Ann Coulter endorses Mitt Romney for President

[rambone]

Romney for President, 2012, baby.

I find this perplexing coming from someone who calls herself a conservative. And her first choice was gun-grabbing Chris Christie.

I don't get it. Others may have an explanation.

Ann Coulter: Romney for Pres, Cain VP



A conversation is already in progress:

On a side note, I came across an interesting explanation for why some have a certain disdain for Rambone in Ann Coulters new book. We are not use to seeing people who are totally devoted to a particular candidate, that is usually a pattern of behavior seen on the far left, not the right or center.

LOL... Ann Coulter would know about endorsing a wide variety of candidates... from gun-grabbing Chris Christie... and now Mitt Romney. She knows the left well -- she gives them endorsements.

Ann Coulter: Romney for Pres, Cain VP

If you actually listen to the whole clip it seems to me that she is basing her assessment on who she thinks has the most realistic chances of winning the nomination. And this all relates to the whole Ron Paul issue. Alot of people may agree with some of his message but they don't feel for whatever reason Paul can secure the nomination so if they still want to participate in the process they have to figure out and decide on which one of the other candidates that they have to choose from. She did'nt get the candidate that she wanted so that is exactly what she is doing now.

That's the functional equivalent of hating liberty and siding with the fascist-socialists.

Practical reality has no place in politics. We all must ignore human behavior and historical results as well.

She has at least 9 candidates to endorse for and she picks the absolute worst one because he's "realistic" according to the TV. There's an Establishment cheerleader if I ever saw one.

She picked the worst one according to your opinion. She did'nt just get on there and blindly endorse Romney.To me she was more giving out her analisys and observations on how she felt the field played out. She actually gave some reasons why and pointed out why she felt other candidates could'nt get the nomination. In her opinion she felt Perry could'nt get it because of the whole immigration issue and she even pointed out why she felt Cain was'nt a viable candidate because of a lack of any government experience. All legit reasons. I'm sure if Ron Paul were in a strong position to win the nomination while being able to appeal to enough democrats and independents then she ultimately would not have a problem backing his candidacy. As it stands now RP can't even get enough republicans behind him. It all boils down to electability in the end.

 

[rambone]

Question for you. If you put aside the lens of perfectly principled through which the you seen the world and recognize that not everybody makes his choices according to the same standard, do you not see how someone would see it as foolish to back a guaranteed loser and would instead prefer to spend his time, resources, and ultimately his vote on someone that can actually win?

You wanna know if I can see how one group thinks another group is foolish. Sure I can see it. I see the battles between the two groups every day. It doesn't mean I agree with it or think they are on to something. The status quo prefers the status quo. I totally get it.

We're talking primaries here, people. If the Republican party is going to change, it needs to happen here. Romney represents the very worst that the party has to offer, and I think that most people in the Republican party would agree with that... its not just coming from my perfectly principled lens. I honestly cannot think of one real-life person that I have ever met who actually supports Romney (television propagandists and politicians excluded).

Ann is a famous figure and had the chance to use her influence to steer her party away from Big Government. But instead she mashed the pedal and said "If this party is gonna suck, it might as well REALLY suck. ROMNEY 2012!"

Some people pick the one they want to see win it all. Some people pick the one they want to see beat the competition.

And what does a "win" look like in this situation? A win for Romney is a loss for America. And frankly it makes the party and the conservative movement look ridiculous.

Everybody who wants the Republican Party to be reformed from within should be thoroughly disgusted.

Democrats should be happy with a Romney nomination because he is a one-term loser with a feckless platform and 75% of his own party hates his guts.

Third parties will be appreciative of Romney being nominated because it will do wonders to drive more voters away from the hopeless Republican Party.

 

[KG1]

I think it's a little disengenious to label this as a flat out endorsement of Romney. I've watched the video a couple of times now and I did'nt come to that conclusion. Seems to me that in the context of this interview she was there as political analyst and was making commentary as to why she thought Romney would get the nomination. Sometimes I think that you just throw these things up and hope that nobody will actually take a look at the links you provide. I would strongly suggest that anyone who reads these type of threads should check out the links provided first then do a little research and form their own opinion.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

1. We saw this a month ago. It's from October 11, 2011.

2. She is giving her opinion of what will happen. That does not equate to her desires for an ideal candidate. Like KG says, it is analysis.

