By The Right Scoop


Ann Coulter says that if we don’t run Chris Christie for President, then Romney will win the nomination and we’ll lose in 2012:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    So run someone who’s not a conservative or we’ll end up with someone who’s not a conservative, to go against Obama, who’s not a conservative?

    Chris Christie is doing great with battling the Unions, but he’s just not a conservative. I was all gun-ho for Christie before read deeper into what he stood for; again he’s doing great stuff with unions, and New Jersey is better off with him, but I would rather him stay in NJ.

    I don’t disagree with Ann Coulter often, but I’m usually not impressed by her, maybe it’s just me.

    I do, however, believe that Allen West and Herman Cain CAN beat Obama.

    • Chip Penny

      CC is anti 2nd Amendment and not a conservative, just another Rino. Ann please take off the blinkers.

      • http://joebrooks.me Joe Brooks

        A Republican President like Christie would never go against the Second Amendment on the national level. I’d much rather have someone who is against the Union leadership run than someone who may be iffy on guns. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate because Jesus ain’t here yet.

        Chris Christie RUN!

        • Anonymous

          Chip Penny is right on Christie. It is quite alarming that too many frustrated conservatives will jump on a novice politician’s bandwagon with NO body of work to evaluate. Isn’t this how white soccer moms turned out in droves for the Activist-in-Chief ? Chris Christie needs to a lot more deeds on his resume before he gets my endorsement; the Second Amendment record alone puts a dark cloud on his conservative street cred…..

        • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

          Thanks for saying it- We are in a financial crisis and we would turn down a financial leader because he doesn’t like guns.

          Sorry, but in order to do anything about it he needs a willing Congress and he needs a judiciary that would let it ride.

          Congress, even under full Dem control, with the most liberal POTUS ever didn’t do anything about guns- For now, lets worry about the building that’s on fire.

          Christie as VP would supplement someone like West very well. West would strike fear in every liberal. The media can try to marginalize him like they did Palin and Bachmann, but watch them try to destroy him and West will knock them on their arse verbally. Besides, the media would have to tread lightly on a man of color and a man who has served his country and proven his genuine love for his country. Add on top of that his ability to make points and he will dismantle the current administrations double-speak and anti-American actions.

          West, if he can be convinced to serve (in the actual sense of the word and not in the role politicians play now) would be unstoppable, and Christie would lend the reputation of fiscal responsibility and perceived experience through significant actions he has taken [not simply through words spoken]-

          Compare records of action by both men West/Christie vs Obama/Biden-

          Where do you think the American people will side?

          • Idahoser

            So this round we lose guns, next round we can surrender what… speech? Religion? (too late on that one)

            How in the hell do you expect to ever start going the right direction when you can only ever see as far as not losing the next election.

            Damn lesser evil. Go for the right thing. I’d rather lose the election that choose someone intentionally that gets the enemy what they want for America.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FW4XDHAKRBAG56QFUVE75JK7O4 Kate

            How soon we forget!!! Did we just get national healthcare that few wanted? Don’t walk down this path. We have very few freedoms left and as my pap frequently stated “if it weren’t for the second amendment we wouldn’t have any of the rest.”

            • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

              And more freedoms are likely to be lost if we lose to Obama again in 2012.

              Don’t underestimate their corruption [ACORNish organization + stimulus slush fund + unions]- We had better have a slam dunk candidate or we will likely lose again.

              Unless I see magic from some other candidates- West/Christie is the only way to go.

              The opposing forces have too much to lose not to use any possible means at their disposal. Right now isn’t the time to chance it with a divisive candidate.

  • http://steamcatapult.com/ Dave Pinsen

    I voted for Romney in the primary last time around, but I agree that Christie would be a much stronger candidate. I think he would absolutely crush anyone else in debates. Unfortunately, he has said he won’t run in 2012.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FW4XDHAKRBAG56QFUVE75JK7O4 Kate

      Romney is another Obama and Bush. Watch the videos of 2008 debates, Romney’s answers were feed to him in his earpiece and it’s very easy to hear it.

  • Russell

    Any chance you can get her whole speech up? I missed most of it.

    • Dalej78

      it’s on gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

  • Anonymous

    coulter, once again, needs to calm down.

    Certainly, no rational person disputes the fact that “The WORST PRESIDENT of Modern America” must be defeated in the Nov. 2012 election. Based on the horrific candidate the “Republicans” nominated in 2008, every effort must be made this time to avoid a person with such massive character flaws and get a candidate that reflects real American conservative values. Unfortunately, there are a lot of presidential wanna-be’s that, like AMNESTY-JOHN, simply cannot win. They MUST NOT be the nominee if we want to further take back our country in 2012. Christie is certainly one of several good choices that have a real chance of winning – but he’s NOT the only or necessarily the BEST choice in that group.

  • Anonymous

    RS:
    I just spent 30 minutes posting something here and when I hit post it said a moderator had to approve it. If you have it, please either post it or return it to me so I can post it elsewhere and so my last halfhour wasn’t wasted.

    • danielle

      I flippin’ hate when that happens. Always copy ‘classical works’ before sending.

  • Anonymous

    “Chris Christie as 2012 Presidential Candidate SIMPLY NO.(period)

    After listening and watching Mr. Herman Cain he looks mighty fine to me to be able to wup Maobama’s a@@ in 2012.”

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, President Cain. I’m sure the conservatives will vote for that, especially if they’re Bible-thumpers like they are stereotyped to be. Just wait till the ‘Cain slew Abel’ pun mantra starts.

      • Greta N

        Are you implying they are truly the racists the left purports them to be?????

  • Danielle

    So let me get this straight. Coulter is now ‘all-in’ with an amnesty-loving, Mike Castle hugging, Imam judge appointing, tea party hater. WOW.
    Ryan/Rubio 2012 (with a double dose of Palin to shake things up).

    • Danielle

      -I almost forgot, and gun-grabbing too!

      • Idahoser

        the Second Amendment is the absolute best litmus test. NO candidate who doesn’t understand it well enough to know why he must support it, should EVER be elected to ANY position.

      • Idahoser

        the Second Amendment is the absolute best litmus test. NO candidate who doesn’t understand it well enough to know why he must support it, should EVER be elected to ANY position.

  • Anonymous

    She’s right about Romney, she may be right about Christie, but he’s not the only guy who could beat Obama. He probably would be the surest bet, though.

    And Christie either doesn’t want to be president, or is practicing some hardcore reverse psychology on us. But I somehow get the feeling he’s not playing hard to get.

  • Zaza69

    I’d like to see a Palin/West ticket or a Palin/Giulani. .

    • Anonymous

      Let’s hope that never happens.

    • Mzhovda

      OOPS!! Just Palin/West

      • Fxmeaney

        Sounds great to me.

    • common sense

      guiliani has never done anything. being the mayor of nyc when 9/11 happened doesnt qualify you to be a president. he’s more liberal than mccain.

  • http://www.conservativenewjersey.com Rzuendt

    I would suggest that Ann start doing her homework before you starts recommending someone. The first thing she should do is read this series; Chris Christie, the Conservative Myth. http://conservativenewjersey.com/the-myth-of-christie-conservatism-intro

  • Tobias2012

    Paul Ryan is the man. The Republicans need someone that is whip smart especially in regards to fiscall policy.

  • Conserv-a-tarian

    Jim DeMint….thats the one I want. Too bad he isn’t ready to jump in..
    Michelle Bachman as VP. That would be one hell of a ticket.

