Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   And the most reasonable conservative Romney campaign post-mortem comes from ... Ann Coulter?   (anncoulter.com ) divider line 168
    More: Weird, Mitt Romney, human beings, Soviet war in Afghanistan, Nelson Rockefeller, health insurance mandate, abortion law, Bob Dole, Calvin Coolidge  
•       •       •

6863 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Nov 2012 at 5:36 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-24 01:41:27 PM  
I'm not entirely sure what her main point is.
 
2012-11-24 01:46:35 PM  
How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.
 
2012-11-24 02:04:23 PM  

Weaver95: How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.


Romney wasn't a rude, condescending jerk?
 
2012-11-24 03:28:39 PM  
The only thing that ever needs to be posted in a Ann Coulter thread

tellitlikeitis.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-24 03:30:55 PM  
[americanpotato.jpg]
 
2012-11-24 03:41:23 PM  

Weaver95: How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.


He refused to accept defeat in the face of overwhelming victory.
 
2012-11-24 03:41:31 PM  
I'm just going to assume that she used an epithet of some kind and not read the article.
 
2012-11-24 03:48:05 PM  

make me some tea: I'm not entirely sure what her main point is.


Peter von Nostrand: tellitlikeitis.files.wordpress.com


That's her main point.
 
2012-11-24 03:55:43 PM  

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: I'm just going to assume that she used an epithet of some kind and not read the article.


And yet I am the moran for saying that the left plays the "race card" too damn often

/Well, I am a moran, but not in that aspect
 
2012-11-24 03:57:28 PM  
He said he'd issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare on his first day in office. (Why he didn't promise it to all 57 states I'll never know.)

*drink*

Ah, RW humor.

This one *is* kinda funny though.

Here's Coltface, long established spewer of over-the-top RW propaganda and vicious hyperbole, being forced into defending her position as an unrepentant Romney shill all these long months to the likes of Teahadist Jenny Beth Martin who have declared her and her candidate RINOs.

In case anyone missed that I'll repeat it more slowly...

Ann Coulter is the moderate in this picture.

You really do have to laugh at that.

And this...

The only Republican to defeat a sitting president in the last century was Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Jimmy Carter, the second-worst president in U.S. history (pending the final results of Obama's second term). Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan's example is worth studying.
 
2012-11-24 04:00:48 PM  

propasaurus: Romney wasn't a rude, condescending jerk?


Not nearly to the level that some of the right wing would have liked to see. Remember that Romney's support on the right increased when he was having his bus honk and drive in circles around Obama events.

There are people in the "conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed " camp who are just convinced that had Romney spoken entirely in incomprehensible right-wing gibberish, that it would have totally made him look better to the voters.

I mean, who among us wouldn't be persuaded by a 30 second ad that managed to work in the phrases "Boy king", "Holder's people", "feckless", "apology tour", "wookie" and "madrassa".
 
2012-11-24 04:06:00 PM  

GAT_00: make me some tea: I'm not entirely sure what her main point is.

Peter von Nostrand: tellitlikeitis.files.wordpress.com

That's her main point.


lol
 
2012-11-24 04:07:49 PM  

quatchi: Ann Coulter is the moderate in this picture.


That's a pretty damning condemnation of the GOP that Coulter, who writes books calling liberals traitors in the goddamn title, is now the moderate voice.
 
2012-11-24 04:21:11 PM  
Condensed and ensmall-ened for your non-clicking pleasure:

" Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.

But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: "What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them."

There was also the seven months of primaries, during which Romney got more votes than the rest of the field combined. So there's that. Moreover, the idea that Mitt Romney was "a weak, moderate candidate" is preposterous. As Trotsky said, in moments of crisis, people with no politics tend to develop the worst possible politics.

Even newly elected Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas complained that Romney failed to get across that there are "two viewpoints and directions for the country" and that he erred by trying to "be a nice guy." As Cruz said, "I'm pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama" in the third debate -- proving once again that comedy is harder than it looks.

The idea that Romney failed to present a clear contrast with Obama or was too "nice" is also nonsense. If Republicans continue to tell themselves comforting myths about our candidate being the problem, they better get used to losing a lot more elections.

The only Republican to defeat a sitting president in the last century was Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Jimmy Carter, the second-worst president in U.S. history (pending the final results of Obama's second term). Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan's example is worth studying. In Reagan's one debate with Carter in 1980, he presented "two viewpoints and directions for the country" by vowing to save Medicare and not to cut taxes too much. Loud and clear, Reagan said: "My tax cut does not come close to eliminating (Carter's) $86 billion increase. I'm only reducing the amount of the increase." There's your bold contrasting vision!

Reagan picked a pro-choice, anti-supply side Republican as his running mate. He lavishly praised FDR in his acceptance speech at the national convention, leading The New York Times to title an editorial about him "Franklin Delano Reagan." Meanwhile, Romney promised to institute major reforms to Medicare, repeal Obamacare and impose a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. He said he'd issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare on his first day in office. (Why he didn't promise it to all 57 states I'll never know.) He chose a pro-life, fiscal conservative as his running mate and never praised FDR.

A careful analysis of the Romney plan thus reveals several deviations from the Democrat platform -- more stark than those delineated by even Reagan. Romney was the most libertarian candidate Republicans have run since Calvin Coolidge. And he got more votes from the dwindling white majority than Reagan did. How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Some conservatives didn't trust Romney because, as governor of a state between blue and North Korea, he had instituted a health insurance mandate, one feature of the hated Obamacare. As governor of a purple state, Reagan had signed the most liberal abortion law in the country and imposed the three largest state tax hikes in the nation's history. Nevada Sen. Paul Laxalt's nominating speech hailed Reagan's governorship of California for producing "a veritable Great Society of aid for schools, minorities and the handicapped," as the Times put it. Reagan had also been an actual member of the godless, treason party.

This is not to diminish Reagan. It is to say that Romney wasn't the problem.

To the extent Republicans have a problem with their candidates, it's not that they're not conservative enough. Where are today's Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy. Having vanquished liberal Republicans, the party's problem now runs more along the lines of moron showoffs, trying to impress tea partiers like Jenny Beth Martin by taking insane positions on rape exceptions for abortion -- as 2 million babies are killed every year from pregnancies having nothing to do with rape.

Romney lost because he was running against an incumbent, was beaten up during a long and vicious primary fight, and ran in a year with a very different electorate from 1980. At least one of those won't be true next time. But we're not going to win any elections by telling ourselves fairy tales about a candidate who lost because he wasn't conservative enough, articulate enough or mean enough."
 
2012-11-24 04:37:58 PM  

Somacandra: Condensed and ensmall-ened for your non-clicking pleasure:

" Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.

But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: "What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them."

There was also the seven months of primaries, during which Romney got more votes than the rest of the field combined. So there's that. Moreover, the idea that Mitt Romney was "a weak, moderate candidate" is preposterous. As Trotsky said, in moments of crisis, people with no politics tend to develop the worst possible politics.

Even newly elected Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas complained that Romney failed to get across that there are "two viewpoints and directions for the country" and that he erred by trying to "be a nice guy." As Cruz said, "I'm pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama" in the third debate -- proving once again that comedy is harder than it looks.

The idea that Romney failed to present a clear contrast with Obama or was too "nice" is also nonsense. If Republicans continue to tell themselves comforting myths about our candidate being the problem, they better get used to losing a lot more elections.

The only Republican to defeat a sitting president in the last century was Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Jimmy Carter, the second-worst president in U.S. history (pending the final results of Obama's second term). Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best A ...


Copyright infringement does not befit you
 
2012-11-24 04:45:10 PM  

GAT_00: quatchi: Ann Coulter is the moderate in this picture.

That's a pretty damning condemnation of the GOP that Coulter, who writes books calling liberals traitors in the goddamn title, is now the moderate voice.


It's funny.

On the one hand she's patting herself on the back for the GOP's supposed victory over the forces of moderation that she played a part in and on the other she can't quite figure out why the whackjobs who now run the GOP Asylum weren't happy with Mitt.

To the extent Republicans have a problem with their candidates, it's not that they're not conservative enough. Where are today's Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy.

Having vanquished liberal Republicans, the party's problem now runs more along the lines of moron showoffs, trying to impress tea partiers like Jenny Beth Martin by taking insane positions on rape exceptions for abortion -- as 2 million babies are killed every year from pregnancies having nothing to do with rape.


Yes, go on, Annie, go and call a teatard internet hive-Queen "insane" and a "moron".

What could possibly go wrong?

