Ann Coulter: IOWA SHOWS REPUBLICANS DETERMINED TO BEAT OBAMA (Romney/McCain 2012)

AnnCoulter.Com ^ | January 4, 2012 | Ann Coulter

[Syncro]

IOWA SHOWS REPUBLICANS DETERMINED TO BEAT OBAMA

January 4, 2012

It's been a mixed week for Mitt Romney's campaign. On one hand, Romney won Iowa, but on the other, he was endorsed by John McCain.

Until the first actual votes were cast Tuesday night, it appeared as if some elements of the Republican Party were becoming the mirror image of a liberal mob.

The wild swings -- at least in the polls -- from one populist right-winger to another suggested that some Republicans were determined to change the meaning of "conservative" from "normal person who wants to protect what's best in mainstream America" to "perpetually indignant, restless carper against everything, obsessed with symbolic issues, determined to punish the country for its impurities."

Some Republicans, we were led to believe, would only be satisfied with angry denunciations of Obama as a Kenyan colonialist and demands for Barack Obama's birth certificate -- without ever spending five minutes of calm contemplation to see that he had already produced it.

And if there's anyplace for a zealot to shine, it's in a caucus state like Iowa.

But Romney won -- in a razor-close finish with another plausible candidate, Rick Santorum.

The reason the Iowa caucuses rarely produce the party's eventual nominee is not because Iowans are wacky white Christians, as some in the media have claimed, but because caucuses are ridiculous ways to choose a presidential candidate. It is a process that empowers the pushy and loud, much like a Manhattan co-op board meeting, but, unfortunately, not like anything envisioned by our founding fathers.

Instead of arguing for hours in public with partisans in order to cast a ballot, voters are supposed to put on their shoes, fight off the Black Panthers on the way to their precincts, vote in private and go home.

So the fact that the Iowa caucuses avoided giving the gold to Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul or some other sure-to-lose candidate shows that Republicans are dead serious about beating Obama this fall. Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that won. Read More »

[BillyBoy]

To all the freepers who ask “what the heck happened to Ann?!” and claim she never used to be like this... please read this Coulter piece from Jan. 2008. Guess who she thought the “best candidate” was back then?

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/16/coulter-endorses-romney/

[Syncro]

Both, Romney is a Mormon.

[Sola Veritas]

Yeah, she started showing her true colors then and has gone downhill since.

I don’t think she has lost her mind, I think she is now truly expressing it. She never was truly conservative. It is just that the “conservative” niche was easy to get money from in book sales by simply, at one time, saying what we wanted to hear. Now that she is entrenched, she is starting to feel she can do whatever she wants...regardless of who it offends. Too many mindless persons are too quick to listen to her. Too many are quick to defend her even when she is indefensible.

[Syncro]

Hi Ann!

In post #1 I posted a tweet of yours from your webpage.

I just saw your boy on Fox News with his new BFF, John McCain. You know, the guy that gave the last election to Obama.

The first thing I noticed was that they were both not wearing ties!

I guess they saw your tweet, and want to be associated with Newt and Ahmadinejad.

Boy will they be surprised when they read this thread and find out he's the top terrorist in Iran! (Ahmadinejad, not Gingrich)

So I fixed your tweet, just had to change it a bit:

Quotations from Chairman Ann

• When Mitt was on Hannity tonite, he wore no necktie. What is he? Ahmadinejad? about 2 hours ago

Now whenever anyone sees Mitt without a necktie, they will think of the terrorist guy that wants to destroy America.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

The line about Rick Perry was pretty funny.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

......and toast as a book writer.

[Zevonismymuse]

I think she used to be a conservative.

So all the people who have been life long, bold and courageous voices for freedom are now suddenly different people? Maybe it is time to ask yourself some tough questions.Ann is the same great political observer and culture warrior she has always been. The Romney Haters on this site are the ones who are out of touch. Just listen to the tone of these threads; absolutely hateful and not at all attractive. No independent thinker coming across these exchanges would be won over to the anti-Romney POV just based on the childish name calling in which some folks engage. I do not know if that is the case with you but surely you see the things written, like mocking the man's name. So immature!

[jellybean]

You should send that to her on Twitter. I’m sure she’ll enjoy it.

Thanks for the ping.

[BillyBoy]

>> I don’t think she has lost her mind, I think she is now truly expressing it. She never was truly conservative <<

Agreed. I always suspected that and pretty much confirmed it recently. (I've never bought any of her books, either). What other conclusion can you draw when she says stuff in public like "we should kill all Muslims and convert their countries to Christianity", then slyly admits in private that her new boyfriend is a Muslim a few months later? She certainly doesn't live the "family values" she preaches and sure cozies up to liberal elites she claims to despise more than gonorrhea. There were a lot of red herrings like that over the years, but her worshipers here would scream bloody hell if anyone questioned her judgment (and now simply avoid these threads rather than admit I was right to question her months ago)

[BillyBoy]

>> So all the people who have been life long, bold and courageous voices for freedom are now suddenly different people? Maybe it is time to ask yourself some tough questions.Ann is the same great political observer and culture warrior she has always been. The Romney Haters on this site are the ones who are out of touch. <<

No, I agree with Sola Veritas. She's not suddenly a different person, she never was conservative to begin with. She would just throw read meat to conservatives and say the most fiery thing she could think of to get her name in the papers and sell books. She didn't believe or practice any of it. It is a fact that Mitt Romney's career record is not conservative and he cannot be trusted. There's nothing tough about that, the facts speak for themselves. Freepers are wrong when they claim she was such a model of conservative virtue and "changed". Her position on Romney certainly hasn't changed in years. The tough questions people need to ask themselves is whether Ann Coulter is really for advancing conservatism in America, or enriching herself. I believe its the latter.

