Ann Coulter Is Full Of It

The leaders of the Big Government Republican establishment are beginning to get desperate. They are finally starting to grasp that the limited government constitutional conservatives of the Tea Party movement and other liberty-minded voters now understand that the first, and most important, fights in the battle to restore America are the Republican primary elections.

In a desperate effort to hold on to power they have begun to deploy one of their oldest tactics in the 100-year civil war in the Republican Party – calls for Party unity to back Big Government Republican incumbents who have betrayed conservative principles and are rightly facing primary challenges.

Conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter whose incisive critiques of liberal policy follies and witty jibes at liberals and Democrats in general, make conservatism interesting and entertaining is only the latest in a long line of “conservatives” to get suckered into the idea that keeping establishment Republicans in power somehow advances the goal of governing America according to conservative principles.

"Of course, I love the Tea Party," Coulter said to Sean Hannity, but she limited the Tea Party movement to people in the "heart of America" who want to see change. She said Tea Party groups such as the Senate Conservatives Fund are just trying to bilk donors.

In other words, now that the Tea Party movement has grown politically sophisticated enough to adopt the tools that the establishment uses to stay in power, such as PACs, and the Senate Conservatives Fund PAC is being effective against incumbent Big Government establishment Republicans, Coulter wants to disarm the opposition.

“If it weren’t for shysters running against establishment Republicans we would have 51 Republicans senators right now,” Coulter told Sean Hannity referring to the 2012 blow-ups of the Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock Senate campaigns.

Coulter’s comment shows just what a deep draught of the establishment Kool-Aid she has taken and is indicative of how the Big Government Republican establishment is desperately trying to rewrite history to advance the idea that only establishment candidates can win and that conservatives should “unite” behind Republican candidates who have records of betraying conservative principles.

Akin and Mourdock weren’t first time rookie candidates; they were experienced Republican politicians with many campaigns under their belts.

What’s more the comments that blew up their campaigns had nothing to do with the Tea Party’s limited government constitutional conservative agenda. They got suckered by the Democrats’ “war on women” strategy, put their foot in their mouth, were quickly abandoned by the GOP establishment despite conservative calls for Party unity, and consequently got beat.

As our friend Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth put it so well, “the question isn’t why Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost — we know why they lost,” said Chocola. “The question is really why did Heather Wilson in New Mexico, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Denny Rehberg in Montana, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, George Allen in Virginia and Linda Lingle in Hawaii — why did they lose?”

We could add Mitt Romney nationally and Connie Mack in Florida to Chocola’s list, but you get the point.

The fact of the matter is that of the three Republican Senate victories in 2012; Nebraska’s Deb Fischer, Arizona’s Jeff Flake and Texas’ Ted Cruz all ran as Tea Party-oriented or anti-establishment candidates.

There’s no evidence that running as a principled limited government constitutional conservative automatically made a candidate “unelectable” in 2012 and a whole lot of evidence that running as a Bush-type establishment Republican did make one “unelectable,” because despite the millions Karl Rove and his establishment Republican funders spent on them they all lost.

Tit-for-tat is a poor reason to do anything, so we will forego the opportunity to explore where exactly were the establishment calls for Republican Party unity in campaigns where the conservative won the primary, such as the Goldwater, Reagan and Cuccinelli campaigns, when the Republican establishment did everything they could to undermine the conservative candidate after the primary.

Calls for Republican “unity” and a free pass in the primary for incumbent establishment Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Pat Roberts and Thad Cochran will only accomplish one thing; keeping ineffective and unprincipled establishment Republicans in power. And anyone, including our friend Ann Coulter, who thinks that advances the cause of conservative governance is full of it.

....and is indicative of how the Big Government Republican establishment is desperately trying to rewrite history to advance the idea that only establishment candidates can win and that conservatives should “unite” behind Republican candidates who have records of betraying conservative principles.

We have heard, and seen this dreck of "electability" and how we should support so-and-so because even if they are practically Democrat Liberals, they are "more electable" than a candidate with better positions on the issues--for years.

No one wants to be on the underdog team, everyone wants to be a "winner", and as a result, people who profess "Conservatism" bail for the GOPe candidate ("the lesser evil") and the chips fall where they may.

Once again, Conservatives get screwed and the ship of state takes another tack to port.

Then, if the GOPe candidate loses we are told it is the fault of the people who would stand on principle for not getting behind the cryptoliberal and supporting them wholeheartedly, even to the point of hearing the spew that a vote for so-and-so (losing conservative third party candidate) is a vote for the uberliberal.

What if, despite Party backing, the TEA party backed candidate succeeds in winning the primary?

They get only enough support from the GOP to let the GOP make claims of support, not the critical funding they need to combat the far better funded Democrat candidates, because the Democrats will dump money into races, even in places like North Dakota. (I received on average a slick Heitkamp ad in the mail daily in the runup to the general). Berg was left hanging by the GOP--another reason the RNC can KMA.

