Posted on 02/14/2013 4:26:43 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
On Sean Hannity's Wednesday radio show conservative commentator and “Mugged” author Ann Coulter laid out what she viewed to be the proper criteria for the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential hopefuls.
She ruled out rising-star Texas Sen. Ted Cruz as a potential candidate unless the United States were to absorb Canada’s three most western provinces due to eligibility questions stemming from the fact that Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta. Beyond that, Coulter also wants the next GOP presidential candidate to live up to certain gender and appearance standards.
“Look — the general principles on choosing our next president, and like I say we’ll throw them all in debates and see how they perform because that’s an important — that’s important how they appear,” Coulter said. “Got to be a governor — maybe a senator, but definitely governor or senator. No members of the House. Even the governors — they’re much better if they come from bigger states and preferably purple to blue states. [They] cannot be freakishly short or freakishly funny-looking. And I would say three years from now, and only I can say this — I think no women right now. We can’t do anything fancy. America has not had a woman president yet.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Holy cow. I have never been able to figure out why she thinks those sticks look good in miniskirts.
Maybe she was being a little sarcastic I hope? We don’t need to stoop to te level of Dems; looking at race, gender and other criteria instead of character and their stand on issues.
Senator Robert Kinsey with greased ducks ~ but maybe Kinsey’s politics were better.
I really don't think she intended this as a slight against Sarah Palin. I don't think she was even thinking about Sarah Palin.
No, I think this comment was aimed at Lindsey Graham.
Romney *was* the most electable candidate. He kept the defeat in single digits.
Two things Ann.
1. Eat something will ya? You look like a Jeff Dunham
Doll.
2. STFU. After orgasmic endorcements of Puff Ball Christy
and RINO Romney anything you have to say rates with Tokyo Rove.
I can't think of anything more freakish than picking a candidate from a blue state.
Romney *was* the most electable candidate. He kept the defeat in single digits.
Amazing, when you consider roughly only 36% of registered repubs turned out the vote.
Romney managed to be the choice who guaranteed a loss, in an election that we couldn’t lose.
She pushed Romney on us. Why should we listen to her now?
She’s for the morbidly obese blowhard—and last time backed the rich, out-of-touch, progenitor of Obamacare—but we shouldn’t risk anyone short, funny looking, or female?
Oh, and while we’re at it, Maine is such a big state?
Christie of course hasn’t been governor any longer than the GOP women governors she chose to slight.
Is there anybody else who ran in the primaries that could have beaten Obama? Do you think Gingrich had a chance? Santorum? Maybe you were holding out for a Herman Cain victory? As much as I respect Ron Paul, he had no chance in a general election. Face it, Romney was the best choice of a sorry litter.
Of course the most famous Republican president ever was never a governor or senator, only an ex-member of the House (for one term, over a decade earlier) when he ran. And while not freakishly short, he was funny looking.
She ruled out rising-star Texas Sen. Ted Cruz as a potential candidate unless the United States were to absorb Canada’s three most western provinces due to eligibility questions stemming from the fact that Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta... "Got to be a governor -- maybe a senator, but definitely governor or senator. No members of the House. Even the governors -- they’re much better if they come from bigger states and preferably purple to blue states. [They] cannot be freakishly short or freakishly funny-looking. And I would say three years from now, and only I can say this -- I think no women right now. We can’t do anything fancy. America has not had a woman president yet."and great comment:
"At this point, I'd rather have the opinions and advice from 20 random people in the phone book than this woman."
Romney and the establishment shaped two primaries in a row to get Romney front and center, and has fought a 4.5 year war to keep Palin or any other threat away from the primary, they even gave us “Bloody Thursday” when Newt Gingrich became a serious threat to the Romney coronation, (Huckabee and McCain both had managed to defeat Romney in 2008, without any money or organization).
The establishment gave us the worst candidate imaginable, they threw cold water on turn out and hurt us down ticket and cost us the Senate, all because of the curse of Mitt Romney, a man who has won a single election in 20 years of running, spending 55 million of personal funds, and who could not get reelected in that office, and who left office with 34% approval, what did anyone expect?
Romney loses elections, he doesn’t win them, and he managed to lose against Jimmy Carter II.
When you plan on winning you devote considerable resources to the idea of turning out your own people ~ not on seeking the support of a strictly theoretical 10% of undecideds in the middle.
There is no middle.
When you don't get out the vote you lose.
People will turn out or a leader who speaks their language. Romney does not connect. Gingrich can connect standing there with his pants on the ground.
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.