Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 22, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Ann Coulter's blog
  • MSNBC’s Schultz Admits He Doesn’t Know Much About ObamaCare, Still Fawns Over Law
  • Veteran Journalist Brit Hume Condemns FBI Investigation Of Fox’s James Rosen
  • After Terrible Storm, ABC Devotes 10 Minutes to Crime, Botox and Entertainment, Skimps on IRS
  • ABC and CBS Ignore Obama Administration Investigating FNC's James Rosen
  • NBC's Gregory Scolds GOP for Comparing Obama to Nixon
  • CBS Highlights Ex-IRS Staffer Who Declares There Were No Politics at Cincinnati Office
  • Monday's Amnesia: CNN Covers Powerball Jackpot Winner as Much as IRS, AP, Benghazi Scandals
  • The Obama Scandal the Big Three Networks Aren't Telling You About

Nominating Newt Would Most Certainly Result In Re-electing Obama

By Ann Coulter | January 26, 2012 | 11:44

A  A
Ann Coulter's picture

To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by "the Establishment" -- with "the Establishment" defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn't support Newt.

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, "when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles (Newt)," but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging "the Establishment" -- because, again, "the Establishment" is anyone who opposes Newt.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as "drug seekers" and Ron Paul supporters.

Newtons claim Romney is a "moderate," and Gingrich the true conservative -- a feat that can be accomplished only by refusing to believe anything Romney says ... and also refusing to believe anything Gingrich says.

-- Romney's one great "flip-flop" is on abortion. (I thought the reason we argued with people about abortion was to try to get them to "flip-flop" on this issue. Sometimes it works!)
Nearly two decades ago, when Romney was trying to defeat champion desecrator of life Sen. Teddy Kennedy, he sought to remove abortion as a campaign issue by declaring that he, too, supported Roe v. Wade.

(Nonetheless, Kennedy ran a campaign commercial against him featuring a Mormon woman complaining that Romney, as a Mormon elder, had pressured her not to have an abortion, but to give the child up for adoption. Are you getting the idea that Massachusetts is different from the rest of America, readers?)

Romney changed his mind on abortion -- not when it was politically advantageous, but when it mattered. As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill and "worked closely" with Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The president of MCL recently issued a statement saying that, "since being elected governor, Mitt Romney has had a consistent commitment to the culture of life."

He didn't defend his changed position by saying he was a "historian," or denounce people who raised the switch as "fundamentally" dishonest asking "absurd" questions, or go back and forth and back and forth. He just said he changed his mind.

Meanwhile, Gingrich, who has run for office only in a small, majority Republican, undoubtedly pro-life congressional district, lobbied President Bush to support embryonic stem cell research.

-- Romney is now the only remaining candidate for president who opposes amnesty for illegals.

(Ever since President Bush's amnesty plan cratered on the shoals of public opposition, no Republican will ever use the word "amnesty," despite wanting to keep illegals here -- just as Democrats refuse to say "abortion," while supporting every manner of destroying human life.)
Romney supports E-Verify and a fence on the border. As governor he promoted English immersion programs for immigrants, signed an agreement with the federal government allowing state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws, and opposed efforts to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition or driver's licenses.

At the same time, Romney says he'd like to staple a green card to the diploma of every immigrant here on a student visa who gets a higher degree in math or science.
Gingrich supports importing a slave labor force from Mexico under a "guest worker" program and wants to create government "citizen review boards" to grant amnesty on a case-by-case basis (i.e. all at once) to illegal aliens.

-- Romney supports entitlement reform along the lines of the Paul Ryan plan, as he has said plainly, but without histrionics, in the debates.

Just last year, Gingrich went on "Meet the Press" and called Ryan's plan -- supported by nearly every House Republican -- "right-wing social engineering."

He apologized for those remarks, then took back his apology, still later doubled down, calling the Ryan plan "suicide," and now -- currently, but it could change any minute -- Gingrich supports Ryan's entitlement reform efforts.

For the latest updates on Newt's position on the Ryan plan, go to http//twitter.com/#whatcheapshotgrandstandymovewillworknow?

-- As for crony capitalism, Romney made all his money in the private sector by his own diligence and talent -- even giving away all the money he inherited from his parents. He's never lived in Washington or traded on access to government officials.

