That is incomprehensible to me but I know better than to argue with anyone so wrong.
For your edification here's a graph of the effects of Ann Coulter's career on America...
Hmmm. Did I say Ann Coulter?
Posted on 02/06/2012 8:37:28 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
something has happened to Coulter. I don't have firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly trashes Republican "moderates" like McCain, yet now supports a candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater by comparison.
It first became apparent that something awful had happened to Coulter last November, when she wrote a column asking "If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?" In this surreal effusion, she claimed that the media were "pushing Newt Gingrich" and other alternatives to Romney "because they are terrified of running against him." This, as many pointed out at the time, was preposterous. The only thing that terrifies the media about Romney is that he might not get the GOP nomination. This is the man they want to run against. Unlike Coulter, the media and the Obama reelection team know that Romney can be easily portrayed as a Wall Street parasite whose only memorable "accomplishment" as the Governor of Massachusetts was the enactment of a health "reform" law that renders him unable to credibly denounce ObamaCare.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I believe the explanation for Ann's position is much simpler. Ann Coulter desperately wants to defeat Barrack Hussein Obama and, through the power of reason that a UM Law graduate and SCOTUS justice law clerk has at her disposal, has concluded that Mitt Romney is the best vessel through which to achieve that goal. She also seems to have come to the conclusion that addressing the economic problems this country faces is the most important piece of business before us; that among the candidates available to us Romney has the strongest bone fides in this regard; and that pragmatism and competency are more valuable attributes to a chief executive charged with accomplishing these objectives than perceived ideological purity. In service to these position she has presented column after column of coherent and well argued exegesis that no one on this board has so much as made an effort to address on point. Rather, they have responded with standard ad hominum attacks, accusing her of apostasy, selling out for money and fame secretly courting homosexuals for some reason. And of course there are the snide comments about her looks and her being a woman of a certain age. Believe me folks, Ann is winning this dust up, as in a battle of wits she comes fully armed.
Yeah, they were screwing you all along. Now they have no recourse but to expose themselves. The subtleness that was always there is gone.
I think you are correct. I wondered if Romney had asked John Bolton to be Secretary of State. That would do it.
—The subtleness that was always there is gone.—
Yeah. It could be that simple.
I don’t care if she and the others at FOX are desperate to defeat Obama so push Romney
They have put all their integrity in the tank by allowing the lies to be told about Newt
They know the truth about Romany and Newt and hide it from the viewers and readers
That is plain WRONG and shows they are no better than the liberals in thinking they are the elite and the unwashed masses must be led so any method is OK
A well thought out response, until Mark Levin intellectually eviscerates her/you:
She doesn't think it, she wants it - that why she groveling like a **ore to make it happen.
Her liberalism makes her one dumb broad who can be bought. She's void of character and every good thing. Shank sums it up.
And she's really just like mitt who reeks of evil. They think money makes them relevant.
IMO, selling out our country to the likes of mitt --> Barry, socialism and every evil thing - when others gave their life for our country, I see blood on their hands.
That is incomprehensible to me but I know better than to argue with anyone so wrong.
For your edification here's a graph of the effects of Ann Coulter's career on America...
Hmmm. Did I say Ann Coulter?
Ann Coulter at CPAC 2011 - Question & Answer Session - 2/12/11
Approx. the 10:00 mark.
I feel the same way you do about the lies Fox is telling. It is a disgrace! Furthermore, all the pundants keep talking about how Newt is a big cry baby whining about Romney. Well..he does not have the big money Romney does to put out attack ads behind the scenes and act like Mr. Positive meanwhile in public. He uses his primary speeches in each state to attack Romney and get his message out for free while he has America’s attention. They all act like Newt rambles and is incoherent. No. Newt is getting his message out directly to America. Coulter is the one who is not coherent and she is viciously trying to paint Newt as crazy and the tea party as hypocrites. Everyone sees she is supporting Rhinos and calling them conservatives. No sale here. Not now. Not ever.
I actually agree with you, the insiders seem to know something about Gingrich in particular that we don’t.
I suspect that Gingrich may have been diagnosed with something like Bio Polar disorder or something similar in the past which should have been confidential but has somehow leaked out to the insiders in DC and some of the elite media. I also suspect this very fact is what Nancy Pelosi keeps referring too. But no one can actually say that they know it for fear of a lawsuit.
Why do you guys care about what this woman is saying or care about what any pundit or radio talk show is saying. Be your own master of thoughts and actions. Never listen to anyone or be influenced by any pundit when you decide who to vote for. Are you the master of your thoughts and actions?
