Ann Coulter: THAT OLD OBAMA MAGIC IS BACK (It's the Chick's Fault!)

AnnCoulter.Com ^ | Jan 20, 2010 | Ann Coulter

[Syncro]

THAT OLD OBAMA MAGIC IS BACK
January 20, 2010

Once again, the people have spoken, and this time they quoted what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy.

Less than two weeks ago, The New York Times said that so much as a "tighter-than-expected" victory for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley would incite "soul-searching among Democrats nationally," which sent Times readers scurrying to their dictionaries to look up this strange new word, "soul."

A close win for Coakley, the Times said, would constitute "the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party" will affect the 2010 elections.

But when Coakley actually lost the election by an astounding 5 points, the Chicago boys in the White House decided it was the chick's fault.

Democratic candidate Martha Coakley may be a moral monster, but it's ridiculous to blame her for losing the election. She lost because of the Democrats' obsession with forcing national health care down the nation's throat.

Coakley campaigned exactly the way she should have.

As a Democrat running in a special election for a seat that had been held by a Democratic icon (and another moral monster) for the past 46 years in a state with only 12 percent registered Republicans, Coakley's objective was to have voters reading the paper on Friday, saying: "Hey, honey, did you know there was a special election four days ago? Yeah, apparently Coakley won, though it was a pretty low turnout."

Ideally, no one except members of government unions and Coakley's immediate family would have even been aware of the election.

And until Matt Drudge began covering it like a presidential election a week ago, it might have turned out that way.

Coakley had already won two statewide elections, while her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, had only won elections in his district. She had endorsements from the Kennedy family and the current appointed Democratic senator, Paul Kirk -- as well as endless glowing profiles in The Boston Globe.

And by the way, as of Jan. 1, Brown had spent $642,000 on the race, while Coakley had spent $2 million.

On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, The New York Times reported: "A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state's attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support."

It was in that article that the Times said a narrow Coakley win would be an augury for the entire Democratic Party. But now she's being hung out to dry so that Democrats don't have to face the possibility that Obama's left-wing policies are to blame.

Read more at AnnCoulter.Com

[Syncro]

And until Matt Drudge began covering it like a presidential election a week ago, it might have turned out that way.

Drudge has done a yeoman's job of getting out the truth about Obama to a large audience ever since hillary left the race. He really deserves a lot of credit for his work.

Yes he does. If he mentions anything, thousands of readers spread the word.

That being said, over a ten days ago the Our Country PAC/TeaPartyExpress folks started raising money and buying ads in Mass to promote Brown. They spent over $300,000.

They were mentioned in media more than once for their yeoman efforts to help with this election.

A lot of news shows reported how the Tea Party people were instrumental in bring this effort to national awareness.

Move America Forward was very busy promoting Brown also.

It was definitely a Conservative Team Effort!

And until Matt Drudge began covering it like a presidential election a week ago, it might have turned out that way.

Drudge has done a yeoman's job of getting out the truth about Obama to a large audience ever since hillary left the race. He really deserves a lot of credit for his work.

[potlatch]

Not any longer but there is a fairly recent thread by that title. Saw it a minute ago. It’s hilarious.

[Syncro]

Brown also won without help from the Republican national leadership, which may have actually been an advantage. Thank goodness the Tea Party supported Senator-Elect Scott Brown.

Excellent post!

The RNC gave a paltry $50,000 to Brown over a month ago.

But wouldn't promote him, too conservative I guess.

Of course now they are saying that they were working behind the scenes for several months, taking credit (to a degree) for his success.

LOL, even they knew that outright supporting him would make him look undesirable to Conservatives!

[DoctorBulldog]

Thanks for letting me know about that.

So, to reiterate: In response to the title:



Cheers

[Syncro]

Very cool what you did with that video, potlatch!

[Star Traveler]

Yeah, and you know..., I don’t count it against some potential candidate and/or a political pundit if they are on one side of the birther issue or the other. That’s fine with me. I’m great with them (whomever it is) as long as they are conservative. Not all conservatives are going to be on the same side on that issue.

And also, I don’t have a problem if someone voted for John McCain in the last election, as I did (but mainly because of Sarah Palin) — and now they don’t want to support McCain in his current race. That’s no problem if they don’t want to, as long as they are predominantly for conservative issues.

BUT, it’s these same people that I don’t have a problem with (in general with conservative issues) who are on Free Republic, who are the ones who condemn Coulter and condemn Palin (along with a bunch of other FReepers) — because those FReepers and Coulter and Palin don’t match up exactly with them on their own “hot button issue”... LOL...

They’re just cutting their own throats, and for all conservatives in general...

I don’t know, but it sure seems to be self-defeating and useless to me, when they attack Palin and Coulter on some of these things...