But you have indicated the problem with a RINO. Once in, they have to be primaried out, against the full support of the GOP-e, and if people keep voting for the 50% Democrat (name recognition, incumbent advantages, track record--sanitized, of course) you are going to have 50% Democrat around for a long, long time.

Otherwise, the problem occurs when the RINO gets primaried, and the GOP-e throws the race so they can get their 50% Democrat in the next time.

Some support is forthcoming, but the long-term gambit is to have the 'outsider' candidate fail as an object lesson to follow their lead and not oppose the establishment by voting for 'upstarts', so what support that does come is woefully inadequate. In the meantime, smelling the blood in the electoral waters, the Dems go full-court press in the race and overwhelm the airwaves and other media with ads.

The GOP-e takes Conservatives for granted, or we wouldn't have been consistently treated this way for ages.

They count on Conservatives voting for the lesser evil--with the net effect that evil prevails anyway, it just takes a little longer to be implemented.

Granted, we are in precarious times, but we got here by voting for lesser evils.

It may be too late to take a stand, but it must be done.

you came out of nowhere and started this (and the chippiness) for no particularly good reason.

I didn't come out of nowhere, Lake. I read here, just like you, and freely comment upon the opinions of others - just like you.

As for 'chippiness', I don't think I was unduly disrespectful or harsh in my first post to you. I do consider you a friend after all, albeit one I don't always agree with.

My original post, to the originator of the thread, simply acknowledged a quote from Glenn Reynolds, that both sides of the GOP debate need to take a deep breath if they hope to take out the dems in 2014.

Fair enough, and my response to that, is that the Tea Party side has the right instincts. We understand (or at least sense) that we're at war with an enemy that has two faces. One Dem - one Repub. At the end of the day, they're both undermining the foundations of the republic, and work in concert to increase their own wealth and power at the expense of all concerned.

The TP and the GOP-e aren't going to unite to beat the Dems, because the GOP-e are not who they claim to be. They're the (nominal) right wing of the Uniparty, and hate us as much or more than their friends, the Dems do. They have no interest whatsoever in beating the Dems. They have a power sharing agreement with them that supersedes the public's understanding of national politics. As long as they get a turn at bat once in a while, they're quite happy to keep ratcheting the country to the left.

Assuming that we can work with these people is downright foolish. They're traitors of the worst sort, and are doing everything they can to push the country into a one party system. Labels mean nothing at this point, because the GOP no longer believes in its own platform. They're as much a big government Socialist party as the Dems are. They're just more covert about it.

Until we come to grips with the true nature and state of American politics, we're just going to continue to expend a lot of wasted effort and motion pushing against the wrong targets.

I agree the bureaucratic state is a major problem, but how do you propose eliminating or reducing it if we cannot at least attempt to build majority coalitions? Unless I’m mistaken, conservatives by themselves do not have enough voters to take over veto proof majorities, and that’s what we would need in the face of an Obama administration.

So, we have to compromise—I know, there’s the dreaded word—because that is the only way of (maybe) changing things. We won’t eliminate the Department of Education for example, but I’d gladly settle for cutting it in the short term. BTW, we don’t even have the political power to accomplish that, so I think it’s a bit unrealistic to think a massive wave of conservatives is going to appear and suddenly change everything. If that happened, I’d be thrilled, but I think it’s very unlikely.

And for those who still think a third party is the only solution, if we can’t even produce enough voters to reform the GOP, how in the world are we supposed to create this magic third party that will suddenly win veto proof majorities and the presidency? There’s nothing wrong with dreaming, but let’s keep the fantasies separate from reality.

Getting up and walking away from the table absolutely, positively ensures they win. What’s so difficult to understand about that? I daresay a good number of people are so fed up with politics in general that they have done exactly that—sat out elections. What good does that accomplish? It just ensures the Democrats and RINOs win.

That is why our best hope of success is to reform the GOP from within. It really is a matter of votes. Correct me if I’m wrong, but whoever shows up in sufficient numbers on the local level controls the party. Unfortunately, there’s not much I can do in my solidly red state to fix the GOP in all the purple and blue states. It’s going to take conservatives in those states to get active, fight it out in the trenches, and hopefully stop electing the likes of McCain.

Your argument about incumbents applies to Democrats, too. I KNOW it’s infuriating when the likes of McCain thumbs his nose at us, but McCain still votes with us on occasion. If you put a Democrat in his seat, that Democrat will vote against us nearly 100% of the time AND be nearly impossible, due to incumbency, to remove from office.

This is why we have to remove RINOs like McCain in the primaries. If, however, they survive, we have to vote for the lesser of the two evils, because that is the only way to achieve any hope of getting our way at least part of the time.

