Anne’s next book is going to have very poor sales.

i am sure ann is shaking with fear and regret knowing you have lowered your opinion of her.

santorum – who gave earmarks to his pals and endorsed arlen, and newt – the serial adulterer who, like rick, is a career pol/lobbyist who digs pelosi and sharpton (and hates capitalism)  are so so so so obviously better than mitt it’s bewildering that ann can’t see that.

it’s so obvious that santorum and newt are perfect conservatives and mitt is an ower.

yes: you are right and coulter and bolton and thune and ayotte and haley and issa are all wrong. and ace is wrong too.

/.

santorum decided to run for potus because he knew he could not beat casey.

newt is so smart he couldn’t even get on the ballot in his home state.

“yes: you are right and coulter and bolton and thune and ayotte and haley and issa are all wrong. and ace is wrong too.”

I don’t know why Bolton is supporting Mittens. Probably why Ron Paul isn’t speaking out against the Romneycare creator, some secret deal. But let’s look at the mittbots that you forgot to mention.

Trump: Has given money equally to democrats and republicans and wants to impose federal tariffs to china.

John Huntsman: Has said that we should have a third party candidacy if Mittens loses.

Big Government Sununu: He gave us David Souter. ‘Nuff said.
—
As Coulter said, “If Christie isn’t the nominee, the GOP will pick Romney…and he will lose to Obama.”

Only one candidate has balanced the budget with his Contract with America – something that Mittens opposed.

Da bitch iz unhinged!

What exactly is the “free speech” issue here?  Did Coulter suggest anyone be censored by the government?  No, she did not.

Do you understand what “free speech” is, and that it includes the right to criticize anyone else’s exercise of it?  Or is it only deserving of protection when it fits your narrow world view?

She’s actively contradicted herself, a bit. I don’t know how that fits into anything, but I read Ann on a weekly basis, and I’m just…confused. Some of what she’s saying simply makes no sense to me, in context of what she’s said before.

You are, of course, right that she has a perfect right to say what she is saying. I’m just expressing my confusion.

I understand Ann. I’ve lost tons of respect for her because of this, but I understand her. Ann has convinced herself of two things: #1, that Obama must be defeated in November or America as we know it will be gone and #2, only Mitt Romney can beat him, so she is desperate to have Mitt be the nominee. Unfortunately for Ann, she’s only half right. Don’t get me wrong, Mitt can win-but only in an election that ANY Republican would win, in other words, an election that is a complete rejection of Obama rather than an endorsement of his opponent. This could happen-$5/gal gas alone may bring it about-but it’s far from inevitable.

In a “normal” election, however, Mitt is about the WORST candidate we could run out there short of digging up and reanimating Richard Nixon, and I’ll give you three reasons why:

#1. This is going to be a dirty, dirty campaign, and Mitt does NOT take criticism well. He gets angry and defensive, and that doesn’t play well in Peoria. Obama is a petulant child, but he does have the ability to feign an air of glacial cool when he needs to (I suspect he fuels it with his utter contempt for the American people), and that’s all he needs because the MSM is so completely in the tank protecting him. He doesn’t have to be good at it, if he can hold the pose for 3 seconds that all the footage the media will ever run. Mitt’s going to be portrayed as an angry elitist, which leads right to point…

#2. Obama has been preparing to run against Mitt since 2010. Certainly I’m not saying we should let our opponents determine who we run, but anyone with half an eye can see that we’re already deep into a well planned strategy to make Mitt toxic to the American people. OWS was a test run for a summer and fall that I’m very afraid is going to make ’68 look like a walk in the park. The rhetoric, the news reports, the narrative…all of it is aimed squarely at Romney as an out of touch, mean, rich, white member of the 1% opposing the hip populist president who gave us free health care. It’s Obama’s ONLY “accomplishment” even though it’s generally unpopular…..and poor Mitt can’t attack it without sounding like a clown car full of idiots because it’s his damn plan.