  • Conserv-a-tarian

    Jim DeMint….thats the one I want. Too bad he isn’t ready to jump in..
    Michelle Bachman as VP. That would be one hell of a ticket.

    • Anonymous

      Love your thought process !! Only problem: We need these two for the heavy lifting in the House & Senate. Love the combo; they’d make one heck of a team…

  • Conserv-a-tarian

    Jim DeMint….thats the one I want. Too bad he isn’t ready to jump in..
    Michelle Bachman as VP. That would be one hell of a ticket.

  • Conserv-a-tarian

    Jim DeMint….thats the one I want. Too bad he isn’t ready to jump in..
    Michelle Bachman as VP. That would be one hell of a ticket.

  • Anonymous

    Ann was great today until she got to Christie. I do agree if Romney wins repubs will lose. I wish the has beens would not waste our time, no Romney, no Huckabee, no Guiliani. These people need to be stump people, and then be given posts to serve in the cabinets.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FW4XDHAKRBAG56QFUVE75JK7O4 Kate

      I don’t even want to see them in cabinet positions. Just say NO to all of the RINO!!!!

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, you have a point. I like Rudy though, just not as president.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, you have a point. I like Rudy though, just not as president.

  • Anonymous

    Ann was great today until she got to Christie. I do agree if Romney wins repubs will lose. I wish the has beens would not waste our time, no Romney, no Huckabee, no Guiliani. These people need to be stump people, and then be given posts to serve in the cabinets.

  • Anonymous

    She’s probably right. Republicans need a fighter who isn’t afraid to go to the mats, get dirty, and call out Obama. That person isn’t Romney. He isn’t a fighter.

    Examples of fighters would be: Christie, Allan West, Hermain Cain, and, yes, Palin. The problem with Palin is she’s a puncher and you need someone who can punch AND box. If she can land a haymaker on Obama, then she’s got the proverbial puncher’s chance. But if it goes the distance, the judges (i.e. the MSM) won’t give her a decision.

  • Anonymous

    She’s probably right. Republicans need a fighter who isn’t afraid to go to the mats, get dirty, and call out Obama. That person isn’t Romney. He isn’t a fighter.

    Examples of fighters would be: Christie, Allan West, Hermain Cain, and, yes, Palin. The problem with Palin is she’s a puncher and you need someone who can punch AND box. If she can land a haymaker on Obama, then she’s got the proverbial puncher’s chance. But if it goes the distance, the judges (i.e. the MSM) won’t give her a decision.

  • Anonymous

    Ann might be a little overconfident in her opinion said I. Though, regarding John McCain she was right as rain. However, we all have underpants with more charisma than McCain, especially when we’re wearing them, but even when we’re not. The one positive thing he did do was introduce us to a powerful woman named S. Palin. Then he promptly served her up to a ravenous media to be chewed upon, morning, noon, and nighty, night, night(!) and not once, did I EVER see her stand up (or sit) and say “EAT ME!”

    If we don’t run Chris Christie? How do we do the reverse of that? A person has to submit to that kind of thing right? I wonder how well his name and likeness would fare? Romney carries baggage like a well-ridden, tip-only porter at a hoppin’ Hawaiian Hotel. First we have that Morman thing. That’s kind of a non-issue wih me, especially after O’. Then we have the Romney healthcare thing. It wasn’t what he wanted but he signed it. Oooops!!! On the other hand, he’d probably like to redeem himself there. If we could put Ron Paul in a Romney body-duble suit, with the voice and everything, right down to the twinkle in the eye, we’d have something wouldn’t we?

    Allen West is so awesome. I wish he had more experience going into the election of 2012. Whoever wins the nomination is usually fairly well-known by now. These are not usual times though are they? West does have rocket boosters burning round the clock though and to, I think, a lesser degree H. Cain. West is going to be huge! Not so much like the ever-increasing Huck and Christie, but huge in other, Reaganesque ways.

    • Anonymous

      The Ron Paul ideas in Romney’s body would be interesting to see in the polls. I might take the time to vote for that political frankenstein, if for nothing else than the entertainment value.

      Anything with even a hint of Ron Paul scent on it though seems to be verboten with Republicans/Conservatives. I can’t say how widespread it is, but just today looking at Hotair and Redstate, the threads dealing with Paul had comments with more venom and vitriol than I’ve seen even Obama evoke lately. It’s a shame, Paul got even my 99% uninterested friends into the elections in 2008.

      Disclaimer: As an Austrian and Libertarian I have an affinity for what Ron Paul says, but I’m by no means a die hard fan. He just seems like the only palatable option in the field of potentials today.

    • Anonymous

      The Ron Paul ideas in Romney’s body would be interesting to see in the polls. I might take the time to vote for that political frankenstein, if for nothing else than the entertainment value.

      Anything with even a hint of Ron Paul scent on it though seems to be verboten with Republicans/Conservatives. I can’t say how widespread it is, but just today looking at Hotair and Redstate, the threads dealing with Paul had comments with more venom and vitriol than I’ve seen even Obama evoke lately. It’s a shame, Paul got even my 99% uninterested friends into the elections in 2008.

      Disclaimer: As an Austrian and Libertarian I have an affinity for what Ron Paul says, but I’m by no means a die hard fan. He just seems like the only palatable option in the field of potentials today.

    • Anonymous

      The Ron Paul ideas in Romney’s body would be interesting to see in the polls. I might take the time to vote for that political frankenstein, if for nothing else than the entertainment value.

      Anything with even a hint of Ron Paul scent on it though seems to be verboten with Republicans/Conservatives. I can’t say how widespread it is, but just today looking at Hotair and Redstate, the threads dealing with Paul had comments with more venom and vitriol than I’ve seen even Obama evoke lately. It’s a shame, Paul got even my 99% uninterested friends into the elections in 2008.

      Disclaimer: As an Austrian and Libertarian I have an affinity for what Ron Paul says, but I’m by no means a die hard fan. He just seems like the only palatable option in the field of potentials today.

      • Anonymous

        If you’ve ever seen “Master and Commander”, you will recall the after dinner joke about “the lesser of two weevils”. I liked it and really enjoy books written about the age of fighting sail. (1700’s thru Napolean) Nelson and all that.

        Yes, I know whereof thou speaketh. The masses need to be drawn (but not quartered), wholesale to the right. Hast thou a formula for that sir?

        Christianity tends to do that. What other attractions have we, other than, common sense, forward thinking, wisdom, etc? Your thoughts would be interesting, even if I don’t see them until tomorrow.

        Let’s say a large group of folks got together to promote something anarchist. Wouldn’t that be anarchist-ic or anti-anarchist? Be gentle with me. I’m a new Grandpa :-)

        • Anonymous

          Haha, well congratulations, gran’dad. Boy or girl?

          Personally, with time periods, I’m drawn to Roman and pre-Roman history, but Master & Commander was great. When it comes to the lesser of two weevils, I can’t shake the grumbling in my conscience that it’s still a weevil, so to speak. Maybe it’s my youth’s naivety but that kind of choice seems not a choice at all. My ethics grow more and more deontological every day. I used to be a Subjectivist and Virtue Ethicist, how far I have travelled…

          The only Formula I have for drawing people in the direction you and I both favor is patient education and debate. My girlfriend/not-girlfriend/it’s-complicated voted for Obama, but I’ve got her almost to the point of the Libertarian Party platform these days from just talking about things and responding with facts to blissful assumptions of the beneficence of government. Political and Economic history are on the side of those in favor of liberty if one simply doesn’t lose his temper (my vice) and is able to find a person to truly listen, progress is inevitable.