3. Prognostication is not precatory.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ann Coulter endorses Mitt Romney for President

No, she did not.

I find this perplexing coming from someone who calls herself a conservative.

It is an opinion and analysis. This is not a Ron Paul voter talking about unicorns and rainbows but honest, realistic analysis.

And her first choice was gun-grabbing Chris Christie.

Christie comes from a dark blue state and, as is her daddy, is a union buster. Call Dr. Freud if you want further explanation on that.

 

[Zoub]

Screw logic Freeman, Rambone is blinded by something else.

Total Trojan Horse

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Coulter Derangement Syndrome?

Beh, everyone's got their opinions. I just like how Ann puts hers in with a twist of the knife.

My favorite poison pen.

 

[rambone]

She endorsed him in 2007 too. "I think he's probably our best candidate." Ouch.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E_v2w_AAME[/ame]

And last month she gushed over him. Using words like "very very good," "very principled," "magnificent," and "extremely good." I'd cut my tongue out before I fawned over such an obvious Establishment liar.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5piznI-Stw[/ame]

She lures you in with her jokes and then props up people like Christie and Romney. But to each their own.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

She endorsed him in 2007 too. "I think he's probably our best candidate." Ouch.

Again, that is not an endorsement that is analysis. I'm certain you do not understand that definition of the word "endorsement".

"Our best candidate" when the other choice is McCain? Obvious.

And last month she gushed over him. Using words like "very very good," "very principled," "magnificent," and "extremely good." I'd cut my tongue out before I fawned over such an obvious Establishment liar.

Oh, come on! That is analysis of his political performance, not philosophy.

The black and white rainbows and unicorn Paulian world does not exist with the exception of GenCon, Obama '08 rallies and any year Ron Paul rallies. That was political analysis.

 

[88GT]

You wanna know if I can see how one group thinks another group is foolish. Sure I can see it. I see the battles between the two groups every day. It doesn't mean I agree with it or think they are on to something. The status quo prefers the status quo. I totally get it.

That is not what I asked.

We're talking primaries here, people. If the Republican party is going to change, it needs to happen here. Romney represents the very worst that the party has to offer, and I think that most people in the Republican party would agree with that... its not just coming from my perfectly principled lens. I honestly cannot think of one real-life person that I have ever met who actually supports Romney (television propagandists and politicians excluded).

No doubt. But who are you pointing the finger at?

And what does a "win" look like in this situation? A win for Romney is a loss for America. And frankly it makes the party and the conservative movement look ridiculous.

So would a win for Obama. What's your point?

Everybody who wants the Republican Party to be reformed from within should be thoroughly disgusted.

I am. I can't believe Paul has dropped the ball so badly.

Democrats should be happy with a Romney nomination because he is a one-term loser with a feckless platform and 75% of his own party hates his guts.

Again, what's your point?

Third parties will be appreciative of Romney being nominated because it will do wonders to drive more voters away from the hopeless Republican Party.

Then quit yer *****in' and STFU because this is what you've wanted all along, right?

 

[KG1]

She endorsed him in 2007 too. "I think he's probably our best candidate." Ouch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E_v2w_AAME

And last month she gushed over him. Using words like "very very good," "very principled," "magnificent," and "extremely good." I'd cut my tongue out before I fawned over such an obvious Establishment liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5piznI-Stw

She lures you in with her jokes and then props up people like Christie and Romney. But to each their own.

Was wondering what took you so long to take another run at it. In that first clip I think that if you put both of the comments together shes stating that Romney is the best chance because he has the ability to syphon off some democrat votes which she feels is needed to win the election. Hence her little reference to "tricking the liberals". Now on to clip #2 all those narratives you were pointing out was her refering to how Romney handled himself in the debate. That is the context of the discussion.

 

[KG1]

Again, that is not an endorsement that is analysis. I'm certain you do not understand that definition of the word "endorsement".

"Our best candidate" when the other choice is McCain? Obvious.



Oh, come on! That is analysis of his political performance, not philosophy.

