Ann Coulter, the so-called conservative firebrand, is now actively writing on behalf of a liberal to be elected President of the United States. For good measure, she is trashing a conservative who threatens to get the Republican nomination. by tom davis
(libertarian)
Saturday, December 10, 2011
"How many martinis does it take to vote for John McCain?" That was the kind of question Ann Coulter was asking last time around, when it became apparent that John McCain was going to beome the Republican nominee for President. Plainly put, Coulter believed that John McCain was such a 'liar' and a 'liberal' that it would take a high level of inebriation for a conservative to pull the lever for him. In other words, Coulter could not stomach McCain, seeing him as a fraud and fake conservative.
Well, this time around, Coulter has found her conservative hero, someone she can really rally the troops around: Mitt Romney! Even though most conservatives are still finding it difficult to imagine voting for someone who was once a proud Massachusettes liberal, this is not true of sister Ann. Most conservatives believe that if you scratch Mitt just a little, under all that Reaganesque makeup you will find just another RINO. And that is why many of them are scratching their own heads at a recent Coulter article in which she outs herself as a Romney supporter.
Her rationale for supporting the suddenly-converted-to-conservatism Romney? Let's run down Ann's list:
1. Only Romney can defeat Obama. Can he, really? What makes you so sure of that, Ann? Do you really believe that an establishment Republican whose governing record and Massachusettes campaign rhetoric were so far-left as to easily be mistaken for his Democrat opponent can make a serious case that voters should boot the Black Man out of the White House for him? When Romney ran against Ted Kennedy, one was left wondering which of the two was more liberal, statist and socialist. And that was Mitt's purpose, after all, he was running in Massachusettes. Yet now we are supposed to believe that this same man is 'The One' to carry the torch for small-government conservatism against the socialist Obama? The man who once ran on the platform of "Hey, I'm nearly as liberal as Teddy Kennedy, maybe even more so! Try me!" is now the obvious choice to run against Obama, who was once known as the most liberal man in the U.S. Senate? It is entirely possible that, in the Year of Our Lord 2005, the two most liberal-statist major politicians with Presidential aspirations in the United States were Williard Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama. But conservatives should shut their mouths and fall in line behind Mitt because Ann says so? Forget about how well McCain did in the national election--you do remember McCain, the last RINO who ran against Obama?
2. Everyone knows that Romney is the inevitable nominee. Well, not everyone knows it. Perhaps Ann Coulter and a few scattered lizard-neocons at The Weekly Standard or National Review 'know' it, but the average conservative is far from 'knowing' it. So far are conservatives from acknowledging Mitt as the eventual nominee, they have been willing to give any and every other alternative candidate a serious look, including a brain-dead Texas Governor who cheered for both Hillary and Gore, a pizza salesman/Federal Reserve employee who wanted to bless us with a National Sales Tax, and a former congressman/serial monogamist who tried to gut Paul Ryan like a fish, pushes global warming theories and has come out for de facto amnesty. Of course, in fairness to Gingrich, he stood squarely against million-dollar bonuses for Freddie Mac employees, right up to the moment he became one of them!
3. Romney is now a genuine, bonafide pro-life, pro-gun, small-government conservative...and he really means it this time! Ann, how many martinis did you have before you wrote your pro-Romney piece? Willard Mitt's sudden conversion from far-left, big-government, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-everything-liberal statism to a staunch conservatism, according to Coulter, is not to be doubted. Any more, I guess than, say, Mike Tyson's jailhouse conversion to Christianity in the baptismal arms of the Reverend Jessie Jackson.
4. Romney is certain to overturn Obamacare...no, really, he really means it this time! Although Mitt authored and pushed through, over the objections of the few real conservatives left in Massachusettes, a similar version of socialized medical care in Massachusettes, he is heading to D.C. to utterly eradicate a socialiized medicine plan based on the very one that he himself created! And Ann Coulter is incredulous that anyone could dare doubt Mitt's sincere opposition to Obamacare? So what if John McCain's buddy Ted Kennedy was on hand to praise and be praised by Mitt when he signed Romneycare into law. That doesn't mean a thing. (Mitt was just pretending to praise Ted--wink, wink) Mitt is certain to overturn Obamacare...because he promised to do so on television! Besides, Romneycare can't be all that bad, says Ann: conservatives like The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich supported it.
5. Mitt almost defeated Ted Kennedy in Massachusettes, and he did it by 'tricking' people into voting for him. Yes Ann, Mitt tricked people into voting for him, but he tricked them by pretending to be at least as' if not more liberal than ole' Teddy. Or was it really a trick? And if Mitt is so tricksey, maybe he's tricking you, Miss Coulter, by pretending to be a sudden-conservative. Mitt, were you lying then or are you lying now? Actual conservatives would like to know.
6. Like his 'former' liberalism, Romney's current practice of Mormonism is not enough to damage him. Well, though there is no constitutional religious test for presidential candidates, Ann goes too far in implying that his practive of Mormonism won't be very damaging to Romney. For one thing, consider the deathly chill that has and will continue to overcome the Republican evangelical's concerning Romney's mormonism. Many, especially in the South, have declared that they will simply stay home before they vote for a Mormon. Coulter is betting that the evangelical dislike of Obama will outweigh their repulsion at Mormonism and force them to vote for Mitt, but that is an iffy bet at best, a foolish miscalculation at worst. For most of its history, Mormonism taught that black people were on the same level as Satan's spawn. Considering that the Republican nominee must run against a man celebrated as a black hero second only, perhaps, to Martin Luther King, this is something would-be Romney supporters should consider.
To Ann Coulter and all other conservatives and independents, I would suggest taking another look at Texas Congressman Ron Paul. He is now claiming to be what his record shows that he has always been, a liberty loving, constitutional conservative. And, before you mention foreign policy, think of fiscal policy. Considering that the debt the nation now labors under is of a size that could actually bring us to our knees, Dr. Paul's mind-our-own-businss foreign policy enjoys the advantage of being much less expensive than the alternative military adventurism.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of tom davis only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
tom davis is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
