Reached for comment, Ann Coulter reminded “all the TEA Party hypocrites” eager to question Romney on such revelations, that the majority of Catholics vote Democrat, so any complaint from “hypocrite Papists” about their First Amendment rights being violated are necessarily canceled out by their “hypocritical embrace of leftist hypocrisy.”
And if she didn’t say that, just wait.
I do hope Santorum gets out in front of this. “You know, for once I’m in agreement with the White House…”
link
Damn, and just think, Willard was our best hope for a not-McCain in 2007.
The fucking establishment never even gave us a chance. No wonder Hillary got kicked to the curb, she was to the right of everyone else in the race!
Ann Coulter said as much.
But that was before they took away her balls.
The Republican machine has taken the same mentality as the Hollywood TV hacks.
We need a new show, what was the hot show last year?
Washed-up Celebrity Goat Fuckers.
How about we do Has-been Celebrity Sheep Fuckers.
You are a genius.
The defining issue of this election is Obamacare. It was what drove me, a stolid, passive R voter, out to participate in the first demonstrations of my life – Tea Party rallies in deep blue RI. Jeff has pounded this theme before: we cannot have our candidate go up against Obama by finding subtle distinctions in their government health care plans. We need a stark comparison. Our candidate must be able to say, “Look how Obama immediately insinuated the government into your religious beliefs and health choices.”
Romney cannot win the government health care debate. We’re only going to get one chance at this.
instead of glittering karltherover someone should hit him on the head with a whiteboard
Insty jumps to the attack on Santorum. Does he know the rest of us don’t get a free vote for Gary Johnson?
some things you can’t blame bush for
link
eff so called “libertarians” liberal losers who think ron paul voting for “the spendings” before he votes against it is no big deal.
looking what ricky did for the bushies, i find what the bushies are doing to rick at this point effing disgusting. bushies “small gov’t” progressives. oxymorons. emphasis morons.
beware
the bill maher’s
little bill touchers
I don’t get it: as a Senator, Santorum went along with the agenda of the Party head, who was President. He regrets it but he did it; this is why gauging Congressional votes as an indicator of ideology is sometimes difficult.
But — and here’s the thing — this open letter from a libertarian is clearly trying to help Romney, because Paul isn’t going to get the nomination. And when Paul decided to give all his delegates to Romney, I think a whole lot of heads are going to explode.
Of course, many Reason libertarians were pumping up Obama last election, so who knows. Crazy shit happening out there.
“And when Paul decided to give all his delegates to Romney, I think a whole lot of heads are going to explode.”
just like when gitmo is still open for biz. “libertarians” are leftist scum. eff all theses frauds.
on the intention front
ahhh, 2003. Such innocent times.
Yes, we were attacked, and barely recovering, but we hadn’t yet doubted our economic future beyond some murmuring about huge(Ha!) deficits. Also, and to the point of innocence, we hadn’t really seen DC as the ruling establishment it had become.
While I can’t condone anyone’s involvement with Medicare part D, the world was a much different place 10 years ago. The thing is, I think many people, like Santorum, took the TEA Party to heart. In fact, of the entire field of R candidates at the start of primary season, Ronmey was the only one that hadn’t fully endorsed the sentiments of the TEA Party. Funny, huh?
My thesis which I expressed a while back is that the Progressive left has more recently done to the Libertarian Party what they did in the late 60’s early 70’s to the Democrats. Infiltrated their own true believers into it, got some control of positions of power within the Party structure and twisted/nudged the whole thing into alignment with the aims of the Progressives in the Democrats.
What is left there is simply a tool for the left to use when needed. All those who believed what the Party stood for in say the 80’s have either themselves left, been neutered or have been purged. Potemkin Party is what it is.
Darn it. Wrong thread.
Naw. They’ll come with a great big “U-owe-ME” tag that’ll keep Paul’s district swimming in pork for years.
No wonder Hillary got kicked to the curb, she was to the right of everyone else in the race!