          Christianity may tend to do that because of the stances on Abortion, marriage, and sex, but it’s far from an invariable conclusion. My paternal grandparents were Catholic and Lutheran (later Catholic) and loved FDR, and that grandmother voted Democrat until she died. My maternal and Presbyterian grandparents though were diehard conservatives. If there is a trend in political leanings of Catholics vs. Protestants, I would be curious about whether that is due to Urban locations or not.

          Aside from education/talking to people, which are the only tactics I can morally permit myself, I can only lay out the key points and progression of myself and a couple friends of mine from down-the-line Statist Republican partisans to Libertarianism/Anti-Statism. It’s all about winning the intersubjective consensus.

          I’ll post the rest in a new post to save space below.
          —————————————————
          I’ll get a little pedantic over wording for the sake of clarity. The suffix “-archy” denotes a form of government from the greek “archon”/”ruler.” The prefix A-/An- gives the negative meaning to the word it is attached to. So the word “Anarchy,” literally means “no rulers.”

          So that wouldn’t be anti-anarchic at all, at least in my opinion. The earlier Anarchist writers/thinkers were anti-property and socialist (Prouhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc.) so they might regard an individual leading a group like that as being un-anarchic. So “Anarchism”s history is not something Libertarians are completely aligned with, which is why we don’t use the word much.

          Anti-Statist and Voluntaryist are two contemporary terms for “right-wing anarchists,” older names are “Individualist Anarchist” or “Free-Market Anarchist.” Today the general Split is between Libertarians/Anti-Statists/Voluntaryists and Anarcho-Syndicalists/Anarcho-Communists. The latter is destroying things in Greece and London and G20 meetings, the former just bug people on blogs.

          side note: Atheism tends to be a common thread in the original writers too (“No Gods, No Rulers”) so Leo Tolstoy’s Christianity earns it’s own distinction as well. ex. Christian-Anarchism and Anrcho-Pacifism.

        • Anonymous

          Haha, well congratulations, gran’dad. Boy or girl?

          Personally, with time periods, I’m drawn to Roman and pre-Roman history, but Master & Commander was great. When it comes to the lesser of two weevils, I can’t shake the grumbling in my conscience that it’s still a weevil, so to speak. Maybe it’s my youth’s naivety but that kind of choice seems not a choice at all. My ethics grow more and more deontological every day. I used to be a Subjectivist and Virtue Ethicist, how far I have travelled…

          The only Formula I have for drawing people in the direction you and I both favor is patient education and debate. My girlfriend/not-girlfriend/it’s-complicated voted for Obama, but I’ve got her almost to the point of the Libertarian Party platform these days from just talking about things and responding with facts to blissful assumptions of the beneficence of government. Political and Economic history are on the side of those in favor of liberty if one simply doesn’t lose his temper (my vice) and is able to find a person to truly listen, progress is inevitable.

          Christianity may tend to do that because of the stances on Abortion, marriage, and sex, but it’s far from an invariable conclusion. My paternal grandparents were Catholic and Lutheran (later Catholic) and loved FDR, and that grandmother voted Democrat until she died. My maternal and Presbyterian grandparents though were diehard conservatives. If there is a trend in political leanings of Catholics vs. Protestants, I would be curious about whether that is due to Urban locations or not.

          Aside from education/talking to people, which are the only tactics I can morally permit myself, I can only lay out the key points and progression of myself and a couple friends of mine from down-the-line Statist Republican partisans to Libertarianism/Anti-Statism. It’s all about winning the intersubjective consensus.

          I’ll post the rest in a new post to save space below.
          —————————————————
          I’ll get a little pedantic over wording for the sake of clarity. The suffix “-archy” denotes a form of government from the greek “archon”/”ruler.” The prefix A-/An- gives the negative meaning to the word it is attached to. So the word “Anarchy,” literally means “no rulers.”

          So that wouldn’t be anti-anarchic at all, at least in my opinion. The earlier Anarchist writers/thinkers were anti-property and socialist (Prouhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc.) so they might regard an individual leading a group like that as being un-anarchic. So “Anarchism”s history is not something Libertarians are completely aligned with, which is why we don’t use the word much.

          Anti-Statist and Voluntaryist are two contemporary terms for “right-wing anarchists,” older names are “Individualist Anarchist” or “Free-Market Anarchist.” Today the general Split is between Libertarians/Anti-Statists/Voluntaryists and Anarcho-Syndicalists/Anarcho-Communists. The latter is destroying things in Greece and London and G20 meetings, the former just bug people on blogs.

          side note: Atheism tends to be a common thread in the original writers too (“No Gods, No Rulers”) so Leo Tolstoy’s Christianity earns it’s own distinction as well. ex. Christian-Anarchism and Anrcho-Pacifism.

        • Anonymous

          Haha, well congratulations, gran’dad. Boy or girl?

          Personally, with time periods, I’m drawn to Roman and pre-Roman history, but Master & Commander was great. When it comes to the lesser of two weevils, I can’t shake the grumbling in my conscience that it’s still a weevil, so to speak. Maybe it’s my youth’s naivety but that kind of choice seems not a choice at all. My ethics grow more and more deontological every day. I used to be a Subjectivist and Virtue Ethicist, how far I have travelled…

          The only Formula I have for drawing people in the direction you and I both favor is patient education and debate. My girlfriend/not-girlfriend/it’s-complicated voted for Obama, but I’ve got her almost to the point of the Libertarian Party platform these days from just talking about things and responding with facts to blissful assumptions of the beneficence of government. Political and Economic history are on the side of those in favor of liberty if one simply doesn’t lose his temper (my vice) and is able to find a person to truly listen, progress is inevitable.

          Christianity may tend to do that because of the stances on Abortion, marriage, and sex, but it’s far from an invariable conclusion. My paternal grandparents were Catholic and Lutheran (later Catholic) and loved FDR, and that grandmother voted Democrat until she died. My maternal and Presbyterian grandparents though were diehard conservatives. If there is a trend in political leanings of Catholics vs. Protestants, I would be curious about whether that is due to Urban locations or not.

          Aside from education/talking to people, which are the only tactics I can morally permit myself, I can only lay out the key points and progression of myself and a couple friends of mine from down-the-line Statist Republican partisans to Libertarianism/Anti-Statism. It’s all about winning the intersubjective consensus.

          I’ll post the rest in a new post to save space below.
          —————————————————
          I’ll get a little pedantic over wording for the sake of clarity. The suffix “-archy” denotes a form of government from the greek “archon”/”ruler.” The prefix A-/An- gives the negative meaning to the word it is attached to. So the word “Anarchy,” literally means “no rulers.”

          So that wouldn’t be anti-anarchic at all, at least in my opinion. The earlier Anarchist writers/thinkers were anti-property and socialist (Prouhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc.) so they might regard an individual leading a group like that as being un-anarchic. So “Anarchism”s history is not something Libertarians are completely aligned with, which is why we don’t use the word much.

          Anti-Statist and Voluntaryist are two contemporary terms for “right-wing anarchists,” older names are “Individualist Anarchist” or “Free-Market Anarchist.” Today the general Split is between Libertarians/Anti-Statists/Voluntaryists and Anarcho-Syndicalists/Anarcho-Communists. The latter is destroying things in Greece and London and G20 meetings, the former just bug people on blogs.

          side note: Atheism tends to be a common thread in the original writers too (“No Gods, No Rulers”) so Leo Tolstoy’s Christianity earns it’s own distinction as well. ex. Christian-Anarchism and Anrcho-Pacifism.