#3. Romney’s religion will be his downfall. Now, this certainly isn’t right or fair, but we’re talking about an election pitting a group of corrupt Chicago machine politicians who are within inches of obtaining their totalitarian nirvana opposed by a man who openly professes his faith in a religion that polls show 80% of Americans don’t really know anything about. It’s already started. Gawker did a story about how the wacko Romneys baptized his atheist father-in-law after he died. The WaPo and NYT have had writers chuckling about “magic underwear”.  Slate did a story on something else “odd” about Mormons, I forget just what at the moment. It’s going to grow and grow and grow until anyone who doesn’t know better (and doesn’t bother to find out the truth for themselves) will be convinced the LDS are a bigger cult than Westboro Baptist by October. It won’t be the Obama camp itself you realize, but all of the various Democrat agencies in the MSM (but I repeat myself). MMFA and CAP will get the web humming with ridiculous lies about Mormons. Expect 60 minutes to do a segment on Warren Jeffs by September, watch him be refereed to as a “Mormon leader” at least a dozen times. “Under the Banner of Heaven” will be made into a mini-series (Nielson Sweeps start Oct 25, I swear it’s just a coincidence that the election is 1st week of November! Pinkie swear, honest!). The role of the “evil Mormon church” in the Prop 8 fight against peaceful gay folks who just want, damnit (sob!), to live peacefully in wedded bliss with the one they love will be highlighted any time anyone remotely gay is mentioned on TV. The View ladies will do a special show on the “horrors” endured by their special guest, a woman who was one of many wives in a fundamentalist LDS family. And so on, and so on, and so on. As I said, it’s dirty and dishonest and unfair as fuck, but these are Donks we’re talking about, nothing is beyond them.

Now Newt and Rick aren’t perfect candidates, both (Newt in particular) have problems with #1 above, but the perfect storm of traits that dooms Romney does not exist with either of them. I think either one would be a far, far stronger candidate, keeping the focus on BHO where it belongs.

MHO only, of course, YMMV, but if Mitt is the nom I’ll bet I’m saying ITYS in November.

Mitt Romney hasn’t taken questions from the press corps following him in the last 17 days.  But he’s going to stand up to Obama?

Your point is well taken. I should have elaborated that Ann would sound less a doof to note the negative opinions of talk radio personalities, and leave it at that.
Instead, the ad hominem comes off as shrill.
I respect that Mittens has very likely paid Ann a lot of money to buy what appears to be mindless support from an otherwise sharp lady.

 Willard McCapntrade Romneycare.

I’ll add one more thing: as Richard notes, Mitt hasn’t taken a lot of questions. I’d also observe that the Media ‘Template’ has served him well with regards to the primary (i.e., make absurd statement about opponent, Media dutifully repeats, then confronts candidate on absurd charge, putting them on defensive). THIS WILL NOT WORK with BHO. They will NOT simply repeat the charges, they will counter them, and debate Romney as BHO surrogates (“yes, but the President says…”). At which point the Mitt/Fluster problem arises.

I’ll make one other blatantly obvious point. Mitt has money. He has MORE money than anyone else in the primary. He has enough money to blanket his opponents in negative ads. Compared to Obama, he has nada. Explain to me how Romney outspends Obama.

“Because shut up” they/Ann said.

You know, you conservatives have railed about this coming from liberals for quite some time (and with good reason); now however, some on the right are doing it.

Bad form; bad form and short memory.  How do you think this plays in Peoria (where the people may be stupid hicks, but they appear to have longer memories than many so called smart people).

 There was NO ObamaCare BASED on RomneyCare in 08.  That single item changes things 180 degrees.  Anyone who doesn’t get that is just plain obtuse.

And that doesn’t begin to take into account what a “severely” weak candidate he is.  Or the fact that he has burned through cash at multiple times the rest of the field.  Yeah, that’s a guy we can trust our fiscal house to.  Un-effing-believable!

Think!  It’s not that damn difficult.

Or maybe – she has forced us to consider the possibility – it was all an act.

Some – not me – supported Willard in 2008 because they thought him more trustworthy than John McCain.  And they were right.

I supported Fred Thompson and then no one after he dropped out until Sarah Palin was put on the ticket.

‘Palin/West’

There, fixed that for you.

 Bob Belvedere-

I don’t think it was an act, but I do think she exaggerated a lot for dramatic and sometimes comedic effect.

Since Palin has been regrettably “Palinized” by both the left and some elements on the right I would prefer her in a cabinet position.
Electability, you know.

Mom liked me better.

 Woooooooeeee;
Some snark or what???