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

I wish SP would stay out of AZ primary and I think prolonged wars of attrition 5000 miles away are not good policy but my #1 right now and since 2008 for 2012 is SP.
so not all of at FR believe we have to be in lock step

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

agree with Ann—BHO policies cost them MASS senate seat. There was a -31 from BHO 26 pt drubbing of McCain to Brown +5 win. I’d guess 25 or so the net change was from BHO policy

[potlatch]

Thank you Syncro. I make slideshows out of youtubes pretty often.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Well, she’s wrong about the birth certificate. But everyone’s entitled to be wrong once in a while.

Yeah, I know some birthers here who think that, plus they think that Ann Coulter "sold out" to Obama... LOL...

I know what most of the politicians and other conservative pundits are doing in regards to the birther issue -- they're putting that aside as a useless issue that is going nowhere and won't accomplish anything (as has been amply demonstrated thus far)...

But, things like Scott Brown and winning the Massachusetts Senator position... now that's "getting somewhere" and is much more productive.

[Mamzelle]

re: I don’t know, but it sure seems to be self-defeating and useless to me, when they attack Palin and Coulter on some of these things..)))

Exactly. Except who is really being defeated, here? That's why I think we on FR should have some system in place to defend against shills, fakes, seminar posters, etc.

[fanfan]

Ann: “Now, no Democrat is safe.

But the country just got a lot safer.”

Congratulations America!
You’re coming back. :-D

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Brown also won without help from the Republican national leadership, which may have actually been an advantage

Yeah, even though he ran as a Republican, he did not mention the word "Republican" but very rarely, and stayed way far away from putting that in people's minds, as he was campaigning.

Furthermore, in his speech, after winning, he said very clearly that his win was a win for "independents"... that was in the second paragraph of his speech.

[RCFlyer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&feature=player_embedded

Here is the very funny YouTube you asked for. Called “Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat”

[fanfan]

LOLOL!

[RonDog]

"Once again, the people have spoken, and this time they quoted what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy." - Ann Coulter

For those of you who were not around here in 2004, see THIS thread:

CNN: Cheney used the F word when talking to Leahy in Senate floor

[devolve]

.

LOL!

Another classic slideshow potlatch!

Obama goes Tubing Down The River!

[fr_freak]

I’m convinced that we have a much subtler class of troll posters than ever before, designed to try to take advantage of RINO resentment to drive wedges and stifle momentum. Some of them have somehow managed to even get ahold of accounts here on FR with early membership dates.

I've seen some obvious trolling using accounts with early sign-up dates (and when I say obvious trolling, I don't just mean disagreement). My guess is that the people who originally created those accounts used very obvious passwords. For example, if your screen name is "conservative_person" and your password is "conservative_person", it would be child's play for that account to be hacked. Given the obsessiveness that some of the Left-wingers have, it wouldn't shock me at all to see some of them printing off a list of Freeper names and trying such obvious passwords one by one. If the lefty nutjob is computer-savvy, that sort of thing can even be scripted.

With all of that said, I'd like to add that what the conservative movement needs is MORE passion, not less. So, anytime we have a conservative icon who decides to go off the reservation, I do not at all think it is out of line for conservatives to become riled. Coulter's dismissing of the birth certificate issue can be one example. If she thinks it is an issue that is not worth her discussing it, then that is her choice. However, she should avoid insulting those who do find it worthwhile. There is nothing to be gained by ridiculing such efforts. Such ridicule smacks of a desire to ingratiate oneself with the MSM/Left.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Exactly. Except who is really being defeated, here? That's why I think we on FR should have some system in place to defend against shills, fakes, seminar posters, etc.

Well, there is a problem there, for just doing a "knee-jerk" type of response to what seems to be shills, fakes and so on... because one typical response that I've seen thus far, here on Free Republic, with certain posters -- is very simply -- if you disagree with them, that automatically makes you a shill or fake or a troll and so on (only on the basis that their opinion is the measuring stick that determines whether you're a troll or not).

I know that from encountering a lot of those kinds of deranged individuals (who think this way) over in the birther threads, where if you don't agree with them exactly -- you're a supporter of Obama and you're a liberal and a troll... LOL...

Overall, I think the mods do a pretty good job of getting rid of obvious trolls and so on, because I've seen a number of them zotted over the years and sometimes pretty quickly, too.

But (just for example) if some of these posters (who I called part of the "Obama Derangement Syndrome" crowd) disagree with you (and/or you disagree with them about some of their thinking and logic and reasoning on the issue) -- then you are a candidate (according to them) for "zotting" and you should be gotten rid of because you're obviously a troll and someone from the DU...

And they just hammer away at that over and over again... (I have fun with some of them over that issue... as we go around and around).... :-)

[fanfan]

;-)

Rules are rules.