Thread: If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?

If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?

by Ann Coulter
11/16/2011


So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich​. This is going to be fantastic.

In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton's impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson​ on behalf of J.C. Watts -- one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized "poverty pimps," and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi​; supporting George Soros​' candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton​ to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan​'s plan to save Social Security "right-wing social engineering," we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.

(Even I will admit, however, that Newt was great when he was chairman of GOPAC back in the '90s with Gay Gaines at the helm.)

Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the institutions most responsible for the nation's current financial crisis -- were almost entirely Democratic cash cows, they managed to dirty up enough Republicans to make it seem like bipartisan corruption.

Democrats sucked hundreds of millions of dollars out of these institutions: Franklin Raines​, $90 million; Jamie Gorelick​, $26.4 million; Jim Johnson, $20 million.

By contrast, Republicans came cheap. For the amazingly good price of only $300,000 apiece, Fannie and Freddie bought the good will of former Reps. Vin Weber​, R-Minn., Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., and Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.* Former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., was even cheaper at $240,000.

[*Correction: After Gingrich admitted last week to receiving $300,000 from Freddie, we found out this week that it was actually closer to $1.6 million.]

So now conservatives shy away from denouncing these crooked organizations for fear of running into Vin Weber at a cocktail party.

Sorry, guys -- on the plus side, you're millionaires, but on the downside, you've earned the contempt of your fellow man.

The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney​ not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.

Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.

That's not so bad if you think the most important issues in this election are defeating Obama and repealing Obamacare.

There may be better ways to stop Obamacare than Romney, but, unfortunately, they're not available right now. (And, by the way, where were you conservative purists when Republicans were nominating Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Jerry-Falwell-Is-an-Agent-of-Intolerance-My-Good-Friend-Teddy-Kennedy-Amnesty-for-Illegals John McCain​-Feingold for president?)

Among Romney's positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal states in the union -- by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women.

He came close to stopping the greatest calamity to befall this nation since Pearl Harbor by nearly beating Teddy Kennedy in a Senate race. (That is when he said a lot of the things about which he's since "changed his mind.") If he had won, we'd be carving his image on Mount Rushmore​.

He is not part of the Washington establishment, so he won't be caught taking money from Freddie Mac or cutting commercials with Nancy Pelosi.

Also, Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan​ who can talk. Liberals are going to have to dust off their playbook from 30 years ago to figure out how to run against a Republican who isn't a tongue-tied marble-mouth.

As we've known for years, his negatives are: Romneycare and Mormonism.

We look forward with cheery anticipation to an explosion of news stories on some of the stranger aspects of Mormonism. The articles have already been written, but they're not scheduled for release until the day Romney wraps up the nomination.

Inasmuch as the Democrats' only argument for the big-eared beanpole who's nearly wrecked the country is that you must be a racist if you oppose Obama, one assumes a lot of attention will be lavished on the Mormon Church's historical position on blacks. Church founder Joseph Smith​ said blacks had the curse of Cain on them and banned blacks from the priesthood, a directive that was not revoked until 1978.

There's no evidence that this was a policy fiercely pushed by Mitt Romney. To the contrary, when his father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan, he was the most pro-civil rights elected official in the entire country, far ahead of any Democrat.

No one is worried Romney will double-cross us on repealing Obamacare. We worry that Romneycare will make it harder for him to get elected.

But, again, Romney is the articulate Republican. He's already explained how mandating health insurance in one particular wealthy, liberal Northeastern state is different from inflicting it on the entire country. Our Constitution establishes a federalist system that allows experimentation with different ideas in the individual states.

As governor, Romney didn't have the ability to change federal laws requiring hospital emergency rooms to treat every illegal alien, drug dealer and vagrant who walked in the door, then sending the bill to taxpayers. (Although David Axelrod, Michelle Obama​, Eric Whitaker and Valerie Jarrett​ did figure out a way to throw poor blacks out of the University of Chicago Medical Center.)

The Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, supported Romneycare at the time. The biggest warning sign should have been that Gingrich supported it, too.