    • Anonymous

      The Ron Paul ideas in Romney’s body would be interesting to see in the polls. I might take the time to vote for that political frankenstein, if for nothing else than the entertainment value.

      Anything with even a hint of Ron Paul scent on it though seems to be verboten with Republicans/Conservatives. I can’t say how widespread it is, but just today looking at Hotair and Redstate, the threads dealing with Paul had comments with more venom and vitriol than I’ve seen even Obama evoke lately. It’s a shame, Paul got even my 99% uninterested friends into the elections in 2008.

      Disclaimer: As an Austrian and Libertarian I have an affinity for what Ron Paul says, but I’m by no means a die hard fan. He just seems like the only palatable option in the field of potentials today.

    • Anonymous

      Obama had ZERO experience. West has more experience in his little toe than Obama will in a life time and then some.

  • Dave1001sd

    Gingrich Bachmann Overdrive

  • Anonymous

    Agree with above opinions on Christie. However after listening to Romney’s speech I am of the opinion that he is just a cheerleader. He did not point out to any significant conservative policies when he was gov. He didn’t give any suggestions except “doing better” than BHO – that’s what anyone says. He only pointed out and joked about BHO’s problems – we all know them and we knew them before CPAC. He is so transparent – there is nothing there.

    If you want to get a list conservative suggetstion, listen to Gary Johnson’s speech at: http://video.cpac.org/video/show/gary-johnson-2011
    If we could implement half of the domestic stuff he suggest our country would soar.
    I like John Bolton’s / Donald Trump’s/ Alan Wests/ ideas on Int’l solutions. Same web site.

    • Anonymous

      And he is just plain BORING. Personality of a paper hat.

  • http://twitter.com/Dandapani Dandapani

    I don’t support Romney, but I would definitely support Christie.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=705456995 Mary Beth House

    Sorry Ann but no. Christie is great with the unions, but he’s bad on immigration, the GZ mosque, cap and trade…

    Just as starters.

  • Smcaronx

    Can we get the whole Coulter speech?

  • http://twitter.com/08hayabusa 08hayabusa

    The reason we got a second Clinton term, is because our best candidate was Bob Dole. The reason we got Obama is two-fold. We had a hated RINO in the White House, Bush, and we put up another RINO against Obama, McCain.

    The country said Conservative last November, and if you don’t put forth a Conservative candidate we will lose. Mitt Romney and the majority of the rest are RINO’s. The only true Conservative that is probably going to run is Sarah Palin. And before you start in on me about electability or she can’t beat Obama just remember this.

    Back in 1980 when I turned 30 years of age, everyone told me that Ronald Reagan was not electable or that he couldn’t beat Jimmy Carter. They also said that he was too polarizing. I voted for him anyway and I preached to everyone that would listen to me to vote for him also. Against all odds he won, and I believe he won because he was a Conservative. The country was in bad shape then, double digit inflation and unemployment. The country heeded the Conservative message then and I believe it will heed it in 2012 for the same reason.

    • JRNASH

      I think you have a pretty good sense of it. Christie has gotten so much publicity mainly because of the way he likes to tell people off, people that most Republicans don’t like. That wears thin after a while. Palin is the only true conservative and she has more political wisdom than any other candidate by far, on either side. In a one on one confrontation with Obama she will tear him up and the media won’t be able to cover for him.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FW4XDHAKRBAG56QFUVE75JK7O4 Kate

        Telling people off is what got the MAVERICK his so called conservative following.

        • JRNASH

          Big bad John is a RINO and he lost. We don’t need to go that route again.

    • KingofAz

      Sarah Palin is wonderful. She’s great. But the McCain campaign idiots allowed her to be destroyed and she is definitely damaged goods in terms of being electbale in a national campaing. Too too many white, suburban, middle class women fear / despise/ or don’t understand Sarah. The Repubs and this country cannot afford to run a candidate who cannot win. IMHO, Allan West can win, for a whole number of reasons, too long to go into here.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FW4XDHAKRBAG56QFUVE75JK7O4 Kate

      I don’t think Sarah is the answer. She sticks up for McCain every time someone calls him a RINO. I am beginning to believe Sarah is workin’ the “say what they wanna hear,” bit dontcha ya know?

  • missdebbie

    yes but Ann does not realize is that christie is a turncoat as well…I didn’t trust him b/4 so I won’t trust him now….he is all hot air…look what he has nominated to be by his side, a muslim…no thanks to christie!!!!no thanks to Romney either!!! PUSH FOR WEST!!!!

  • missdebbie

    yes but Ann does not realize is that christie is a turncoat as well…I didn’t trust him b/4 so I won’t trust him now….he is all hot air…look what he has nominated to be by his side, a muslim…no thanks to christie!!!!no thanks to Romney either!!! PUSH FOR WEST!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Cont’d to Rshill from above…

    For me the split is along the lines of Robert Paul Wolff’s distinction between Power and Authority, mixed with Murray Rothbard’s explanation of the Libertarian’s deontological ethic and property rights.
    In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolff, p. 3-6, 12-14, and 18-19
    For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard, p. 26-37 http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

    To quote Wolff from an old textbook I still have, since I can’t find Wolff’s book around here.
    “Authority is the right to command, and correlatively, the right to be obeyed. It must be distinguished from power, which is the ability to compel compliance, either through the use or threat of force. When I turn over my wallet to a thief who is holding me at gunpoint, I do so because the fate with which he threatens me is worse than the loss of money which I am made to suffer. I grant that he has power over me, but I would hardly suppose that he has authority, that is, that he has a right to demand my money and that I have an obligation to give it to him.”

    “The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state’s claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy.”

    For me, all authority rests purely with the individual by virtue of his autonomy (possession of free will and Reason, and consequently responsibility for his actions). Authority rests doubly in the hands of the Individual, for me, due to Rothbard’s explanation of the Neo-Lockean Property Rights central to Libertarianism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism#Rothbardians

    Flowing either from, or leading into that take on property rights is the central Libertarian Ethic, which I personally believe most people follow without knowing it.

    The Non-Aggression Axiom
    “The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.” For A New Liberty ch.2

    Given several things;
    1. As a Conservative I already by default placed all authority in the individual and had that reaffirmed by my righting. I also already believed in private property
    2. If the Individual’s autonomy places authority to self-legislate his actions in his own hands, all that is left for the State is Power.
    3. Power, sharing the same definition almost verbatim with Rothbard’s Aggression, would mean that if one accepts Neo-Lockean property then exercising Power is Aggression, and Aggression is immoral.

    Given all of that (and more I don’t have space to go into), the only conclusion is that the State by virtue of claiming authority but possessing only power, is by it’s very nature, is an aggressive/immoral institution.

    Also, if you accept that take on property rights, it automatically follows that no one else has any legitimate claim upon how you use your property, either body or external property. To assert such a claim of authority/the right to regulate or take, amounts to nothing less than a claim of ownership.

    Following the train of thought backwards, any claim for taxation on income already being outright banditry is a claim of ownership on what it is you are being paid for. Ultimately you derive your ownership of anything from your labor. For the State to have a legitimate claim to some % of your traded income for the service of your labor, they must have a legitimate claim to that % of what produced that labor. Following Neo-Lockean property, for an income tax, or any tax, to be legitimate the State must implicitly claim some % ownership of you. Given that the State, through it’s claim to the RIGHT to levy a tax, of any % decided on by the Legislature, ultimately they are asserting that they have a legitimate claim to 100% of you, but only pursue that claim to some arbitrary % decided upon amongst themselves.