Meanwhile, without the federal government, Gingrich would be penniless. He has been in Washington since the '70s, first as a congressman, then becoming a rich man on the basis of having been a congressman.

Most egregiously, he took $1.6 million to shill for Freddie Mac, one of the two institutions directly responsible for the housing crash that caused the financial collapse. (Or one of three, if you consider Barney Frank an institution.)

If the tea party stands for anything, it stands in absolute opposition to government insiders shoring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the very time those institutions were blowing up the economy.

-- Romney could not be more forceful in saying he will issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare his first day in office and then seek its formal repeal. Whether you like a state-wide insurance mandate or not, it's a world of difference when the federal government does it. Conservatives, having read the Constitution, ought to understand this.

It was on account of the difference between state and federal powers that the Supreme Court overturned the federal Violence Against Women Act. The court was not endorsing rape, but reminding us that states make laws about rape, not Congress.

To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as "Romneycare" is just a word game, on the order of acting like a "gun" has the same properties as a "gunny sack," or "fire" is the same thing as a "firefly."

Romney supported the idea of other states doing something along the lines of his health care bill, but always opposed insurance mandates from the federal government (just as I oppose the federal government issuing general laws about rape, but support state laws against rape.)
For those of you who still think Romneycare is the worst possible sin a Republican candidate could commit -- even worse than taking money from Freddie Mac as it destroyed the economy -- that doesn't help Gingrich: He supported Romneycare.

(While we're on the subject, the nation's leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage's senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.)

But Gingrich did more than support Romneycare. As former senator Rick Santorum has pointed out, Gingrich supported a FEDERAL individual mandate to purchase health insurance from 1993 until five minutes ago -- i.e., at least until a "Meet the Press" appearance just last May.
Asked by Maria Bartiromo in the CNBC debate last November to explain what he would do to fix health care, Newt attacked the question as "absurd" and said he would need a "several-hour period" to answer it.

In a world where words have meaning, Mitt Romney is not the "moderate" in this race. He is the most conservative candidate still standing, with the possible exception of Rick Santorum, who is bad on illegal immigration. (Santorum voted in the Senate against even the voluntary use of E-Verify by employers, which means he doesn't want to do anything about illegal immigration at all.)

Romney is "moderate" only in demeanor -- which is just another word game. His positions are more conservative than Gingrich's, but he doesn't scare people like Gingrich does. Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms were moderate in demeanor, too. No one would call them political moderates.

Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate.
Conservatism is an electable quality. Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters.

  • Campaigns & Elections
  • 2012 Presidential
  • Newt Gingrich
  • Column
  • Ann Coulter's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Massachusetts elected a

Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:04pm.

Massachusetts elected a liberal for governor. We know both records and we reject Romney.

Nuke em til they glow; then shoot em in the dark
  • Login to post comments

Boring

Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:20pm.

Get a grip, Ann.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

I hear what you are saying

Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:20pm.

I hear what you are saying Anne but Romneycare still gives me the willys about Mitt. And not for nothing, I think Newt is a far better debater. yeah, yeah I know we should not elect our candidates based on just that factor but the idea of Newt eviscerating President Downgrade live on TV just gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.  :-D

Personally I wish Cain or Perry was still in the race but we are left with Newt and Mitt to battle it out.  I do like Mitt having the executive experience in running a State and a business but that legislation he passed is a big negative.

More investigation needed by me on the candidates and who I think will best represent me.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." President Ronald Reagan
  • Login to post comments

There is only one candidate

Submitted by c5then on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:26pm.

for the GOP nomonation that has not flip-flopped on any issue for over 20 years and remains consistent and true to his principles and stated beliefs.

I know a lot of you folks here don't want to hear it, but there it is. I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's ideas or positions, but he is the one who we can trust to be what he says and do what he says. Also, many of the ideas that I disagree with he would need Congress to help him with or approve, and he is also the one candidate that would absolutely follow the Constitution and not try to implement them on his own by Executive order, or regulatuions or appointing czars, etc.

IMO the other candidates are being illserved by their campaign staffs and advisors in going on these stupid and viscious attacks against the other candidates. It makes them look petty, shrewish and hypocritical. Keep in mind that the campaign staffs want their candidate to win AT ANY COST because that's where the administration posts and advisors and appointments come from mostly. They should be talking about their various different ideas on how to handle the mess we are in and forget about all the mudslinging. They started out that way, but it quickly devolved into a mud-wrestling match because winning the nomination became more important than beating Obama.