*popcorn*
 
2012-11-24 04:59:51 PM  
Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan's example is worth studying.

Who is number 1? W? Nixon? Jesus?
 
2012-11-24 05:00:33 PM  
Smitty, I gave the article a chance.

But, when Coulter wrote about Reagan's being among the two best presidents and Carter's being among the two worst (after Obama, presumably), I realized she wasn't speaking from her Adam-appled throat; she was speaking from her ass.

Just as an aside, isn't it "interesting" that, for Republicans, every Democratic president is the worst in history and every Democratic presidential nominee is the most liberal ever? As an aside, I wish Obama were as liberal as the Republicans claim he is...but, I know that's not who he is. And, even if I don't think Obama is a Roosevelt or a Jefferson (at least, not yet), he doesn't belong in the same league as Richard Nixon or James Buchanan. And, quite frankly, neither does Jimmy Carter.
 
2012-11-24 05:11:49 PM  

Weaver95: How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.


He stood up on that podium showing off all of that melanin in his dark dark skin
 
2012-11-24 05:17:24 PM  

make me some tea: I'm not entirely sure what her main point is.


Regarding Romney: the poor sap never stood a chance.


That was her point. Not mine. Just hers.
 
2012-11-24 05:18:49 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan's example is worth studying.

Who is number 1? W? Nixon? Jesus?


Martin Van Buren. And his orchestra.
 
2012-11-24 05:39:01 PM  
i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-24 05:41:07 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan's example is worth studying.

Who is number 1? W? Nixon? Jesus?


So giving her the benefit of the doubt, that still means Washington or Lincoln isn't in the top two.
 
2012-11-24 05:43:08 PM  
img248.imageshack.us

I'm assuming the chick in the corner is supposed to be Ann. The general horsey-facishness looks like her.
Now why she was supposed to have been supporting Obama I don't know, but obviously she's a sellout turncoat RINO.
 
2012-11-24 05:43:25 PM  
FTFA:

Romney lost because he was running against an incumbent, was beaten up during a long and vicious primary fight, and ran in a year with a very different electorate from 1980.

Reasonable postmortem? Hardly.

She completely ignores the fact that the GOP platform alienated everyone but old white men.

Romney lost pure and simple because Obama crushed him with the Latino and woman vote.
 
2012-11-24 05:44:04 PM  
I remember how angry she got when Romney's camp was bungling healthcare questions. "Why should we [Fox News] continue to work so hard for this guy???". Fair and balanced.
 
2012-11-24 05:45:03 PM  
I'm not sure which point is more laughably idiotic....Reagan being one of the two best presidents or carter being one of the two worst (dependent on Obama's term).
 
2012-11-24 05:45:07 PM  
Not going to read her article but I think the Romney crowds with mainly 50, 60, and 70 year old whites and little else explains the problem pretty well.
 
2012-11-24 05:47:07 PM  

Weaver95: How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.


She means Democrats with a backbone. Something the Republicans have never had an answer for. When they say a democrat is being mean and rude they really mean "help! they are fighting back!"
 
2012-11-24 05:47:28 PM  
Romney lost because he was a horrible candidate who ran an incompetent campaign even though he's been campaigning for six farking years.
 
2012-11-24 05:49:53 PM  

Summoner101: So giving her the benefit of the doubt, that still means Washington or Lincoln isn't in the top two.


Lincoln freed the slaves, so naturally he's near the bottom of their list.
 
2012-11-24 05:52:53 PM  

Candygram4Mongo: Martin Van Buren. And his orchestra.


www.bestcareanywhere.net
 
2012-11-24 05:54:38 PM  

GAT_00: quatchi: Ann Coulter is the moderate in this picture.

That's a pretty damning condemnation of the GOP that Coulter, who writes books calling liberals traitors in the goddamn title, is now the moderate voice.


That was my takeaway as well. Apart from the handful of petty jabs, this was a pretty somber article from a firebrand like Coulter. I would have expected more vitriol and less introspection just based on the name of the author. I fully expect the rabid right to ignore all of her genuine warnings and continue to plunge into the depths of ideological purity.
 
2012-11-24 05:55:12 PM  
Reasonable?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-24 05:56:04 PM  
I attended Thanksgiving with a staunchly conservative family of a friend. The entire afternoon was literally talking points: "Obamaphone", welfare queens, Barry lost the popular vote, America "re-nigged", etc.

The whole time I just focused on consuming turkey and pie.

One of the ladies there finally said, "Romney lost because he was trying too much to be extreme. We need a more moderate republican if we ever want a Republican in the whitehouse again"...

...I stopped eating, looked around and thought to myself, "well, shiat, I didn't expect something that reasonable to come out of her"

But before I could finish my thought she continued;

"But what can you expect when the Democrats put up the most extreme leftist candidate this country has ever faced?"

Ahh, there it is!

So I went back to eating turkey and pie.
 
2012-11-24 05:56:44 PM  

Karac: [img248.imageshack.us image 488x655]

I'm assuming the chick in the corner is supposed to be Ann. The general horsey-facishness looks like her.
Now why she was supposed to have been supporting Obama I don't know, but obviously she's a sellout turncoat RINO.


She's just encouraging that turncoat RINO Cristie to drink the poisoned FlavorAid because he dared to put his state ahead of the Party.
 
2012-11-24 05:58:07 PM  
The "most reasonable" doesn't mean it is reasonable.

Also, she isn't stupid. Fox News viewers and those who think like them like to live in an echo chamber for some reason. They are willing to watch people say really ignorant and factually incorrect things if it fits the narrative they want (see also: unskewed polls). She takes advantage of this by being a real life troll and saying the things they want to hear. In the end she is successful if it convinces people to buy her books or pay her to speak.

As much as I detest her she has a net worth of 8.5 million. I realize money isn't anything but as far as morally questionable ways to make money... well there are larger fortunes built in more evil ways in this country (monsanto, big oil, the Catholic Church to name just three.)
 
2012-11-24 06:00:21 PM  

casual disregard: GAT_00: quatchi: Ann Coulter is the moderate in this picture.

That's a pretty damning condemnation of the GOP that Coulter, who writes books calling liberals traitors in the goddamn title, is now the moderate voice.

That was my takeaway as well. Apart from the handful of petty jabs, this was a pretty somber article from a firebrand like Coulter. I would have expected more vitriol and less introspection just based on the name of the author. I fully expect the rabid right to ignore all of her genuine warnings and continue to plunge into the depths of ideological purity.


Yeah, but again, it's only in a "pay attention to me" way. She's currently decided that's the best way to get attention. Don't think for a second she won't return to flamethrowing as soon as she believes it gets her the most attention.
 
2012-11-24 06:01:40 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Summoner101: So giving her the benefit of the doubt, that still means Washington or Lincoln isn't in the top two.

Lincoln freed the slaves, so naturally he's near the bottom of their list.


And Jefferson approved the Louisiana Purchase for pennies on the franc making one of the largest executive takeover of Congressional powers EVER!
 
2012-11-24 06:02:16 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: Weaver95: How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.

She means Democrats with a backbone. Something the Republicans have never had an answer for. When they say a democrat is being mean and rude they really mean "help! they are fighting back!"


it was pretty neat watching a bunch of self proclaimed Ayn Rand style Galt supermen get a papercut and then fold into whiny crybabies.
 
2012-11-24 06:06:12 PM  
Part of the reason Reagan won: he crushed Carter in the South, and overall, Carter had an eleven point drop in his share of the white vote (compared to his win in '76).

Maybe in 2016, the Republicans can win by pushing harder to win the white vote in the South . . .
 
2012-11-24 06:14:02 PM  

VarmintCong: Karac: [img248.imageshack.us image 488x655]

I'm assuming the chick in the corner is supposed to be Ann. The general horsey-facishness looks like her.
Now why she was supposed to have been supporting Obama I don't know, but obviously she's a sellout turncoat RINO.

She's just encouraging that turncoat RINO Cristie to drink the poisoned FlavorAid because he dared to put his state ahead of the Party.


I don't understand. She's on the record as saying that if the Republicans were to nominate Romney instead of Christie, they'll lose.

Money quote comes around 0:46
 
2012-11-24 06:14:37 PM  
Ann Coulter chastising someone for being "rude" and "a jerk"?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
 
2012-11-24 06:14:47 PM  

Testiclaw: I attended Thanksgiving with a staunchly conservative family of a friend. The entire afternoon was literally talking points: "Obamaphone", welfare queens, Barry lost the popular vote, America "re-nigged", etc.

