Ann Coulter quoting Harvard professors to make her argument. She sounds like frikkin' OBAMA.

What could have caused her to cave like this? Is the fix in?

I know this shit is really bizarre. I heard Levin slice her latest article to pieces the other night. It has to do with Christie jumping on the Romney bandwagon from the start. That still doesn't explain her latest column. It is delusional. Levin points out that she leaves out all the other studies that don't agree with her. I would love for her to go on Levin's show to defend herself.

I can understand that Ann(not Anne) wants to see President Hussein defeated but that is no excuse for jumping behind a candidate like Romney the way she has. You would think someone like Santorum would appeal more to her but she seems to think Romney is the type of candidate that will appeal to a wider audience.

All I have to say is Romney better go after President Hussein the way he has gone after Newt. It was creepy the way Romney was acting in Florida from some of the sound bytes I heard him ridiculing Newt. Then singing God Bless America.

Freedom...2012.

She has a bug up her butt about Newt. I'm convinced she's defending Romney on Romneycare because she thinks she's softening up the issue in the GOP establishment because it's their major sticking point with Mitt. Like Levin says, she's flying into the teeth of the storm.

The trouble is, she's had to go so far out on a limb to defend him, she looks like a retard.

I can only hope the real Ann (not Anne) comes back after she gets over this dumb ass Mitt Mania.

Mitt did OK on Hannity, I think I could crapsettle for him. But I still prefer Newt because Newt is the better master baiter. I always go with the candidate who is going to cheese off liberals more. Coulter is suddenly afraid of doing that, the very thing that is her stock and trade.

She's like most of the GOP establishment, caving in at key moments to the leftist disease when they should pick exactly those times to stick to principles.

Hey, power really does corrupt. And the fear of losing power is a powerful motivator.

But I get it. The fear of another four years of president Hussein is enough to crack up anybody.

Fantastic points, Rico and thalo.

And now even Brother Jonah has joined (somewhat) the Romney apologists: The Case for Romney.

Here's the response I posted at NRO:

I don't think that with this article Jonah is selling out as some others have. I do think, as Jeremiah said, that he seems to be trying to convince himself. I don't think he's jockeying for position in a potential Romney administration or trying to keep the lines of access open by writing the perfunctory genuflective pro-Romney piece.

But instead of saying "If you squint real hard, Romney kinda sort looks conservative-ish," wouldn't it be better (and much more intellectually honest) to simply say something such as "He's better than Obama…and maybe he'll overachieve"?

The first part is true and the second part, of course, could be true of anyone (and thus is saying very little). But we conservatives are not stupid. Don't treat us like children. We understand the choice right now is between Newt, Romney, and Santorum, and that the first two are not quite Ronald Reagan and that Santorum seems out of the hunt. But we are not petulant Ron Paulbots and will not (one hopes) sit out the election and thus make perfect the enemy of good (or even the enemy of RINO).

But do we have to prevaricate, spin, or just make up pleasing dreams (articles) in order to try to deny these hard facts? And considering the seriousness of the debt and spending, it is obscene to many conservatives this implicit idea that we must "rally 'round the party." That isn't the answer. It seems to me that National Review's function is not to spin but to evaluate and to give opinion on the events of the day through a conservative viewpoint.

And this doesn't apply to Jonah, but perhaps the conservative intelligentsia could take note and gain something from the many articulate readers of National Review who make many thoughtful points. Rather than saying (as was done to Newt by NR and others) that Romney is a horrible person, we simply are saying we don't think he's very conservative (and that such fakery, if true, does not necessarily paint him as a particularly genuine man). We're not concerned about his religion, his hair, or even trying to pull his flubs out of context. We're interested in what he stands for via, primarily, looking at what he has actually done when in office. We know that words are cheap so Romney's present words (much like Obama's TelePrompTered words during 2008) need to be taken with a deficit-sized grain of salt.

But much of what we are getting at National Review is honey, not salt. And it's often sickeningly sweet.

quote:

All I have to say is Romney better go after President Hussein the way he has gone after Newt. It was creepy the way Romney was acting in Florida from some of the sound bytes I heard him ridiculing Newt. Then singing God Bless America.

Yep.

They way I'd respond to brother Jonah's article is this: WHAT THE FUCK? DID YOU FORGET WHAT HAPPENED WITH OBAMA?

