succeeds in stuffing Romney down my throat. And even then that could change, if he picks a full-throated conservative as his running mate (though I’ve been to that crummy dance before).

    I’m not going to go out and play the faithful chump for a guy whose impulse led him to institute state-run health care just because Karl Rove or Ann Coulter want me to.

  29. LBascom says:

    “Her voice of authority shifts with the political winds. “

    That was a very authoritative assertion. Care to back it up with some evidence?

  30. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Sometimes the words just arrange themselves —no thought needed.

  31. Jeff G. says:

    Just do this thought experiment she suggested. Close your eyes. Can you really envision Newt and Calista as President and First Lady?

    He’s like that old girlfriend who wants to go steady again after sleeping around with Freddie and some chicks, Fannie and Nancy. But, she says she’s grown and changed and wants you back. No, really. She’s made mistakes but, come on.

    How does that usually work out, Jeff?

    Like most loaded analogies?

    Now try this thought experiment. Close your eyes. Can you really envision Mitt as President?

    Of course you can. We’ve had the same kind of GOP candidate shoved down our throats for years. And look where the country is now!

    How has that worked out for you, MarkO?

  32. Dave in SoCal says:

    How did our choices end up as Gingrich and Romney? I wonder what would have happened if Palin had run.

    At this point, I would welcome Palin jumping in, although I don’t think she would ever have a chance in hell of winning (the MSM and their non-staunch enablers did far too good a job of assassinating the character of the snowbilly cumslut hoochie for that to ever happen). At least with Palin, we know that it’ll be a non-stop attack on Obama’s policies and failures. No “reaching across the aisle” going on with Palin.

    With Mitt or Newt as the GOP offering, our chances of turning the S.S. America away from the iceberg are fading fast. If we’re going to lose anyways, we may as well make it a spectacular and memorable trainwreck that at least leaves Obama and the Democrats damaged, even if victorious.

  33. ThomasD says:

    One out of three might matter more if not for this

    “But there were 30,000 more votes cast than in 2000 and 157,000 more than in 2008. And they mostly came in the northern part of the state, in the Appalachian foothills and along the North Carolina border.

    To put that in perspective, the total increase in Republican turnout in South Carolina from 2008 was greater than the entire turnout in Iowa this year. While both Iowa and New Hampshire saw only modest increases in Republican participation, South Carolina shattered old records and added a whole extra Iowa’s worth of new voters and gave Gingrich the most votes of any candidate in the state’s history.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/23/newts-jacksonian-revolution/#ixzz1kO1gnskz

  34. Dave in SoCal says:

    File this idea under “Less Chance of Winning Than Palin”:

    Draft Jeb Bush

    Unless by “Winning”, you mean the Charlie Sheen definition.

  35. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Mr. Stephens is wrong. Obama deserves to lose. But that doesn’t mean that the GOP deserves to win.

    We’ll see who’s more deserving, or undeserving, as the case may be.

  36. McGehee says:

    She has outlived her useful life as a kingmaker.

    She had one of those?

  37. leigh says:

    Not really, McGehee. She had a bunch of hangers-on who thought she knew all and nodded along at everything she said like one of those little dogs you can put in the back sill of your car.

    I was listening to Rush’s show today, guest hosted by our man Mark Steyn. Steyn says there is no way in hell that anyone is going to lurch into the race to save the day at this late date so, we need to play the hand we’ve been dealt. And that Bill Krystal needs to dry his eyes.

  38. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Here’s where I’m going to quibble with the Stephens editorial Dave in SoCal linked: There’s little or no evidence that Stephens’s “A-list” Republicans would be doing any better, either against the current field or against each other, let alone against Obama.
    The fact that they took themselves out of the running before the race began might even suggest that they’d be doing worse.

    Sorta like Tim Pawlenty.

  39. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Waitaminute—

    Ann Coulter is Kim Kardashian?

  40. dicentra says:

    Coulter’s self-defense about her conversion to Romneyism on a recent Ricochet podcast was risible and elliptical.

