Ann Coulter’s “novelty candidate” swipe at Sarah Palin

Michelle Malkin's Website ^ | April 2, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

[2ndDivisionVet]

Mitt Romney supporter Ann Coulter appeared on the ABC News Sunday show, “This Week,” hosted by former Clintonite George Stephanopoulos. Asked about Romney’s potential vice presidential picks, she said this (while seated at a table with former green jobs czar Van Jones, who served under the Biggest Novelty Candidate of Them All, Barack Obama):

Ann Coulter:

“You can’t have a novelty candidate, I think. That would ring too much like Sarah Palin. I agree with George Will that it be good to have little tea party excitement, and the odds-on favorite, I mean, certainly the betting is on Marco Rubio, I think that would be a mistake.” But Coulter, who is a firm Mitt Romney supporter, said the GOP frontrunner needs a running mate who is tried and tested, she suggested Romney pick someone like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.”He’s been tested, he’s steady, he’s not frightening. He could certainly step into the job” Coulter said of Kyl.

Unbelievably, Coulter is under the continued delusion that Sarah Palin was the problem with the 2008 ticket and not McCain. Later in the show, when Van Jones floated former Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rices name for VP, Coulter snorted again: “Too much like Palin.”

Say what?

Like her love object Chris Christie, Coulter has been taking many open shots at Palin lately. Florida’s great Shark Tank blog and the Daily Caller noted a few weeks ago that Coulter took nasty swipes at Palin at a Lincoln Day Dinner event:

Coulter, who was asked about the prospects of a brokered Republican convention, hinted — as she has done in the past – that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is promoting the idea because she would like to be considered for the GOP nomination should a brokered convention occur. Coulter warned that selecting a candidate that way would void the vetting process that has weeded out inferior candidates.

“One of the ones promoting that [a brokered convention] is Sarah Palin, who has suggested herself as the choice,” Coulter said. “I think as long as it’s between us girls — I’ve been observing something about her. I don’t think it’s likely to happen. I don’t know what these people are cheering for. As I wrote in a column a few weeks back, who is this dream candidate we’re hoping to get from the convention, because Rick Perry used to be the dream candidate. Can we see them in a debate first?”

…Coulter said that might be a weakness in the Republican Party as a whole — that certain individuals become celebrities and are allowed to profit off that status and yet still interfere in GOP politics, which Democrats have been able to avoid.

“And just a more corporate problem is I think our party and particularly our movement, the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party,” she said. “I mean, the incentives seem to be set up to allow people — as long as you have a band of a few million fanatical followers, you can make money. The Democrats have managed to figure out how not to do that.”

…“The one pledge I support and I think I’m going to draft it up is for all Republican nominees for president — I want them to sign a pledge saying, ‘If I lose the nomination I pledge I will not take a gig with Fox News or write a book.’”

Looks like someone’s not happy about competition encroaching on her market, eh?

Here’s my translation of Coulter-speak:

“Novelty candidate” is her code for a GOP candidate with widespread, grass-roots conservative support who doesn’t make large portions of the rank-and-file Right queasy with doubt.

That was who Sarah Palin represented on the liberal Republican John McCain ticket.

“Novelty candidate” means an outside-the-Beltway, outside-the-establishment public servant who speaks from the heart, lives political and personal life on her own terms, and embodies all that Coulter’s best Hollywood friends like misogynist Bill Maher hate.

Sometimes, the war on conservative women isn’t just being waged by the Left.

This is a form of political fragging. Shame.

***

Wasn’t long ago when Coulter was singing a far different tune about Gov. Palin.

http://www.firefromtheheartland.com/

[2ndDivisionVet]

Translation: Milt is still scared of Sarah and is using another of his attack dogs to go after her.

Has Ann forgotten the debate where Gov. Palin bested then Senator Joe Biden? Or is she unable to find Gov. Palin's other debates on video?

[Yashcheritsiy]

You know, people like Ann Coulter make me glad that I just switched party affiliations from “Republican” to “Unaffiliated.” I can proudly say that I am no longer associated with Mitt-loving left-wing sad sacks such as her.

[laweeks]

There’s not a thing she writes, or a book she sells, or a tv show she appears on that has any interest to me. I’ve written off the quisling turncoat when she pushed for Romnesty and homo rights.

Ann Coulter . . . All Gone!

[Shery]

Ann has joined the other women journalists from the right who just wanted more air time on the left. She obviously wants Romney so that he’ll bring in the homosexual vote, and this begs the question about herself.

[fishtank]

SISTER WIVES: Coulter wants to know more.