I mean come the fuck on. Trusting Romney and hoping he'd be on a short leash and owe conservatives is the exact same thing as noting Obama owed his radical base like Michael Moore and those guys, who now feel betrayed by him because he's not radical, progressive, and commie ENOUGH for them.

The problem with Romney is that we're all suspicious that he's going to be yet another lying sack of shit. He's got the teflon politiciany slickness that makes us all want to kinda take a shower after he gets through talking. Granted, SOME of what he says is fine. Sounds conservative enough. And we can all agree that he understands that Obama has been a huge, stinking pile of failure as a president.

So why do I still think Newt would make a better president? Because of the lack of charisma. I love that he gets pissed off, and blunt, and cruel. That he loses respect for liars and bullshitters. Being a great leader is about more than broad shoulders and a good haircut. Reagan was blessed with those things, but that's not why he was a great president.

There's greatness in Newt. There's a George Washington in Newt that I think is going to come out and surprise everyone. Even Beck, who has been sitting around waiting for a George Washington.

I saw Donald Trump, in all his ebullient self-styled kingmaker glory, sit there and pat Romney on the back, and it made my skin crawl. I believe I even heard these words come out of the Donald's mouth in relation to Mitt: "he's a good looking guy..." Well, then why don't you kiss him, you fag? Jesus Christ. Who cares whether he's good looking or not? Besides Trump and Ann.

Again, I could crap-settle for Mitt. But I think everyone is making a mistake. You want a constitutional purist conservative in there, with a command of American history. And that's Newt. Glenn Beck, answer me this: you go on and on and on about how reading history changed your whole world, how important it is in getting the republic back... and here you have a truly well-versed HISTORIAN running for president, and you go for the Massachusetts almost-progressive with a monolithic healthcare big government record? Huh? Are you mad?

This GOP brain fart is most perplexing. Fuckin' A I'm glad I'm not one of them. And never will be.

quote:

WHAT THE FUCK? DID YOU FORGET WHAT HAPPENED WITH OBAMA?

LOL. I think I’m pressing Rich Lowry (the boss there) hard enough as it is (on other posts). I don’t really want to get banned yet.

quote:

I mean come the fuck on. Trusting Romney and hoping he'd be on a short leash and owe conservatives is the exact same thing as noting Obama owed his radical base like Michael Moore and those guys, who now feel betrayed by him because he's not radical, progressive, and commie ENOUGH for them.

That’s a great point. I’m also one of those who thinks there is greatness in Newt. Unless he’s had a complete change of heart since his term as Speaker, I don’t think he’s the “Progressive” that Beck tries to make him out as (although, from time to time, he has shown himself prone to Big Government).

Good point about the historian aspect. I think Beck is off his rocker just like Coulter. Okay, it’s one thing to say that you’re for Romney because you think he’s more electible and (given that the race has come down to three people and one kook) is conservative enough. But it betrays their lack of belief in Mittens when, at the same time, they have to either paint Romneycare as a great thing (Coulter) or paint Newt as the next FDR (Beck).

There is a chance that becoming President would change Romney were he will lead as President and not as an ideologue like we have now. Rise to the Office of the President. Unlike what we have now a President that is leading by executive fiat at every chance. President Hussein dictates he does not lead. He does not respect the Office of the President he uses it to wield power absolute. He has never been President since day one he has been Campaigner-in-Chief. But that is what happens when the nation elects a Cult-of-Personality.

quote:

He has never been President since day one he has been Campaigner-in-Chief.

I’m so partial to “Marxist-in-Chief” that I’ll probably stick with that. But he’s certainly been a Campaigner-in-Chief as well.

quote:

Originally posted by BN:
Who Castrated Ann Coulter?

Governor Chris Christie

She wanted Christie to run from the start. Christie is telling her to do everything she can to get Romney elected. Christie certainly is doing that.

I can not fault her for supporting the candidate of her choice. It is just a sham Ann(not Anne) had to do it in a way that the main stream media and Democratic-Socialist party created the cult-of-personality President we have now. She usually is very good on the facts. Her "Three Cheers for RomneyCare" article is so blatantly your run of the mill half/truths denial published by nearly every main stream media outlet supporting their candidates.