 

Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it! 

  • Login to post comments

⇒ You're right

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:30pm.

He is Dennis Kucinich.

  • Login to post comments

I tend to agree here

Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 1:48pm.

There are so many people lining up against Newt that there must be more to him than just a few good moments in debates. He's combative, apparently, and volatile. A hothead, according to some. He's also not that conservative. Ann lays it out pretty clearly- Newt sanctioned the federal mandate for health care! How can anyone support that? Newt sat with Pelosi on climate change. Again, how can anyone on our side support that? He's also really weak on immigration. He's weaker than Perry, here. Freddie Mac? Vulture capitalism? This is all just populist pandering, and riding the back of OWS is not at all endearing to me.

I'm wondering why we would give Newt the benefit of the doubt that he's changed his positions and will govern from the right when he's never done that. Look, short of Ron Paul, I'll vote for the GOP nominee (I'll skip the presidential portion if somehow Ron Paul wins), but there will only be 3 debates with Obama, surely none of the questions will allow Newt to go on the offensive, and there's more to being president than "personality" - as we've seen for the last three years.

I've been saying for months he'd make a good Chief of Staff, not president. I can't get behind him; not yet. He hasn't convinced me that he's more than just riding and anti-media, anti-Mitt platform.

Personally, of those left, I like Rick Santorum. Yeah, he's boring, but I don't care to hear about his date-nights or White House concerts anyway. And I'm boring, so I can empathize. He'll be pro-military, tough on Iran, and like his tax plan or not, nothing will get done there without Congress anyway. At least he's true to his convictions (without being bat**it-crazy) and I can respect that. I haven't had to cast a vote yet, and there's still time to change my mind, but I can't see Newt doing it and I've eliminated Paul as a candidate.

  • Login to post comments

Most egregiously, he took $1.6 million to shill for Freddie Mac,

Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 2:16pm.

What part don't you get about being a consultant, as opposed to a lobbyist?

Snap out of it...

The bottom line, whom will reach across the isle more? A shell shocked, well practiced republican lawyer governor in a democratic state, or the speaker of the house?

The media has been saving up since 2008 for more Mormon attacks on Mitt. The MSM  restraint so far is just amazing.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

Who will reach across the aisle more?

Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 4:31pm.

You mean like the guy who sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to push the global warming scam, who is apparently a member of OWS now, and who is already reaching across the aisle with his amnesty plan?

And no, I'm not a Romney guy. Ann makes the same stupid argument that others make by implying Mitt had to govern as a liberal because he was in a liberal state, and then in the next breath claims Romneycare was actually a Conservative plan. Earth to Ann.....I don't care who comes up with the plan.....a liberal plan is a liberal plan. If Heritage comes out tomorrow in support of open borders and abortion, does that mean it's Conservative? Uh.....no.

She's right about one thing though...Romney is more electable than Newt. That doesn't mean he will win, it means he has a better chance to win. Sheesh, how sad is it that these guys are the best we can do?

 


  • Login to post comments

Newt, ain't so bright when it comes to science.

Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 6:29pm.

I met Newt once here on Maui at a book signing,(he just loves Maui) in one of his books, Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8th..., He went on about seagulls on the beach here on Oahu Hawaii.

I told Newt there are no seagulls in Hawaii, he told me he'd get his research team on it.

Botton line Newt is a leader, and Mitt is a follower.

Oh look who is in dat Mitt camp, lol Dole assails Gingrich in plea to conservatives h/t Drudge...

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

I disagree, Ann.

Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 2:50pm.

I disagree, Ann. I think his nomination would guarantee that Obama would lose office. You make statements about how "entrenched" Newt is, but what does the general population see? They see him being attacked by the "entrenched" incumbent President, by the "entrenched" opposition (like those "entrenched" members of Congress), and by the "entrenched" press, day by day, hour after hour. Thanks to all these attacks, the vast majority of them which are personal and which the American public finds extremely appalling, Newt is rapidly becoming the underdog. That's pulling more and more sympathy towards him, and more and more anger against his opponents, both in the Republican party and without.