    The line leading to claims of ownership of your very person can be more directly traced through laws regulating substances you put into your body, whom you sleep with and under what terms, whether you can grow crops in your backyard for your family, where you send your kids to school, and what you can say.

    If someone claims not to believe in Property Rights, then they are already thoroughly Socialist and are beyond saving. At that point they will either be consistent and recognize their train of though leads to 100% Consequentialist reasoning on who lives and dies as well as who has what. Or they will start floundering and making arbitrary contradicting pronouncements, like an Anarcho-Syndicalist I observed in a string of comments on another message board.

    If someone does believe in Property Rights, and considers the Individual sovereign, then they’ve already done most of the work for you. After that point it really only comes down to one thing, and that’s how they regard the state. Most people hold a belief in the State’s Legitimacy in (I’m sorry to say it) the same way they come to their religious belief, they inherit it. This is why (yes, him again), Rothbard states in the book that it is the Libertarian’s chief responsibility to demystify the state, to act as the child insistently pointing out that “the emperor has no clothes.”

    This is why I refer to Statism as a form of mythical thinking, mysticism, or a pseudo-religion. The beliefs behave in the same way, and the State as a concept had it’s genesis in cult mystics’ first manipulating people’s faith for their own gains and purported deity-gifted Authority. It is the unsubstantiated belief in the legitimacy and authority of the State, degrees are irrelevant.

    From this presumption of legitimacy, people permit the state the absurdity of violating it’s own laws and the moral law purportedly to UPHOLD those laws.

    “While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State. In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even nonlibertarians concede are reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls “war,” or sometimes “suppression of subversion”; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls “conscription”; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls “taxation.” The libertarian insists that whether or not such practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable, pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes.” For a New Liberty

    What demystified the State in the United States for me was a series of essays written by the Natural Lawyer, Lysander Spooner.
    http://jim.com/treason.htm

    My conviction that the State is a latecomer to, or even a destructive force on, Order was reinforced by history, and observations (including Egyptian communities in the absence of police), and an article formerly titled ”De Facto Anarchy”. The ultimate point of that article was also an echo of another point made in Wolff’s book.
    http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/GovernmentQuack-DeVoon.html

    All of this is why I went from vocal Constitutional Conservative to openly hostile to the State itself, and why appeals to “What about X service/good” boggle my mind as much as a lot of the Conservative support of Mubarak.’’

    It comes down to the fact that if you grant authority, period, to the State (an action Spooner would say is impossible, but for argument’s sake now) then the terms are entirely up to the State’s discretion. Either the State is sovereign, or the individual, and if it’s the individual then the State is nothing more than an enormous mafia.

  • Anonymous

    Cont’d to Rshill from above…

    For me the split is along the lines of Robert Paul Wolff’s distinction between Power and Authority, mixed with Murray Rothbard’s explanation of the Libertarian’s deontological ethic and property rights.
    In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolff, p. 3-6, 12-14, and 18-19
    For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard, p. 26-37 http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

    To quote Wolff from an old textbook I still have, since I can’t find Wolff’s book around here.
    “Authority is the right to command, and correlatively, the right to be obeyed. It must be distinguished from power, which is the ability to compel compliance, either through the use or threat of force. When I turn over my wallet to a thief who is holding me at gunpoint, I do so because the fate with which he threatens me is worse than the loss of money which I am made to suffer. I grant that he has power over me, but I would hardly suppose that he has authority, that is, that he has a right to demand my money and that I have an obligation to give it to him.”

    “The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state’s claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy.”

    For me, all authority rests purely with the individual by virtue of his autonomy (possession of free will and Reason, and consequently responsibility for his actions). Authority rests doubly in the hands of the Individual, for me, due to Rothbard’s explanation of the Neo-Lockean Property Rights central to Libertarianism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism#Rothbardians

    Flowing either from, or leading into that take on property rights is the central Libertarian Ethic, which I personally believe most people follow without knowing it.

    The Non-Aggression Axiom
    “The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.” For A New Liberty ch.2

    Given several things;
    1. As a Conservative I already by default placed all authority in the individual and had that reaffirmed by my righting. I also already believed in private property
    2. If the Individual’s autonomy places authority to self-legislate his actions in his own hands, all that is left for the State is Power.
    3. Power, sharing the same definition almost verbatim with Rothbard’s Aggression, would mean that if one accepts Neo-Lockean property then exercising Power is Aggression, and Aggression is immoral.

    Given all of that (and more I don’t have space to go into), the only conclusion is that the State by virtue of claiming authority but possessing only power, is by it’s very nature, is an aggressive/immoral institution.

    Also, if you accept that take on property rights, it automatically follows that no one else has any legitimate claim upon how you use your property, either body or external property. To assert such a claim of authority/the right to regulate or take, amounts to nothing less than a claim of ownership.

    Following the train of thought backwards, any claim for taxation on income already being outright banditry is a claim of ownership on what it is you are being paid for. Ultimately you derive your ownership of anything from your labor. For the State to have a legitimate claim to some % of your traded income for the service of your labor, they must have a legitimate claim to that % of what produced that labor. Following Neo-Lockean property, for an income tax, or any tax, to be legitimate the State must implicitly claim some % ownership of you. Given that the State, through it’s claim to the RIGHT to levy a tax, of any % decided on by the Legislature, ultimately they are asserting that they have a legitimate claim to 100% of you, but only pursue that claim to some arbitrary % decided upon amongst themselves.

    The line leading to claims of ownership of your very person can be more directly traced through laws regulating substances you put into your body, whom you sleep with and under what terms, whether you can grow crops in your backyard for your family, where you send your kids to school, and what you can say.

    If someone claims not to believe in Property Rights, then they are already thoroughly Socialist and are beyond saving. At that point they will either be consistent and recognize their train of though leads to 100% Consequentialist reasoning on who lives and dies as well as who has what. Or they will start floundering and making arbitrary contradicting pronouncements, like an Anarcho-Syndicalist I observed in a string of comments on another message board.

    If someone does believe in Property Rights, and considers the Individual sovereign, then they’ve already done most of the work for you. After that point it really only comes down to one thing, and that’s how they regard the state. Most people hold a belief in the State’s Legitimacy in (I’m sorry to say it) the same way they come to their religious belief, they inherit it. This is why (yes, him again), Rothbard states in the book that it is the Libertarian’s chief responsibility to demystify the state, to act as the child insistently pointing out that “the emperor has no clothes.”

    This is why I refer to Statism as a form of mythical thinking, mysticism, or a pseudo-religion. The beliefs behave in the same way, and the State as a concept had it’s genesis in cult mystics’ first manipulating people’s faith for their own gains and purported deity-gifted Authority. It is the unsubstantiated belief in the legitimacy and authority of the State, degrees are irrelevant.

    From this presumption of legitimacy, people permit the state the absurdity of violating it’s own laws and the moral law purportedly to UPHOLD those laws.

    “While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State. In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even nonlibertarians concede are reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls “war,” or sometimes “suppression of subversion”; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls “conscription”; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls “taxation.” The libertarian insists that whether or not such practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable, pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes.” For a New Liberty

    What demystified the State in the United States for me was a series of essays written by the Natural Lawyer, Lysander Spooner.
    http://jim.com/treason.htm

    My conviction that the State is a latecomer to, or even a destructive force on, Order was reinforced by history, and observations (including Egyptian communities in the absence of police), and an article formerly titled ”De Facto Anarchy”. The ultimate point of that article was also an echo of another point made in Wolff’s book.
    http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/GovernmentQuack-DeVoon.html

    All of this is why I went from vocal Constitutional Conservative to openly hostile to the State itself, and why appeals to “What about X service/good” boggle my mind as much as a lot of the Conservative support of Mubarak.’’