In that video Ann(not Anne) is recorded declaring at the 2010 CPAC if Christie is not the nominee for the Republicans it will be Romney and then Hussein/Biden win in 2012. She was all in for Christie in her eyes at all cost or bust until Christie came out as a huge supporter for Romney.

Now she is all in for Romney at the expense of sloppy writing on her part. Ann(not Anne) needs to get back into keeping track with integrity. Where her columns are usually solid.

"If we don't run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose."

Well, she may have gotten part of that right. And, like you, Rico, I don't have a problem with someone supporting the candidate of their choice. And I have no problem with someone saying that Romney is the least objectionable of the four Republican candidates or is the most electable. But that's not the case Ann is making. In that article, she said, and I quote:

"If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, RomneyCare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles -- as it was at the time."

Anyone who views socialized medicine as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles has a screw loose.

If Romney picks Christie for a running mate, she'll be happy. Maybe they cut a deal.

It's true, Anne (not Anne) can support anyone she wants. It's just that her defense of his policies is weak. If Willard has seen the light of conservatism, I'm all for it. But revisionist history is no way to support a candidate. I'd rather hear they flip-flopped on whatever issue, than recasting their past record as something it's not.

When Newt describes his record, he doesn't need to do that. There is no question he was a Reaganite, a conservative, a political consultant for Fannie and Freddie, and walked out on his wife.

One aspect of the socialized medicine debate that nobody will really touch, is the idea that the medical profession, particularly doctors, is governed by something higher than free market principles. Built in to the vocation is a humanitarian angle, through the hippocratic oath.

Health Care is affected by free market principles, pressure is put on it by a whole magilla of political and economic concerns... but curing people and saving lives sort of trumps everything. A good doctor, or nurse, is not going to leave somebody bleeding in the street because of what sort of health insurance they have or don't have. People who are healers consider THEMSELVES duty bound, and honor bound, to heal.

In a way, the whole industry does not NEED government to tell them squat in the way of having any kind of a "social conscience." They already have it. It's what brought them to the profession.

In my view, it's more important for PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES to be governed by free market principles. And in large part, being corporations, they already are. They sell products, they are in competition with other corporations, their aim is to make money. They are not bound by the same oath that doctors take. A doctor can prescribe a medicine, the socialized part of it comes when the patient can't afford treatment. People who are pro-socialized medicine believe that the taxpayer should pay for medicine for people who need it. And when it comes to the disabled, elderly, destitute and so forth, not many people begrudge helping people who can't help themselves.

Where socialized medicine is at odds with free market capitalism, is when the result of not having enough money to buy medicine or enter into a course of treatment, is at odds with the intent to help and cure people because human life is worth saving. The medical profession puts healing ahead of dollars... the pharmaceutical companies and insurers do not. The government has been the intermediary in cases where a citizen has hardship. But what hasn't worked, is trying to manipulate prices and game the free market. All this does is demonize the corporations in the health care industry, like pharmaceutical companies and health care insurers.

But the fact of life is, WITHOUT Obamacare, there is not one American citizen who if they get sick and seek help, is going to get turned away by a hospital. Healthcare is already about as socialized as we'd ever need. All Obamacare adds is levels of government bureaucracy which is expensive, and which we don't need. And as we've discussed here on thalo.net, we believe the strategy behind Obamacare, is not so much helping people, as furthering a marxist and leftist political agenda. So not about helping people, but about creating a monolithic and powerful government that controls every aspect of life.

quote:

People who are pro-socialized medicine believe that the taxpayer should pay for medicine for people who need it. And when it comes to the disabled, elderly, destitute and so forth, not many people begrudge helping people who can't help themselves.

Now "the taxpayer" who are paying for all this are those not yet born, and for generations to come. Medicade and Social Security add up together something like 70 trillion (roughly…it could be more) in unfunded liabilities. What we have now isn't working. So we borrow and pretend that nothing is wrong.

The free market works. It works for health care. The pressure of competition and the rationality of prices work to increase quality and lower costs. If we get government out of the way, more people could afford health insurance. Liken it to "the poor" who now have air conditioners, TV's, two cars, etc. This is what the free market does. Even those on the lower end of the spectrum do well.

But there is no cure for Marxist-branded "equality" where everyone must have the same. And we are not a mature enough now to understand this.