The whole time I just focused on consuming turkey and pie.

One of the ladies there finally said, "Romney lost because he was trying too much to be extreme. We need a more moderate republican if we ever want a Republican in the whitehouse again"...

...I stopped eating, looked around and thought to myself, "well, shiat, I didn't expect something that reasonable to come out of her"

But before I could finish my thought she continued;

"But what can you expect when the Democrats put up the most extreme leftist candidate this country has ever faced?"

Ahh, there it is!

So I went back to eating turkey and pie.


Barack Obama 62,611,250 50.6%
Mitt Romney 59,134,475 47.8%

In general these people simply don't accept facts, do they?
 
2012-11-24 06:15:13 PM  
Weaver95: Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.

she meant to say "uppity"
 
2012-11-24 06:15:45 PM  
GOD DAMMIT, subby. Warn us next time. I just gave Ann F*CKING Coulter a page hit.
 
2012-11-24 06:19:15 PM  

fusillade762: GOD DAMMIT, subby. Warn us next time. I just gave Ann F*CKING Coulter a page hit.


Well in fairness to subby the link clearly said "Some guy".

Caveat emptor, all that.
 
2012-11-24 06:20:28 PM  

MrEricSir: Ann Coulter chastising someone for being "rude" and "a jerk"?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


Coltface calling Obama rude and a jerk isn't the pot calling the kettle black it's the grass calling the sky green.
 
2012-11-24 06:20:40 PM  

fusillade762: GOD DAMMIT, subby. Warn us next time. I just gave Ann F*CKING Coulter a page hit.


It SAID "Ann Coulter" right there in the headline. Really.
 
2012-11-24 06:21:50 PM  

Weaver95: ItchyMcDoogle: Weaver95: How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.

She means Democrats with a backbone. Something the Republicans have never had an answer for. When they say a democrat is being mean and rude they really mean "help! they are fighting back!"

it was pretty neat watching a bunch of self proclaimed Ayn Rand style Galt supermen get a papercut and then fold into whiny crybabies.


I like that it's only "rude and condescending" when it's Obama talking to Romney. Romney talking to his constituents apparently doesn't count; so the "47%" remarks that did him in evidently were neither rude nor condescending in her view.
 
2012-11-24 06:22:59 PM  

quatchi: fusillade762: GOD DAMMIT, subby. Warn us next time. I just gave Ann F*CKING Coulter a page hit.

Well in fairness to subby the link clearly said "Some guy".

Caveat emptor, all that.


assets0.ordienetworks.com
 
2012-11-24 06:23:34 PM  
There was nothing reasonable or rational about that article. It's the same crap she's been spewing for years. Reagan is #1, Carter sucks and Romney wasn't conservative enough.
Oh, and that line about "waiting to see the outcome of Obama's second term" was such B.S. Obama could single-handedly cure AIDS, reduce the deficit to $0, successfully protect the Israeli border for decades to come and reduce abortions to zero in this country and he would still be "history's greatest monster".
/Fark yourself with a poison-tipped arrow you coont.
 
2012-11-24 06:23:44 PM  
"To the extent Republicans have a problem with their candidates, it's not that they're not conservative enough. Where are today's Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy.

Having vanquished liberal Republicans, the party's problem now runs more along the lines of moron showoffs, trying to impress tea partiers like Jenny Beth Martin by taking insane positions..."

Okay, but once you've gotten rid of the moderates and the crazy people, how many voters does that leave in the GOP?
 
2012-11-24 06:23:54 PM  

bulldg4life: I'm not sure which point is more laughably idiotic....Reagan being one of the two best presidents or carter being one of the two worst (dependent on Obama's term).


When a Republican is insulting someone, don't expect the words to mean anything. They just throw everything they have at whoever is opposing them at the moment.
 
2012-11-24 06:23:57 PM  

Gyrfalcon: .

I like that it's only "rude and condescending" when it's Obama talking to Romney. Romney talking to his constituents apparently doesn't count; so the "47%" remarks that did him in evidently were neither rude nor condescending in her view.


that's the part I don't understand. that video is up on gotdamn YOUTUBE! we can see it. we can go back and listen to Romney insulting 47% of the country. how do you say Romney isn't a condescending rude asshole when we have video evidence that proves otherwise?
 
2012-11-24 06:24:49 PM  

bulldg4life: I'm not sure which point is more laughably idiotic....Reagan being one of the two best presidents or carter being one of the two worst (dependent on Obama's term).


That was the point I stopped reading. There's a point where stupid gets too hard to get on with.
 
2012-11-24 06:25:32 PM  
I am so confused.

I can only conclude that either

1> I just slipped into an alternate universe, or
2> Ann Coulter was finally locked away and someone more reasonable wrote this under her name.

I'm banking on #1. I'm 70% sure I just saw some odd pepperpot with a plunger on it zipping down the street screeching "Exterminate". And there's this blue police box in my hall. No idea how it got there.
 
2012-11-24 06:30:33 PM  
While Coulter is a douche in general, I do like the fact that she's trying to point out that the Reagan that Republicans worship today not only never existed, he'd probably be drummed out of the Republican Party if he were around today and did, legislatively, what he did. Reagan as governor of California was no less liberal than Romney was as governor of Massachusetts (taking into account the decades of social change in the interim). Today he'd have been as reviled as Romney was for those positions. Nowadays they forget about all that.

Reagan worked on immigration reform. He cut taxes, yes, but when that was a bit much, he later raised taxes. He compromised with Congressional Democrats on a whole host of issues.

The "Never Raised Taxes, Hardline Anti-Immigrant, Never Compromised With Democrats, Balanced the Budget (ha! He launched the massive "borrow and spend" era)" Ronald Reagan that the modern Republican Party lauds and vows to emulate never existed. It's a complete and utter fiction, and yet the entire party goes around saying "I'm gonna do what Reagan did and refuse to raise taxes under any circumstances!"

Frankly, if the party nominated another Ronald Reagan we'd be way better off than any of the clowns that were in the primaries in 2012. He might win, he might not, but at least he was a teensy bit rational.
 
2012-11-24 06:31:16 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Testiclaw: I attended Thanksgiving with a staunchly conservative family of a friend. The entire afternoon was literally talking points: "Obamaphone", welfare queens, Barry lost the popular vote, America "re-nigged", etc.

The whole time I just focused on consuming turkey and pie.

One of the ladies there finally said, "Romney lost because he was trying too much to be extreme. We need a more moderate republican if we ever want a Republican in the whitehouse again"...

...I stopped eating, looked around and thought to myself, "well, shiat, I didn't expect something that reasonable to come out of her"

But before I could finish my thought she continued;

"But what can you expect when the Democrats put up the most extreme leftist candidate this country has ever faced?"

Ahh, there it is!

So I went back to eating turkey and pie.

Barack Obama 62,611,250 50.6%
Mitt Romney 59,134,475 47.8%

In general these people simply don't accept facts, do they?


Short answer? No.

Long answer? Nooooooooooooooooo.

It was surreal.
 
2012-11-24 06:35:38 PM  
and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan's example is worth studying.

Washington, Lincoln and FDR loling hard
 
2012-11-24 06:37:31 PM  

quatchi: fusillade762: GOD DAMMIT, subby. Warn us next time. I just gave Ann F*CKING Coulter a page hit.

Well in fairness to subby the link clearly said "Some guy".

Caveat emptor, all that.


I'll admit, I'm not a big fan of bashing Coulter for his, sorry, her appearance; her ideas are ugly enough. On the other hand, I've been seeing stuff like this for so long:

blogs4conservatives.files.wordpress.com

I remember all the Freeper threads from back in the day where any thread that mentioned her was filled with swooning fanboys (there's a rule there that pics are obligatory in Coulter threads), and it seems as though their main point was, "She's on our side and she's SO FREAKING HOT! Suck it, libs!!!1111!!!!"

So now I lean more towards, "Really, that's what you consider hot? That's what you consider important when it comes to political debates?"
 
2012-11-24 06:41:02 PM  
FTA: Romney lost because he was running against an incumbent, was beaten up during a long and vicious primary fight, and ran in a year with a very different electorate from 1980. At least one of those won't be true next time. But we're not going to win any elections by telling ourselves fairy tales about a candidate who lost because he wasn't conservative enough, articulate enough or mean enough.

Hey, Phssthpok-with-an-alleged-vagina. Let me refresh your memory of an earlier prediction that you made about the 2012 presidential election:

If you don't run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose.
 