    It comes down to the fact that if you grant authority, period, to the State (an action Spooner would say is impossible, but for argument’s sake now) then the terms are entirely up to the State’s discretion. Either the State is sovereign, or the individual, and if it’s the individual then the State is nothing more than an enormous mafia.

    • Anonymous

      My response is at the bottom of the thread.

    • Anonymous

      I am skipping this for now. Too many words, too tedious.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah….I would have emailed if I know where to send it, but oh well. You see what you made me do, Rshill7!?

        • Anonymous

          see what you made me do = victimization mind set

          I know you are just kidding probably. I like a good joke, too. Just saying.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I was joking. =P

            I’m an Existentialist and Libertarian. Victimization is the polar opposite of that.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I was joking. =P

            I’m an Existentialist and Libertarian. Victimization is the polar opposite of that.

  • Anonymous

    Cont’d to Rshill from above…

    For me the split is along the lines of Robert Paul Wolff’s distinction between Power and Authority, mixed with Murray Rothbard’s explanation of the Libertarian’s deontological ethic and property rights.
    In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolff, p. 3-6, 12-14, and 18-19
    For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard, p. 26-37 http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

    To quote Wolff from an old textbook I still have, since I can’t find Wolff’s book around here.
    “Authority is the right to command, and correlatively, the right to be obeyed. It must be distinguished from power, which is the ability to compel compliance, either through the use or threat of force. When I turn over my wallet to a thief who is holding me at gunpoint, I do so because the fate with which he threatens me is worse than the loss of money which I am made to suffer. I grant that he has power over me, but I would hardly suppose that he has authority, that is, that he has a right to demand my money and that I have an obligation to give it to him.”

    “The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state’s claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy.”

    For me, all authority rests purely with the individual by virtue of his autonomy (possession of free will and Reason, and consequently responsibility for his actions). Authority rests doubly in the hands of the Individual, for me, due to Rothbard’s explanation of the Neo-Lockean Property Rights central to Libertarianism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism#Rothbardians

    Flowing either from, or leading into that take on property rights is the central Libertarian Ethic, which I personally believe most people follow without knowing it.

    The Non-Aggression Axiom
    “The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.” For A New Liberty ch.2

    Given several things;
    1. As a Conservative I already by default placed all authority in the individual and had that reaffirmed by my righting. I also already believed in private property
    2. If the Individual’s autonomy places authority to self-legislate his actions in his own hands, all that is left for the State is Power.
    3. Power, sharing the same definition almost verbatim with Rothbard’s Aggression, would mean that if one accepts Neo-Lockean property then exercising Power is Aggression, and Aggression is immoral.

    Given all of that (and more I don’t have space to go into), the only conclusion is that the State by virtue of claiming authority but possessing only power, is by it’s very nature, is an aggressive/immoral institution.

    Also, if you accept that take on property rights, it automatically follows that no one else has any legitimate claim upon how you use your property, either body or external property. To assert such a claim of authority/the right to regulate or take, amounts to nothing less than a claim of ownership.

    Following the train of thought backwards, any claim for taxation on income already being outright banditry is a claim of ownership on what it is you are being paid for. Ultimately you derive your ownership of anything from your labor. For the State to have a legitimate claim to some % of your traded income for the service of your labor, they must have a legitimate claim to that % of what produced that labor. Following Neo-Lockean property, for an income tax, or any tax, to be legitimate the State must implicitly claim some % ownership of you. Given that the State, through it’s claim to the RIGHT to levy a tax, of any % decided on by the Legislature, ultimately they are asserting that they have a legitimate claim to 100% of you, but only pursue that claim to some arbitrary % decided upon amongst themselves.

    The line leading to claims of ownership of your very person can be more directly traced through laws regulating substances you put into your body, whom you sleep with and under what terms, whether you can grow crops in your backyard for your family, where you send your kids to school, and what you can say.

    If someone claims not to believe in Property Rights, then they are already thoroughly Socialist and are beyond saving. At that point they will either be consistent and recognize their train of though leads to 100% Consequentialist reasoning on who lives and dies as well as who has what. Or they will start floundering and making arbitrary contradicting pronouncements, like an Anarcho-Syndicalist I observed in a string of comments on another message board.

    If someone does believe in Property Rights, and considers the Individual sovereign, then they’ve already done most of the work for you. After that point it really only comes down to one thing, and that’s how they regard the state. Most people hold a belief in the State’s Legitimacy in (I’m sorry to say it) the same way they come to their religious belief, they inherit it. This is why (yes, him again), Rothbard states in the book that it is the Libertarian’s chief responsibility to demystify the state, to act as the child insistently pointing out that “the emperor has no clothes.”

    This is why I refer to Statism as a form of mythical thinking, mysticism, or a pseudo-religion. The beliefs behave in the same way, and the State as a concept had it’s genesis in cult mystics’ first manipulating people’s faith for their own gains and purported deity-gifted Authority. It is the unsubstantiated belief in the legitimacy and authority of the State, degrees are irrelevant.

    From this presumption of legitimacy, people permit the state the absurdity of violating it’s own laws and the moral law purportedly to UPHOLD those laws.

    “While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State. In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even nonlibertarians concede are reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls “war,” or sometimes “suppression of subversion”; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls “conscription”; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls “taxation.” The libertarian insists that whether or not such practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable, pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes.” For a New Liberty

    What demystified the State in the United States for me was a series of essays written by the Natural Lawyer, Lysander Spooner.
    http://jim.com/treason.htm

    My conviction that the State is a latecomer to, or even a destructive force on, Order was reinforced by history, and observations (including Egyptian communities in the absence of police), and an article formerly titled ”De Facto Anarchy”. The ultimate point of that article was also an echo of another point made in Wolff’s book.
    http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/GovernmentQuack-DeVoon.html

    All of this is why I went from vocal Constitutional Conservative to openly hostile to the State itself, and why appeals to “What about X service/good” boggle my mind as much as a lot of the Conservative support of Mubarak.’’

    It comes down to the fact that if you grant authority, period, to the State (an action Spooner would say is impossible, but for argument’s sake now) then the terms are entirely up to the State’s discretion. Either the State is sovereign, or the individual, and if it’s the individual then the State is nothing more than an enormous mafia.

  • Mzhovda

    Coulter backed Mittster before Mcain got the Nomination. And then Said “Get Drunk and vote for Hillary.

    Nuff said.

    • Anonymous

      And…. was she not correct? She backed Mitt because that was about all that was worth backing of the pool of people running at that time. Once McCain got the nomination, I too got drunk, because I knew it was all over. In hindsight, Hillary would have been far better than what we have now.

  • Josie

    Has she not heard that Chris Christie said he is not interested in running? He said it several times or has he changed his mind? Also how about his placing a Muslim in key office position and all the other info that has surfaced recently?

    I can’t see Romney winning the Pres office either or Newt.