But we're screwed. We've decades ago hitched our wagon to government control of health care. Even before Obamacare, 50% of health care costs were controlled by government. And government is the very reason that health care costs have increased like they have. Socialism doesn't work. It's as simple as that. And there will be many attempts at "reform" that still take for granted that government should be in charge. That is no reform at all.

What reform you see, and that actually works, are those reforms such as "health savings accounts" that bring price and competition back into it. People have a motivation to NOT use it. But with the typical so-called "fee for service" model of much of the government-controlled health care industry, there is no motivation for saving. It's just the reverse. There is an incentive for doctors and hospitals to charge as much as they can so that they can then be reimbursed.

There is no answer to class envy. But the answer to lowering costs and increasing quality and access to health care is the free market.

Oh, I agree totally. Except the point I was trying to make is that the waters are muddied by the emotional "social" aspects that are inbuilt into the medical professions.

In many ways it's similar to RELIGIOUS vocation. Do-gooderism is built in to the job description. Or, if you object to the cynical nature of that statement, the higher calling as it were, is built in.

That makes it at odds with the Free Market, which people tend to see as ruthless and uncompromising. Actually, part of what makes the free market fair is precisely that ruthless, "law of the jungle" kind of survival of the fittest aspect. But when that meets up with the reality of the soft and weak and infirm, it's tough to reconcile turning a buck with grandma dying.

Leftists appeal to the grandma dying part of it. The emotional heartstrings-tugging stuff. A free market capitalist can be the most compassionate person in the world, and still the left will tag them as concerned only with self-interest in the face of grandma dying.

Ayn Rand has a thing or two to say about self interest, and how it's good for society at large. And I believe the founders understood that self interest and private property, and a minimum of government control equals freedom. But many people fall for leftist agendas because the left is skillful at manipulating emotion. They can counter free market capitalism with things like, you want grandma to die. Or you don't care about sick poor children.

I'm with you that the answer to lowering costs is the free market. And that means the government getting out of the mix. But the class envy stuff, and the emotionally charged character of the issue, is polluting the playing field.

Great political power is achieved when you roll in to a desperate, sad situation, and throw government money around. It creates gratitude, and gratitude is political capital. Obama can run on that kind of political capital. He can justify everything he does, if it saves one poor dying kid.

It's a much harder sell to be the side that has to take into account human nature, and odious decisions that involve sacrifice or harsh realities. History may be on the side of the conservatives, and a prosperous society can be proven to elevate the health care situation for everyone, but politics cannot be divorced from emotion, and this is one of the more emotional issues.

In response to the general idea that the Republicans can win (or even can't win) by running a "moderate" and that a true conservative can't win:

First off, I don't accept the label that McCain was a "moderate." He is an accommodationist, an opportunist, even liberal on some issues such as his horrendous McCain-Feingold campaign "reform" law. But, boy, in his last Senate race, he sounded like the next coming of Barry Goldwater.

McCain is a politician, much in the way Romney is. Their mission is themselves. Their main goal is to get elected or re-elected. That is the business they are in. Their job is to surf prevailing attitudes (or what they perceive as the *electable* prevailing attitudes), not change them.

And I'm not sure if Santorum is a real conservative. He apparently has a quite long record of voting for big government projects. Again, that doesn't mean he's not a nice guy. But he is a politician. I believe two of the people with the bona fides of conservatism are Palin and Bachmann. And I do believe Newt certainly governed as a conservative when in office, although he's obviously made so many "Progressive"-like big government statements since then that Glenn Beck swears that Newt is the second coming of FDR. I think that over-states things a bit. The conservative media has gone a bit bonkers lately.

I just read an article by Bruce Walker that claims that 60% of Americans self-identify as conservative. I view this statistic very skeptically because I'd want to know first how people define conservative before I get all excited about that. And although I'm sympathetic to Bruce's point that "Leftists are colonial governors, small in number, controlling through fear and intimidation from heavily guarded forts at the chokepoints of society…" — and there is certainly much truth to that — that doesn't explain why we have so many liberal, Leftist, and often downright Communist politicians all throughout America, state, local, and Federal. If we're so darn conservative, why this leftward lurch?

Well, I have no doubt that a large part of this is the result of the left hogging the chokepoints of society, but the end product now is what it is, and I don't see it as particularly conservative.

But the same could probably be said during Reagan's time. We elected Jimmy Carter and had a Democrat House and Senate at the time. And yet Reagan was elected as an unabashed conservative. Yes, Reagan had a nice smile and talked well. But what he had most of all was a belief in America and her founding principles. And he could articulate those principles to others. And people responded positively.

