WHAT'S THEIR PROBLEM WITH ROMNEY?
By Ann Coulter
AnnCoulter.com
As governor of one of the most liberal states
in the union, Mitt Romney did something even
Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of
California: He balanced the budget without
raising taxes.
Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the
aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an
embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt
Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to
allow embryonic stem cell research.)
Romney's approach to illegal immigration in
Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of
Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing
heroine.
Romney pushed the conservative alternative to
national health care that, had it been adopted
in the 49 other states, would have killed
Obamacare in the crib by solving the health
insurance problem at the state level.
Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney
has never worked in Washington, much less spent
his entire life as a professional politician.
He's had a Midas touch with every enterprise he
has ever run, including Bain Capital, the
Olympics and Massachusetts.
The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on
unsuspecting conservatives by "the
Establishment" is the exact opposite of the
truth. The Establishment, by any sensible
definition, is virulently opposed to Romney --
and for completely contradictory reasons.
The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney
because he is the only candidate who stands a
chance of beating Obama.
Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the
conservative establishment also implacably
oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its
second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is
anti-Romney -- though endorsing no one -- as is
prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin --
who has also offered herself up as a possible
presidential nominee at a contested convention.
(Wouldn't a former candidate for vice president
on a major party's ticket be part of the
Establishment?)
The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in
America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney,
and another top conservative talk-radio host,
Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney --
though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney
as the conservative alternative to John McCain
in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since
then.
Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican
Party fiddled with the vote tally to take
Romney's victory away from him and give it to
Rick Santorum -- even though the "official
count" was missing eight precincts. Isn't the
party apparatus of a state considered part of
the Establishment?
I'm not sure what part of the Establishment
supports Romney. Is it Romney supporter
Christine O'Donnell, erstwhile tea party
candidate for the U.S. Senate from Delaware? Am
I the face of the Establishment? (If so, the
country is going to be just fine.)
I would think that the pristine example of the
Republican Establishment is Weekly Standard
editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol.
But he wants anybody but Romney, even proposing
that we choose someone not running by means of a
contested convention.
Who are we trying to get nominated in a
contested convention, anyway?
Without having seen this mystery candidate in
action, how do we know he won't be another Rick
Perry? You'll recall that Perry was the dream
candidate until we saw him talk.
In 2008, Romney was enthusiastically supported
not only by Limbaugh and Levin, but also by Sean
Hannity, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Laura
Ingraham, Michael Savage and many others who now
seem to view Romney as a closet liberal. This is
especially baffling because there is no liberal
candidate in the Republican primary this year.
Just four years ago, one Republican candidate
for president was avowedly pro-abortion (Rudy
Giuliani). One had opposed Clinton's impeachment
and tort reform (Fred Thompson). One supported
amnesty for illegals, restrictions on core First
Amendment speech, federal laws to combat
nonexistent global warming, and opposed
Guantanamo and the Bush tax cuts ("tax cuts for
the rich!") and called waterboarding "torture."
That last one was our nominee: John McCain.
This year, every Republican candidate for
president opposes abortion, promises to repeal
Obamacare, opposes raising taxes, and on and on.
Only one candidate is strong on illegal
immigration, which is second only to repealing
Obamacare as the most important issue facing the
nation.
That's the alleged liberal, Mitt Romney.
Conservatives scratch their heads wondering how
the NFM can convince millions of unemployed and
underemployed Americans paying $3.57 for a
gallon of gas that the economy is improving
simply by repeatedly saying so.
But then a large minority of those same
conservatives are completely convinced that
Romney is an Establishment candidate simply
because they have heard that repeated so often.
As we say to dunderhead liberals: What we're
looking for here is facts, not chants or
epithets.
But instead of popping Champagne corks over our
final triumph over Rockefeller Republicanism,
some conservatives are still fighting old wars,
rather like an old cold warrior prattling about
the Soviet Union after the rest of us have moved
onto the war on terrorism.
This strange new version of right-wing populism
comes down to reveling in the feeling that you
are being dissed, hoodwinked or manipulated by
the Establishment (most of which happens to
oppose Romney) the same way liberals want to
believe that "the rich," the "right-wing media"
and Wall Street Republicans (there are three)
are victimizing them.
It's as if scoring points in intra-Republican
squabbles is more important than beating Obama.
Instead of talking about the candidates'
positions -- which would be confusing inasmuch
as Romney is the most conservative of the four
remaining candidates -- the only issue seems to
be whether "They" are showing respect for "Us."
Striking a pose as the only true fighter for
real Americans may be fun, but this is no way to
win elections. This is Sharron Angle on a
national level.
The obsession with sticking it to the
Establishment (which includes Christine
O'Donnell, but excludes Bill Kristol) by voting
for a loose cannon demagogue or a crusading
Catholic who can't seem to move the conversation
past contraception is as pie-in-the-sky
delusional as anything dished by Democrats
carrying on about "green jobs."
If saving the environment is the best way to
create new jobs, then it could be true that
being a hard-core environmentalist nutcase is
the best way to appeal to the mass of
independent voters.
Similarly, if reducing contraception use,
lobbying for Freddie Mac and promoting huge
government programs such as moon colonies and No
Child Left Behind are the best ways to create
jobs, then it could be true that Newt Gingrich
and Rick Santorum are our strongest candidates
in a general election.
Of course, it might also be true that dousing
yourself in fairy dust does not guarantee that
you will find the perfect mate and get the
perfect job.
We're being asked to hand Obama another four
years in the White House in order to "send a
message." To whom? And what message? That we're
morons? Message received!
Meanwhile, Romney cheerfully campaigns on, the
biggest outsider and most conservative candidate
we've run for president since Reagan, while
being denounced by the Establishment as "too
Establishment."
COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106;
816-581-7500