Again, I say open up a can of whoopass on these RINOs in the primaries. Make them earn their seats! Elect conservatives where possible and compromise with moderates when necessary to so long as we’re moving the country to the right. You have zero chance at changing anything if you can’t build enough political power, and I submit that requires some compromise and coalition building.

Again, I say open up a can of whoopass on these RINOs in the primaries. Make them earn their seats!

I agree, but here's the catch:

Don't expect any worthwhile or overwhelming support from the Party establishment.

You see, the Party has been morphing to the Left for a while. There's fun, security, consensus and profit to be found there for those who want to play along. Intruders who might mess up the fun and profit of Federal Level Politics aren't welcome. They remind the public what the rest of the Congress should be doing, they mention that dusty artifact called a Constitution, they act as the inconvenient conscience and every now and then, when it suits TPTB, give the media fodder to use against the establishment GOP types who fall flat on their collective keester when it comes to fulfilling the promises they made to their electorate.

They bring up the incovenient truth that We, the People, sent them to Washington to do a job, that they work for us, that they should be looking out for our interests instead of diddling staffers and padding their portfolios with insider trades and inside knowledge of how what rule or regulation will enhance the value of one company while causing another's stock to tank.

Why, d@mn! Those upstarts might even return the idea the the Right Honorable Members should even have some Honor!!

So the GOP-e gives just enough support to say "That's My Boy!" should the candidate prevail, and just enough to say they supported that candidate, but really the world isn't ready for such old fashioned notions (you should have stuck with the lesser evil).

SO one way, they claim the credit, the other, they shirk the blame and turn it on the Americans who want a return to smaller, less intrusive (and by virtue of that, less expensive) government, rationally applied within the original intent of the Constitution.

We first must win the war of public opinion, to overcome both the GOP-e and Democrat attacks on the TEA party candidates, and at the same time police our ranks to keep those who would co-opt the entire movement for their own political gain.

We have to have the backers at the grassroots level--enough to compensate for the heavy hitters who will have skin in the status quo game, and be able to reach the ordinary working (or wishes they were working) person.

With all the crap flying out there, that is a tough battle, but one I think can be won. It won't be easy, it won't happen overnight, but it won't happen by strengthening our adversaries on either side of the aisle.

Friend, when the entirety of the political process has been subverted and debased into little more than a deceitful charade, then you've got to recognize that the game is not what it appears to be, and that you have to seek other means to secure the blessings of liberty and happiness.

I'm all for continuing to participate in the political process as a voter, but only so far as I can support those who understand the dire condition our country is in. I will not support those who are part of the ruling class oligarchy, or those who seem likely to join that class after being elected.

I feel there's still a slim chance that we can avoid taking our resistance to a more serious level, by electing true patriots and conservatives to elected office, but there's only so much these people can do to turn the ship of state around in the short term. It's going to take many more election cycles to make real changes in the colossal leviathan of our federal government. It may not even be something we can accomplish through the political process alone.

What I'm trying to say here, is that we've nearly exhausted what we can accomplish through our established civil mechanisms. Mostly, that's because of the aforementioned subversion and debasement of the basic system. When those in control of the system have rigged it to thwart the people's will at every turn, then it's time to seek other remedies. That time is almost upon us.

Windflier, your posts are, as always, right on the money. I have been battling GOPe apologists on many threads.

Never again will I vote for the lesser of two evils.

In Beohner's case I would advocate voting for a RAT other that traitor. Boehner must go at any cost. The arrogant elite GOPe apologists have been taking us for fools since Reagan.

citzenUSA, please mark the following: In all the primaries where Tea Party members defeat RINOs I guarantee that the likes of Karl, the evil Rove, will go all out to sabotage them. The evil GOPe will withhold money and also work to destroy the Tea Party chances.

Question for you citzenUSA: Will you then realize the RINO class should be flushed by any political means?????

I will bookmark this thread for Fall review.

I have been battling GOPe apologists on many threads.

Same here. I suppose we could consider ourselves and those who think like us to be the Free Republic Tea Party. There's no doubt that we're having to fight the establishment here, just as patriot orgs and individuals are doing in the real world.

As in the real world, nothing brings them out of the woodwork like an important election season. I only hope that our arguments are helping casual observers to see the fallacies in the apologist's pleas for 'party unity', etc.

Never again will I vote for the lesser of two evils.

In Beohner's case I would advocate voting for a RAT other that traitor. Boehner must go at any cost. The arrogant elite GOPe apologists have been taking us for fools since Reagan.

I've often said that if conservatives had stood firm after Reagan, and had consistenly refused to vote for the lesser of two evils, we wouldn't be in our present predicament. Yes, we would have lost some elections badly, but the GOP would have righted itself, and gotten back on script a long time ago.

