Posted on 03/16/2013 7:25:51 PM PDT by smoothsailing
March 16, 2013
Laine Milam
As she has done many times before, bestselling author Ann Coulter delivered an uncensored critique of the Republican party at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Her criticisms this year were harshest when it came to the party’s current divide on the topic of comprehensive immigration reform.
Following up on her column from last month, Coulter argued that the GOP needs to have a tough but cohesive message on immigration policy, but not the one that many party leaders have touted lately.
“One public policy that will harm average Americans, drive up unemployment permanently, and is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway, is amnesty for illegal aliens,” she said.
She went on to outline the consequences of Republican support for amnesty and how it could lead to the destruction of the conservative movement.
“If amnesty goes through, America becomes California, and no Republican will ever win another national election. The state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan will never elect another Republican,” said Coulter.
Coulter’s tough stance on immigration reform helped attendees understand why she could not support a popular figure like Chris Christie, who is pro-amnesty, for president in 2016. She instead offered her thoughts on who the GOP should nominate for the top of the ticket in three years.
“You can’t run a congressman. I have learned that,” she said. “You can’t run a governor from a state that is as big as a congressional district. That’s the equivalent of running a congressman. And we can’t run businessmen, pundits, or candidates who have not won elections in at least midsize states.”
So who does that leave for the ultra-conservative pundit? Options that fit Coulter’s bill included Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, Gov. Paul LePage of Maine, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. She was also willing to back the new kid on the block, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
Without knowing even who will run in 2016 on the GOP banner , I can state that YOU will oppose him or her.
OUCH, that is going to leave a mark!
I think you are right.
The same that opposed Mitt will oppose the next GOP candidate.
Every last one of them.
They will oppose the GOP candidate in 2020, 2024,2032
I can state this without even knowing who the candidates shall be.
Like the Jewish people , they await the chosen one.
Can we share that weed?
You are right because the hate for Mormons is one of the reasons. Other is search for purity. And the last one is the most foolish, which is to ignore the agenda of Obama clones.
I think you can easily identify which ones were nominated by the GOP-e.
Landon 1936
Willkie 1940
Dewey 1944 1948
Eisenhower 1952 1956
Nixon 1960
Goldwater 1964
Nixon 1968 1972
Ford 1976
Reagan 1980 1984
Bush 1988 1992
Dole 1996
Bush 2000 2004
John McCain 2008
Romney 2012
The GOP-e candidate by the name of Willkie is believed to have still been a registered Democrat at the time he ran.
Nobody hates Mormons ~ although logging onto FR for weekend temple work does not exactly do something to make folks think of you in an endearing manner!
But you had a chance to vote against obama and you didn’t. The man is pure destruction and you let him walk right on by when you could have helped knock him out.
Self righteous coward. No emotion scotty, just fact.
So we just have to accept an immigration-driven transformation into a third world country, and then try to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the Democrats’ inability to effectively placate this new population?
That doesn’t sound like a pleasant future for the United States. But I disagree with your general premise. We haven’t been here before. The current situation is new. Because of how chain migration works, mass immigration of natural Democrats could continue for decades more. You may be right that a much less conservative Republican party can take advantage of this, but a conservative movement has little or no hope. Most Hispanics reject conservatism. Most Asians reject conservatism. Most African (assuming it’s the next source of mass immigration) would reject conservatism.
I’m sorry but I just don’t see anything good about the scenario you lay out, where Republicans have to compete to win over an ever-more left wing population.
I generally agree with you about refugee settlements. But if they can’t be ended, then at a minimum I’d like to see them required to get the approval of elected officials who cover the areas where the refugees are to be settled. Then you couldn’t have hypocrites like Senator-turned-Governor Brownback of Kansas, who was a big proponent of refugee settlements...just so long as they weren’t placed in Kansas!
Brownback has a long history of being a weasel, particularly on issues such as the one you cite.
No, we don’t have the power. We could have implemented conservative immigration reform after 9-11, or after the 2004 election if we hadn’t been cursed with a Bush in the White House. Now if Republicans proposed conservative immigration reform it would of course have no chance of passing.
I don’t think, though, that House Republicans have recently proposed much of anything I mentioned, except abolishing the Diversity Visa. And even on that they couldn’t just abolish an absurd part of Ted Kennedy’s terrible legacy, they had to couple ending Diversity visas with an increase in visas for STEM graduates!
Otherwise I’m not aware of any proposals to end chain migration, end the current refugee policy, or reduce overall legal immigration. Again, it wouldn’t go anywhere if they did, but it would be nice to have an alternative to take to the American people. It would be nice to find out if Americans want unending mass immigration, or a reduction to more modest levels. But we’ll never know, because the GOP is worthless on this issue.
We can do more outreach. We can try to convince Hispanics and Asians that leftist Democrat policies aren’t in their or the country’s best interests. But I think what many on our side are missing is that these groups have decided otherwise. These groups have determined that Democrat policies are preferable. And I think to some extent they have made a very reasonable decision. Take racial preferences for example; why wouldn’t Hispanics favor the party that’s going to give them preference over whites for college admissions and govt jobs?
All that may be so, but we have to find a way no matter what it takes because there is no other path to survival.
“We only lack the political will...” and, there it is, zeestephan. The oncoming tsunami, will not be out run- only outlasted. Good point of reference, zeestephen.
I am not opposed to giving it a try.
Hairy Dan
He didn't kill the Department of Education either, but he did kill the 55 mph speed limit.
Reagan was by far the best President of the 20th Century but he had many failings and letting Kennedy get away with the Amnesty bill was among the worst another was the Voting Rights Act that hamstrung the South and allowed massive vote fraud to alter our very culture for the worse.
I agree. I served under Nixon and Reagan. Nixon was full-on bs, from his VP slot on. President R. Reagan, was able to realign our country, as best as able.
Name calling?
This is how you plan to return our great nation to Constitutional principles?
Lol
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.