They will again. Witness the enormously positive response that Newt has gotten doing so from time to time, although he has often squandered those opportunities. Although we live in a society where the chokepoints are infected and controlled by Cultural Marxists of various types, I believe there is still enough Americanism running through our veins that people will respond in great numbers to someone who, rather than caving to the various obnoxious conceits of the left, will instead critique them and stand up for freedom and traditional American principles.

No argument such as the above is good enough for the "establishment" Republican types. They are a befuddled bunch, out of touch with America's founding principles and more interested in surfing prevailing attitudes rather than acting as leaders. And who can blame them? It takes knowledge, skill, and a tremendous amount of courage to articulate traditional American principles and to do so in the face of a deranged and hostile crowd who will call you a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc., for doing so. Thus the easiest path is to blow with the wind and, at the same time, to disguise one's opportunism or cowardice by painting conservatives as rubes, nuts, Troglodytes, "paleo-conservatives," etc. That is, they try to make conservative a dirty word. It's a way to keep their conceit alive that they stand for more than just gaining office and power.

But I view as ultimately irrelevant the question as to whether or not we can win by espousing traditional American values and principles. I'm simply going to say why America as founded is worth defending. This may not be an "electable" concept according to some. It may not be a concept that appeals to the supposedly all-important "moderates." But I believe it to be the good thing to do. And that's because America and her founding principles are good. Something good is worth sticking up for, even if it doesn't make one immediately popular. But then, of course, it actually might. It has before. But it requires courage, leadership, knowledge, and the willingness to take a stance toward politics that is about more than just pandering.

Besides, we owe this country no less.

quote:

Except the point I was trying to make is that the waters are muddied by the emotional "social" aspects that are inbuilt into the medical professions.

I get your point. I just wonder if it's an operative point anymore. One of the aspects of Big Government is that no one has to be personally moral.

I can't remember where I read the above idea. It may have been Thomas Sowell. But it explains the very liberal guy down the hall who NEVER recycles his plastic and aluminum. He just throws them in the trash. It's me — the big, bad, earth-destroying conservative — who carefully separates them out and recycles them.

This is how it is with the left. As long as you vote for and mouth support for politically correct causes, you're covered. It's the Middle Ages version of Indulgences reborn. And it's the nature wherever government is involved. It's bureaucracy-as-morality, and individual morals go bye-bye. This is surely part of the reason that so many doctors have absolutely no problem ordering this test and that test and the other thing, even if not technically needed. I suppose they are just covering their asses lawsuit-wise, but I wonder if the Hippocratic oath is even relevant anymore. The new oath seems to be, "First, cover your ass and be sure to bill as much as you can get away with."

In regards to health care, it's conceivable that you could have a government program that helps the truly needy. I guess that's what Medicaid is supposed to be about. But no one has ever yet found a way to keep these programs from ballooning into a vote-buying system for politicians.

quote:

Ayn Rand has a thing or two to say about self interest, and how it's good for society at large. And I believe the founders understood that self interest and private property, and a minimum of government control equals freedom. But many people fall for leftist agendas because the left is skillful at manipulating emotion. They can counter free market capitalism with things like, you want grandma to die. Or you don't care about sick poor children.

Traditionally, in America, where someone wasn't able to help themselves there was family, church and other private organizations that could help. And that worked. God, it's hard for many to believe, but we actually survived, and quite well, before the coming of The New Deal and The Great Society.

Self-interest is key, of course, because to imply the reverse is to say that our lives are inherently owned by others and invites all kinds of abuse. That's just not the American way. We expect others to help themselves first then, if for some reason people need help, this help be administered privately if at all possible.

Where libertarians and Objectivists (the Ayn Rand religion) often go a bit loopy is they see nothing but self-interest. It's what they use to parse everything. They thus take (as Dennis Prager often remarks) a good idea and take it to an extreme, and thus make it a rotten idea in practice. A cold, heartless, narcissistic individual is the result of taking the Objectivist philosophy too seriously. We do have a moral responsibility to others. It's just that conservatives aren't stupid enough to think that this can be done effectively through government.

It is non stop the ridiculousness of the Hussein White House.

