THANK THESE REPUBLICANS FOR OBAMACARE ... Ann Coulter

Democrats have been pushing for government controlled healthcare since Harry Truman. It has been their holy grail.

Well, not that it is within their grasp, it looks like their reward may be the destruction of the Democratic Party - that is if America is still sting enough to fight back.

It reminds me of the scene from Indiana Jones when the Nazis lift the lid off the Ark of the Covenant.

First, Republicans lost their majorities in the House and the Senate in 2006, thanks to George W. Bush's highly effective "Keep the Base at Home on Election Day" campaign, which consisted of pushing amnesty for illegal aliens.
Then in 2008, Republicans had the bright idea to run crazy-eyed crypt-keeper John McCain for president.

Absolutely correct!

Add this stinking RINO who is up in 2014 to the list he voted YES on 0'care this time around. And now is trying to get his socialist butt out of a sling over it. Been in DC long enough to slop at the pig trough and make himself very, very rich.

Interesting that Ann never mentioned the godfather of Ubamacare, Mittens Romney.

Glad to see I’m not the only one who noticed that omission. There were other candidates who might have had a better chance but we’ll never know now. Ann seems to go from pillar to post when it comes to RINOS.

Coulter makes some good points, but I think she’s over simplifying 2006 and 2008.

A push for amnesty wasn’t the reason the GOP base stayed at home in 2006. They lost because the GOP abandoned its conservative principles on spending. Public support for the War in Iraq was also beginning to slip at this time. Finally, it was an off-year election, which almost always favors the party out of power. The left got their act together for a change, and made the GOP pay.

As for 2008, there’s no denying McCain was a dreadful candidate. I’ve posted here many times that I think McCain wasn’t really interested in winning so much as having his place in the history books as the guy who lost to the first black President. Thus, the gloves stayed on and he was the gentlemanly loser the entire campaign.

Still, let’s be honest. The GOP brand was toxic in 2008. It would have been an uphill battle for any Republican candidate to win there. Once the financial meltdown hit, it was all over. The ticket could have been Reagan and Lincoln at that point and they still would have lost in a landslide. Certainly none of the other available GOP candidates would have prevailed in that environment.

crazy-eyed crypt-keeper John McCain.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I guess Anne is back after wandering away from the fold and holding hands with Log Cabin Republicans ( gay RINOs). She has rediscovered alliteration as well.

Nothing like Anne’s truly tipsy triumvirate of tricky treacle for the offended coercive utopians who have proven that Obama is enemy #1 of America.

[Ann Coulter laments the state of the Republican Party in 2013. I wrote the following vanity in 2006, only a couple of days after the catastrophic defeat at the polls in November of that year. The vanity was an attempt to explain what happened to the Republican Party and I think it stands the test of time. Indeed, it anticipates much of the laments of Ann Coulter]:

Similarly, history shows the political parties, after 12 years in power, tend to become arrogant, cynical, and corrupt and that certainly has happened to the Republicans in spades. The voters have just cured the arrogance dimension of this equation but it remains to be seen if the corruption has been rooted out. The "values voters" will tell us in the next election if the Republicans have abandoned their cynicism.

Other reasons are less easily identifiable and more subjective in nature. One goes to the very essence of the character of George Bush. I've long published that he is not a movement conservative, in fact he is not a conservative at all but rather he is a patrician with loyalties to family, friends, and country. His politics are animated not by conservative ideology but by a noblisse oblige which, as a substitute for political philosophy, move him to act from loyalty and love of country. The result of this is that he does not weigh his words and actions against a coherent standard grounded in conservatism, but instinctively reacts to do what is right for family, friends, and country. Thus we get Harriet Meirs, pandering to the Clintons and Kennedys, prescription drug laws, campaign finance laws, runaway spending, and the war in Iraq. The conservative movement is left muddled and confused and the Republican Party undisciplined and leaderless. In these circumstances all manner of mischief is possible beginning with corruption and indiscipline in the ranks. To be effective, a president must be feared as well is loved. A President is more than just Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the nation, he is the titular head of his party and he must rule it. If Bush was willing to pander to the likes of Teddy Kennedy, what did Senator John McCain have to fear from him? Bush has utterly failed in his role as head wrangler of the Republican Party.