The black and white rainbows and unicorn Paulian world does not exist with the exception of GenCon, Obama '08 rallies and any year Ron Paul rallies. That was political analysis.

Scooped by Kirk...beat me to it

 

[Zoub]

Then quit yer *****in' and STFU because this is what you've wanted all along, right?

Damn, she is right.

 

[dross]

You can't get a win in a game that doesn't allow winners. You can only get less of a loss.

How many people do you have really truly liked any President if you remove the context?

In the context, Reagan was great. I have many serious disagreements with his positions and actions. But he was the best in my lifetime.

Goldwater was fantastic. Oh yeah, he got destroyed.

If you're a greenie, you don't get what you want, if you're a social conservative you don't get what you want, if you're a union you don't get what you want. You get SOME of what you want.

If you're a greenie or a union, you get a lot more of what you want from a Democrat than a Republican. If you're a social conservative or an economic conservative, you get a lot more of what you want from a Republican than from a Democrat.

If you're a Libertarian, you'll NEVER get what you want. If you're a libertarian, you'll also never get what you want. The best you'll EVER get as a libertarian is a guy who is not as bad as the other guy.

Virtually no one agrees with us. We're a tiny percentage. Deal with it and start playing in reality.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How many people do you have really truly liked any President if you remove the context?

Regardless of the context, I have always liked Calvin Coolidge.

 

[KG1]

You can't get a win in a game that doesn't allow winners. You can only get less of a loss.

How many people do you have really truly liked any President if you remove the context?

In the context, Reagan was great. I have many serious disagreements with his positions and actions. But he was the best in my lifetime.

Goldwater was fantastic. Oh yeah, he got destroyed.

If you're a greenie, you don't get what you want, if you're a social conservative you don't get what you want, if you're a union you don't get what you want. You get SOME of what you want.

If you're a greenie or a union, you get a lot more of what you want from a Democrat than a Republican. If you're a social conservative or an economic conservative, you get a lot more of what you want from a Republican than from a Democrat.

If you're a Libertarian, you'll NEVER get what you want. If you're a libertarian, you'll also never get what you want. The best you'll EVER get as a libertarian is a guy who is not as bad as the other guy.

Virtually no one agrees with us. We're a tiny percentage. Deal with it and start playing in reality.

I like pie. I can't get the whole pie but I try my best to get the biggest piece.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I want two pies! And I want them ahora mismo!

And I want the Magic Unicorn to bake them for me!

 

[88GT]

I want two pies! And I want them ahora mismo!

And I want the Magic Unicorn to bake them for me!

Okay, but you might want to consider a critter than doesn't use the same appendages to bake that it uses to walk. Who knows where those hooves have been?

Fairies. I like fairies. The cool thing is they can just whish their wand and it's done. No touching at all.

 

[rambone]

if you put both of the comments together shes stating that Romney is the best chance because he has the ability to syphon off some democrat votes which she feels is needed to win the election. Hence her little reference to "tricking the liberals".

What does Romney have to offer liberals that Obama does not? What does he have to offer conservatives for that matter? Yeah, he's tricking somebody alright.

Now on to clip #2 all those narratives you were pointing out was her refering to how Romney handled himself in the debate. That is the context of the discussion.

I watched that debate and he sounded like a hypocrite and a socialist.

Then quit yer *****in' and STFU because this is what you've wanted all along, right?

I'm currently a registered Republican actively campaigning in the Republican primary. If the party cleaned up its act that would be just fine with me. When its time to vote I vote for the most appealing candidate, not the party. Last election I voted for candidates in 3 parties. So no, a Romney nomination has exactly zero appeal to me. If anything, I'm one of the voters that is being alienated and driven away.

We're a tiny percentage. Deal with it and start playing in reality.

I get that, but why go out of your way for Mitt Romney, and in the primaries no less? When she calls herself the "Ayatollah of Conservatism" and gives glowing evaluations of Rockefeller-style Republicans, it really looks bad upon the whole movement.

 

[Lex Concord]

Virtually no one agrees with us. We're a tiny percentage. Deal with it and start playing in reality.

Thanks for the buzzkill dross, I just bought a reeeaaaallly big pot for the first unicorn