  • Parkerd

    I recommend everyone check out Allen West’s keynote speech to CPAC and then proceed to explain why anyone other than West should be at the top of the ticket in 2012. This is a man who says, “Never let a military man know you’re afraid of him… he’ll just turn up the heat”.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/allen-wests-keynote-speech-for-cpac-2011

    If Palin’s telling the truth about not running if she sees someone she could support who is conservative and can win, she could turn the campaign into one for the ages. Mr O, on stage with West, would be annihilated in the ensuing debates.

    • Anonymous

      First of all, Allen West hasn’t served in Congress long enough to pay his first electric bill. Second, Allen West used his service in the military to deflect attention away from the fact that he doesn’t live in the Congressional district in which he ran. Third of all, the only reason I can think of for why he would run in a district he doesn’t live in is that he’s afraid of a girl. He should have run against Debbie Wasserman Shultz because he lives in her district.

      Allen West is a fine man and a great speaker. I hope he stays in Congress until he’s old and gray. But he lost my confidence when he answered the residency issue with the explanation that he was out of the district serving the country. I forgive politicians a lot. But that was way too slick for me.

      • Anonymous

        It worked for Rahm Emmanual too in Chicago. S’pose Mr. West was the inspiration? I am getting far too cynical here. I just love Allen West but wish we could see the candidate.

        I am hanging on to our prayers that a candidate will emerge who can actually take the election. We sure ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

  • Anonymous

    It’s a girl! My eldest daughter made it (with a little help).
    (that was being easy on me? So be it)

    Well, Dan for breakfast. It reminds me of that immortal line uttered by the old Scotsman after they cauterized the spear wound in his chest, “That’ll wake you up in the morning boy!”

    I’ve heard it said that anarchists are rarely over 30 yrs. old. I wonder why that is?
    I can hear you explain how your own mind was taken by the hand and led into the realms into which it now capers, and cavorts. The words used are treated mathematically and carry you to a conclusion that makes mathematical sense throughout the journey. It’s like following the recipe for a delicious cake to a “T” or making a watch with minute, exhaustive, direction, and when both are done, the baker and the the watchmaker have a cake that no one will eat and a watch that doesn’t keep time.

    Your methods of reaching your conclusions seem Socratic and sesible. “If this is that, then the other can never be etc.” I do not think the human spirit and the human capriciousness can stand up to the predictions of some of your conclusions and some of your mentors. Which leads me to the following question:

    How did Rothbard gain such respect in your eyes? What is it about him that causes his words to be quoted with such regularity by Dan T?

    • Anonymous

      Congratulations again on the granddaughter. And I thought by “being easy” you meant to not my usual anti-charming self about it, which I did make an attempt at =P.

      And Braveheart is another awesome one.

      I’ll address what you say in reverse order. Rothbard gained respect in my eyes through Austrian economics at first. When I’m reading about new ideas I always try to treat it, and it’s author, with respect and digest the information with an open mind. If I am persuaded, then I am either a fool or it is a good idea, or some mix of the two.

      Most well-informed conservatives know about Friedrich Von Hayek and “The Road to Serfdom,” and occasionally they know he won a Nobel Prize for economics back when that meant something. Hayek used to be a pretty hardline socialist in his economic and political beliefs. A man that most Conservatives don’t know is Ludwig Von Mises. Mises is arguably the most influential of the Austrian School of Economics, He had direct personal influence on the Austrian royal family with his ideas. More importantly, Mises wrote the book Socialism, as a treatise against the entire idea. Socialism is the book that turned Hayek, the Reagan-referenced Friedman-admired Nobel-winning economist, to Capitalism, strict free market economics, and Classical Liberal politics.

      Mises and Hayek predicted the crash of ’29, while Keynes lost his fortune. They also correctly gauged how the post-war economy would behave at the sudden withdraw of government augmented market demand, while Keynes and the Chicago school got it wrong.

      Mises, after moving to the United States to avoid the upheaval of Europe and it’s wars/politics, taught at several institutions and tutored students in his free time because Austrian Economics is not allowed in most colleges. One of those students was Murray N. Rothbard. Rothbard then went on to wrote “Man, Economy, and State,” a work on Austrian Economics that Mises considered the best written, and it fused that school of economics with political thought/implications.

      Rothbard then went on to be a prolific writer of essays and books being rejected by Keynsian and Chicago influenced economic schools as well as being active in Libertarian politics, formerly known as Classical Liberalism. He was one of the founders of the Cato Institute, was a major player in the Libertarian Party later quitting it from the absurdity of Minarchist Libertarians, was a Mentor to Lew Rockwell’s idea of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, and opposed cold war tactics involving interventionism throughout the conflict.

      I also respect him and quote his book (and other writings), “For a New Liberty”, several reasons. I quote his book because in my estimation, what he says in it, and other writings, is correct. I quote his writings also because he constantly argued for the freedom of men and his arguments or real world applications cover just about ever rebuttal or objection that can be raised. His consistency and historical basing of his ideas are also appealing.

      Anarchists in the sense of Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Communists (like Reds in general) all seem to be under 30, that’s true, or over 60 like Chomsky. I’m not so sure that’s the case with Libertarians and Anti-Statists. the key figures that people come across for Individualist Anarchism are Lysander Spooner (looks kind of like Santa Clause), Benjamin Tucker (also not a youngin’), and Henry James Thoreau. If you wish to go further back, you would run into the Classical Liberals, such as the Levellers in the English Civil war, William Godwin, John Stuart Mill, Fredric Bastiat, John Trenchard, and Thomas Gordon. Today, noteworthy figures for Anti-Statism/Voluntaryism would be Roderick T. Long, Walter Block, Thomas DiLorenzo, Murray Rothbard, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and virtually the entire list of faculty and fellows at the Mises Institute. About the only Minarchist members of the Mises Institute are Judge Napolitano, Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul.

      All of that is ignoring the point that age has little to do with the validity of an idea. Karl Marx, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Hobbes, and the Vanguard Party were all well over 30 and chalk-full of bad ideas. If the Constitution was authored by an 8 year old, would that make it any less in your eyes? Would Mathematical Logic be of less value if it were penned by someone who had bee alive less than 3 decades?

      To say that a lack of gray hairs on a person’s head makes their ideas any less is fallacious. I’m fully aware of people’s prejudices, but there is also a reason prejudices like that are regarded as irrational and silly at best.

      Politics aside, you clearly enjoy literature. Have you read War and Peace, do you respect it’s author? If so, why? Do you respect Ghandi’s principled and effective stances/actions? The same man inspired Ghandi and wrote that novel. That man was also a devout Christian. He was also an Anarcho-pacifist who held socialism in contempt.

      What makes you respect the figures in history or politics that you do?

      Oh, and sorry, I’m all out of brevity today. Wit was never my strong suit anyway. Background was necessary, so the bits about Hayek and Mises weren’t just “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

      • Anonymous

        The under 30 thing was an observation made by someone other than myself. I’ve never observed anarchists in the wild or any other way, so no need to be quite so defensive there. I thought I’d ask also to see what your answer might be.

        You hit on many things and answered them satisfactorily for me except this:
        “Your methods of reaching your conclusions seem Socratic and sensible. “If this is that, then the other can never be etc.” I do not think the human spirit and human capriciousness can stand up to the predictions of some of your conclusions and some of your mentors.(or vice versa)” (Rshill7)

        • Anonymous

          Bah, the lack of tone in text fails me once again. I didn’t think I was coming across as defensive and I inferred a snarkiness in your question about age that wasn’t there. The age thing is something that is often very condescendingly tossed in response, and it gets very tiring, I’m sorry.