Pro-Abortion Basturd (sic) Rmoney 2002 YouTube video

Willard McBush WANTS polygamy in the afterlife. It makes him no different from practicing it NOW.

[taillightchaser]

Hey Ann, your 15 minutes are up. Sarah has more brains in her little finger than you have in your anorexic body.
I do agree with you about Kyl. He would be a great VP. In fact, I wish he was in the race for the top job.

[sirchtruth]

The elites got to Ann with their parties. The "insiders" so to speak. Unfortunately, not enough in the repub party have a full grasp on wisdom.

You were great while you lasted Ann!

[veracious]

Anne, Anne; your novelity left us some time, ago. Sad too, you were a shining gem, but your handlers have abroached your light.

[sirchtruth]

She obviously wants Romney so that he’ll bring in the homosexual vote, and this begs the question about herself.

I'm wondering the same thing myself! It wouldn't be that surprising...

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

“And just a more corporate problem is I think our party and particularly our movement, the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party,” she said. “I mean, the incentives seem to be set up to allow people — as long as you have a band of a few million fanatical followers, you can make money. The Democrats have managed to figure out how not to do that.”

No one knows this better than Ann, herself.

She's made a lot of money duping her fanatical followers, er, uh, conservatives.

[Yosemitest]

I really like Ann Counter, BUT ...
Those who endorse LOSER Romney, endorse the "Establishment Republicans" and do damage to their own career.

From Limbaugh Lexicon Terms Defined: Rio Linda, New Castrati and the GOP Establishment

RUSH: Edison, New Jersey. Hi, Phil, you're next. You're on the air.
It's your big show biz break here.

CALLER: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. My wife and I are avid fans and listeners.
We're confused about something.

RUSH: Yeah?

CALLER: You quite frequently use the term "Republican establishment" and we think we've kind of figured out what that is
and the fact that they represent pretty much the moderate wing of the party,
that for some reason or other seems to be doing harm to the conservative wing.
But we think we might be able to understand this better if you can identify for us who represents it.
Who are the individuals in the party?

RUSH: Ah, this is a nice trick. I knew this was coming.
Phil, you're a smart guy. You're a crafty guy.
Phil knows the answer. Let me just tell you, folks:
Phil knows exactly who the Republican establishment is.
He wants me to name names
'cause he wants them called out.
Am I not right?

CALLER: Well, yes, because I think when you can identify specifically, it helps.
For instance, let's say Reverend Wright.
It heped me to understand, and my wife to understand, the dangers of Obama
because we were able to specifically hear the message of Reverend Wright.

RUSH: Okay I'll give you a name. I'll give you a Republican name.

CALLER: We're thinking McCain and others like that,
but I think it's important enough to know:
Who is this establishment?
Who are these people?

RUSH: Well, wait a second. I understand what you're saying.
I think it's the really important to define it correctly, too.
A Republican establishment member in the media would be David Brooks in the New York Times, the so-called conservative columnist.
He's basically a moderate.
He favors big government if run by the people he thinks are smart.
He's not crazy about conservatives.
The Republican establishment cringe at the very discussion of social issues.
They are in favor of big government for the most part.
They think campaigns on smaller government are losers
and they worry that, if they succeed, there's going to be less of an opportunity for them to have jobs in government.
They're basically people who don't think we have a spending problem and that that's great.
If they get in charge, they'll do some things to reduce it
but they really don't believe government is the big problem like conservatives do.

They're establishment.

They're government-establishment types.

They're DC establishment.

That's the center of the universe.

Wait until you figure out Romney.
If we nominate Romney, Romney will lose.
On another thread, WhiskeyX's analysis is very good on

Republican Primaries being manipulated by RINOs, and mind-numb Democrats following marching orders from the left.

" The Democrats-Progressives-socialists-communists-whateverits have a political tactic in the elections in addition to their typical vote frauds.
What they do is
have a Democrat pretend to run for election as a Republican in the general primary election against a genuine Republican challenger
who threatens to unseat an incumbent Democrat.
In the general primary election they then instruct nearly all of the Democrat voters,
their zombie voters in the graveyards, their captive nursing home voters, and voters in the prisons
to vote as Republicans for the Democrat running as a Republican in the general primary election.
Then the fake Republican candidate puts up a token campaign which loses
to allow the Democrat incumbent to win the General Election in November.
In this way the Democrats get to run only Democrats in the General Election,
leaving no genuine Republicans for Conservatives to vote for in that election.
Romney is represented as a former independent voter turned Republican,
but he serves the same purpose as the typical Trojan Horse Democrat running for election as a Republican. "

Very well described!
Maybe it's time we got some DINOs to copy this evil plan against Democrats.
But who would soil their name and credibility, to do such an evil thing against the real evildoers? "

"Mitt, It's Time To Quit!"



