Posted on 02/01/2012 10:02:25 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
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.
“She’s 51 years old, that’s early?”
It can be. I’ve known women who’ve hit “the change” later than that.......bless their hearts.
I didn’t realize she was 51!!!
Dang ovaries are killing her for not having babies and she going hot and cold!
No wonder.
bfl
Levin wiped the floor with her lastnight on this. It was a masterpiece.
I might get flamed for this (and surely would have before Ann’s fall from conservative grace), but I’ve never been all that big fan of Coulter’s.
Now, I think Ann Coulter is a very smart woman, and she can make an excellent argument when she puts her mind to it. IMHO though, she too often prefers to get the other guy’s goat than make a good point. It’s a good way to stir up controversy and garner attention, but I don’t think it helps advance conservatism.
Just my zwei pfennigs, of course.
I don’t like either of them.
That said:
Romney’s entire statement was that he isn’t worried about the very poor BECAUSE they have a safety net. He further stated that if that net had holes, he would work to repair them.
Just what is wrong with that statement, other than the first clause, which gives his opponents a soundbite to use against him?
Romney further added that the very rich will do just fine and (the core of his statement) it is the middle class that is hurting badly and those are the people with whom he is concerned. This is accurate and, from a conservative POV, it is the middle class that is the engine of our economy.
This is NOT an endorsement of Romney.
As for Coulter, she has always been a chancer, IMO. She has an acid tongue/pen/keyboard and a way with words, and she was an attractive blonde. She has never really been a champion of anything except her own success. Again: IMO.
This whole thing reminds me of dealing with teenagers. The reason a story they tell makes no sense is simple: They are lying. There is some “back” story they want to hide.
Same here. Famous “conservatives” are PUBLICLY taking a ridiculous position with lousy explanations for why. This tells me they are doing it for reasons that are not readily apparent.
There is a “back” story - A “real” reason they are doing it. I wonder what it is. Seriously.
—which is why it is absurd to argue for “states rights”—
Actually, no. The context of the phrase “states rights” is the same as the context of “citizen’s rights”. The context is “states ‘rights’ vs the federal government’s power over the states “right” to exercise their own power.
—Levin wiped the floor with her lastnight on this. It was a masterpiece.—
Ann Coulter is really good. I think what makes her good is her passion behind the positions she takes. When she is lousy, I believe it is because she is championing a position that she herself does not agree with. Something is really fishy about this whole “Coulter/Romney” thing.
We may find out, eventually.
Heh, or MITTopause.
Amen.
The video of Ann on B’OR is enough.
Can anyone post that again?
cuban leaf: "Actually, no. The context of the phrase “states rights” is the same as the context of “citizen’s rights”. The context is “states ‘rights’ vs the federal government’s power over the states “right” to exercise their own power."
Actually yes.
Better read it again....THIS TIME more carefully. By "more carefully", I mean that you will have to pay close attention to the two phrases you completely overlooked in your out of context excerpt. To wit:
"....'in order to'..." ---and--- "....as a pretext to'..."
bttt
My point is that the phrase “states rights”, for me at least, is a relative term, just as “human rights” is. It is “rights” vs what they do not have the right to do.
An example would be that, generally speaking, a state can put anything it wants into its constitution and enforce it as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution of the US. Those are considered, to me, “states rights”.
This is such a cogent reply. Thank you for your service to the country, and thank you for this well written explanation.
Our "perceptions" don't necessarily mean "in reality". :)
—Our “perceptions” don’t necessarily mean “in reality”. —
I’m talking about the meaning of words. As in, what does “states rights” mean. I find it means different things to different people. In all seriousness, I believe there are as many realities as there are people, in the vein of “perception is reality”. This only goes so far though. If your “reality” is that you can fly, the “real” reality may impact you directly, via asphalt or concrete, if you attempt to fly off the roof of a skyscraper. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.