          We’ll agree to disagree about the viability of these ideas when met with human nature. I might have confirmation bias blinders on or you might have your own, I won’t presume to know which is the case, maybe a little of both. In my observation, the “chaos” most people attribute to “anarchy” comes largely from 2 things, the first being conflict between those who would be free and those who would enslave. The second being the panic and [real or perceived] desperation in those who have been raised to rely on the State as their support structure.

          Outside of those two instances, when there is a sudden absence of the State, to my eyes, there is not chaos or dog-eat-dog viciousness but a reappearance of the order people establish on their own when not in panic or desperation. The collapse of the state without conquest isn’t a frequent circumstance so I’ll just list a couple in my favor and a couple that make your point.

          For me:
          1. In Egypt, after the first few days of protest, the violence only really started when plainclothes thugs from the State initiated a conflict to try and put the protestors in their place. Also, when the police quit their posts and pulled back from the city, individuals got together and on their own worked together to guard their communities. Were there a few miscreants and some vandalization, probably but those exist with and without a State.

          2. In Somalia, in every location that wasn’t an inner-city community where every individual was a client of the Communist State, the collapse of the state did not lead to rampant violence. It lead to the people relying on age-old non-state solutions to their needs, like Law, and LESS disruption and harassment by agents of the State.

          3. In Texas (I think) a while back there was an enormously damaging flood that almost wiped out a community. For all intents and purposes it was just the individuals that could do anything. The US President heard the news and immediately demanded aid and personnel be sent to help. The community ordered they keep out (like many old western towns did when the State was asserting it’s authority the first time) so that they could handle things themselves.

          For you:
          1. Urban communities in Somalia where every individual was a client of the State devolved into desperate panic and violence in the absence of their support structure. Militias took over and are now taking all the foreign aid money sent by other countries and spend 90% of it on making war against each other.

          2. The State in Greece is falling apart and trying to take steps to resolve their debt situation. A spoiled population of State service clients had a temper tantrum and destroyed anything they could like the Anarcho-Syndicalists they are.

          3. Katrina wiped out New Orleans and any kind of State function people relied on as their support structure evaporated overnight. Looting, robbery, and violence commenced.

          The likelihood that emergent order will occur quickly is directly related to the level of infantilized dependency has been cultivated in the population, and how widespread. Since all State’s eventually fail, I don’t see the chaos of a collapsed State as an argument against a Stateless society as much as an argument against a maternal nanny-state happening in the first place.

          It’s a matter of calm confident self-reliance or the lack of it. Because such fear of that desperation and chaos leads people to support the somewhat calm status quo, it is in the State’s interest to cultivate that childish dependency as much as possible and to scare people about the alternatives.

          It’s far from a foregone conclusion that the ideas of myself or the many other Voluntaryists would take root, but it’s no where near as remote a possibility as Statists would have you believe. Education, promoting individualism, and informing people that there are stable alternatives increases those odds, as does the population’s rejection of Nanny-Statism we see now.

          My question at the end was an honest one though. I’m curious what about figures in history, literature, economics, or politics you respect and why it is you respect them. And I hope I addressed your question adequately.

          • Anonymous

            There are too many. If I chose it would imply a heirarchy that doesn’t really exist other than the obvious choice of Jesus Christ.

            Ok, I’ll pull one out…I like Charles Dickens. My man can ramble like anything with descriptions that just couldn’t go further unless he were torturing you with them. I really enjoyed ‘Lorna Doone’ after reading about it in an Ernest Hemingway unfinished short story. I read biographies a lot as a kid when others were reading Mad Magazine. Many of them were about frontiersman and entrepreneurs. I became the latter. Of course I read Mad Mag too :-) One of 6 kids am I. Books were a great escape. When not buried in homework or a book or both, I was the family class-clown. Interesting combo huh?

  • Anonymous

    She’s right. She was right about McCain too. Romney can not beat Obama. Neither can Gingrich, Paul, or Huckabee. Not a chance.

  • Anonymous

    She’s right. She was right about McCain too. Romney can not beat Obama. Neither can Gingrich, Paul, or Huckabee. Not a chance.

  • Anonymous

    She’s right. She was right about McCain too. Romney can not beat Obama. Neither can Gingrich, Paul, or Huckabee. Not a chance.

  • http://twitter.com/dias_sm Dias Samuel

    Chris Christie Hell NO!!

    go to mark levin’s facebook page to see Chris Christie exposed!!!!
    He is neutral on obamacare, gun rights, troubling court appointment, supported mike castle over christeen Odonell. He is a RINO!!

  • http://twitter.com/pohdiaries TWB

    I will say this though. Christie has a “toughness” that Romney doesn’t have.

  • Anonymous

    Dear Ann,

    Christie is a Democrat. He went to the White House Christmas Party or some party at the invitation of Obummer himself. Do you need a clue? as in Would Christie accept a bid to run on the Repub or Tea Party ticket when he is a staunch Democrat, only a fiscal conservative.

    For a bright woman, I am surprised that you are promoting this idea. You’re not serious, right?

    Me

  • Anonymous

    Dear Ann,

    Christie is a Democrat. He went to the White House Christmas Party or some party at the invitation of Obummer himself. Do you need a clue? as in Would Christie accept a bid to run on the Repub or Tea Party ticket when he is a staunch Democrat, only a fiscal conservative.

    For a bright woman, I am surprised that you are promoting this idea. You’re not serious, right?

    Me

  • Dodocanspell

    I know many of the readers of Right Scoop and the owner himself, at least at one time, were pretty gaga about Christie.
    Read this and see if this man is the kind of man you want to see as your Prez.
    http://www.investigativeproject.org/2506/gov-christie-strange-relationship-with-radical

    • Anonymous

      I’m guilty of believing that Christie was the one until I did more research on him. I fell for it because of the way he handled the unions, then discovered that’s the only positive thing about him.

    • KeninMontana

      Once again late to the party and behind the curve. I’ll say this you all are consistent at least.

  • max

    Coulter is a fraud … Christie is more RHINO than both Mccain & Romney combined. She knows that … Remember she said she would have voted for Hillary … The only conservative is Pailn & she degraded her … As I said Coulter is a Fraud … Opportunist … Rovian … Dem plant …

  • Bassboat

    Herman Cain is a conservative. He is a businessman. He is for the Fair Tax. Why would he not be the nominee? The Rinos will withhold money from him if he were nominated. How to overcome the Rinos? We, conservatives have to do it grassroots five dollars at a time millions of times until Herman has the money.

    • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

      I’m weary of someone that proclaims too much as though he can make it happen- it seems that he is trying to gain traction, but ridiculous desires or implying he will bring that change is ridiculous.

      I’m not saying that it is not possible, just extremely unlikely this decade.

      Lets focus on winning before we focus on giving the US a facelift.

  • Parkerd

    My mistake, Jaynie. I was under the impression we were “in it to win it”.
    Your off track analysis in regard to the question just doesn’t cut it.

  • Idahoser

    running Christie IS losing.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FW4XDHAKRBAG56QFUVE75JK7O4 Kate

      Yes I agree, especially if he would win.

  • Idahoser

    if 2008 taught you nothing else, it should have taught you that you nominate who you WANT, not who you think can beat the opponent.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FW4XDHAKRBAG56QFUVE75JK7O4 Kate

      Best advice I’ve seen on here.

  • Alex

    What’s so damn bad about Romney? She was a die-hard supporter of him until now.

  • TDC

    Analysis of the CPAC speeches at this website: http://republicanprime.com/2011/02/15/analysis-grading-10-cpac-speeches/