This is a rather large disagreement,don’t you think. She’s come out in favor of Romney and RomneyCare. I think it’s time folks realized that these “conservatives” are all entertainers and opportunists. They call themselves capitalists but they don’t really support the constitution. We are in a mess and we have been for decades. Rome lost it’s Republic and then slowly slide down hill. We have lost ours and things are moving much faster nowadays. We are like frogs in hot water.
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-calls-out-ann-coulter-for-unfairly-trashing-newt-gingrich/
Mark Levin calls out Ann Coulter for unfairly trashing Newt Gingrich
Posted by The Right Scoop on Dec 16, 2011
Mark Levin accuses Ann Coulter (and BillO) of using what is a perfect opportunity to discuss Newt’s comments last night on changing the judiciary to instead trash him in favor of her candidate, calling him bombastic and minimizing him by saying that he never achieves anything anyway:
She won’t even give the man credit for what he has achieved! Taking back the House from 44 years of Democrat monopoly was never thought possible and in doing so he had to defeat the Republican establishment! You can’t even give him that?
No they can’t, because they have a hate-on. They have a hate-on. …
Do you know why I resent this? Because now we have a bunch of bullies running around. And Giuliani was 100% right. They’re trying to turn this guy into a crazy man.
And I resent it and I resist it! He’s not even my guy and I resent it and I resist it!
“That is incomprehensible to me but I know better than to argue with anyone so wrong.”
Now you sound like Anne talking about Newt.
Or is it Newt talking about anyone who isn’t him?
“I suspect that Gingrich may have been diagnosed with something like Bio Polar disorder “
We already know he’s politically Bipolar.
But fundamentally his argument comes down to a pure defense of individual liberty versus the compulsory power of the state. Overall, I find that argument to be a strong one, but Ann never argued that case. She states up front, correctly in my view, that the Right Wing attack on Romney regarding RomneyCare is the elevation of a policy dispute into a question of constitutional rights. The Right doesn't like government interference in private markets and employs constitutional arguments to make their case.
Ann is arguing that RomneyCare was a sensible approach to addressing a free riding problem in Massachusetts. The voters liked, wanted it and at least at the time of Brown's Senate run were strongly in favor of it.
The Right attacks Romney using constitutional arguments. And, fundamentally that is the basis of Levin's case. Indeed, RomneyCare would be unconstitutional at the federal level. But, there is no constitutional prohibition against a state constructing a mandatory insurance scheme. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts compels drivers to purchase insurance to drive, surely it can also compel them to purchase health insurance, a service that all ultimately will require. The fact that one can choose not to drive is irrelevant. The precedent is established: government can compel you to make a private purchase, as well as drill in the militia.
The issue of FREE RIDING is a serious problem, whether the high and mighty Mark wishes to concede the point or not. If providers can't not provide a service than individuals can compel them to provide that service without compensation. That's legal theft and shouldn't be anything we support.
RomneyCare was designed to address this problem. MA addressed it the way MA wanted to address it. That is what I consider a “States’ Rights” and federalism. Romney tried to make the law as internal coherent as possible. Based on the overwhelming vote the bill received, it seems that it was pretty popular and a veto by Romney would have been overridden. So Romney made a pragmatic decision to support a proposal that would pass in some form to make it is sustainable as possible.
So, Levin is accusing Romney of acting as a pragmatist; a man who seeks to achieve the best possible solution to a problem when a perfect solution isn't available. Guilty as charged.
But we cannot afford to make perfection the enemy of the good. The U.S. electorate is not as conservative as Mark Levin. We live in a center right country that for better or worse expects its political class to use the power of the state to “solve” social problems. A politician like Romney will appeal to a broad section of that electorate precisely because of this underlying pragmatism. We need to win this one, to be pragmatic, and that was the fundamental argument that Ann makes in her article. I agree with it.
The appeal of Gingrich to the majority of posters on this board is that he is the anti-pragmatist: a committed ideologue who has all the answers even if a large percentage of Americans won't slurp down the bitter medicine he has for them. All fine and well, but he is not in step with the electorate and would lead to a disastrous result in November, up and down the ticket.
Calm down and be realistic. We need to win this one. Mitt isn't perfect but he is the best chance we have. End the fratricide and the guilt by association propaganda (Romney was photographed with Ted Kennedy, or my!). That's beneath Levin.
Yep
NOT one word about the negative misinformation that Romney is putting out only that Newt shouldn’t complain
Their integrity is in the toilet
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.