Ann Coulter Vaporizes Conservative Street Cred by Endorsing Mitt Romney

Ann Coulter appeared with the vapid “conservative’s conservative” Sean Hannity to endorse Mitt Romney, calling him the “most conservative candidate in the field.”  The former Massachusetts governor is a global warming acolyte, illegal immigration amnesty supporter, individual mandate endorser and Romneycare architect, and self-confessed progressive.

Below is the video of Mitt Romney describing his “progressive views” in 2002:


Ann Coulter’s idiotic line makes the third presumed conservative “jumping the shark” in less than a week: Ron Paul with his 9/11 “glee” comment, Glenn Beck with his attack on the tea party for possibly being ‘racist’ for supporting Newt, and now Ann Coulter arguing that Mitt Romney is the most conservative presidential contender.

This is not the first time Ann had displayed questionable judgment endorsing a candidate. Her love affair with the predominately progressive New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is now thrown in a new light with her recent crush on Mitt Romney. Coulter is showing a pattern of posing as a staunch conservative while supporting progressives.

There are so many sharks being jumped by our conservative punditry that the right-wing is quickly turning into Sea World.

The Art of Accusation: Politico’s Gutless Smear of Herman Cain

Politico has begun the media’s “high tech lynching” of Herman Cain. At dawn, the online news magazine published an anonymously sourced, deny-this-if-you-can, attack piece on Herman Cain, alleging that he sexually harassed two women.

Oh, Politico didn’t allege that. The two faceless women, whose claims were never substantiated, did. The women were said to be given financial settlements to leave The National Restaurant Association, a trade association Cain was the head of at the time.

Let us briefly leave aside Politico’s shameful lack of journalistic ethics and do what journalists are actually supposed to do: Ask pointed questions. What may have been the motivation for these two anonymous women to accuse Cain of “sexual harassment”? Could it have been the said financial settlement?  Shouldn’t the burden of proof then be on Politico to substantiate the allegations, rather than rehash old charges at a politically inconvenient time for Herman Cain, who is heading into the Iowa Caucuses? Shouldn’t Politico explain that the accusers could not have been motivated by financial gain? Like in the Duke rape case, for example?

But the framing is the thing, and Politico aims to abuse its influence by seeding the thought that Herman Cain is possibly a lecherous old creep into potential voters’ minds.

This is a classic trick that hinges on two things: Make the candidate address the charges, and force him to try to prove a negative. This Alinskyite tactic is meant to infuriate the accused, whose righteous indignation is then interpreted as having struck a chord. If the accused laughs the charge off, he could then be interpreted as dismissive and unserious. For those who want to believe the charge, there is very little one can do to refute it.

Moderates and partisans who uncritically receive information are not likely to be dissuaded of the lie by a logical refutation of the truth. But for those who grasp logic and use it to interpret news and politics, they know that you cannot “prove a negative.”

Accusing Cain of being a lascivious sexual predator is akin to the media’s constant charge that the tea party is “racist.” How do you prove otherwise? Supporting a solid black conservative nominee for president is one way. And that is why the leftwing media is threatened – they are being exposed as complete hacks in the tank for the Democrat Party. And as Ann Coulter put it, “there is nothing liberals fear more than a black conservative.”

Such spurious allegations as Politico’s smear of Cain that he is a sexual harasser (though the media didn’t have a problem when Bill Clinton was proved to be one) are very similar to two other cases when the left dragged this tactic out of its playbook, both targeting conservative candidates.

The first obvious example is the Clarence Thomas trial, when disgruntled staffer Anita Hill was coached and egged on by leftwing organizations to accuse Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. As a recent NRO memorium of the trial prefaced the confirmation hearings:

Pres. George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court on July 1, 1991. Four days later, the National Organization for Women (NOW) declared war.

“We’re going to bork him,” vowed member Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”

The media circus surrounding the hearing ultimately failed, however, and Clarence Thomas became a vanguard for the conservative cause and a leader on the Supreme Court.

But the more recent example shows Politico to be playing with fire. During the 2008 presidential campaign, the New York Times accused Washington lobbyist Vicki Iseman of having an affair with candidate John McCain. The story quickly disappeared off the front pages, and the New York Times had to settle out of court to keep a defamation case from going to trial.

Posing as an impartial blog of “insider” political news, Politico has revealed itself to be a collaboration of hacks in the mold of “Journolist.” As such, it might not care much if it gets sued for defaming Herman Cain.  The publication could get its political and financial rewards another way, which would more than compensate it for its trouble.

If the smear succeeds, Politico would have hypothetically derailed a threatening campaign at a crucial moment, assisting the campaigns of more beltway-friendly candidates like Mitt Romney or even Rick Perry. And it would would have defended President Obama’s right flank against a minority candidate. All because uncritical or unthinking voters are seldom able to differentiate between an accusation and the established truth.

As for Politico’s reputation, it is in the gutter and won’t be looking to claw its way out anytime soon.

As posted on Political Crush.

The First Romney Campaign of 1968: Like Son, Like Father?