Other subjective reasons for the debacle involve Bush's personal character. He is essentially a nonconfrontational man who would rather operate through collegiality than through power. This is reinforced by his Christian belief and he will almost literally turn the other cheek. So, his loyalty to family and friends affects his appointments and produce mediocrities like Brown at FEMA and Ridge at Homeland Security and Harriet Meirs. It makes him shrink from prosecuting the crimes of his enemies even to the point of overlooking real security lapses committed by The New York Times. It makes it very difficult for Bush to discipline his troops and fire incompetent or disloyal subordinates. Instead he soothes them with the Medal of Freedom.

George Bush is a singularly inarticulate man. When he is not delivering a prepared speech, his sincerity and goodness of character come through, but his policies often die an agonizing death along with the syntax. The truth is that Bush has never been able, Ronald Reagan style, to articulate well the three or four fundamental issues which move the times in which we live. One need only cite the bootless efforts to reform Social Security as an example. His inability to tell America why we must fight in Iraq to win the greater worldwide war against terrorism, or how we are even going to win in Iraq, has been fatal to the Republicans' chances in this election. Of course, one can carry this Billy Budd characterization too far and it is easy to overemphasize its importance, but it is part of the general pattern which has led us to this pass. It is a very great pity that the bully pulpit has been squandered in the hands of a man so inarticulate. That the bully pulpit was wasted means that there are no great guiding principles for the country, for the party, for the administration, for Congress to follow, or for the voters to be inspired by. If the voters went into the booth confused about what the Republican Party stands for, the fault is primarily George Bush's.

There are structural problems for the Republicans as well. By the demographic breakdown of the Northeast and the ambitions of senators such as McCain, there was no coherent Republican policy in the Senate. It is in the nature of the Senate that wayward senators are difficult to bring to heel in any circumstance and Bush's inability properly to act as party leader has given Mavericks a green light to commit terrible damage to the Republicans' electoral posture. This demographic trend is destined to get worse and the self survival instincts of what is left of the Republican Party outside of the South will only become more acute and lead to more defections. Other senators, even when not motivated by personal ambition or demographic problems in blue states, felt free to engage in an extravaganza of corrupt spending to benefit their districts and soothe their contributors. There is a regrettable tendency to underemphasize the demographic handicap under which we conservatives struggle. Here is what I posted, before the election:

Perhaps now is not the time but certainly after Santorum is defeated we conservatives must face the reality that the electoral map is shrinking. We are unable to make inroads into the blue states (these New Jersey an anomaly due to parochial corruption) while we remain vulnerable and virtually all of the border states, Tennessee, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland (actually a lost cause). Now even the Old Dominion is threatened. Ohio may be as difficult as Pennsylvania after this cycle.

Demographics will soon turn Florida and Texas away from us and, with the loss of either one of them, conservatism has no hope of putting a president in the White House

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724335/posts?page=17#17

Bush failed to provide leadership on spending. Merely cutting taxes is only one leg of the stool, fiscal discipline must be maintained. Failing to impose party discipline is a grave sin, but Bush magnified it exponentially with the mindless prescription drug entitlement, farm supports, and educational spending. If Bush can have his prescription drug program that nobody wanted, why cannot Senator Stevens in Alaska have his bridge that nobody needed? Bush not only failed to set the proper example in fiscal discipline, he affirmatively set the wrong example of profligacy.

Press bias, says you?. One need only cite the unrelenting hostility of the Washington Post against Senator Allen to demonstrate Republican difficulties in this area. Allen's real opponent was the Washington Post. But this is not new, the Washington Post did the same thing to Ollie North several cycles ago and will do so again whenever it gets the chance. Republicans have been able to overcome this handicap in recent elections, so long as they had an effective affirmative story to tell. In fairness to the Republicans, it is true to say that the hostility of the press has reached even more egregious dimensions as a result of the war in Iraq. The remedy for this is to get a policy and tell your story well. In short, set the agenda, one which the public hears and understands in spite of the media. The classic example of this is Newt Gingrich's brilliant contract with America in 1994 in which he stole the entire agenda right out from under the noses of the drive-by media. I think their visceral hatred of Gingrich has as much to do with this coup as it does with the actual right wing policies contained in the contract with America. If one is not willing to accept the world as it is with all of its media bias then one is ultimately confounded. If one cannot move until press bias is corrected, then one cannot move on until the bias in academia or in immigrant groups is eliminated. The scale will never be balanced and conservatism, too anguished to move, will never find another majority.

