The other party — plus John McCain — ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else.
From Ann Coulter:
Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are “anti-choice.”
For the same reason, no one should believe the Democrats’ “energy” policies. CONTINUE READING
Ann Coulter is hilarious. What a wit. But she is also insulting, divisive, and addicted to hyperbole and exaggeration. This type of vicious journalism pushes undecided and independent voters away from republican positions and candidates. It hurts us all when differing viewpoints aren’t discussed collaboratively and outcomes for the common good become harder to achieve.
It doesn’t hurt as much as when the communist presuppositions that drive the Democrat Party and control the debate on the liberal side are treated as acceptable outcomes… that is to say, “collaboratively,” if I understand you correctly.
It reminds me of another commentator who said (I think somwhat hyperbolically,) that his mission was not to bring peace but “a sword,” (note the militaristic metaphor) that one of his objectives was “to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”
It think this is a direct example of what he meant by that kind of “division”: Ronald Reagan divided the Republican Party along clear, liberal/conservative lines, won the debate and, eventually the nomination as a direct result. He then divided the electorate, in 1980, in precisely the same fashion. He won the debate by pointing out the difference between right and wrong. Right prevailed. That is why he made, single-handedly, the most positive impact on the course of the nation in the last hundred years. He saved the American economy from early demise at the hands of Mixed Socialism and he saved the world from Soviet Expansionism.
Had Reagan successfully, by “reaching across the aisle,” found a way to combine, rhetorically, the objectives of both right and left (wrong), none of that would have happened. First of all he would not have won the nomination. The Party elite all wanted George the First as they now have coagulated around John McAmnesty. Reagan would not have united the opposition. Next, if you hypothesize a Ronald “Moderate” Reagan nomination, for the sake of argument, he would not have defeated a sitting incumbent President, no matter how wounded, as Bob Dole later proved, since there were not enough political differences discernable to Joe SixPack to overcome the advantages of incumbency.
Let me quote one of my early mentors: “nothing falls unless you hit it.” and “there is no victory without a battle.”
By contrast, let me quote a different source.
In 1980 I was riding bicycles on the Burke Gillman trail with an old friend who asked me who would win the Repubican Nomination. I told him it would be Reagan. He visibly and audibly winced.
I asked him why the reaction and he told me that the GOP had just ensured that Jimmy Carter would have another four-year term, an outcome he obviously did not want.
Reagan was too extreme, he thought, to win. And that was “conventional wisdom” at that time.
We, here, at the Reagan Wing, don’t do “conventional wisdom.” Nor do we seek “midpoints” as political solutions between the poles of moral controversy. Much of what you would, doubtless, call “hyperbole” stems from our actual belief that there is, in politics, “right” and “wrong.” Calling something “evil” is hyperbole if no such thing exists. Calling my opponent’s philosophy “wrong” is hyperbole if there are no moral components to politics. We, here at the Reagan Wing, do right versus wrong.
As Dante has been oft’ quoted; “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those, who, in times of moral crisis, preserve their neutrality.”
>Ann Coulter is hilarious. What a wit. But she is also insulting, divisive, and addicted to hyperbole and exaggeration.
Agree…Additionally, I can never forget that she bestowed heaps of good words for liberal Romney (who was once a pro amnesty and pro gay governor) before he dropped out of presidential race. I was starting to loose all my respect for her shock-jock tactics and this nailed it. I understand her stands against McCain but how can she ever put Romney over Ron Paul or Fred Thompson?
May be she is a liberal just posing as conservative. No wonder she wasn’t invited as this year’s CPAC speaker.
We heavily criticized Ann for her Romney stance back in March ‘07. (see: http://www.thereaganwing.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&page_id=733 (words by Michelle, tunic by yours truly))
but, in my view, you have to put it in perspective.
She weighed Romney on his post-Jan. 4, 2007 statements, and, as you know, that’s the day he became a rhetorical conservative. His handling of rhetoric, by the way, is very skilled.
She was not accepting his liberalism, she was taking his “conservatism” at face value. That’s a clear mistake, of course, but it’s a different mistake.
Further, she hedged her position at the time, if I remember correctly. She did not heap praise on him, but called him the “best of” the RudiMcRomney three-headed monster.
She had a long-standing dispute with Thompson over his (you’ve got to admit, astonishing) assertion that Clinton’s crimes, including perjury, did not deserve impeachment. But I saw her actual list of people she liked without qualification, including Duncan Hunter, and it did not include Romney. She just never gave Hunter (or Tancredo) credit for viability.
She overlooked Ron Paul, as did most of the Conservative Comentators, myself included, for reasons I hope to explore in more detail shortly (concurrrent with some very exciting stuff, if I can bind the “strong-man” forces and get to it).
I don’t read Ann to get candidates handicapped, anyway, but because she is such a good rhetorical archer. She can split an arrow, in an apple, on the head of a family member at 300 paces and look good doing it.
If you’re the family member just remember to stand still.
ann backed the only real republican running duncan hunter as I did , the rest of the voters got us mccain !
Hmm…No….I remember reading an article in Townhall.com during late 2007/early 2008 where she had all glorifying words for Romney. Ron Paul was already pretty famous by then to overlook. Anyone following some basic news would have been aware of his internet money raising, at the least.
She is more interested in making some name for herself by giving out exaggerated statements in any direction. This time it was to praise Romney. Unfortunately just like here, other conservatives are sometimes gullible and still refer/quote her.
Also I see that you are referring to Tancredo. Isn\’t he the same one who escaped out of military draft by claiming insanity. Military service is not a pre-condition for being the President, but escaping says something about a man\’s integrity. Also he just talked about immigration but then completely escaped out of even introducing his Overdue immigration bill in House. Finally not sure if you are aware of this fact - Tancredo endorsed Romney after dropping out.
Conservative Guy (at 6):
I’ve gone back because of your comment and re-read Coulter’s TownHall article. I can see why you would say what you did. But taken in the whole context of what she said in the article, it is NOT just effusive praise for Romney, but only an assertion that he was, (only among “the top five” which eliminated Paul, Tancredo and Hunter, out of hand) the “strongest” candidate, that is to say, the one with the best chance to win. I said, essentially, the same thing here:
Romney’s Fascist Health Care
In addition, she seriously undercut any claim that he was a “true” conservative with this: “At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican — a high-IQ, articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican.”
And this:
“It’s also possible that Romney will turn out to be a conservative Republican — at least more conservative than he was as governor of Massachusetts.”
If you want to make a case about her personal motivation, specifically that she is motivated primarily by personal ambition, you have to bring something to the table… like evidence, not just make the claim.