From Goldwater Girl to Hillary Girl

golden-rino.jpgHere, once again, Ann Coulter demonstrates why she should be running the RNC… or, at least, have some sort of VETO, there.

McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying he will appoint “strict constructionists.” This is supposed to end all discussion of the courts. But if he’s picking strict constructionists, he will have to appoint judges who will commit to overturning McCain-Feingold.

That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain’s signature legislation restricting speech unconstitutional?

Read the whole thing, here: From Goldwater Girl to Hillary Girl


7 thoughts on “From Goldwater Girl to Hillary Girl

  1. C’mon….Ann Coulter supported and praised liberal Romney, who you rightly loathed, and now you seem quote her supportively just because she hates McCain?

  2. Read the article. She has always inserted Romney as a safety-valve candidate and she continues that approach, here. I’ve never heard her “praise” him. She liked Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo better. On Romney’s flip flops she says:
    “At least Romney flips and stays there.”
    Not exactly “praise.”

  3. “…I’ve never heard her “praise” him…”

    Ok, here it is –

    If the blog messes up the link, you may have to copy and paste entire link from keyboard (shift+end).

    Here are here few Coulter’s words from the same link for quick reference –

    > My thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best candidate

    >At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican — a high-IQ, articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican.

    High IQ, Moral, etc….- These are definitely praising words.
    According to her the only thing Romney flipped is abortion.

    The main reason everyone hates McCain is he is not afraid to snub at established popular figures when they are wrong. Ever thought why corrupt lobbyists hate him?

    There is no Black & White on every issue – there are various shades of gray and this is where McCain excels. He takes honest & practical decisions. CIR is a best example. As RBN pointed, 12 million people are not going back. Max 1 or million may do so. Also McCain has agreed that CIR was not perfect. The mistake he made over there is bringing CIR before securing borders. We don’t want more illegals to keep coming into our country even after some immigration bill is passed.

    Secondly, McCain is not anti-business just because he was against some tax cuts or he supports environmentalist bills. Although environmentalists cry for every minor issue and always save a rat instead of a business, there is some truth in few cases. Just check out effects of pollution in any city in India or China. This is where McCain supports them – not on every issue.

    McCain is the pragmatic conservative leader we definitely need in White House.

  4. To whom it may concern:

    I’m a concerned citizen who does not like the direction our country has been heading in over the last 20 years. I’ve never been involved in politics before, and I’ve only voted once in my life until now. For the first time I’ve actually met a politician who is honest and consistent in ALL his views. Ron Paul is more akin to Thomas Jefferson than Ronald Reagan. He votes strictly according to the rule of law, our Constitution and will have the courage to confront the massive corruption in Washington. His consistent and principled voting record over a 20 year time span as a Congressman speaks volumes about his character. He will never change his beliefs or betray his values for the sake of getting votes.

    Please consider voting for Ron Paul in theFebruary 5th primary.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    P.S. Norma McCorvey (Roe v. Wade) has endorsed Ron Paul for president.
    He is a patriot who will fight for our country and for us.

    Please read

    Please watch


    Sally McCullough

  5. Brad (at 3): Allow me to help you with your political and moral myopia as well as your misunderstanding of Coulter:

    FIRST: Regarding your allegation of Coulter’s “praise” for Romney; “praise” is more than casually noting someone’s talent. It is “the act of expressing approval or admiration; commendation; laudation.” Although I can see how you think The article you referenced is an example, it doesn’t actually do that.
    Coulter pointed out that Romney:
    1. hasn’t cheated on his wife (although he met her by cheating on his girlfriend): that is, he is “moral.”
    2. has a high-IQ, and is articulate: You need to understand that the most evil men in history – like Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud – had both those qualities – that’s why they accomplished so much evil.
    3. is a multimillionaire (“wildly successful”) CEO, just like George Soros, or any of several such men who are, in fact, engaged in evil, destructive behavior.
    4. is “moderate” – this, coming from Coulter, as it would be coming from me, is not praise.

    There is not an item on that list that Romney doesn’t share with either Jimmy Carter or George Soros or both.
    Neither is Coulter praising Romney by saying he is the “best candidate” from among 5 candidates, the other four of which she has already explained are terrible candidates. He is, in her opinion, the lesser of five evils.