2012-11-24 06:41:20 PM  

Karac: [img248.imageshack.us image 488x655]

I'm assuming the chick in the corner is supposed to be Ann. The general horsey-facishness looks like her.
Now why she was supposed to have been supporting Obama I don't know, but obviously she's a sellout turncoat RINO.


Or she's telling Christie to drink the poison after HE turned traitor by not calling the president a niHARUMRHUBARBPHHAR... I mean, by not calling the president a traitor and horrible at his job in response to Sandy.
 
2012-11-24 06:41:34 PM  
zippythepinhead.com
 
2012-11-24 06:41:42 PM  
That line about Reagan being one of thje top two presidents bugged me too. If she'd said top five, or top two of the 20th century, I might cut her some slack, but... better than Jefferson? Better than Teddy Roosevelt? Better than Andrew Jackson? Better than either Washington or Lincoln? What that kind of comment reveals is a profound ignorance of history, both on the part of Ms. Coulter and of her audience.
 
2012-11-24 06:44:00 PM  

clambam: That line about Reagan being one of thje top two presidents bugged me too.


I'm almost surprised she didn't up the derp further by saying that Reagan counts as the top two because he had two terms.
 
2012-11-24 06:45:01 PM  

Testiclaw: So I went back to eating turkey and pie.


Sounds bizzarre, I hope the pie was good at least.

/Big fan of pie.
 
2012-11-24 06:45:27 PM  

quatchi: And this...

The only Republican to defeat a sitting president in the last century was Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Jimmy Carter, the second-worst president in U.S. history (pending the final results of Obama's second term). Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan's example is worth studying.


It's funny that Republicans keep farking that Reagan chicken, seeing as he was moderate, expanded government more than just about any president in history (I think he's close to Dubya), and completely exploded the deficit, in addition to ignoring AIDS because no one wanted to admit at first it wasn't just a gay disease.
 
2012-11-24 06:46:36 PM  
If she said that Romney has a tiny penis and no balls, she probably just considers him too Conservative for a real Republican C*** lie her.
 
2012-11-24 06:47:40 PM  

clambam: That line about Reagan being one of thje top two presidents bugged me too. If she'd said top five, or top two of the 20th century, I might cut her some slack, but... better than Jefferson? Better than Teddy Roosevelt? Better than Andrew Jackson? Better than either Washington or Lincoln? What that kind of comment reveals is a profound ignorance of history, both on the part of Ms. Coulter and of her audience.


Agreed. I really cant think about anything else in this article. Its such a ridiculous comment. List of Presidents from Scholars are almost uniformly Lincoln, Washington and FDR in different orders as 1,2,3. The Reagan modern republicans love doesn't even having a basis in reality. The Carter thing is just butthurt though, he wasn't good but he was far from the worst. the weaklings that followed Jackson an Lincoln come to mind.
 
2012-11-24 06:48:07 PM  
Oh, crap. I sure screwed that line up. Should have said "Lieberal".
 
2012-11-24 06:49:21 PM  
Whenever I read one of her columns, I'm always reminded of watching Al Franken put her in her proper place.
 
2012-11-24 06:49:34 PM  

HighOnCraic: So now I lean more towards, "Really, that's what you consider hot? That's what you consider important when it comes to political debates?"


When you know you can't win on substance, style points are all that's left.
 
2012-11-24 06:50:55 PM  

zarberg: quatchi: And this...

The only Republican to defeat a sitting president in the last century was Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Jimmy Carter, the second-worst president in U.S. history (pending the final results of Obama's second term). Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan's example is worth studying.

It's funny that Republicans keep farking that Reagan chicken, seeing as he was moderate, expanded government more than just about any president in history (I think he's close to Dubya), and completely exploded the deficit, in addition to ignoring AIDS because no one wanted to admit at first it wasn't just a gay disease.


My uncle, who makes Ann Coulter look like Jill Stein, and is a medical doctor, was arguing in the '80s that AIDS was only a gay disease.

/Just another example of how doctors are better thought of as auto mechanics than scientists
 
2012-11-24 06:51:47 PM  

quatchi: HighOnCraic: So now I lean more towards, "Really, that's what you consider hot? That's what you consider important when it comes to political debates?"

When you know you can't win on substance, style points are all that's left.


Yeah, but they're losing on style points as well. . .
 
2012-11-24 06:56:05 PM  

make me some tea: I'm not entirely sure what her main point is.


1. There's about to be an open civil war in the GOP between the radical right/tea party and the social moderates/fiscal conservatives. Think the Perry/Santorum branch vs the Christie/Bloomberg branch.

2. Coulter just announced which side she's taking (social moderate/fiscal conservative).

If you think the 2012 elections were a nasty affair, just sit back and watch the blood flow in the GOP primaries leading up to the 2014/2016 elections. So far we're only seeing the radical right playing the blame game for 2012 (aka: the GOP wasn't radical enough), but expect the moderates to stop the appeasement and openly call them out.

This should be entertaining.
 
2012-11-24 06:59:34 PM  

Rann Xerox: Hey, Phssthpok-with-an-alleged-vagina.


That's totally uncalled for. What have protectors ever done to you?
 
2012-11-24 07:00:15 PM  
Massachusetts: "... a state between Blue and North Korea."

That was funny, and from where I sit probably true enough.
 
2012-11-24 07:01:54 PM  

Testiclaw: We need a more moderate republican if we ever want a Republican in the whitehouse again"...


How does that change one vote? It's like saying "be more like the guy we voted for and we'll vote for you instead of him". Doesn't make sense.
 
2012-11-24 07:02:58 PM  

cchris_39: Testiclaw: We need a more moderate republican if we ever want a Republican in the whitehouse again"...

How does that change one vote? It's like saying "be more like the guy we voted for and we'll vote for you instead of him". Doesn't make sense.


It's more along the lines of "well, I don't like either, so I'm not voting."
 
2012-11-24 07:10:42 PM  

RedPhoenix122: cchris_39: Testiclaw: We need a more moderate republican if we ever want a Republican in the whitehouse again"...

How does that change one vote? It's like saying "be more like the guy we voted for and we'll vote for you instead of him". Doesn't make sense.

It's more along the lines of "well, I don't like either, so I'm not voting."


I wish they would have voted. There were third party candidates. You don't like Mr. Republican? You had so many other options. Farking VOTE. This is the part of our politics which saddens me most. Come on, guys, it's your civic duty! FARKING VOTE!
 
2012-11-24 07:14:08 PM  

DubyaHater: There was nothing reasonable or rational about that article.


Oh god, you're gonna make me defend Ann Coulter...

Ignore all of the petty jabs at the left and focus on her main point, which is to rebut claims that Romney lost because he was too much of a moderate. She correctly points out that a) Romney didn't run as a moderate, and b) Reagan, the only Republican to beat an incumbent president in the last 100 years, did.

Granted, if you were to strip out all those petty jabs the article runs half its length, but by Coulter standards it's a shockingly well-reasoned and even handed piece.
 
2012-11-24 07:16:16 PM  

jenlen: Massachusetts: "... a state between Blue and North Korea."


I love the right's insistence that North Korea is some kind of liberal socialist paradise.

Let's see: a place where the minions slave away for a few unelected people at the top of the pyramid, and are given a few crumbs to pacify them. Those that object are put in their place, violently. I dunno... sounds like the Republican vision for America to me.
 
2012-11-24 07:16:57 PM  

Weaver95: Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.


Don't you remember how he kept telling Clint Eastwood to shut up and go fark himself?

gothamist.com
 
2012-11-24 07:21:19 PM  
My esteemed colleagues, at Fark.com, have just brought some new evidence to my attention. Now, history has certainly shown that even the most intuitive criminal investigator can be wrong from time to time. But if I am mistaken... if Ann is indeed a woman, as she claims to be... then, my friend, she is suffering from the worst case of hemorrhoids I have *ever* seen!

*That's* why Romney lost the election! He found Captain Winkie!
 
2012-11-24 07:22:02 PM  
Romney was the most libertarian candidate Republicans have run since Calvin Coolidge.

lh3.ggpht.com
WHAT AM I CHOPPED LIVER?

 
2012-11-24 07:24:22 PM  
My god, the woman is a terrible writer. I think I have gleaned some points from her meandering BS:

1. Reagan ran as a centrist, vaguely differentiated candidate
2. Republicans are farking morons now
3. There are fewer white people and this is a problem for Republicans (aside: Coulter sounds disappointed about the "dwindling white majority", which I suppose is to be expected.)
4. Oh, and blame the primary race.

