30 December 2011

Ann Coulter, Owned by the GOP

How else to explain this putrid mess being passed off as political analysis:
That leaves us with Romney and Bachmann as the candidates with the strongest, most conservative positions on illegal immigration. As wonderful as Michele Bachmann is, 2012 isn't the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.
Two Little Indians sitting in the sun; one was just a congresswoman and then there was one.
Mitt Romney?!  Is she serious?

No conservatives like Mitt Romney.  Not one.  He’s a greasy northeastern “conservative” with a remarkably liberal political background.  He’s Kerry-esque in his flip-flopping, and his record is no reassurance for his political promise.

The only people who like Romney are the party bosses.  Since Ann Coulter has endorsed Romney, I think it’s fair to conclude that she’s been bought out by the GOP.

7 comments:

  1. SG,

    I have to agree with you. As a Tea Partier, I HATE Romney! I don't know of any Tea Partier who really likes Romney. I abhor, loathe, hate, and DESPISE the man! As far as I'm concerned, he's 'Obama Lite', nothing more. If Romney runs, I'll stay at home; I won't have a real choice, so why bother voting?

    When you look at his 'Romney Care' plan, it's not much different than 'Obama Care'; in fact, three of Romney's people went to the White House to help Obama's staff craft Obama Care! I'm supposed to believe that this slippery, slithery snake is any different than the Communist in Chief, save for skin color?! Come on!

    When you look at his voting and track records (e.g. he believes in climate change and favors cap & trade), he's really not that much different than Obama when it comes to core beliefs. For Tea Partiers, he's just another big gov't, statist RINO Republican who might as well be a Democrat.

    The man I really liked was Herman Cain. I thought the man had good ideas. He had his act together; he had a plan and vision of where he wanted to take America, a vision many of us Tea Partiers bought into. If he'd stayed in the race, I was ready to volunteer for his campaign! He's the only man who made think & feel I was voting FOR him vs. voting against Obama. Unfortunately, both the Democrat and Republican establishments disliked him for obvious reasons, so they smeared him and took him out in a vicious, dirty way.

    If you go to the newsroom of his site and scroll about 1/2-2/3 the way down, you'll see two good articles on the women who accused him sexual harassment. For example, did you know that it was Ginger White who'd made 61 calls & texts to Mr. Cain? You never heard THAT in the national media! When that is considered, it looks more like she's a psycho stalker, rather than Mr. Cain being a lecherous predator. Oh, there's something else to consider: 1) both articles were written by women; 2) one was written by Ann Coulter not too long ago! Methinks there's something to your theory that the GOP got to Ann Coulter, because she was singing a very different tune not to long ago...

    Yeah, I cannot get excited about a Mitt Romney candidacy. If he's the candidate, I WILL sit out the election! Why vote when there's no real, substantive choice to be made? Why vote when, at the end of the day, I'll get the same thing either way? Yeah, Mr. Romney is just another slippery, slithering RINO who may as well be a Democrat.

    MarkyMark

    ReplyDelete
  2. @MarkyMark- I was never fond of Cain, but I have always found Romney to be a repulsive candidate. I have no idea what the GOP leaders are thinking, or how they expect Romney to win when the party base is either doesn't care or actively hates him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. SG,

    I think that the GOP leadership differs from the GOP membership; I think that the membership is more conservative, while the leadership is more liberal. I think that the GOP leadership has been in DC too long, and is too accustomed to being part of the 'ruling class'.

    They want to remain PART of this ruling class, so they'll do what they have to do to get along with the Democrats. The Democrats and the media (really the same thing, since the media boasts of 85% of its employees being registered Democrats) are the top of the totem pole in DC, while the GOP establishment has always played second fiddle. That is to say, in order to remain part of the ruling class, the GOP sucks up to the Democrats and the national media; that entails BEHAVING LIKE Democrats in terms of voting, policies, etc.

    My uncle has a theory that the Democrat and GOP leadership are really on the same page; he believes that they're really one party pretending to be two. My uncle believes that the leadership of the two parties have a gentleman's agreement as to who will rule, and when. Based on how the GOP leadership (Boehner, Cantor, et al) always caves into the Democrats without a real fight on every issue; based on how they tried (and largely succeeded, BTW) to twist the arms of the new Tea Party House members; based on the GOP Establishment's hatred of the Tea Party and its members; I cannot argue with what my uncle says. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck-well, you know the rest...

    MarkyMark

    ReplyDelete
  4. @MarkyMark- I'm inclined to agree with your uncle. I don't know if there is a direct conspiracy between the leaders of the two parties (more like a confederacy of dunces), but it does seem more than coincidental that the two parties behave so similarly and run through cycles of power.