While some exit polls say that only 7% of voters regarded immigration as the important issue, I am personally convinced that the percentage is much higher among conservatives and, anyway, the implications for the Republican Party and the conservative cause of unchecked illegal immigration is nothing short of catastrophic. Bush bashing or not, the cold reality is that George Bush has willfully and deliberately failed to to enforce the nation's laws on immigration. Bush has simply got a blind spot here, he wants amnesty and, by God, now he is going to get it because the Democrats are going to give it to him. The only hope for sanity in controlling immigration has died with Republican control of the House. Bush's duty was to enforce existing law against employers who seek unfair competitive advantage by hiring illegals at substandard wages. Now we have upwards of 30 million illegals in America and there is no conservative branch of government that can stop these people getting the vote eventually and, believe me, they will not vote conservative in my lifetime. Bush's stealth legacy to the Republican Party will become apparent as he exits the White House and Republicans remain in minority status for as long as the eye can see. Bush's dereliction in this regard justifies every conservative in turning his face from Bush and many did on election Day.

Lest this become a Bush bashing fest, let us note that Congressmen and Senators are for the most part alpha males (and sometimes bitchy females) who quite rightly should be expected to do the right thing without the fear and admonition of the President. But they did not. The single most appropriate word which identifies the Republican Congress before the election is, "arrogance" - although "greed" must run a very close second. Winston Churchill once said of the Socialist Clement Atley, "he is a very modest man, and he has much to be modest about." Running the gamut from sordid affiliations with K street lobbyists and the Abramoffs of the world, to unseemly earmarks, and continuing all the way to outright venality, the Republicans have much to be more than modest about. The voters have just dealt them their comeuppance and it is long overdue. But elections are blunt instruments for weeding out corruption; the voters wrath, like God's rain, falls on the just and the unjust alike. So honest and incorrupt conservative representatives of the people like Rick Santorum fall with the Cunninghams and the Neys and the Foleys while Democrat Menendez enjoys a pass. While it does not discriminate among Republicans, the voters wrath does discriminate between parties and so their wrath fell disproportionately on Republicans because they are the party in power. This also has been remedied by this election. Finally, in a strange way the voters grim unhappiness with the course of the war in Iraq finds expression in this general repugnance of the corruption and venality and directs it almost exclusively against the Republicans, because they are the party associated with the war. It is human nature to react to an irritant disproportionately when the soul is troubled by larger problems. This identification as the party solely responsible for the war is something the Republicans must remedy in the next two years.

All of these factors so far cited are in themselves not party breakers and could have been managed and mitigated but for the elephant in the room: The war in Iraq. Indeed, the superficially inconsistent results of this election cannot be understood unless one accepts the centrality of the issue of the war in Iraq. It was the fulcrum upon which all else turned. Why did the voters overlook the corruption of Democrats and punish disproportionately Republicans? The war in Iraq. Why did the electorate conclude that the administration has been incompetent in handling hurricane Katrina while resolutely declining to consider other explanations? The war in Iraq. The Democrats and the media contrived to make Katrina a metaphor for Iraq and the people largely bought it because they were uneasy about Iraq but patriotic enough to want victory. So they could resolve their ambivalence by reacting to Katrina. The same analysis applies to the issue of the culture of corruption. Why were conservative issues respectfully treated by the electorate when it came to referenda? Because they were not tainted by the war in Iraq. Why was Lincoln Chafee turned out in Rhode Island even though he was adamantly against the war in Iraq? Because his identification as a member of the party responsible for the war overcame his individual posture. The rabidly antiwar voters in Rhode Island knew that Chafee would be casting his votes for control of the Senate with the Republican war party. Why was Senator Lieberman returned in Connecticut as independent despite his support for the war? I have no explanation except to say this anomaly can be explained in terms of Republican defection into his camp and the extraordinarily high personal appeal and integrity of a man who only two cycles ago was his party's vice presidential nominee. Besides, Lieberman made it clear that he would cast his votes for Senate control with the Democrats-the antiwar party in this election. Why do polls show that the administration and the party have lost the confidence of the people in conducting the overall war against terror? Because the people have concluded that the war in Iraq has been conducted incompetently. Katrina or Iraq, chicken or the egg, it all feeds upon itself.