Instead, most conservatives rewarded those who'd compromised all principles by voting them into office. This, because of misplaced faith in those politicians' party affiliation, and a misguided belief that they would be far superior to any Democrat.

A quick review of Mitt Romney's record as Republican Governor of Massachusetts lays that theory to rest.

It's a fact of life that you get more of those things which you reward. In our case, the more we've voted for RINOs, the more the GOP has served them up for us to vote for. It's we who have aided, abetted, and encouraged them to forsake their principles, and to ally themselves with the very traitors we sent them to Washington to vanquish.

I ask, should we continue to do the same things, expecting different results? I don't think it takes an Einstein to correctly answer that question.

Let's just say you started a little bit confrontational. I consider myself a Reagan conservative and a Tea Partier to the marrow, so I don't understand where you are going with this.

I abhor the purist 2%ers here as much as the GOPe, each of those extremes are total losers in my book. Pissant was as much a fool as McConnel. Ron Paul is as bizarre as Boehner, and the forum is filled with lots of these different kinds of 2%ers, so many with such ridiculous differences that are hard to count. Perhaps that's where we disagree and what has you so riled, but suffice it to say I don't understand what it was you think I was saying that you disagreed with.

I consider myself a Reagan conservative and a Tea Partier to the marrow, so I don't understand where you are going with this. I abhor the purist 2%ers here as much as the GOPe

I'm surprised that you're in mystery about where I'm coming from, Lake. You and I have tangled on this very subject multiple times.

You call yourself a Reagan conservative and Tea Partier, yet in the next breath you condemn the "purist 2%ers". Just who do you think the 'purists' are, if not the Reagan conservatives and Tea Partiers? They surely aren't in the squishy moderate middle, or the liberal GOP-e side.

If you're happy with working toward some sort of compromise between the warring factions of the Republican right, in order to 'win' elections, then perhaps you haven't yet discovered what camp you truly belong to. I would suggest that it's not with the Tea Party, who are those 'purists' you so despise.

I don't doubt that you sincerely believe in and accept Reagan conservatism, but understand that you're stumping for a moderate position here, by condemning those who will not compromise their principles to 'win' elections by voting RINO.

And just for your information, the 'purists' aren't a mere 2%. If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because they wouldn't be a blip on anyone's radar.

From my post:

That's who I called the "purists". If you're part of them now, so be it. For you to claim to side with pissant and his ilk is disturbing at best.

Best of luck to you with your new crowd.

Lake, none of us posts in a vacuum here. You’re squarely on record condemning those who refused to vote for Romney in the last election as. Those are the people you’re actually referring to as the “purist 2%ers” - not the true 2% fringe on the right.

While I’m at it, let me point out that your term, “purist 2%ers”, is an oxymoron. The actual 2% fringe doesn’t believe in Reagan conservatism and isn’t ‘purist’ in any way. For the most part, they’re liberaltarians who could reasonably be mistaken for Democrats.

‘Purists’, on the other hand, are precisely those who stand firmly on their core conservative principles - not just on message boards - but in real life, and at the voting booth.

The ‘purists’ and the 2% couldn’t be further apart.

Although you just insulted me by implying that I stand with the liberaltarian 2%, I won’t demean you with the same. I will gladly accept the title, ‘purist’, though.

I have no problem condemning those who left the totalitarian Marxist in office. Those people might be some of the dumbest on the planet, almost as dumb as the occupiers. They would likely be muttering about how the two are the same until they died a slow death in some gulag.

My reference to the 2%ers includes them, yes. And all of them on this board who claim to be proud to have left this destructive totalitarian regime in office can stick it where the sun don't shine. And all of them claim "purity" too, just like the Paulists, and the pissants, and the Rabadash circle jerkers. All of them.

Cruz, Palin, JR and every other sane conservative knew the difference, as Reagan would have. They (2%ers), unfortunately are too stupid to have a clue.

Like I said...IF.....you want to throw your lot in with them, go ahead.

You’ve apparently cast your lot with those who would forsake the principles they swear by to give their votes to politicians who (but for the R velcroed on their sleeve) are indistinguishable from liberal Democrats.

Lake, we’ll never win anything but pyrrhic victories by voting RINO. A liberal is a liberal, is a liberal, no matter what party banner they fly under. And liberals are going to do what liberals do, once elected.

The ‘lesser of two evils’ is still an evil, and should not be condoned or supported by any person of good conscience. By choosing to support the lesser evil out of fear of a greater evil, you automatically become complicit in whatever crimes and betrayals the lesser evil commits. Thus dies personal integrity.

And what if you choose to abstain from supporting either evil? No matter what course of events transpires, you know in your heart that it wasn’t you who brought the country to that ugly place. It was all those people who failed to stand and loudly reject both evils. Those people willingly voted for the horror, when they should have tarred and feathered all of the bastards, instead.

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.