Posted on 01/26/2012 5:00:02 AM PST by Jerrybob
What's with these talking heads, Ann Coulter especially, and their vitriol against Newt? I've always liked Ann, she is SO conservative; now she's pitching for Romney and slamming -- really slamming -- Newt. I don't get it.
This primary season is bringing out the crazy in lots of folks-—or maybe their real selves. Coulter was on Beck’s show yesterday. They were discussing the Newt supporters at debates who cheer for him and chant “USA”. They agreed that those people are nothing but a mob, and straight out of her book Demonic.
Think about that for a moment. Chanting “USA” makes one a member of a demon-inspired mob.
Yes, by every male on the planet. 8~D
Well, I remember a few years ago on this very site, a good number of FREEPERS were volunteering to be her husband!!
I find it hard to believe that those two would be single issue voters but then again, you could be right.
It's not really that difficult to understand if you connect the dots.
Just for further info..view this vid of Romney's five sons..
Coulter became a darling of conservatives during the Clinton scandals leading to impeachment.
She and Drudge delivered a brilliant one-two punch to Clinton on Drudge’s Sunday night radio show and short lived TV show.
Ann is being consistent in holding Gingrich to the same standards to which she held Clinton and has found Gingrich lacking.
By hitching their wagons to Gingrich, conservatives do give up the high ground on issues relating to marital fidelity and trust (not even getting into the Fannie Mae and ethics stuff) and whether foibles in those areas DO impact eligibility to hold high office.
The mantra of Democrats during the Clinton scandals was “we don’t care what he did in his private life as long as he pushes for the issues important to us.”
That’s pretty much become the mantra of Gingrich supporters. I hope his supporters realize the box they’re putting themselves into.
“She does not have enough body fat to properly use the female hormone estrogen. This hormonal imbalance makes an otherwise normal female go crazy. This uncontrolled behavior is called an estrogen avalanche. It can become a VERY dangerous situation for any man within 50 feet of subject female. OK ladies....let me have it! :-)”
You’re not going to get it from me, LOL. I always said a woman with stick legs like Ann should never wear miniskirts, so your theory sounds plausible!
“Mitt is no sweetie. He is a Mormon, and apparently will say whatever is politically expedient, which makes me think he is carrying out Mormon objectives, so where he will land on any particular conservative issue cannot be fully known... and that, as disquieting as it is does not disqualify him.”
It might disqualify him on religious grounds for some. But what disqualifies him for all conservatives (or should) is the undeniable fact that he is a liberal.
We have got to tone down the rhetoric among Conservatives, aimed at other Republicans--Reagan's 11th Commandment--so that we can come together at some point, this year, against the common enemy of all traditional Americans. Now, your attack on Gingrich with respect to his personal life, makes the same mistake that he, himself, made in 1998, while still in Congress, by focusing on Clinton's personal life, in the impeachment hearings, rather than on his Abuse Of Power.
The approach showed the wrong emphasis, and it clearly backfired, making Clinton seem a sympathetic victim of overly zealous & judgmental people, trying to dictate private conduct. The focus should have been on his attack, as President, on the moral values of the people, as in his trying to change the military to reflect his personal assexual agenda. (What Clinton did as a consensual adult was trivial compared to what he was trying to do to America.)
We need to focus the fire, today, on Obama & the Obamination, not join personal vendettas against any of the Republican candidates. (That does not mean that we cannot express our disagreements with those candidates, just try to keep them as civil as possible. Public stands are always relevant. Unless you have walked in another person's shoes, their private lives should be respected as just that, "private.")
William Flax
Personally I don't think any of them have much of a chance of beating the big O. Not unless something really extraordinary turns up.
I really think the only thing most people are looking at is: who can beat Obama? ...Ann and the others are convinced Newt is bad news ....Its as simple as that
I dont know who is right
Yup. I suppose it waxes and wanes, I’ve been around awhile, it seems worse lately, but maybe I’m just getting less tolerant in my old age.
I think it’s important for FReepers to remember we live in an echo chamber here. If they actually go out into the rest of the world and see what other people think they will realize that a lot of Americans (who will probably vote) still think Obama is cool. They aren’t overly political, they haven’t paid a lot of attention, and they will believe whatever the MSM and Hollywood and culture feeds them. I’m not as hopeful that it’s a shoe-in as some are that the next election will be ours for the taking.
Thanks for responding respectfully.
I don’t think I am shifting focus. Clinton’s serial adultery was well known BEFORE he was elected President. It was known and considered by enough people to be a non-issue that he was elected anyway (with a lot of help from the Perot candidacy).
Clinton did not change his spots after being elected. He continued to sport them while in the White House. He besmirched the office (both literally and figuratively) in a way that will be remembered with ignominy for generations.
Now one can get into gray areas about what was nobler, continuing to stay married while catting about, or divorcing and remarrying (after catting about anyhow). Or that Gingrich hasn’t been accused of sexual harassment or rape (but the election is still young). But getting away from black and white makes people’s eyes glaze over.
Or one can make the argument that lying under oath was the sole objection to Clinton’s behavior - not his catting. If one has been entirely consistent in that viewpoint for the past two decades, then one is to be commended for being consistent. But if one’s standards are different for the presidential candidate Bill Clinton and the presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, then that is not commendable, IMO.
The nation was forewarned about Clinton and they have been forewarned about Gingrich. They’ll choose to accept what they want and ignore what they want. But no one can plead ignorance.
Personally, I think Clinton’s moral behavior while President should alone have been sufficient grounds for impeachment. That type of chicanery would never have been tolerated even a couple of generations ago. But apparently now we are truly enlightened, so it’s no big deal. And my viewpoint on the issue is clearly one of a small minority.
The gay sex agenda. She’s hooked into GOP proud - the loggers.
Mittens loves the gays sexually grooming children in the schools so they won’t be “haters” and reject the Sandusky sex.
I think someone else said it on a different article, Coulter is in menopause and it can cause an emotional turmoil in some women. Never did buy any of her books and she was on Red Eye the other night and all she did was giggle through out the program and its quite a annoying giggle...
What’s with AC? Come on, Jerrybob, it ain’t algebra. 2+2=4.
...and then you will probably be crucified fro your trouble.
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.