    SECOND: Your attempts to rehabilitate McCain are seriously misguided:
    You say, “The main reason everyone hates McCain is he is not afraid to snub at established popular figures when they are wrong.” In fact, it is because he is not afraid to “snub at” the American People when they are right. You know this. You know people don’t hate him on issues where they think he is actually right. You’re not being honest.
    At least you got one thing right. Let me put it in your own words: “…everyone hates McCain…”
    You ask: “Ever thought why corrupt lobbyists hate him?” Well, besides the fact that everyone hates him, is the fact that a “lobbyist” is anyone who attempts to influence a legislator’s decisions on legislation. It includes the massive waves of U.S. citizens who blew out the phone systems in Washington DC defeating McCain’s latest AMNESTY bill in June, 2007. All “lobbyists” hate McCain, political activists across the board, not just corrupt ones, because he wants to do away with this First Amendment right in many ways, in direct violation of our Constitution.
    Your typification of McCain’s “environmentalism” was copied directly from your imagination. It has no basis in reality. The McCain/Lieberman bill would have given veto power to Environmentalist Dictators over all American Business. It was a deeply, deeply evil and economically destructive act that, to impliment, requres promoting the massive fraud of man-made global warming fear tactics. Why would a man once tortured by Communists live to become a Senator and finally propose legislation to establish totalitarian government (not to “stop capitalism” but to “save the planet”) in his own nation? Stockholm Syndrome?

    But, THIRD: I think, the keystone of your whole post was the phrase, “There is no Black & White on every issue.” What you are trying to say, here, Brad, is that there is no such thing as “right and wrong” in politics. This is an essential belief for men like McCain, who, for their own perceived benefit, are willing to violate their oath of office, eradicate Consititutional freedoms, mislead the public, dissolve American Soveriegnty, eradicating our immigration laws and borders, and attack the very foundation of American prosperity: freedom and private property.

    “There is no black & white” is the operative manifesto of Machiavelli, of Friedrich Nietzsche, of Jeffery Dahmer, Joseph Stalin and every serial killer.

    And, although you only want to use the idea to promote what you think are “little” evils, like McCain’s Amnesty proposals, you could not possibly be more wrong. “CIR,” McCain’s landmark gash across America, is not a “little” evil. It could end our freedoms, putting a closing paragraph on what once was “the greatest nation on earth” within a generation.

  6. C’mon, you are making excuses now based on dictionary meaning of praise? Why don’t you just accept that Ann Coutler made a mistake here in supporting Romney. Mistakes are part of life. I don’t see much difference between praise and glaring supporting words.

    Also, you know very well that Black and White is not as simple as just saying Right or Wrong. Even your excuse on why Tancredo endorsed Romney was much better (Gullible…?).

    Anyway, doesn’t matter much now. Romney is out and McCain is all set for nomination. I really hope he beats Hillary or Obama and brings in a pragmatic leadership while being open to criticism unlike Bush.

  7. I agree with you that Coulter was “supporting” Romney, but, I believe, as a lesser of evils. I agree with you that it is a mistake. I even agree with Ann that Mitt has stayed married, made a lot of money, is smart and articulate and “moderate.”
    The dispute is only over your use of the word “praise” and, I submit, that there is no greater ally in such a dispute than a “dictionary meaning.”
    McCain, Hillary or Obama could all bring in the kind of pragmatic leadership that you want. It is only John McCain that could ruin the Republican Party in the course of doing it.
    John McCain’s nomination will mean blood on the floor. It is because I do not think he could win in November that I don’t think he would make a Third Party viable, but a McCain Presidency has that potential. No single candidacy can give life to a Third Party, it is the moral bankruptcy of the Party that is replaced that does that. It would more likely be the Presidency of a highly competent heretic that could ruin the GOP as such a man solidified the control of it by reprobates. More likely, though, if McCain were to take the Oval Office, would be a Nixonian disintegration of the office, itself. Giuliani would have ruined the Party by re-making it from within in his own image. McCain is more likely to ruin the country. Either course would lead to Republican defeats over a long period, but Giuliani was more likely to generate a Third Party in the process because he would have more effectively rooted out conservatives from Party leadership. That’s what a Third Party (not a temporary third party candidacy like Perot or Buchanan) needs. McCain’s leadership of the Party would probably be as erratic and irrational as his legislative career. Giulaini would have consolidated power around a tight, efficient little group of fascists, McCain would leave it in a shambles. Like Bush.

    People take for granted the blessings that God has poured out on our nation. Acting as if our blessings are a right bestowed because of our superiority; exalting our “PRIDE,” that American arrogance that is replacing godliness in the hearts of the GOP Left, is the quickest road to our destruction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s