Coulter is blind and grasping in the dark, and can almost make out what she's feeling.

1. Romney was a terrible candidate because he did not appeal to the center, and didn't even really try until the debates. She almost says that. It's true!

2. and 3. The combination of demographic change - and this is not just "fewer white people" and Republicans being farking morons now did significantly damage the Republicans in the national race.

4. Coulter is almost right that the primary also damaged the Republicans this year, because it was hijacked by a bunch of lunatics who made being an asshole lunatic a point of pride. Romney was not "beat up" in the primary - by whom, the guy hating on inner city youth and proposing a farking moon base? - but the primary forced him to run just a hair to the left of Rick Santorum and cater to the whims of people who don't belong in the reality-based community. This damaged him - permanently - with reality-based voters, a demographic that is, thankfully, still a key constituency in America.

But a key aspect of the campaign that Coulter is missing is that Romney is also an asshole. When Dick Cheney ranks above you for charisma and likability you have a problem. He also ran one of the most botched campaigns in modern history. Matt Rhoades, Eric Fehrnstrom and Stuart Stevens made Steve Schmidt, retrospectively, look like a genius. Throughout 2012, I kept thinking things like, "Hey, at least McCain-Palin pulled off a really awesome convention and didn't have Clint Eastwood talking to a chair" or "Hey, at least McCain-Palin knew how to craft a damn narrative and get it out there". The only thing that the Romney campaign did effectively that the McCain campaign farked up completely was totally neutralize and hide their completely disastrous VP pick.
 
2012-11-24 07:25:34 PM  

ScreamingHangover: make me some tea: I'm not entirely sure what her main point is.

1. There's about to be an open civil war in the GOP between the radical right/tea party and the social moderates/fiscal conservatives. Think the Perry/Santorum branch vs the Christie/Bloomberg branch.

2. Coulter just announced which side she's taking (social moderate/fiscal conservative).

If you think the 2012 elections were a nasty affair, just sit back and watch the blood flow in the GOP primaries leading up to the 2014/2016 elections. So far we're only seeing the radical right playing the blame game for 2012 (aka: the GOP wasn't radical enough), but expect the moderates to stop the appeasement and openly call them out.

This should be entertaining.


Ah okay, thanks for summing that up. This war has already been playing out in the Republican debates. and primaries. Until they get this sorted out somehow, they're not gonna have any credible candidates to run against the Democrats.

*pops popcorn*
 
2012-11-24 07:27:26 PM  

bobbette: My god, the woman is a terrible writer


Yeah, that was really tough to read. Probably why I didn't get much out of it. Of course I don't really care to read much of what she writes anyway. That woman is vile.
 
2012-11-24 07:27:40 PM  

HighOnCraic: When you know you can't win on substance, style points are all that's left.

Yeah, but they're losing on style points as well. . .


I didn't say they were any good at it just that that was all they had left.

Well, that *and* lies.

Lots of lies.
 
2012-11-24 07:35:03 PM  

ScreamingHangover:

2. Coulter just announced which side she's taking (social moderate/fiscal conservative).
.


I'm not sure if I agree with your point 2 because of this line:

Where are today's Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy.

George H.W. Bush and his progeny Jeb Bush are the patron saints of the social mod-fiscal con side of the GOP right now.
Unless that line is Coulter slamming a GOP that can't include these types of Republicans... I can't even tell. At first I thought so, but then I realized Ann Coulter would never say something to credit Arlen Specter.
More likely she's just trying to deliberately provoke all sides and doesn't make a lick of sense while doing so. I don't think we really need to go into all that much depth in terms of textual interpretation here.
 
2012-11-24 07:36:13 PM  

bobbette: 3. There are fewer white people and this is a problem for Republicans (aside: Coulter sounds disappointed about the "dwindling white majority", which I suppose is to be expected.)


Here's the two that leap out on that.

And he got more votes from the dwindling white majority than Reagan did.

and...

...and ran in a year with a very different electorate from 1980.

That's the takeaway that is gonna sting the old guard in the GOP.

Romney got more of the white vote than Reagan and HE STILL LOST.

Somewhere in the heart of the GOP "Southern Strategies R Us" HQ some number cruncher is shiatting his pants.

Good.
 
2012-11-24 07:36:35 PM  

quatchi: HighOnCraic: When you know you can't win on substance, style points are all that's left.

Yeah, but they're losing on style points as well. . .

I didn't say they were any good at it just that that was all they had left.

Well, that *and* lies.

Lots of lies.


And this:

ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2012-11-24 07:40:32 PM  
This leprosy analogy is still bugging me.

Does she mean that George H. W. Bush is a leper, and she just farked up the traditional metaphor for being outcast?

Or does the analogy point to how leprosy has been eradicated in most developed countries thanks to modern medical science, and therefore is not a relevant health concern anymore?

What the hell is "going the way of leprosy"? Is this woman trying to call the social mod-fiscal cons outcasts or just people who are irrelevant in a modern era?

I'm taking away your analogy privileges, Ann.
 
2012-11-24 07:40:53 PM  
"But we're not going to win any elections by telling ourselves fairy tales about a candidate who lost because he wasn't conservative enough, articulate enough or mean enough."

I really fear that Republicans will come back in 2016 with a nominee that's tougher and more conservative. I fear that even more than I fear being thrown in the briar patch.
 
2012-11-24 07:41:05 PM  

make me some tea: I'm not entirely sure what her main point is.


I think it was along the lines of "we didn't polish the turd as well as we can should have."
 
2012-11-24 07:41:46 PM  

quatchi: Somewhere in the heart of the GOP "Southern Strategies R Us" HQ some number cruncher is shiatting his pants.


I think they have been for a while. That was the first, immediate takeaway for all these people from the election: "Holy fark there are so many minorities! HOW DO YOU SAY "EVERYONE PANIC" EN ESPANOL"
 
2012-11-24 07:43:45 PM  

HighOnCraic: And this:


Somewhere in an alternate universe there's a Sarah Palin who never stopped doing local news anchorage in Anchorage.

That's the same one in which Glenn Beck remains a relatively unknown morning zoo crew DJ.

/No, you can't move there. I've looked into it.
//The waiting list is absolutely ridiculous.
///*clutches "your waiting line number is # 6, 875, 749, 997, 281" ticket tightly*
 
2012-11-24 07:44:38 PM  
Romney lost for a variety of reasons. The main one was that not enough people voted for him.
 
2012-11-24 07:46:17 PM  

cchris_39: Testiclaw: We need a more moderate republican if we ever want a Republican in the whitehouse again"...

How does that change one vote? It's like saying "be more like the guy we voted for and we'll vote for you instead of him". Doesn't make sense.


Opinions are not binary for most people. If I don't want to eat chicken tonight, it doesn't mean I want to eat the farthest thing from chicken under the sun. Maybe I want quail. Or pheasant. Or eggs. It also doesn't mean I want someone to suggest that anyone who eats chicken is a dupe, a farktard, or a demon.
 
2012-11-24 07:47:24 PM  

bobbette: My god, the woman is a terrible writer. I think I have gleaned some points from her meandering BS:

1. Reagan ran as a centrist, vaguely differentiated candidate
2. Republicans are farking morons now
3. There are fewer white people and this is a problem for Republicans (aside: Coulter sounds disappointed about the "dwindling white majority", which I suppose is to be expected.)
4. Oh, and blame the primary race.


Republican pundits write stand-up bits, not essays. They are used to short media appearances and need to push premise, exaggeration and "derp!", then move on quickly before anyone not medicated or accidentally paying full attention tries to unravel the syllogistic travesty laid before them.
 
2012-11-24 07:48:50 PM  

badhatharry: Romney lost for a variety of reasons. The main one was that not enough people voted for him.


I blame ACORN.
 
2012-11-24 07:49:51 PM  

Weaver95: Gyrfalcon: .

I like that it's only "rude and condescending" when it's Obama talking to Romney. Romney talking to his constituents apparently doesn't count; so the "47%" remarks that did him in evidently were neither rude nor condescending in her view.

that's the part I don't understand. that video is up on gotdamn YOUTUBE! we can see it. we can go back and listen to Romney insulting 47% of the country. how do you say Romney isn't a condescending rude asshole when we have video evidence that proves otherwise?


Because... Obummer.... psha!

My parents treat everyone like absolute shiat, they have no friends, none of their children talk to them, yet they just cannot understand why everyone refuses to be around them. Why them?! They're simply speaking the truth like Beck and Coulter tell them to....