When an uneasy independent voter drew the curtain in the booth he had to choose, statistically speaking, between a Democrat and a Republican. Uneasy about the war, this voter could resolve this dilemma by rationalizing his choice for the Democrats on other grounds like corruption, or incompetence. When a thinking conservative entered the booth, or more likely considers whether to travel to the polling place at all, he could resolve his logical dilemma by staying home where he would not have to choose between his party and his logic because he could justify that decision out of anger over spending and immigration.

Still, let’s be honest. The GOP brand was toxic in 2008. It would have been an uphill battle for any Republican candidate to win there. Once the financial meltdown hit, it was all over. The ticket could have been Reagan and Lincoln at that point and they still would have lost in a landslide. Certainly none of the other available GOP candidates would have prevailed in that environment.

And I would contend that the Democrats intentionally created that environment. They were running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...and, perforce, knew when they could pull the plug for maximum effect.

They chose their moment well. On September 6, when their failure was announced, my recollection is that McCain led in the polls -- riding the wave of the recently concluded GOP Convention and Palin's selection as VP.

She will never get Romney’s stink off her nose

Hat tip pissant...lol

You would hope the result would be the destruction of the Democrat party.
Problem is the people are like those frogs in water that slowly had the heat turn up till they find they are boiled without a struggle; people shrug their shoulders a lot these days and just try and move on instead of fighting for themselves.
Intimidation IMO of a growing government have many going “What can I do about this” (without ever doing ANYTHING).
Some are saying out there that you would think this is the nail in the coffin for Democrats, but that now instead this will run a probable 35 year course until the people realize there has to be a change from socialized medicine.
Our populations the last thirty years have been brainwashed by leftist in school and for many because of that what is going in is considered NORMAL and JUST.

We have a MAJOR problem that is destroying us from within as Rome once did.

This could be the end of America in all honesty.
We can fight the best we can against this, but maybe or maybe not we are a dying breed. Time alone in short order will tell what is going to be the next path we take in our own path. Do we trust ourselves or do we allow government be huge and our rights far less than they were.

Soon only being a government employee with 200% pay and benefits will be the heights of achievement in this country and that will kill the tax base and our ability to earn as a nation.

In our future IMO:
Riots of all kinds.
Austerity.
Bigger move toward communism.
Lot of dead under this new socialized medicine.
Removal of our guns and a military picked that can shoot it's own people if government tells them to.

Welcome to Amerika!

We screwed up starting 40 years ago not challenging the brainwashing of our kids.
We screwed up a long time ago with the press for not going after their sponsors when they only were leftist Democrat arms giving billions in free press and campaign assistance.

Five years ago I would have thought seeing a post like this was from maybe some nut, but with all that has transpired and taking logic to it's probable conclusion you have to IMO come up with a post like this.

PS: Blame the Republican establishment also along with Ann Coulter for Romney and she also gets the hots politically for Cristy. Where was Ann Coulter? Out writing books to make her money while leading IMO many down the wrong path.
Ann sorry, you are no Levin or Rush regarding your conservatism. You have blown some MAJOR opportunities for yourself in leading us down a right path.

It is easy to tell us what we did wrong after we did wrong. You helped lead the wrong Ann with Romney. That was another keep the vote home candidate that in this case you salivated over.
Like you Ann, but you have screwed some stuff up big time the last half decade or so.

He should take Haslam and Corky with him

Tennessee soon to eliminate death tax....a good thing....no doubt

But they are going to raise F&E taxes to compensate

F&E is basically a .5 percent of business value tax annually

25,000 on a business valued at 5m for say property tax

In addition to property tax which on 5m in Nashville would be 80,000 a year

I’m selling my last big property in Davidson...I’m done

Its quadrupled in property tax bill since 1998

Guess which family has largest death tax pending.....why the Pilot truck stop folks....shocked eh?

PRIMARY ALL RINOS AND ''ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" !

Let's CLEAN OUR OWN HOUSE FIRST !

NO MERCY!
HEADS ON PIKES !

I agree, I never wanted to have Romney but we were all stuck with him and his history kept many people home.

Did Coulter include herself?

Selective memory. Her defense of romneycare and her catty insults to Sarah Palin still stick in my craw, but I never liked her that much in the first place.