Mitt. It’s time you quit!
Your credibility isn’t worth spit.
RINOs, the “Establishment”, and Democrats all agree,
But in the General Election, to Obama they’ll flee.
Against Obama, liberals and moderates know you’ll lose.
But conservatives, Romney they’ll never choose.

Mitt, our loyalty you can’t buy.
Back to Massachusetts, you’d better fly.
Just like Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and John McCain,
Nominee Willard Mitt Romney will result in the same.
As a Governor, your record isn’t that great.
Out of 50 states, your popularity was number 48.

Your experience, the “Establishment” types tout.
Defending federal bailouts and FDIC loan forgiveness will find you out.
Democrats and RINOs cower from their liberal wives,
Supporting Romney with nothing but lies.
In 1994 Ted Kennedy showed Willard to be a great bane,
With Mitt’s Bain, and Bain Capital, Obama will do the same.

Damon Corp, with Romney paid $119 million in a fine.
Yet Willard says, for his leadership, it’s time.
He claims jobs he can create and taxes he can lower,
47th out of 50 in growth he rates. Can it get any slower?
$740.5 million dollars a year, fees and taxes under Mitt increased.
Will the half-truths and lies from Romney ever cease?

For Liberty and Freedom, we don’t need “Flakes”,
But Romney says Healthcare responsibilities belong to the States.
Conservatives stand for “Self-responsibility, Self-accountability, and Self-reliance.”
But against these things, Willard’s actions scream in defiance.
“Establishment Republicans” thinks Romney can help take back the Senate,
But they know that for President, Mitt can NOT win it.

Like everything the “Establishment Republicans” try to do,
It leads to failure, and we get the bill, as well as the screw.
In their corruption, little change do they seek,
They don’t want our Freedom to peak.
Their craving for power has pushed their bravery,
To ignore our Constitution, and sell us into economical slavery.

So Willard, don’t lecture us on the need for “patience” and “compromise”.
Romney, be selfless. Conservatism is on the rise.
Choosing the lesser of two evils, isn’t what we desire.
You let them rewrite the language. Where’s your fire?
Romney, they accuse us falsely, and you do little.
Where’s your response, or can you only twiddle?

Mitt, you don’t have what it takes to lead.
So with you I plead.
Do you really want to go from Obama-care to Romney-care?
With you, this nation will pull out its hair!
Go somewhere and quietly think … and sit.
“Know your own limitations!” Mitt. It’s time you quit!



By Yosemitest, Mar 15, 2012

No conservative would vote for Mitt.
Let's remember what a great man said.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

September 21, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, this is a little Inside Baseball, but it's important because
he who controls the language ends up winning the debate,
and it might seem like a small thing, but I have learned and I have been given to understand that the "establishment Republicans" hate the term.
They don't like being called "establishment Republicans,"
and they are trying to change the term to "establishment conservatives" and in the process co-opt the definition of "conservative" and conservatism.
It's not something that you'll notice if you watch cable news or even read.
You have to be able to see the stitches on the fastball, you have to be able to read between the lines,
and you have to know some stuff going on behind the scenes
(and, of course, I am in a position to know these kinds of things).

So don't doubt me on this. The establishment Republicans are the ;establishment Republicans.
The Republican leadership is the Republican establishment, meaning the elites.
They hate it and they are in the process of trying to redefine who conservatives are and what it is --
and if they succeed, the conservatism that you and I hold dear will no longer be the definition of conservatism.
If they succeed, the current thinking of the Republican establishment will be what is called modern day conservatism.
Don't doubt me on this.
It sounds like a small thing, but in a daily ebb and flow you'll not even see any news about this,
but it's in important because it's crucial who controls the language, who controls the way words are defined.

You and I know that the establishment Republicans don't like conservatives.
They didn't like Reagan.
They were embarrassed of Reagan.
They were embarrassed of us.
They didn't like the Moral Majority, they didn't like the Christian right, they don't like the pro-lifers.
They don't like the social conservatives at all.
They're embarrassed by us, in many ways, with their other buddies, the establishment Democrats --
which combined gives us the Washington establishment,
and they very much prefer to be members of that club than ours.
But they know that it doesn't help them to be called "establishment Republicans."
So they're trying to take the term "conservative" and co-opt it
and define it as they behave, write, speak, and even vote on matters of politics.

END TRANSCRIPT

"Establishment Republicans" are Lying to Us With Threats of a Dire Default

Let's remember:

Never stand and take a charge... charge them too.

Someone on another thread said

"... Constitutional limitations of government power especially freedom of the press and speech, are designed to make government impotent in the absence of a general consensus ..."