Really, they treat the bagboy at their grocery store better than they treat their family; and they treat the bagboy like he's a retarded crack-head to be shunned.
 
2012-11-24 08:04:57 PM  

bobbette: ScreamingHangover:

2. Coulter just announced which side she's taking (social moderate/fiscal conservative).
.

I'm not sure if I agree with your point 2 because of this line:

Where are today's Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy.

George H.W. Bush and his progeny Jeb Bush are the patron saints of the social mod-fiscal con side of the GOP right now.
Unless that line is Coulter slamming a GOP that can't include these types of Republicans... I can't even tell. At first I thought so, but then I realized Ann Coulter would never say something to credit Arlen Specter.
More likely she's just trying to deliberately provoke all sides and doesn't make a lick of sense while doing so. I don't think we really need to go into all that much depth in terms of textual interpretation here.


That Coulter mentions Specter reinforces my point: the social mod-fiscal con side of the GOP has been playing a policy of appeasement to the radical right with the hope of containment. That's why you saw McCain choose Palin and Romney choose Ryan, as well as the party platform moving more toward the extreme. However, the moderates have slowly come to the realization that the extreme has become more of a liability than an asset. Meanwhile, due to this appeasement, the teabaggers have grossly overestimated their importance.

The dems had a similar problem with the left back in the late 70's through the 80's. There was internal warfare in the Democratic party that lead to the forming of the "New Democrats": the Democratic Leadership Committee, the New Democrat Network, and the New Democrat Coalition in both the House and Senate. Bill Clinton was a charter member.

Back in the mid-late 80's "liberal" was as derisive a term as "teabagger" or "neo-con" is today:

www.davart.net

Bloom County 1985
 
2012-11-24 08:08:51 PM  
Let me say, seriously I think Romney had a chance of being the worst president in modern times.

The reason is he doesn't stand for anything. I think he would have had his pro-business buddies come in and set up shop and have the tea-party dictate to him. I think Bush was bad because he was not strong willed either and did what others told him.

Hopefully with no new election Obama will be freed up just to do what he thinks is right.
 
2012-11-24 08:10:15 PM  

cman: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: I'm just going to assume that she used an epithet of some kind and not read the article.

And yet I am the moran for saying that the left plays the "race card" too damn often

/Well, I am a moran, but not in that aspect


Since when is an epithet (Websters: a disparaging or abusive word or phrase. Which she does use plenty in the article) automatically a racial epithet? Seems since you're the only one throwing the race card around here, yes you are in that aspect.
 
2012-11-24 08:14:24 PM  
That was definitely the most reasonable thing I've ever read from her. She called Reagan a great president, then actually pointed out how liberal he was compared to today's Republicans, then reiterated she still thought he was a great president. I never would have thought someone at her level of screed could get past that cognitive dissonance. She didn't quite go so far as calling Romney too conservative, but she did say that his problem wasn't that he was too moderate.
 
2012-11-24 08:18:36 PM  

ScreamingHangover: bobbette: ScreamingHangover:

2. Coulter just announced which side she's taking (social moderate/fiscal conservative).
.

I'm not sure if I agree with your point 2 because of this line:

Where are today's Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy.

George H.W. Bush and his progeny Jeb Bush are the patron saints of the social mod-fiscal con side of the GOP right now.
Unless that line is Coulter slamming a GOP that can't include these types of Republicans... I can't even tell. At first I thought so, but then I realized Ann Coulter would never say something to credit Arlen Specter.
More likely she's just trying to deliberately provoke all sides and doesn't make a lick of sense while doing so. I don't think we really need to go into all that much depth in terms of textual interpretation here.

That Coulter mentions Specter reinforces my point: the social mod-fiscal con side of the GOP has been playing a policy of appeasement to the radical right with the hope of containment. That's why you saw McCain choose Palin and Romney choose Ryan, as well as the party platform moving more toward the extreme. However, the moderates have slowly come to the realization that the extreme has become more of a liability than an asset. Meanwhile, due to this appeasement, the teabaggers have grossly overestimated their importance.

The dems had a similar problem with the left back in the late 70's through the 80's. There was internal warfare in the Democratic party that lead to the forming of the "New Democrats": the Democratic Leadership Committee, the New Democrat Network, and the New Democrat Coalition in both the House and Senate. Bill Clinton was a charter member.

Back in the mid-late 80's "liberal" was as derisive a term as "teabagger" or "neo-con" is today:

[www.davart.net image 538x600]

Bloom County 1985


Damn I miss that comic. Looked forward to it everyday in the campus paper.
 
2012-11-24 08:20:37 PM  
Gee, a witty and trenchant "57 states" quip. Those certainly haven't gotten old, no sir.
 
2012-11-24 08:25:28 PM  

Weaver95: How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.


She meant "uppity".
 
2012-11-24 08:27:33 PM  

cman: And yet I am the moran for saying that the left plays the "race card" too damn often


Not an accusation that can be leveled against the Right, the RNC was the whitest mass congregation this side of a Lawrence Welk audience.
 
2012-11-24 08:30:04 PM  
A fool is a fool, and she is a heck of a fool.

Her idea was that Obama was unbeatable as an incumbent( even though we see many one term presidencies throughout time), and that there was a tough primary race (as there nearly always is).

She says Romney wasn't the problem, his platform wasn't the problem, the situation was tilted against them to make the race unwinnable.

No mention of the actual problems there.

There was no plan for growth with Romney, he would never say what his tax loophole closures would be, how he would differ in foreign policy (it seemed that he wouldn't) he never told how his increase in military spending would help anyone or be paid for, he said over and over that he would create 12 million jobs and yet he said gvernment doesn't create jobs. So we knew what he would repeal but we never knew what we would get, or who his appointments would be. Further, for the more swingy voters, the plan was Obama's slow growth or Mitt Romney's gamble, which may be faster growth or may indeed be a deleveraging that could sink the economy.

After the campaign we saw the influence of Latino and Black voters and the Democrat's grassroots door to door campaign's overwhelming effectiveness.

Actual intospection from Coliter would have mentioned these but instead we got a scattershot list of "things I know about history" and strange rankings of the best and second worst presidents. In all, a load of garbage that excuses the failings of the campaign and just said it was never winnable. In essence- sour grapes.
 
2012-11-24 08:38:13 PM  
The same Ann Coulter that called the president a "retard?"

Yeah. I'll pass.
 
2012-11-24 08:44:18 PM  
Apparently, "reasonable" now includes referring to your opponents as godless traitors.
 
2012-11-24 08:47:47 PM  

Bonanza Jellybean: Gee, a witty and trenchant "57 states" quip. Those certainly haven't gotten old, no sir.


Again - you work with what you got, and that's all they got, or they'd abandon it in favor of something with meat on it.

/Teleprompter!
 
2012-11-24 08:52:09 PM  
Site farked. Good night.
 
2012-11-24 09:15:51 PM  

quatchi:
///*clutches "your waiting line number is # 6, 875, 749, 997, 281" ticket tightly*


furrynuff.files.wordpress.com

Well, looks like I'm next.
 
2012-11-24 09:18:58 PM  
it was the republican platform that lost
 
2012-11-24 09:29:01 PM  

robertus: quatchi:
///*clutches "your waiting line number is # 6, 875, 749, 997, 281" ticket tightly*

[furrynuff.files.wordpress.com image 450x253]

Well, looks like I'm next.


ihatepeacocks.com
 
2012-11-24 09:45:59 PM  
Riddle me this, Green Hornet.

-- Doctor Octopus
 
2012-11-24 10:02:14 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Barack Obama 62,611,250 50.6%
Mitt Romney 59,134,475 47.8%

In general these people simply don't accept facts, do they?


According to Wikipedia:

Obama: 64,428,975 (50.8%)
Romney: 60,227,548 (47.5%)
 
2012-11-24 10:07:55 PM  

i50.tinypic.com

 
2012-11-24 10:11:52 PM  
"Romney lost because he was running against an incumbent, was beaten up during a long and vicious primary fight, and ran in a year with a very different electorate from 1980. At least one of those won't be true next time. But we're not going to win any elections by telling ourselves fairy tales about a candidate who lost because he wasn't conservative enough, articulate enough or mean enough. "

Well, once again, Ann Coulter misses the point like a champ. Just answer one question...

If Romney lost because 'the elements were against him' and not because he was, simply, the wrong man for the job, why did the Democrats increase their lead in the Senate, reduce the GOP majority in the House, and, more tellingly, won most of their ballot initiatives like on gay marriage and the legalization of pot?
 