    Here’s the podcast, from 13 Jan, before the SC primary. Peter Robinson, who’s a Santorum supporter, mixes it up with Ann rather vigorously.

    http://ricochet.com/ricochet-podcast/Get-Your-Mitts-Up

    I can’t say Ann persuaded me. I felt like I could make better arguments for Romney regarding some of those points, and I’m not even a Mitten.

  41. geoffb says:

    At least she is not with the “Harpies for Obama” bunch.

  42. Dave in SoCal says:

    There’s little or no evidence that Stephens’s “A-list” Republicans would be doing any better, either against the current field or against each other, let alone against Obama.

    Valid point. Every single one of them brings their own unique and personal baggage into the race (although to me it seems like Ryan brings the least).

    Where oh where is Zombie Reagan when we need him?

  43. bh says:

    About all we can say about those who didn’t run is that they didn’t run.

  44. RI Red says:

    Ooooh, the electric yellow light, it burns, leigh! Though I have to admit you didn’t take my Palin bait in the other thread.
    Do you think another (maybe male) candidate who espoused Palin’s principles, loudly, vociferously, and often, might have a chance against our current field of studs/duds and ultimately the Dud-in-Chief?

  45. dicentra says:

    Coulter Jeff, like many, is finding out that it’s a lot easier to attack a common enemy than it is to take on your own allies. …. Your Jeff’s abrasive tone and dismissive posture can be endearing when they’re pointed outside the circle. Perhaps Ann Jeff should stick to attacking the Left and pointing out the absurdity of their arguments and proposals, and leave it to us Hobbits pragmatists to sort out our domestic issues on our own terms.

    ***

    Jeff’s got many of the same “problems” as Coulter does: he’s not afraid to jump down the throats of “our side” when they uphold left-wing linguistic assumptions or otherwise behave in a non-Classically Liberal fashion.

    And he catches the same kind of flak for it. Doesn’t make him wrong.

    Like so many conservatives, Coulter has now functionally joined the left because half the country is shamelessly on the make for government-as-service-provider and nanny and parent and the other half is divided about what to do about them.

    She truly believes that Romney is more conservative than he appears to be and that he’ll be more conservative than Newt. Which, he probably would be, given Newt’s propensity for grandiose schemes (which can be enacted only with the grandiose power of the federal gubmint).

    Whether he really would [attempt to] cut the fat out of gubmint once in office is another story entirely.

    In that Ricochet podcast, Peter Robinson really hammers Mitt for not admitting that the individual mandate was a bad idea, because the Heritage Foundation, once a promoter of it, has now fully retracted it. Ann’s answer to that isn’t persuasive at all.

  46. leigh says:

    I spent years get bitched at by crabby adolescents, RI Red. I’ve got a pretty thick hide, even if it is yellow.

  47. Jeff G. says:

    You should slice off a bit of your thigh and make me a saddle, leigh. Or at least a catcher’s mitt!

  48. bh says:

    The Newt vs Romney debate reminds me a bit of the Big-Endian/Little-Endian question.

    Do not want.

  49. dicentra says:

    So we have the guy who enacted the individual mandate in MA and won’t reevaluate vs. the guy who supported it for 20 years and pretends it doesn’t matter.

    Whoopie crunch.

  50. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The guy who you can trust to let you down, or the guy you can’t trust to live up to your expectations, hmmm.

    What’s behind door number three?

  51. McGehee says:

    The weird thing about Ann’s Romneyism now is that it wasn’t all that long ago whenever a leftist demanded she be denounced, the rightbloggers who complied were the same ones who support Mitzi now.

    (Auto-correct rewrote “Mitzi” as “Mitsubishi.” No idea what that means.)

  52. geoffb says:

    I want scrambled, soft boiled is for the toothless.

  53. Mueller says:

    #54
    She’s too close to the establishment right. She thinks anybody less than Romney won’t be able to go toe to toe with Obama. Democrats and the establishment right keep forgetting that there is a tea party out there and they will decide who’s going to be president.
    One thing is certain. In November Obama is gone.

Comments are closed.