But with the press not doing its job, and the LAME Stream Media trying to silence speech they don't agree with,
we're in a real mess and under attack by an evil force rarely seen in this country.
The Republicans and the God-Given freedoms this country has enjoyed so far, are descending into oblivion.
And the "Establishment Republicans" aren't doing a damned thing to stop it.
The "Establishment Republicans" aren't providing "the boots on the ground" to win.
They're trying to put the public back to sleep, lying to them, in order to keep their power, and "wreck the country as it commits suicide".
So now the "Establishment Republicans" have "fractured their base" and,
because they have taught us "that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics",
they're going to lose, and lose big, if they don't swing to the hard right wing of what used to be their party.
How many conservatives have re-registered as "Conservative Party" or "Independent" because they're fed up with being lied to?
We've been "treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience” ", and we're sick of it.
We don't trust them any longer.

Look, Rush said it best....

Now, the fact that the Republican establishment cannot make that case and other arguments
tells me that they may have already surrendered,
and this is a big difference between us and the establishment.
They're in this defensive posture, I've told you,
I said on Greta how many times, a lot of people inside the Republican establishment secretly don't even believe Obama can be beaten.
And that's why they want Romney,
'cause they think at least Romney will help 'em take the Senate.
He'll lose less down the ballot than Gingrich or some conservative will.
But conservatives, you Tea Party activists, you don't want to give up
and you haven't given up,
and you don't want to accept this propaganda from the left.
We insist on challenging it, we insist on fighting it
'cause there's no other way to save the country,
and continually playing these games
letting the Democrats rewrite the language, change the definition of things,
get away with false accusations against us, never do anything about it,
constantly stay on defense.

So now, because of the Establishment Republicans" there's not just a candle lit, but a bonfire lit ...
in the very heart of the conservatives, and it will burn away the dead wood that is "Establishment Republicans."

Yes, it's time to curse the "Establishment Republicans" for every thing they've NOT DONE!
And CURSE THEM for most of the things they HAVE DONE!

"Attack, repeat, ATTACK!"

The Republican Establishment Only Wants Conservatives on Election Day
January 31, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Thomas Sowell is out with a piece today, a column, in National Review Online.
He takes note of the Romney criticism of Gingrich and is not happy with it at all.
He describes it as "wild distortions" and lies about, for example,
why Newt is incorrectly being said to have been run out of the House in disgrace and so forth when he was completely exonerated by the IRS.
You know, all this ethics stuff.
Romney charging that he was so bad, so embarrassing, so devoid of ethics that his colleagues got rid of him and that sort of stuff.
Sowell makes the point...
And I remember, ladies and gentlemen, going back as recently at 2008, maybe 2010, trying to warn everybody what's really going on in the Republican Party.

I've tried to highlight it over and over again repeatedly as necessary, as needed.
In addition to the effort we all are engaged in to defeat Obama, the Republican Party is hell-bent on making sure
that the Tea Party (i.e., conservatives) do not conquer this party and end up controlling it or running it.
Now, Sowell is of the belief that the real purpose of Romney's assault on Gingrich
is to just take out the conservative wing of this party and defeat it and send it packing.
That it is the establishment, the RINOs, the Teddy Roosevelt wing, the Rockefeller wing, whatever -- the moderate Republicans --
who don't have a taste, don't have any ability to get down and dirty muddy and actually do what it takes to win.

It's too easy to just play the game and get close to winning now and then;
win sometimes but stay close to power however you have to do it.
Conservatism upsets that applecart, wants to deemphasize the role of government in people's lives.
The RINO Republicans don't want that.
Sowell says that what's happening here is
the establishment is waging war against the Tea Party and conservatives,
and Gingrich happens to be the Last Man Standing in that regard
so he's the target of it.
That's Thomas Sowell's opinion. A lot of people hold that view.
I know for a fact that the Republican establishment --
and you know how to define 'em.
What would you say, Snerdley, if somebody asked you...? Just in a sentence.
Let's get complex understandable here.

What is, who is (and don't give me a name) the Republican establishment?
What is it about them that makes them the establishment? (interruption)
They run Republican thought in...? No.
It's far more specific than that.
The Republican establishment wants spending.
They want active government;
they want to be in charge of it.
They'll tinker with it on the margins,
but they want to be inside the entire power structure.
They don't want to be at odds with the power structure in New York, in Washington, in the whole Northeastern Corridor.
They want to be part of it,
and they're happy being a minority part of it as long as they're close to power.
As long as they have the respect of the people who run the overall large government.