2012-11-24 10:26:20 PM  

The Lone Gunman: "Romney lost because he was running against an incumbent, was beaten up during a long and vicious primary fight, and ran in a year with a very different electorate from 1980. At least one of those won't be true next time. But we're not going to win any elections by telling ourselves fairy tales about a candidate who lost because he wasn't conservative enough, articulate enough or mean enough. "

Well, once again, Ann Coulter misses the point like a champ. Just answer one question...

If Romney lost because 'the elements were against him' and not because he was, simply, the wrong man for the job, why did the Democrats increase their lead in the Senate, reduce the GOP majority in the House, and, more tellingly, won most of their ballot initiatives like on gay marriage and the legalization of pot?


That was an accident.
 
2012-11-24 10:27:07 PM  

Somacandra: Condensed and ensmall-ened for your non-clicking pleasure:


I don't whether to thank you for your efforts, or /favorited! you for the damage it inflicted upon me. I guess I'll stick with thanking you, and go bash my head off a wall as penance for not knowing better than to read it. Then a round of heavy drinking to kill off the brain cells that retain the memory of that particular instance of Coulter crazy.

It's entirely possible, however, that procedure is the reason I never remember not to read her work.
 
2012-11-24 10:27:56 PM  
For those who didnt know.

Barack Obama now has 64,428,975 votes to Romneys (exceeding McCain by 300,000 votes) 60,227,548 votes.

With votes still coming in and it wont be finished till around December 10th per the usual....Obama will beat Romney by over 4 million votes with about 3 million less people voting this time than in 2008.
 
2012-11-24 10:31:47 PM  

Testiclaw: But before I could finish my thought she continued;

"But what can you expect when the Democrats put up the most extreme leftist candidate this country has ever faced?"

Ahh, there it is!


and yet he got elected. what's the word when your brain just can't process factual information? how many on the right are having this problem this month?
 
2012-11-24 10:43:30 PM  
Reagan had also been an actual member of the godless, treason party.

This is not to diminish Reagan. It is to say that Romney wasn't the problem.


I want to be angry with you, subby, because this is pants-shiattingly stupid.

On the other hand, I must reluctantly admit it is one of the most reasonable things I've heard out of a Republican this month.
 
2012-11-24 10:44:38 PM  
As for the total vote...

131,393,990 in 2008.

Right now it is 126,832,750 total votes in 2012.

Probably will hit around 128,000,000 in 2012...3 million less.

New York right now has 6.1 million people voting in 2012 but had 7.6 million vote in 2008.
New Jersey has 3.465 million people voting in 2012 but had 3.8 million people in 2008.

In those two states they are missing 2 million votes from 2008...I wonder why.

Now in California they had 12.49 million votes in 2012 and in 2008 had 13.56 but they havent finished tallying it all in california or the west so I wont say thats where another million is missing quite yet.

Still I believe 2012 difference will be about 3 million less voters from 2008 and the biggest chunk will be from New York and New Jersey a combined 2 million.

In a month we will know how close the voting numbers really were.
 
2012-11-24 10:48:52 PM  
Wow that was the same thing she's saying not to do. heads in the sand; the problem was never "too conservative" LOL! I'm so glad that gal is "working" for the conservatives in the party.
 
2012-11-24 11:07:39 PM  
Ann has his moments.
 
2012-11-24 11:11:24 PM  

Weaver95: Gyrfalcon: .

I like that it's only "rude and condescending" when it's Obama talking to Romney. Romney talking to his constituents apparently doesn't count; so the "47%" remarks that did him in evidently were neither rude nor condescending in her view.

that's the part I don't understand. that video is up on gotdamn YOUTUBE! we can see it. we can go back and listen to Romney insulting 47% of the country. how do you say Romney isn't a condescending rude asshole when we have video evidence that proves otherwise?


Typical of Republicans these days. They forget that there are such things as books,records,the internet, memories...

You can spin all you want, but it all falls down when you go back to the videotape.
 
2012-11-24 11:19:29 PM  

cman: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: I'm just going to assume that she used an epithet of some kind and not read the article.

And yet I am the moran for saying that the left plays the "race card" too damn often


Well, yes. I've heard about 10x more biatching about "playing the race card" than I've actually seen people doing so.
 
2012-11-24 11:42:58 PM  

andrewagill: Romney was the most libertarian candidate Republicans have run since Calvin Coolidge.

[lh3.ggpht.com image 240x300]
WHAT AM I CHOPPED LIVER?


No one knows what Romney is or was. Certainly not himself. He may or may not have been the most Libertarian candidate since Coolidge or even Goldwater at some time.
 
2012-11-24 11:49:18 PM  

jenlen: Massachusetts: "... a state between Blue and North Korea."

That was funny, and from where I sit probably true enough.


Yeah, life is so horrible here in Massachusetts - name a quality-of-life index item and we're pretty much always in the top 5, across the board. Except maybe for traffic, but that's some of the price of doing business.
 
2012-11-25 12:06:01 AM  

graggor: As for the total vote...

131,393,990 in 2008.

Right now it is 126,832,750 total votes in 2012.

Probably will hit around 128,000,000 in 2012...3 million less.

New York right now has 6.1 million people voting in 2012 but had 7.6 million vote in 2008.
New Jersey has 3.465 million people voting in 2012 but had 3.8 million people in 2008.

In those two states they are missing 2 million votes from 2008...I wonder why.

Now in California they had 12.49 million votes in 2012 and in 2008 had 13.56 but they havent finished tallying it all in california or the west so I wont say thats where another million is missing quite yet.

Still I believe 2012 difference will be about 3 million less voters from 2008 and the biggest chunk will be from New York and New Jersey a combined 2 million.

In a month we will know how close the voting numbers really were.


Another reason California was short a million votes: not only was Obama an absolute shoo-in, but SenatorFeinstein was a total shoo-in too. So much so that we had NO advertising from either of them. Californians didn't even know DiFi was running this cycle.
 
2012-11-25 12:19:40 AM  
It takes a use pendulous testicles and a big, thick penis to rank Reagan ahead of Washington and Lincoln.
 
2012-11-25 12:20:32 AM  
Swap out 'huge' for 'use'.
 
2012-11-25 12:22:09 AM  

Weaver95: How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.


Yeah, made me wonder what part of this blog counted as "reasonable". I don't remember Obama being a rude, condescending jerk either, but then again, maybe Ann is having some kind of allergic reaction to the stick up her ass that is causing perception issues.
 
2012-11-25 12:39:19 AM  
It would take a much longer and much more insightful article than that to enumerate the reasons the GOP lost the election, and it would take a much brighter and braver author to write it.
 
2012-11-25 01:05:36 AM  

cman: Copyright infringement does not befit you


Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
 
2012-11-25 01:16:44 AM  

This Face Left Blank: I don't whether to thank you for your efforts, or /favorited! you for the damage it inflicted upon me.


Its often been stated in threads like there that there are a number of posters who don't want to give page clicks to certain sites. I think its a bit silly myself, but it comes up often enough that someone will offer to take one for the thread and post it inline for the benefit of those people. Facilitating the marketplace of ideas is mildly important to me so today I took a turn as that person. As the headline informed us---well, everyone knew what they were in for. At least it wasn't Timecube.
 
2012-11-25 02:10:06 AM  

Testiclaw: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Testiclaw: I attended Thanksgiving with a staunchly conservative family of a friend. The entire afternoon was literally talking points: "Obamaphone", welfare queens, Barry lost the popular vote, America "re-nigged", etc.

The whole time I just focused on consuming turkey and pie.

One of the ladies there finally said, "Romney lost because he was trying too much to be extreme. We need a more moderate republican if we ever want a Republican in the whitehouse again"...

...I stopped eating, looked around and thought to myself, "well, shiat, I didn't expect something that reasonable to come out of her"

But before I could finish my thought she continued;

"But what can you expect when the Democrats put up the most extreme leftist candidate this country has ever faced?"

Ahh, there it is!

So I went back to eating turkey and pie.

Barack Obama 62,611,250 50.6%
Mitt Romney 59,134,475 47.8%

In general these people simply don't accept facts, do they?

Short answer? No.

Long answer? Nooooooooooooooooo.

It was surreal.


See, that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

With Democrats, facts are immutable and opinions are flexible.

With Republicans, its the other way around.
 
2012-11-25 02:18:15 AM  

Zulu_as_Kono: jenlen: Massachusetts: "... a state between Blue and North Korea."