Most important, Romney has said -- forcefully and repeatedly -- that his first day in office he will issue a 50-state waiver from Obamacare and will then seek a formal repeal.

Romney is not going to get to the White House and announce, "The first thing I'm going to do is implement that fantastic national health care plan signed by my pal, Barack!"

Unlike all other major legislation in the nation's history, Obamacare was narrowly passed along partisan lines by an aberrationally large one-party majority in Congress. (Thanks, McCain supporters!) Not one single Republican in Congress voted for it, not even John McCain.

Obamacare is going to be repealed -- provided only that a Republican wins the next presidential election.

If a Republican does not win, however, it will never be repealed. Recall that, in order to boast about the amazing revenue savings under Obamacare, Democrats had to configure the bill so that the taxes to pay for it start right away, but the goodies don't kick in until 2014.

Once people are thrown off their insurance plans and are forced to depend on the government for "free" health care, Obamacare is here to stay. (And Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to tinker with it "right-wing social engineering.")

Instead of sitting on our thumbs, wishing Ronald Reagan were around, or chasing the latest mechanical rabbit flashed by the media, conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who has a shot at beating Obama. We'll attack him when he's president.

It's fun to be a purist, but let's put that on hold until Obama and his abominable health care plan are gone, please.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47570

It's not just the individual candidate; it's the administration that will be put together. I think Romney can put together a balanced team. The rest, with a few exceptions, are too lopsided. Their ideas have value but sometimes get out into the fringe.

Originally Posted by Captainron

It's not just the individual candidate; it's the administration that will be put together. I think Romney can put together a balanced team. The rest, with a few exceptions, are too lopsided. Their ideas have value but sometimes get out into the fringe.

Romney going to be very soft on illegal immigration; regardless of what he says on the campaign trail. We all know he changes positions on an hourly basis. I posted an article in Discussion yesterday that surprised me. Romney has family living in Mexico watching the election very closely, hoping if Romney wins there will be a monumental opening of relations between Mexico and the U.S. Romney's father was born in Mexico and his family migrated to Mexico in the 1800's so they could practice polygamy.

I really thought your statement was way out there until I saw this:

Romney relatives in Mexico watching presidential election closely

http://www.kvue.com/home/Romney-relativ ... 33923.html

What the hell? They are distant relatives. They are not going to influence Romney one way or another. Nobody cares about their distant relatives. They only come out of the wood-work when you are famous to either embarass you or ask for money. Try asking your second cousin on your mothers side for a kidney. Dont hold your breath waiting.

Originally Posted by pattyk

What the hell? They are distant relatives. They are not going to influence Romney one way or another. Nobody cares about their distant relatives. They only come out of the wood-work when you are famous to either embarass you or ask for money. Try asking your second cousin on your mothers side for a kidney. Dont hold your breath waiting.

If if you win the Lotto.

Originally Posted by Dianne

Romney going to be very soft on illegal immigration;

You don't know that.

Originally Posted by Dianne

We all know he changes positions on an hourly basis.

I don't know that, so I guess we don't all know it.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with someone changing their mind about something when the facts change or they have new information, or perhaps they grow as a person, examine their old beliefs and find them wanting. I have different views on things now than I did when I was twenty, or even thirty for that matter. For God's sake, the Republican hero, Reagan, switched from being a democrat to a Republican, that sounds like a pretty radical postion change to me and all the Republicans worship Reagan.

Originally Posted by Dianne

Romney's father was born in Mexico and his family migrated to Mexico in the 1800's so they could practice polygamy.

I'm not quite clear on how what his great, great grandparents did in the 1800's has even the slightest bit of relevance to the presidentail election of 2011.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by Dianne

Romney's father was born in Mexico and his family migrated to Mexico in the 1800's so they could practice polygamy.

I'm not quite clear on how what his great, great grandparents did in the 1800's has even the slightest bit of relevance to the presidentail election of 2011.

I'm just pointing out that Romney's family, including his father are from Mexico. I believe we all feel an attachment to our roots, and Romney has more personal family ties with Mexico than any other candidate.