Posted on 03/05/2007 8:37:49 AM PST by areafiftyone
An unfortunate video tape (who took it, we wonder?) surfaces. But Romney's campaign quickly condemned Coulter's remarks, and we're fairly certain that Coulter, when she appears on television later today, will criticize Romney for caving to pressure.
Video Link is here CLICK
From what I could hear..... it sounded and looked like Ann thought she was who they wanted in the photo, but they really wanted Romney and his wife, and Ann, said something to him about his abortion stance....... really a lot to do about nothing........... imho.
The video doesn't seem very incriminating, and only shows them visiting and chatting together while photos are being staged of them together and separately.
Just because Romney criticized her "joke" doesn't mean he can't be friendly to her in private. That's just the way it's done.
I'm surprised nobody has yet linked to the video shot by Blumenthal from The Nation behind the scenes of CPAC. He questioned Coulter about having "three broken engagements" while supporting the sanctity of marriage. She rightly cited her right to privacy in refusing to respond to such personal questions.
Silly.
That is was used as calumny by liberals..
The footage taken by a "conservative"(RINO)..
It's sad that a worthless wuss such as yourself hails from the great state of Miss.
Declared victim-status for himself in 32.
"You again, Brown Shirt?"
Brown Shirts were part of the German Socialist movement of the 1930's under Adolf Hitler.
So to refer to me as a Socialist does in fact indicate that you no dobt are part of the group that states that Conservatives are Fasicts.
Hello troll.
I love Ann, but she might have done us a favor here.
that's her neck bone - maybe her throat; the neck bone is in the back.
"Coulter said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I — so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."
Well now, she did not call Edwards a faggot!
Nah. Hunter is about as PC as a stump of wood. He'd welcome her support.
Being at C-PAC and talking to some people, I got a different sense: people want someone who will FIGHT and DEFEAT liberals---on SOME issues on the conservative agenda. So if, say, Rudy would take libs on over the Patriot Act/WoT/taxes and FIGHT, that would be sufficient, or if Mitt (as he promised) would veto spending and cut government and relish it, that would wash too.
People that I spoke to were hungry for someone who would FIGHT, not adopt a "new tone," not cooperate. That's why I said I thought Rudy's speech was mediocre. He had a lot of chances to "buff up" and whiffed. Mitt's talk was better, but still not hitting all the right notes.
Keep your eye on this dynamic, but from my perspective, it is this "issue" and no other traditionally "conservative" issue that is defining the nomination.
Okay maybe it is just me, but I couldn't understand a thing either one of them was saying. So unless I was just supposed to see that Mitt is a nice guy, and him and Ann were having a pleasant conversation I'm stumped.
I did hear someone say maam no media allowed back here, but the tape kept rolling.
Well, if Hunter can't get traction, and I believe he very much will, I'll look at Romney closely. But from where I stand, Rudy, despite his good points, and his ability to get independents, will destroy the long term viability of the party, in Schwarzneggerian fashion. I don't beleive these early polls will pan out for him.
McCain is unstable and will see even bigger defections in terms of those conservatives not voting for him.
We are in a tight spot. It dismays me to know end that so many in the conservative press are treating the big three as inevitable. Why don't the ball less wonders at National Review or the Weekly Standard pick a proven conservative like Hunter and run him up the flagpole?
I saw Tyrrell of The American Spectator hanging with Rudy's people, too. Again, I think it comes down to this issue of wanting to not only win an election, but to DEFEAT these people on some issues---ANY issues. The "new tone" has damaged us very badly and has been the most demoralizing thing in the world for party politics. I think that is what the "ball less" wonders are seeing---a chance to go with some people who have taken on the libs on SOME issues and beaten them. Honestly, the real problem with Hunter and Brownback is that as congressman and senator, they've never been in a position to do that, so there is no track record of being able . . . and WILLING . . . to defeat these people when in a position of power.
I agree. Like him or not, like her or not, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being polite. I don't see how anyone can make any more of it.
HUnter is better on the issues, but at the moment Romney is better as a leader.
I had to turn it up the volume, but they do say some interesting stuff. It could get Mitt in trouble. I think he said something about John...was that John Edwards? Yikes! Not again.
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.