That was funny, and from where I sit probably true enough.

Yeah, life is so horrible here in Massachusetts - name a quality-of-life index item and we're pretty much always in the top 5, across the board. Except maybe for traffic, but that's some of the price of doing business.


Not to mention Massachusetts is in color.
 
2012-11-25 02:19:37 AM  

Summoner101: Zulu_as_Kono: jenlen: Massachusetts: "... a state between Blue and North Korea."

That was funny, and from where I sit probably true enough.

Yeah, life is so horrible here in Massachusetts - name a quality-of-life index item and we're pretty much always in the top 5, across the board. Except maybe for traffic, but that's some of the price of doing business.

Not to mention Massachusetts is in color.


Ate my link
 
2012-11-25 02:27:11 AM  
memedepot.com
 
2012-11-25 02:27:19 AM  
Similar to a broken clock, her article was correct.

/ seriously, I kept wondering why absolutely nobody talked about the difficulties of defeating an incumbent
// was the recession supposed to cancel that out?
 
2012-11-25 02:39:07 AM  
Didn't she endorse an old fat white guy? Yeah, that would have turned out way better than a Mormon. /s
 
2012-11-25 03:15:09 AM  

Somacandra: This Face Left Blank: I don't whether to thank you for your efforts, or /favorited! you for the damage it inflicted upon me.

Its often been stated in threads like there that there are a number of posters who don't want to give page clicks to certain sites. I think its a bit silly myself, but it comes up often enough that someone will offer to take one for the thread and post it inline for the benefit of those people. Facilitating the marketplace of ideas is mildly important to me so today I took a turn as that person. As the headline informed us---well, everyone knew what they were in for. At least it wasn't Timecube.


Shiat man, you're not supposed to take posts like that seriously. It's just one of many defense mechanisms common to Fark when faced with overwhelming and soul-crushing crazy. You're doing God's work, Soma, keep it up.
 
2012-11-25 03:34:16 AM  

red5ish: It would take a much longer and much more insightful article than that to enumerate the reasons the GOP lost the election, and it would take a much brighter and braver author to write it.


He lost for one reason, and it was the usual one:
If you let your opponent define you, you're done.

You can break it down a bit more, but that's the underlying cause. Romney had lost the election by the end of July. Asking if the 47% thing made a difference is like asking if a guy would have heart attack if you hadn't chopped his head off.
 
2012-11-25 06:13:07 AM  

Summoner101: RedPhoenix122: Because of that, and also because he is in the top two best American presidents, Reagan's example is worth studying.

Who is number 1? W? Nixon? Jesus?

So giving her the benefit of the doubt, that still means Washington or Lincoln isn't in the top two.


Why would Lincoln be in the top 2, particularly? Is the quality of a president somehow proportional to the percentage of Americans killed on their watch or something? Or is it being killed that does it? I know that being assassinated somehow got JFK's realistically somewhat disastrously incompetent presidency promoted to awesome in many history books.

Not that Reagan was particularly brilliant, but your selection of presidents to lionize appears to be no less arbitrary.
 
2012-11-25 07:20:35 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Why would Lincoln be in the top 2, particularly?


I believe it's somewhat related to the Emancipation.
 
2012-11-25 09:20:49 AM  

BSABSVR: If I don't want to eat chicken tonight...



Damn you for awakening that jingle in my head :)

http://youtu.be/_GdiNk3-IPE
 
2012-11-25 09:30:57 AM  

graggor: In those two states they are missing 2 million votes from 2008...I wonder why.


Just a guess, there was rain?
 
2012-11-25 11:45:33 AM  
The only Republican to defeat a sitting president in the last century was Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Jimmy Carter, the second-worst president in U.S. history (pending the final results of Obama's second term).

i24.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-25 11:55:24 AM  
Don't make me click on that ever again.
 
2012-11-25 12:47:41 PM  

Weaver95: How many more votes would Romney have gotten by being a rude, condescending jerk? Sure, it worked for Obama, but he was the incumbent.

Obama was 'rude'? um...ok but I don't see it.


President Obama was a rude, condescending jerk.

Mitt Romney was a savvy, aggressive debater who refused to "just lie down"

Spot the spin!!

/damn liberal media!!!
 
2012-11-25 12:48:03 PM  

Karac: [img248.imageshack.us image 488x655]

I'm assuming the chick in the corner is supposed to be Ann. The general horsey-facishness looks like her.
Now why she was supposed to have been supporting Obama I don't know, but obviously she's a sellout turncoat RINO.


One thing is certain as particular Conservative illustrator doesn't care for her.

img138.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-25 01:50:24 PM  

graggor: New York right now has 6.1 million people voting in 2012 but had 7.6 million vote in 2008.
New Jersey has 3.465 million people voting in 2012 but had 3.8 million people in 2008.

In those two states they are missing 2 million votes from 2008...I wonder why.


Don't break anything internal trying to figure it out.
 
2012-11-25 03:15:47 PM  
Well ya idjit wankers shoulda overturned the 22nd Amendment for Ronnie.

Thamike's anigif is making me LMAO.

Wankity wank, y'all.
 
2012-11-25 05:16:04 PM  
Wow, my jaw dropped while reading that.

Then Ann Coulter tried to shove her cock into my open mouth, and it clamped back shut.
 
2012-11-25 05:59:56 PM  
Ann, we get it, you really liked Romney. I'm not saying you don't have a point, but you are really grasping when you say things like "The only Republican to defeat a sitting president in the last century was Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Jimmy Carter, the second-worst president in U.S. history (pending the final results of Obama's second term)." .... and we only time a Democrat beat a sitting president during that time was with George Bush I, and he wasn't really that bad of a President. He had just won a war for farks sake and he was Saint Ronnie's legacy. So what's your point?

Your point is every time Republicans loose you say it was 'normal' or 'expected' like you did in 2006 when you said the total reversal of both the house and senate to Democrats was 'less than expected' for a midterm election on a President's second term (totally ignoring, 1998 of course).

The fact is there is a lot of things that lost Republicans the election, mostly the issues in my opinion. Though you can't ignore a President/Vice President team getting TROUNCED in every 'home state' they had and a Mormon bishop getting less of the vote that Bush in 2004.
 
2012-11-25 08:01:17 PM  

clambam: That line about Reagan being one of thje top two presidents bugged me too. If she'd said top five, or top two of the 20th century, I might cut her some slack, but... better than Jefferson? Better than Teddy Roosevelt? Better than Andrew Jackson? Better than either Washington or Lincoln? What that kind of comment reveals is a profound ignorance of history, both on the part of Ms. Coulter and of her audience.


Top five Republican Presidents:
5. Reagan
4. Reagan
3. Reagan
2. Romney, assuming an alternate reality where Obama decides not to steal the election with Chicago cronyism and voter fraud
1. Reagan
 
2012-11-25 10:36:01 PM  
Didn't Reagan secretly sell weapons to our enemies even after congress wrote legislation specifically to prevent just such a thing? Didn't Reagan use the profits from that sale to further the drug war in South America? Didn't Reagan "not remember" any of this happening just years later? Why does anyone give Reagan any respect at all again?
 
2012-11-25 10:44:21 PM  

UseLessHuman: Didn't Reagan secretly sell weapons to our enemies even after congress wrote legislation specifically to prevent just such a thing? Didn't Reagan use the profits from that sale to further the drug war in South America? Didn't Reagan "not remember" any of this happening just years later? Why does anyone give Reagan any respect at all again?


He kept virtually countless BrylCreem employees economically viable. Still, it was a short term answer to the long term quandary that comes from a highly gelled and blow-styled neck-of-head electorate not being able to choose between Playmobil or Feathered.
 
2012-11-25 11:01:27 PM  

UseLessHuman: Why does anyone give Reagan any respect at all again?


He's the only Republican president since WW2 that didn't either lose his re-election or leave office with hilariously low opinion polling. Who else are they gonna deify?
 
2012-11-26 03:23:40 AM  
Here i can some up why Romney lost in landslide in one sentence:
"The GOP, after decades of moving to the far right, lost any and all appeal to moderates they once had."
 
2012-11-26 08:49:08 AM  

Gunther: UseLessHuman: Why does anyone give Reagan any respect at all again?

He's the only Republican president since WW2 that didn't either lose his re-election or leave office with hilariously low opinion polling. Who else are they gonna deify?


Eisenhower left with low opinion polling? Didn't know that.
 
Displayed 168 of 168 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report