    The weird thing to me, though, is how the GOP even has a base left at this point. Most of the national (and many of the state-level) politicians are essentially liberal. I know that the conservative base of the GOP would never go Democrat, but I am perplexed as to why they stick with the GOP even though the party has betrayed them so many times and has lied to them so many times. You'd figure that some of the current third parties would start to look more attractive.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SG,

    This will be a two part comment, thanks to Blogger's limitation on comment length. This is Part I...

    The only answer I can give you is that forming a Third Party isn't a VIABLE option. Why do I say that? Because the two major parties have put in place policies and regulations that make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for an anti-establishment candidate to start and run a campaign, let alone allow another, viable party to form.

    For example, you know how third party candidates have these signature requirements to meet in order to get on the ballot? Well, the Republicans and Democrats are EXEMPT from those requirements! The two major parties have effectively made it all but impossible for a third party to get any traction, because that would erode their power. IOW, they've closed off a historical path to creating an alternative. Keep in mind that, back in the 19th Century, the GOP was a third party; they displaced the Whigs.

    Oh, and you know about those 'campaign finance reform' laws, e.g. McCain-Feingold, that have been passed in recent years? They limit how much an individual can donate to a particular candidate (called 'hard money'), while allowing unlimited amounts to be donated to the party itself ('soft money')? That makes it very difficult for a man off the street to run for office now.

    Let's say that I don't like what's coming out of Washington. Let's say that my company owner doesn't either. Well, in the old days before campaign finance reform, I could go to my company owner, tell him I want to run, then ask if he could enlist his business owner friends to help; if they each gave me, say $50,000 each, then I could get a campaign started so that it'll get enough traction to take off. Ah, but I can't do that now! Why? Because of the donation limits contained within the campaign finance reform laws! The limit is either $2,500 or $5,000; either way, that cuts down on my ability to get off the ground now. Because the parties themselves can receive donations in any amount, what this means is that the party bosses have effectively retaken control of the elective process. It doesn't matter if we have primaries in which the people get to 'choose' their candidates if the men we REALLY want cannot run! It doesn't matter if I'm not a fan of Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney; the party bosses have seen to it that those are the only men on offer, so I can take 'em or leave 'em.

    Now on to Part III

    ReplyDelete
  6. SG,

    Here's Part II

    What was really pernicious about these campaign finance reform laws is that they limit freedom of speech. How so? Well, if I cannot get sufficient donations, I cannot buy radio & TV time to get my message out. Is this not a limitation on freedom of speech? If I cannot get my message out, isn't it the same as depriving me of my right to do so? I seem to remember the First Amendment saying that Congress shall pass NO law abridging the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., but that doesn't matter to those in power. Our Constitution has been run through the shredder for years now...

    So yeah, the party bosses, thanks to campaign finance 'reform', have retaken the power to choose our candidates. How can a true, anti-establishment candidate even get started when he's hamstrung by the laws? Do you know that, in many Congressional elections, that tens incumbents from both parties run UNOPPOSED?! That is to say that, regardless of the incumbent's party affiliation, that there will NOT be a candidate from the other party to run against him?

    Oh, and speaking of incumbents, did you know that they had, as of 2007, a 3.5 MILLION dollar advantage over any challengers? Between their franking privileges (i.e. free postage), name recognition in the media, etc., that it would take a challenger at least 3.5 million dollars just to get into the game, just to make things even? It's true.

    Anyway, the system is crooked. Those in power have taken the necessary steps to retain their power and deprive us, the people, of any MEANINGFUL choice in elections. When the men we really want cannot even run, how do we have real choice? The party bosses once again call the shots. Unlike the old days though, they've put in place measures to prevent a third party from gaining traction, thus depriving us the last resort means to have a say in our gov't.

    MarkyMark

    ReplyDelete
  7. @MarkyMark- Again, I'm largely inclined to agree with your analysis, as history generally shows that those in power like to stay in power and will pursue policies that ensure they stay in power. There is one scenario that might offer a brief opportunity for reform, and that's if one of the parties collapses. Basically, if either party rejects a popular candidate after said candidate has reached critical mass with supporters, that rejected candidate could run as a third party and kill the support of the party that rejected him (think Ron Paul in the upcoming election). This could send a death blow to one party, causing it to scramble to form a new one. The ensuing chaos, however brief, would lead to a window of opportunity for reform, especially since both parties have a vested interest in maintaining two parties and by extension the myth of democracy. Granted, this scenario doesn't seem particularly likely, but it does seem probable.

    ReplyDelete