[Graewoulf]

What has Willy ever conserved or protected?

Maybe he really is a Nanny-State guy. Mandatory Romneycare sure sounds like a violation of the US Constitution.

BTW, the State Constitution is always trumped by the US Constitution. Yeah, the one that we are trying to protect from those who are not interested in conserving it.

BTW, BTW, Game on!

[BlackElk]

Many of us who rip Romney do not yet choose a candidate in opposition to him. You admit that you are undecided with 27 days to go. You may be maintaining a completely open mind. I do not. I despise the Mittwit, paleoPaulie and Huntsman. I will not vote for any of those three even if they are nominated. I could have voted for Herman Cain or for Michelle Bachmann. I will be voting for Rick Santorum or for Newt Gingrich or for Rick Perry as things stand. At one time or another, I have favored each of those five.

The primary in my state is a few months away. I will vote for the conservative with the best chance of beating Romney. After Romney, Paul and Huntsman are disposed of, we can concentrate on eliminating Obozo and as many bad US senators and congresscritters as possible.

It is the Mittwit's track record as an undependable political weathervane and a true son o his similarly execrable father that demonizes the Mittwit. Romney can not be trusted to eliminate Obozocare since he is its real father. Romney cannot be trusted on guns, babies, marriages, resistance to "gay" everything, opposition to "global warming" hallucinations, and a wide variety of of other issues. His mission is to make the world safe for his fellow trust fund babies and for Muffy and Skipper and their chums down at the polo club. His foreign policies would be sell-out as usual. He would do absolutely nothing to improve employment or to stop the bleeding of modest jobs to Bangladesh. He has no clue as to the lives of ordinary Americans nor does he give a rat's patoot. He is the embodiment of the stereotype hyped by Demonrats of representing the trust fund/American community and being devoid of functioning brain cells.

I am not beating up on you but I am beating up on the Mittwit. Since Huntsman and paleoPaulie are road kill, there is no point in wasting time beating on them. Not all politics is positive, warm, cheery or reflective of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.

[BlackElk]

Z: What upsets you is the conservative consensus against Romney. That conservative consensus is verrrry strong and for a cornucopia of good and sufficient reasons. If Annie jumps ship, then we recognize that she has jumped ship. Likewise, various editors at the National Review and other media elitists and conservative leadership wannabes. Romney cannot be trusted on any issue that is important. He is Obozo in whiteface in many respects and where there are differences those differences tend to be narrow and only about money and materialism. Conservatism is a far richer tapestry than clueless Mitt will ever understand. Annie should know better.

[Rummyfan]

IMO it's important to post her columns here at Free Republic.

I agree - thanks for posting!

[shibumi]

"I do not know if that is the case with you but surely you see the things written, like mocking the man's name. So immature! "

On the contrary, I feel great empathy for a poor guy who's had to go through life with the handle "Willard." I would certainly never mock Willard for that.

Now his Magic Underpants, well that's something else entirely.

[Eye of Unk]

Anne, you have been assimilated by the Borg.

We won’t buy your act anymore.

They shaved women’s hair in France for less.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I DO understand your point, BlackElk.

So which candidate is best: Santorum, Newt, or Perry? And why?

I’ve SEEN all the Mitt hate, and don’t think more of it is needed to convince me he is the devil...

I want to know WHY I should vote FOR someone else.

[Dr. Sivana]

In other words, the SIMPLEST explanation is probably the best.

Maybe she believes Romney is the best choice.

Although I am not a fan of William of Occam as a whole (some say he was the beginning of the end of true philosophy), I do employ Occam's razor regularly as a useful tool.

I will grant the likelihood that Miss Coulter believes that Romney is the best, in her judgment of the existing candidates. Besides the fact that she says he's her favorite, it is consistent with her preferred profile of consistently preferring button down non-conservative northeastern types (the execrable Simmons in CT over McMahon, Christie, Romney [twice])

She also backed Romney in 2008, when some decent people thought he was the more conservative alternative to McCain.

Last year, she stated that Christie was the ONLY hope for the 'pubbies to win '12. This all shows a consistent judgment favring a particular type.

If you are a northeastern Republican running for a low-level office, you might think that Romney will stick less. I knkow that feeling, I had to run under DOLE in 1996. He pulled all of 27%. I pulled 32.75%. Thanks, Bob.

All that said, since we KNOW that Romney is neither trustworthy, nor conservative, nor an opponent of centralized, mandatory health insurance (freedom lovers don't really care if a bad idea is implemented locally or nationally), then:

Occam's Razor forces us to conclude, that:

Ann Coulter has poor judgment.

[Texas Eagle]

It's been a mixed week for Mitt Romney's campaign. On one hand, Romney won Iowa, but on the other, he was endorsed by John McCain.

What the hell's the difference between Romney and McCain?

[lentulusgracchus]

He is the embodiment of the stereotype hyped by Demonrats of representing the trust fund/American community and being devoid of functioning brain cells.

This is a point Rush has frequently made, but apparently not quite frequently enough yet, to overcome all the MSM liars who are gushing horrendous lies and prevarication about how Obozo must be shaking in his Guccis at the thought of being thrown down on by the puissant Willard of State Street.

This "Willard Vindex Victor" claptrap is a good test, I think, for blackhearted liars and duckspeakers. If they argue this prolefeed, they don't deserve to live.