With this new H.A.R.P. II program just launched this week. As far as I can tell thalo.net is the only place you can find any mention of what happened to H.A.R.P. Part I. There are some articles that get close to the actual time frame and facts but most completely get it wrong or better yet don't even bring up the fact there was a H.A.R.P. Part I at all.

H.A.R.P. part I was set up back in 2009 to help home owners with their mortgages. 30 Billion dollars was taken from T.A.R.P. to "help" eligible home owners i.e. sub prime mortgage holders. H.A.R.P. part I was a colossal failure. An example of what happens when Government is put in control of something.

It was supposed to help some 4 million people. It only ended up helping several hundred thousand. Around 4 billion of the 30 billion was spent. On top of this H.A.R.P. part I completely fouled up the whole foreclosure process because the Government interjected new rules. The Justice department has used these new rules to try to put the blame for foreclosures onto the banks. When ever you here Holder or President Hussein make claims about banks forcing people into foreclosure is a lie. To be eligible for H.A.R.P. part I you had to show you were in foreclosure to get assistance. If there was any problem it involved people trying to get the "free" government mortgage funds by showing they were in foreclosure. It has screwed up the entire mortgage system.

H.A.R.P. part II is just a repeat of H.A.R.P. part I. Instead this time 25 billion dollars is the new money number. H.A.R.P. part I ate up 4 billion dollars. It does the same thing transfers money to other people. There are people living in homes that haven't paid their mortgage bills in three years that will have the opportunity to use H.A.R.P. part II to absolve the debt and lower their mortgage payments.

The Hussein White House and Justice Department are not saying were the money for this transfer payment is coming from exactly. Justice just finalized an agreement with the banks for 25 billion dollars involving foreclosures. This would mean the transfer payment is basically the banks using share holder money i.e. any one who owns a mutual fund money will be transferred to sub prime mortgage owners so they can stay in their homes.

Something I think that is being left out is that the money ultimately is coming from T.A.R.P. That is were the money came from to begin with for H.A.R.P. part I. It is like a revolving door of money. The Feds are collecting 25 billion dollars from the banks but the money is really coming out of T.A.R.P. so the Feds are really just getting paid with money they already loaned.

It is like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Feds are loaning them billions of dollars a quarter. The Feds also for loaning them billions of dollars Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have to pay the Feds a quarterly dividend in the billions of dollars. Basically to pay the dividend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have to borrow the money from the Feds. It is a revolving door. It is a quarterly slush fund for the White House in the billions of dollars. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are under government control. Under normal control the boards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would say no more dividend. Which would help financially stabilize both Fannie and Freddie. It would help the housing market in general by bringing back confidence in the market which has non since the government has taken control.

In the State of the Campaign speech the President hinted at were he was going with the mortgage stuff by vilifying the evil predatory mortgage lenders. How Justice is going after them. The irony with this is the only people that are culpable for the housing mess are organizations like ACORN. ACORN was instrumental in getting people into sub prime mortgage homes. ACORN was telling people how to get a sub prime mortgage regardless whether they could afford it or not. The Banks in this whole process were being mandated by the Feds that 55% of all the loans they gave out had to go to sub prime borrowers. Borrowers being sent to them by ACORN. How many ACORN members do you think will be going to jail at the hands of the Hussein Justice Department under Terrorist AG Holder claim he is going after those responsible for the housing mess.

This latest thing with insurance involving birth control and Catholic organizations. President Hussein made some speech that this care is going to be allowed for free. Who is believing this nonsense? It is just delusional what he says. Free. Please. In his world things are "free" that is for certain.

Rave on. Neo-marxist President. Rave on.

Freedom...2012.

I’ve noticed that Coulter doubled-down on her support of Romney and Romneycare in her latest article. Ann, by all means, stump for Romney if you think he’s the most “electable” because I do agree that getting Obama the hell out of there is important. But she's blown a gasket in terms of her support for Romneycare as if it’s no big deal.

If one wants to make a case for socialized medicine, then do so. The upside (as it is sold) is that everyone receives “equal” access to it. That’s the supposed positive. The down side is that you have to wait longer, quality tends toward mediocrity, and nothing actually is “free” because there is no free lunch. You just pay for it in ways that are somewhat hidden. (And because market forces are no longer in play, actual costs increase which, again, necessarily translates into longer waiting times, reduced quality, and death panels.) But for those whose mantra is “fairness” then none of this matters.