Here’s an interesting thought experiment I’ve been trying out: Imagine that Obama decides not to run for re-election, for whatever reason (F&F, economic meltdown, Michelle catches him ‘playing the back nine’ with an intern, &c). Hillary steps up to the plate as the Dem nominee. Meanwhile, Team Romney takes off the gloves and steamrolls the Hobbits.
Hillary versus Mitt in 2012. Who do you vote for?
[…] Other Things) In Ann Coulter’s Mouth Posted on February 9, 2012 9:30 am by Bill Quick GOOD NEWS: According to the White House, Mitt Romney backed a “a near-identical policy” while go… GOOD NEWS: According to the White House, Mitt Romney backed a “a near-identical policy” while […]
Squid, I’ve floated that one a couple of times in the last couple of months. In fact, I think there’s a real possibility it could happen.
What makes you think that, Lee? The husband says the same thing. Me, I don’t see it happening.
Also, if it’s Hillary versus Mitt in 2012, I don’t know what I’d do(beyond banging my head against a wall for a while), they’re pretty much indistinguishable. It sure do give you a new perspective in the here and now though.
Because leigh, Obama is dragging a whole lotta baggage into this election. If he were persuaded(and the ones that made him have the power to break him) from running again, Hillary could step up and start with an almost clean slate. Fast and furious, Solyandra, responsibility for the stuttering economy, and all the rest would go out the door with Obama, and Hillary could run for another Clinton term and a return to the awesome economy of the ’90’s.
Last time I brought it up, Ernst pointed out it would have to be soon to qualify for the ballot, but I’m not sure when such a scheme would be too late.
I’ll tell ya though, it would be a hell of an October surprise. We get Romney as the most electable against Obama, and then they switch out Obama for Hillary.
She’d win in a landslide.
I agree that Obama has baggage, but has he outlived his useful life with the puppeteers yet? Hillary would beat the crap out of Romney, fer sure.
And, I’ll join you in banging my head against a wall if Mitt and Hill are our choices come November.
Mitt is on Cavuto telling Neil how he can work with the Dems because of his awesome record in Massachusetts. And he’s all about the religious liberty.
“I agree that Obama has baggage, but has he outlived his useful life with the puppeteers yet? “
If they’re convinced Willard could beat him in November? Hell yes.
The ones that made President #Occupant may have the power to break him, but for them to persuade him to stand down and not seek re-election, they’d haveto be able to convince him of that.
And he ain’t going to accept that they can break him until after they have.
Willingness to work with Dems is a mark against him in my book. Somebody should ask him what he thinks about Harry Reid’s statement to the effect that, should it come to pass, he has no intention of working with a Republican President.
McGehee, all they gotta do is point out how instead of covering his ass, they will start talking about his foreign Marxist father and childhood as a Muslim in Indonesia, his school transcripts, just exactly what went on in Rev Wrights church, his shady campaign contributions, his justice department, his record with the economy, and so on and so forth.
Given the choice of retiring “for personal reasons”(a carefully crafted fiction of course), with a very comfortable life and prestige, or to count on the unleashing of the press on his ass and eventual impeachment proceedings if he wins, I think Obama would make the right choice.
You ever consider the possibility Lee that They (“They!who in the hell is they?!”) consider the Clintons and that whole New Democrat/Democratic Leadership Council, “Gentlemen, we’re all Eisenhower Republicans now.” episode revanchist and counter-revolutionary?
I mean, if we’re going to get all conspiratorial and all.
Um, I’m playing with the thought experiment Squid brought up. The exercise involves considering possible future events, not excluding possibilities or inventing conspiracies.
They are the ruling class elite we sometimes mention around here. Similar to the they I think are trying to jam Romney down my throat, of which the MSM is a large part.
Why the condescension?
Hell, my best argument against myself is I’m not so sure they don’t want Romney to win against Obama. Obama the Dem changed the basic relationship between the individual and the government, who better than a progg Republican to institutionalize and bulletproof Obamas gains?
Wasn’t meant to be condescending. I was having fun with the idea of the Left viewing their most successful President in 50 years as a traitor to the cause because he succeeded at the wrong things. And then I threw in the tale end of Edmond O’Brien best bit of dialogue.