They want to be part of the Ruling Class.
They don't want to be fighting the Ruling Class.
They want to be part of it.
On the social side, they might not care
that they don't get invited to the big Fourth of July parties in the Hamptons,
but they want to be in the Hamptons when they're happening.
They don't want to be laughed out of the Hamptons.It's high school. Nobody ever really graduates high school.
It's that kind of stuff.
In this case, it's money oriented. And they are not conservative.
They don't like conservatives.
So that battle is being waged and has been going on.
It's been going on since the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt.
Sowell goes through all of this. You've heard it all on this program.
That's what this is about, and that's where the fault lines lie.

So people who understand and believe, if I came out today and said, "I'm voting Romney," I wouldn’t change minds.
To these people, that is a vote for the Republican establishment and against conservatives.
That is a vote for the Republican Party as a minority party forever.
That's how they see it. They just do.
And while all this is going on, the big target is, as we speak, getting away scot-free.
And that's another thing that troubles me.
On the other hand I like this battle going on
'cause I think the longer it goes the more conservatism ends up being discussed and explained,
because that's what's gonna win in the end --
and I mean at the end of the presidential race.
If whoever the nominee is doesn't go conservative, it's over.
It's just that simple.

We're not gonna go Moderate Lite and win.
We're not gonna go moderate and win.
We're not gonna go middle-of-the road and win.
We're not gonna win with going after the independents as our primary objective.
It's not gonna happen.
And I don't mean that doing so will cause people in the base to sit home.
I'm talking about getting a majority of the votes of the United States citizenry.
The vast majority of the people in this country.
This is what's so maddening about the Republican establishment
is how blind they are -- willfully blind --
to how overwhelmingly conservative this country is.
Just take a look at the people that identify themselves ideologically:
40% say they're conservative,
20% liberal,
30-some-odd independent.

Party identification is not quite as big a margin,
but when it comes to down to ideology, there are twice as many people who will tell pollsters they are conservative.
Think of that.
It's probably, therefore, greater than 40% because you know how people are intimidated.
They don't want to tell a pollster something 'cause they don't want the pollster to think
that they're a bigot or a racist or whatever the heck else.
That's pretty powerful, and I think since the majority of people in this country are conservative,
you give them a conservative agenda and you tell them you're gonna implement it, "and this is how,"
and you're gonna have the equivalent of those standing ovations Gingrich got in South Carolina all over this country on Election Day in November.

What's maddening about this is the Republican establishment knows it, and they are afraid of it.
They don't want any part of it until Election Day of any presidential year.
They'll take it that day to win
and then after that, distance themselves, insult them, impugn the conservatives, do whatever they have to do to relegate them to the dustbin.
Except on Election Day.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links


• NRO: Florida Smear Campaign. Mitt Romney’s Fraudulent Attacks on Newt Gingrich - Thomas Sowell
  
  

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped our.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst,it they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “If whoever the nominee is doesn;purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by defirightthey really donbr / /ul003366br /nition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of s/ulbr /traw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[EQAndyBuzz]

She is brilliant. She is uniting the right against the establishment candidate while selling books and at the same time pissing off the libs.

Her agent must be laughing her butt off.

[LibLieSlayer]

Chevy Chase had a line on the old SNL... I steal it to use on coultergeist. “ann... you ignorant slut”!

LLS

[samtheman]

This is an epic level of dishonesty. To ignore Palin’s accomplishments and label her “novelty” is far, far worse than even what the liberals routinely do with the truth.

Coulter is just a sick, twisted, aging has-been, who’s gone so far over to the dark side that we can’t even recognize her anymore.

[cripplecreek]

Maybe Mitt will strap her to the roof of his car and take her to Canada.

[wintertime]

She jumped the shark for me when she called the article 2 defenders “CRANKS” and used the KKK to make her point.

She is not stupid so what does that make her? Evil?

[Chode]

Coulter's novelty has worn off...

[pops88]

“Maybe Mitt will strap her to the roof of his car and take her to Canada.”

I don’t think I have a remark that could trump that. Makes my ‘post of the day’ list.

[sirchtruth]

She is uniting the right against the establishment candidate...

She is...how?

All she's doing is alienating conservatives against Her!

[marron]

Coulter, who was asked about the prospects of a brokered Republican convention, hinted — as she has done in the past – that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is promoting the idea because she would like to be considered for the GOP nomination should a brokered convention occur.

Or, maybe its because that looks like the only way to keep the Romniacs from hijacking the party. And the only way her favorite, Newt, has a chance.

the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party

Con men and charlatans? Really? And she dared to say that to a Clinton hack?

I've been a fan of Coulter's even after she seemed to go crazy. But she is starting to get on my last nerve.