The more people attack Newt, the more popular he's becoming, mostly because he's willing to fight back, in public, on national television and is calling these types of personal attacks as what they truly are: disgusting! This is exactly what we're looking for in a President, someone who is willing to take on the competition directly. Someone who is willing to look their adversary directly in their eyes and say "bring it on!" That's indicative of a man with a strong character, as opposed to people like Obama who issues "press releases," or, attends "interviews," who will only face Newt through an intermediary, like Nancy "I know something" Pelosi, which is indicative of a weak character, one who is unwilling to face his adversary directly. That a HUGE plus for Newt.

By the way, you, yourself, are contributing to the likelihood of a Newt presidency, Instead of reducing Newt's influence as you were hoping to do, this attack by you is actually strengthening him, for the same reasons the others are. You're not facing Newt directly. You're using your own version of a "press release" as a mean of attack, and, you're not only attacking him, you're attacking his supporters as well, which is indicative of a weak character!

Do you REALLY want to see Newt fail in his candidacy? Then you need to marginalize him, not highlight him. You definitely should NOT attack him, like you're doing here. And you should never, EVER, attack his supporters, insinuate that they're not living in reality, that they're stupid, for that leads to the question of : "what makes you so damn smart?"

Instead of telling us what Newt is or is not, something we are more than able to accomplish on our own, you should be making small statements like "What's the big deal about Newt, anyways? I don't see the charm." Do that long enough and no one else will see that charm ether.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

Et tu, Mz. Coulter?

Submitted by deadeyedan on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 3:11pm.

You are correct, CM. Apparently Ann is not recognizing that much of the assault on Newt back in the '90's came from the establishment, mostly dems and the leftists (that is, the media) but also from the Rockefeller wing of his own party.

Ann, you who have attacked the media without having to worry about their retaliations costing you votes, ought to be applauding the candidate who's blasting away at them at very great risk.

You might also want to consider that despite the undeserved mauling Newt took for enabling the Republican takeover and his success with the Contract With America he had the nerve to come back into the fray knowing those same forces would be out to get him again.

Yes, he did spend time on a couch with Pelosi but that was before the eye-opener that was ClimateGate.

CLIMATEGATE (now I & II) - the revelation that the pseudo-scientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution

  • Login to post comments

You're wrong this time Ann.

Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 3:24pm.

You're wrong this time Ann.

 

   /// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///    خال

  • Login to post comments

One question, Ann....

Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 3:39pm.

then why is Newt's popularity increasing while Romney's is stalled pretty much where it was 4 years ago?
Newt's supporters are all stupid? Fine. Then he'll be elected by a bunch of stupid voters. I don't think he can do any worse the the last president elected by a bunch of stupid voters.

  • Login to post comments

Forget about them being stupid, how about them being hypocrites?

Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 4:48pm.

How many Newt supporters were arguing that Anthony Weiner had to resign just last year?


  • Login to post comments

A vote for Romney is......

Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 4:58am.

Like voting for Jon Mcain again. I don't think thats gonna happen twice.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."

Red
  • Login to post comments

Ann ... worng

Submitted by LionKing on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 11:56pm.

I will not vote for a RINO again.

If we get stuck with OBAMA again it is because conservatives failed
and no one give a SH*T about the constitution.

I will not vote for Romney. I would support Newt, Rick, or even Ron Paul.

If it Romney vs Obama, the Constitution Party gets my vote.

I would hope and pray that conservatives take control of the Senate and the House.

 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Look at NYT's partisan-hack rewrite of the IRS hearing (Draw and STRIKE!)
  • Study: Christians who tithe have better finances than those who don't (TGC)
  • The media are willing accomplices to Obama (PolitiChicks)
  • FBI has suspects in mind in Benghazi; Obama prefers to try them in court (AP)
  • The folly of 'do something' liberalism (Patriot Update)
  • DOJ targeted more Fox News reporters than Rosen (Twitchy)
  • WashPost vs. WashPost on IRS probe (Ed Morrissey)
  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: Why Tim Tebow Is an Ultimate Clutch Player
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
  • NYT Gets Sen. Cruz's Opposition to Marketplace Fairness Act Dead Wrong
  • Oops! CNN Commentator Falsely Accuses Okla. State Rep While Trying to Score Liberal Points on Tornado
  • Sen. Whitehouse Blames GOP For Okla. Tornado, Storms, Rising Seas, Etc.
  • On Leno: Kids Ask Obama the Darndest Questions
  • Morning Joe Meteorologist: Tornado Averted 'By The Grace of Whatever'
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use