Nothing of this matters to Coulter who has leapfrogged all logic and reason. Peter Ferrara takes Coulter to task in his article, Coulter Care. It’s not pretty. And I wonder if Ann’s (not Anne’s) reputation for un-PC insightful commentary hasn’t been severely compromised. It’s somewhat of a cliche to say that someone has a screw loose. But you wonder if it doesn’t apply in her case.

As for the anti-Catholic stuff. This is who the left is. They are a true totalitarian movement in that they will tolerate no dissent. This is the definition of totalitarianism: Everything for the state, nothing outside the state. This is basic Mussolini we’re seeing from Obama. Today it is Catholics. But tomorrow you can bet it will be you. It already is to a large extent if you examine the impetus behind many of our laws and regulations.

And most conservatives in the commentariat have framed this crackdown on the free exercise of religion as “Obama pandering to his left.” As if this were merely a political try for votes. But any honest assessment is going to show this was not vote-driven but ideology driven. Hell, even Biden apparently wasn’t for this.

This is who these people are. And as long as Republicans and conservatives don’t realize this and think these are merely surface-level political disputes, the left will continue eating their lunch. In all my life, I’ve never seen the conservative movement become so headless as it is now (as exemplified by Coulter, for example). My discussions on Facebook among supposed conservatives has left me very pessimistic about the future of this country as well.

Although Glenn Beck is loony regarding Newt, I think Beck is one of the few who sees what is going on and is willing to speak up about it. But the Republicans are spineless. Oh, many of them (including Mittens) may give a good speech as CPAC. But when it comes to defending and implementing their words, their words are shown to be hollow.

That’s why I favor Newt among those who are still in it. He’s actually stood up to the left — and stood up to the RINOs and establishment Republicans who probably hate him more than they hate Obama. And it’s not that Newt can’t be petulant. But the reality is that anyone who went to DC and called bullshit bullshit would be in the same situation Newt is in. He’d be hounded by all these ass-munching “moderate” Republicans.

I do think this party will fall apart in the next 8 years. They no longer provide a viable opposition to Big Government. And perhaps, like much of Europe, all the parties will simply be slightly different aspects of the same thing, feeding the beast of Big Government and wanting to control it. That’s how things are now to a large extent. And that is pretty much what a “moderate” Republican is. And I’ve had it with them. I had no idea how deep this rot went. But my conversations over the past month or two have convinced me that most conservatives are clueless and that the Republican Party is full of mushy, milquetoast, amoral PC “moderates” who can’t think themselves out of a wet paper bag.

quote:

In the State of the Campaign speech the President hinted at were he was going with the mortgage stuff by vilifying the evil predatory mortgage lenders. How Justice is going after them. The irony with this is the only people that are culpable for the housing mess are organizations like ACORN. ACORN was instrumental in getting people into sub prime mortgage homes. ACORN was telling people how to get a sub prime mortgage regardless whether they could afford it or not. The Banks in this whole process were being mandated by the Feds that 55% of all the loans they gave out had to go to sub prime borrowers. Borrowers being sent to them by ACORN. How many ACORN members do you think will be going to jail at the hands of the Hussein Justice Department under Terrorist AG Holder claim he is going after those responsible for the housing mess.

Our likely Republican nominee for governor is a RINO who is criticizing the banks from the left. At the top of his home page is a banner that says “Rob stood up to the big banks and negotiated a settlement for us that will provide $25 billion in real relief for middle class homeowners.”

Aka, Rob is jeering at the “big banks” and trying to make political hay out of it as any capitalist-hating leftist would. And those warm-fuzzy homeowners, whose mortgages were already being subsidized (or backed) by Big Government through Fannie and Freddie, will now triumphantly receive even a larger redistribution of wealth to help cover the tracks of the real culprit in on this: “social justice” and Big Government.

Yeah, it sucks that everyone can’t have a house as big as Al Gore. But the way to that is through less micro-managing and regulation of the market, not more. McKenna is yet another who will demonize freedom and the free market — while sticking up for the idea of the nanny state and against personal responsibility – for no larger reason than votes.

And every conservative I know (with the exception of a few) have their tongues up his butt. It’s disgusting. This man by all appearances is another Mittens. He’s not a bad guy. But he’s not a step in the right direction. He’s a step in the left direction.