Ann Coulter's Laughably Weak Attempt To Defend RomneyCare

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.

"I’m talking about the meaning of words. As in, what does “states rights” mean. I find it means different things to different people. ..."

Again. People's perceptions may or may not reflect what's really "true" (reality):

"...You might say that there are necessary rights and sufficient rights. As in logic, a sufficient right is one "with which," whereas a necessary right is one "without which." Thus, the most Necessary Right of all would be the right without which no other rights are possible. ...."

HERE

There is a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin is trying to figure out how fast his sled went down a hill. Hobbs starts talking about time and distance calculations and Calvin finally says, “That sounds like math. Suddenly I’m not interested.”

I feel like Calvin right now. ;-)

"There is a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin is trying to figure out how fast his sled went down a hill. Hobbs starts talking about time and distance calculations and Calvin finally says, “That sounds like math. Suddenly I’m not interested.” I feel like Calvin right now. ;-)"

WHAT??? You don't want to discuss Gödel's theorems?? :)

" many postmodern types who do not understand Gödel use his theorems as a bulwark against absolutism. Since no theory is complete, all theories become equal, and we descend into the nihilism of deconstruction. ..."

HERE

She’s now Vichy.

That’s how I feel about the GOP - they’re the Vichy French version of the Republican Party.

Coulter actually attempts to rationalize ROMNEY’S justification for a statewide mandate to buy private insurance as proper, but Obama’s nationwide mandate to do the same thing as improper.

As a governor, you see, you can legally be fascist, but the US Constitution prevents that at the national level, and since Romney understands that, he’d spend every last bit of his political capital at undoing what HE JUST GOT THROUGH DOING IN MASSACHUSETTS.

She absolutely believes we are morons, or more specifically, she loves conservatives, because we can think these things through, but there just isn’t enough of us to matter, because the tipping point has been reached.

I think Murdoch and several others have made that call too. There are just too many government workers if you consider city, state, county, and federal to offset an economy where the biggest employers have the US government as a client, a salesman (Boeing), or a major investor (GM, Chrysler). Add them all up, and we are a centrally planned economy. All the banks that matter are government owned. AIG is 80 percent government owned.

We are all working for Uncle Sam at this point. Maybe she’s tired of being ‘Dead Right’ - correct, but preaching to an empty church, as it were.

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.