Ann Coulter on Newt vs. Mitt:
So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.Contrary view by Legal Insurrection's William Jacobson. Much as I respect Newt's intellect and ideas, I think Jacobson downplays Newt's history of poor decisionmaking.
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. . .
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.
MORE:
DC Caller's Jamie Weinstein: "The Republican presidential field is truly unimpressive"
MORE & MORE:
Even the Washington Post admits -- grudgingly -- that the story about Gingrich's first divorce is slander.
2 comments:
Who stand the better chance of beating Obama? That should be the standard.
They both have problems. I think Romney stands the better chance.
I do believe the flippant "If this was the answer, it must have been a very stupid question" applies to this set of candidates.
I argue that, while I will certainly vote for Romney over The Great Big 0, it will only be the lesser of two evils, and not much of that. Romney sucks.
Am I the only person who recalls that Romneycare was the template for Obamacare? Why does ANYONE actually believe that Romney will fight hard to remove it?
There is a reason he could get elected governor in Massachusetts, the home state of the Kennedy clan.
He's the poster child for RINOitis. The only reason he's better than any Dem candidate is because the Dems have gone so far off into Left field that they need a telescope to see Ralph Nader from where they are (You could not see Hubert Humphrey from there with the Hubble).
The only real hope I have is that, in my experience, the "front runner" prior to about 1 month after the initial caucuses (excluding, of course, any sitting PotUS) are almost never the final winners. This has generally been true for both parties going back 20-30 years or more, with only a few exceptions.
But this one is, if it holds true, going to come out of nowhere, that's for sure.
Post a Comment