Ann Coulter: NEWT: SPEAK BOMBASTICALLY AND CARRY A TINY STICK (Romney: STUCK)

AnnCoulter.Com ^ | December 14, 2011 | Ann Coulter

[Syncro]

ANNCOULTER.COM

NEWT: SPEAK BOMBASTICALLY AND CARRY A TINY STICK

December 14, 2011

Fellow right-wingers: Is our objective to taunt Obama by accusing him of "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior," of being "authentically dishonest" and a "wonderful con" -- and then lose the election -- or is it to defeat Obama, repeal Obamacare, secure the borders, enforce e-verify, reform entitlement programs, reduce the size of government and save the country? 

If all you want is to lob rhetorical bombs at Obama and then lose, Newt Gingrich -- like recent favorite Donald Trump -- is your candidate. But if you want to save the country, Newt's not your guy. 

Gingrich makes plenty of bombastic statements, but these never seem to translate into actual policy changes. 

After becoming the first Republican speaker of the House in nearly half a century, for example, Newt promptly proposed orphanages and janitorial jobs for children on welfare. 

It was true that welfare had destroyed generations of families shorn of the work ethic and led to soaring illegitimacy rates, child abuse and neglect. Maybe orphanages and child labor would have been better. 

But we didn't get any orphanages. We didn't get jobs for children in families where no one works. 

What we got was the cartoonish image of Republicans as hard-hearted brutes who hated poor kids. 

Ronald Reagan was also accused of waging a war on the poor. But that was on account of his implementing historic tax cuts that produced not only record revenues for the government, but decades of prosperity for the entire nation. 

With Newt, you get all the heat, blowback and acrimony, but you don't get the policy changes. 

To the contrary, his pointless bloviating about orphanages and child janitors harmed the chances for welfare reform, despite the fact that the American people, the Republican Congress and the Democratic president (publicly, at least), supported it. 

Indeed, when it came time to make vital changes to welfare policy, such as work requirements and anti-illegitimacy provisions, Gingrich tried to scuttle them. He denounced such provisions -- the very heart of welfare reform -- as, yes, "social engineering of the right" (e.g., Republican Governors Conference, Williamsburg, Va., Nov. 22, 1994). 

The guy who wanted orphanages for children on welfare suddenly called work requirements for adults on welfare right-wing "social engineering." 

Gingrich went on to lose almost every negotiation with Bill Clinton -- and that was with solid Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. His repeated capitulation to Clinton led former Vice President Dan Quayle to remark that the Republican "Contract With America" had become the "Contract With Clinton." (Not to be confused with Newt's book, "Contract With the Earth.") 

Perfectly good policies are constantly being undermined by Newt's crazy statements -- such as his explanation that women couldn't be in combat because they get infections, whereas men "are basically little piglets," who are "biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes." 

Hunt giraffes? 

With Gingrich we get the worse of all worlds. He talks abrasively -- offending moderates and galvanizing liberals -- but then carries a teeny, tiny stick. 

We want someone who will talk softly and unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes. Even when Gingrich doesn't completely back off conservative positions, his nutty rhetoric undermines the ability of Republicans to get anything done. 

CONT' AT WWW.ANNCOULTER.COM

[Gator113]

I wonder what happened to Ann.

Will she now come out and announce that she’s gay?

[Syncro]

You go first.

[Heuristic Hiker]

I wonder what has happened to this forum ? Are all of these ad hominen/personal attacks on Ann deserved? I don’t think I’ve read comment that dealt with any of the specific points she made in the article and like usual her command of reasoned argument and historical perspective is impressive and insightful (as well as a fearful prospect to those have nothing to say but cowardly personal attacks).

[Heuristic Hiker]

I wonder what has happened to this forum ? Are all of these ad hominen/personal attacks on Ann deserved? I don’t think I’ve read comment that dealt with any of the specific points she made in the article and like usual her command of reasoned argument and historical perspective is impressive and insightful (as well as a fearful prospect to those have nothing to say but cowardly personal attacks).

[BigSkyFreeper]

Yep. She calls Romney a conservative.

Not just "a conservative" but "the most conservative candidate in the field".

[Belteshazzar]

I am not trying to be hard on McCain, whose military career I respect, but to think that the GOP would be getting something better in Romney than it got in McCain is delusional. He may be a better debated than McCain, but he suffers from all the same weaknesses of political temperament and perspective (as his record clearly shows), plus he is going to have to answer for Mormonism. Again, I do not mean to purposely insult Mormons, but if anyone thinks for one moment that the strange and - in my opinion - impossible to defend history of the Mormon church is not going to be on the Obama team’s (and this would include the alphabet TV and radio media and much of the newspaper media) target radar, that person too is deluded. It’s going to happen. And in certain states it’s going to cost votes, probably enough to change the outcome.

If the Coulters, National Reviews, and GOP insiders don’t know this (inside a bubble?), they don’t how how to call this election.

[Belteshazzar]

Fine, you don’t like “deception,” howsabout illusion, as in what you see is not what you get. Mitt is no conservative and Ann is no blonde.

[RinaseaofDs]

Contract with America
Welfare Reform

Two phrases that appear nowhere in the article that I could find.

[Gator113]

“I don’t think I’ve read comment that dealt with any of the specific points she made in the article.....”

She lost with many of us the second she came out for Romney. Any “point” she may now try to make is going to fall on deaf ears.

It is both telling and disappointing that you don’t see that.

Oh, you can take your “cowardly” comment and stuff it.

[EDINVA]

Ann’s use of “bombastic” as an epithet against Newt or anyone else is hilarious. That’s been her stock in trade, as if she owned the word.

Imagine if it had been Mitt who’d said the Palestinians were an ‘invented people’ and Newt said, oh, no, you don’t say things like that’ you have to clear it through Bibi and diplomatic channels. Ann, in her dotage, seems to like timid instead of bombastic. What a turnaround.

[Gator113]

Your deflection indicates that you think she’s gay. Hmm.

[Psalm 144]

You missed my point, because apparently I misunderstood yours.

We agree that she is not a conservative.

Pax.

[altura]

It’s pretty well known that Ann is for Newt and that article was way harsh, but everyone knows that Newt failed to follow through as well as he should have on the contract with America.

And, yes, these things will be brought up if he gets the nomination, so let’s deal with them now.

We’re either okay with all that or we’re not.

[altura]

Ooops. I meant Ann is for Mitt.

If Ann were for Newt, he doesn’t need enemies.

[Palladin]

heehee! Ann said “Tiny stick.”

No wonder Callista always looks confused, or something.

[Belteshazzar]

Psalm 114: We do agree that, at the very least, in the matter of Mitt she is not a conservative.

Pax it is.

[katiedidit1]

take that tiny stick and put it where the sun dont shine Ann!

[katiedidit1]

83 ethic violations were found to be without merit and the 84th charge was dropped after a 31/2 yr investigation by the IRS.

[mmanager]

She has jumped the shark. There are going to be a lot of pundit’s with the deer in the headlights look when Newt wins the nomination. I can’t wait to see the backpeddling.

[mmanager]

Ann, go make me a sammwhich, and pluck my duck honey!