“The idea that you pick the most right-wing candidate without any concern over who can win is suicidal,” Ann Coulter said in an apparent flip-flop over the presidential run of former Governor Mitt Romney.
Coulter is receiving a lot of flak for this comment. The reason is Coulter has been saying, for years, that Republicans shouldn’t fear electing conservatives to the White House. In recent years, she has railed against the nominations of RINOs Dole and McCain. Throughout her career, she has railed against soft bellied Republicans. She is now saying that remaining stubborn on a right-wing candidate is suicidal. The comment is charged, of course, but what Coulter comment isn’t. The question is is she right? All of us have our issues about the candidacy of Mitt Romney, be they the second Amendment, Romneycare, or the silly flak developed over the $10,000 bet Romney issued to Perry. All conservatives have their reasons for being against Mitt Romney.
For many, Romney will be another, in a long list of presidential elections, in which the voter votes for the lesser of two evils (if he wins the GOP nomination of course). Others have said that they simply won’t vote if Romney wins the nomination. Whether it be their devotion to principle, or the vain pursuit of being perceived as the smartest person in the room, some have said they won’t vote at all because Romney doesn’t adhere to their pet issue in a manner that’s conservative enough. This is what, in my opinion, Coulter was referring to as suicidal.
The line, ‘This is the most important election in our lifetimes’ has been bandied about so often that most people laugh when you say it. The question many have is, is it true in this case? We’ve never had, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell, a president test our limits in the manner this president has. FDR wasn’t this liberal say some analysts, LBJ wasn’t this liberal, and some have gone so far to state that even Woodrow Wilson wasn’t even this liberal. No one has mentioned James Earl Carter, but it could be said that even he wasn’t even this liberal. I know a number of people who would find this charge outrageous, but I’m thinking those people are probably factoring Carter’s disastrous post-presidency into the equation. Not even the damage Carter did to the generations that followed his presidency could be compared to the havoc Obama has wreaked upon the capitalistic system of this country. He has done a majority of the damage with the full support of Congress, and now he’s doing it without Congress. “I have an obligation, as president, to do what I can without Congress,” he said recently. The only thing that appears to have kept him, somewhat, in check is the fact that he wants to be re-elected. In this light, and in the general scheme of things, every conservative voter must ask themselves the question ‘just how important is this issue I hold true?’
“(It) is not just, can you check off this issue, this issue, this issue, but who can you send in in the debates against Obama,” Coulter said.
In other words, what’s your equation? Would you rather have Obama sitting in office for another four years, because you don’t think there would be that much difference between he and Obama on your particular issue? Are you willing to sit out this election, because you’re seeking to prove a point to the GOP? Do you think that the GOP will never learn to nominate a “suitable” candidate if you vote for a lukewarm conservative? As I said in a previous blog, you’re not sending a message to a bunch of Scooby-Doo, cigar smoking, suspender wearing bad guys. You’re trying to send a message to a huge voting bloc that can be as fickle as a teenage sports fan. You’re trying to send a message to a collective conscience of the voters who decide candidates in a primary. They won’t change their minds based upon you what you think, Jed in Pocatello. They collectively decide who is best for them and the nation as a whole. In other words, if you think Romney is soft (or wrong) on your issue, you need to ask yourself is Romney will be the most formidable candidate against Obama? The next Republican candidate, Ann says, “should be someone ‘who has run in . . . a diverse enough state that he has had to appeal to get votes from independents, from Democrats, from women. . . .’
We have 50% of the American electorate not paying federal income taxes, we have one in six on some form of government assistance, and we have $1,974,042,215,000 funding 1,607 government programs. Some have questioned whether Obama is the great debater that some have professed him to be, but we do know that with this much government dependence, a lot of people are getting government goodies that they’re not going to be willing to give up easily.
Some have said that those who receive government goodies shouldn’t be able to vote for a politician that promises them more goodies and leads us on an escalated course of destruction. Some have said that those who don’t pay federal taxes shouldn’t be able to vote in federal elections. We’re not there, and we may never be, so the GOP may need someone who is able to soft sell moving away from dependence.
To those informed individuals who produce the nuggets of information that detail that Romney may be soft on such and such an issue, do you know what we’re up against here? How educated do you think the populace is? We’re turning to late-night comedians for our news now. I don’t expect anyone to shape their politics based on the influence of late-night comedians, but they have carved out their own niche. They are influential in ways similar to Oprah Winfrey was in 2008. While no one late-night host is as influential as Oprah was, collectively they may have an equal influence. A recent study at the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University suggests that they’re all liberal.
A Thomas Sowell column suggested that if we broke all of the conservatives and liberals into teams, we would see the true nature of the movements. If we took the top college graduates and broke them down by profession, we would find that the A team of the liberal movement, their best and brightest, all go into politics. The A team of the conservative movement, however, usually go into business. They see what like-minded individuals who run for office go through, and they don’t want any part of that. It’s human nature to want to be liked, and these people don’t want to be hated for their conservative, Constitutional, beliefs in Capitalism. Some would say that it takes a certain kind of mettle for a man to survive the media onslaught that the media heaps on Republicans and that those of this ‘A team’ that can’t handle it are weeded out. How many of this movement simply want no part of it? How many top businessmen, who would’ve made excellent leaders in the public sector, saw that like-minded candidate put through the sausage grinder and said I just don’t want to go through that?
If Romney is nominated for the GOP ticket, conservatives need to ask themselves if the Jed’s in Pocatello will vote for drastic change? The line that conservatives usually offer up is Reagan got elected as a conservative. He promised change, and he promised to save us from the disastrous Carter years, and he welcomed all to join in on the conservative doctrine. Fair enough, but who is the Reagan in this election? Who can combine heart-felt conservatism with electability? We’ve seen the candidates thus far in numerous debates, and no one has shown Reagan’s prowess in combining the two. The country may need an artful politician to bridge the gap between the dependence we’ve built up over the last couple of generations and where we need to be. If the A team is not up there in the GOP stratosphere of candidates, then is it suicidal to wait until that man, our man, is up there? What if that man never steps forth? What if he would rather work within the confines of private industry where he is lauded for his beliefs rather than castigated? What are we conservatives left with, and is it suicidal to demand that we all wait until he’s ready to finally step forward and take the heat? Mitt Romney may be the least of all evils, but we may need him to be the candidate that is able to combine soft-sell change with electability.