Former Michigan Governor George W. Romney and his son former Massachusetts Governor Willard “Mitt” Romney are two separate individuals. But a comparison of the two as presidential candidates brings up an all-too-familiar pattern of “moderate” Republican policies, growth of state government as governors, a track record of budget cuts while in office but budget shortfalls following afterwards, and flip-flopping on key issues.

As curious asides before examining their records, we find that Governor George Romney made the original “brainwashing” gaffe in presidential politics, and was involved in his own “natural born citizen” controversy, due to him being born in Mexico.

George Romney was a businessman, leading American Motors Corporation to success before becoming governor of Michigan. Mitt Romney was a businessman, leading Bain Capital to success before becoming governor of Massachusetts.

Both were considered “moderate” Republicans who sought a third way between both parties. George Romney condemned the influence of big labor in the Democrat Party, and the influence of big business in the Republican Party. Mitt Romney once said, “I’m not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values.”

As a public entry on George Romney states while citing a number of sources, the “tall, square-jawed, handsome, graying Romney matched what the public thought a president should look like.” This almost matches exactly what many think of his son Mitt Romney, that he “just looks presidential.”

Both swelled the size and role of state government as governor. The public entry above-quoted states George Romney did as much and later sources how. For example:

Romney led the way for a large increase in state spending on education, and Michigan began to develop one of the nation’s most comprehensive systems of higher education.[133] There was a significant increase in funding support for local governments[131] and there were generous benefits for the poor and unemployed.[133] Romney’s spending was enabled by generally prosperous economic conditions that allowed continued government surpluses[130][131] and by a consensus of both parties in Michigan to maintain and administer extensive state bureaucracies and to expand public sector services.[133]

As for Mitt Romney, we find after checking multiple sources:

The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003. When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.) The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.

After adjusting for inflation, the numbers aren’t so dramatic, an increase of a few percent. Still an increase, by any measure. But that’s not the key point: Mitt Romney signed onto and defended Massachusetts’ healthcare law, which shot a gaping hole in the budgets after him. More on that below.

Here is George W. Romney’s record on deficits:

Romney’s first state budget in office came in at $550 million for fiscal year 1963, a $20 million increase over that of his predecessor Swainson.[130] Romney had also inherited a $85 million budget deficit, but got the state to where it had a surplus.[131] In the following fiscal years, the state budget increased to $684 million for 1964, $820 million for 1965, $1 billion for 1966, $1.1 billion for 1967, and was proposed as $1.3 billion for 1968.

How does George Romney’s record compare with Mitt’s? Let’s see:

So under Mr. Romney, state spending went from $22.3 billion to $28.1 billion, an annual increase of 6.5 percent. Adjusted for inflation, spending went from $20.7 billion to $21.6 billion, or a 1.1 percent increase.

There was an accounting trick that shoveled $2.2 billion off the books. But that’s not the main thing. Let’s dig up the records for Massachusett’s budget shortfalls after Mitt left office in 2007.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Massachusetts budget shortfalls were: $1.2 billion in 2008, or 4.2% of the General Fund; $5.2 billion in 2009, or 18.5% of the General Fund; $5.6 billion in 2010, or 20.4% of the General Fund; and $2.7 billion in 2011, or 8.6% of the General Fund.

Just to recap, that’s a pattern of claiming to cut budgets while in office, but leaving massive budget shortfalls after leaving office. And just to back this up, MassHealth has been specifically blamed as a leading contributor to the state’s budget gaps.

We’ve established that neither Romney was a conservative Republican. But were they both flip-floppers?

Perhaps the most famous gaffe in George Romney’s career came during his presidential bid in 1968. At first, he had unequivocally supported the Vietnam War. Then, in what might be called the “other” brainwashing gaffe, referencing Herman Cain’s more or less accurate observation that blacks have been “brainwashed” into supporting Democrats, he said the following while trying to distinguish himself from the “pro-war” Nixon:

When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I’d just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.

George Romney meant in the diplomatic corps, since he visited the country in 1965. Then he completely reversed his position:

“I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in Southeast Asia.”

The flip-flop cost George Romney the nomination, and he gradually drifted off into political obscurity ever since.

And what of Mitt Romney? It is impossible to document in a short space all the flip-flops – on the second amendment, on abortion, on his own healthcare plan for Massachusetts – but fortunately, there’s an ingenious video online that does it for me, using Governor Romney’s own words.

Will Mitt Romney fade off into the political sunset like his father, not having attained the Republican nomination or the presidency? Let’s hope in that case, it will be like son, like father.

As posted on Political Crush.

The Inevitability of Mitt Romney

A piece in American Thinker, “The Premature Coronation of Romney,” reads very familiar for two reasons: the air of “inevitability” surrounding Romney’s campaign reminds one of the “inevitability of communism” meme; and secondly, the Democrat-friendly media are playing mindgames with the electorate to try to secure the nomination for Romney. Mitt is the “heads I win, tails you lose” for the left. That is because he is essentially a status quo candidate that will do virtually nothing to shake up Washington.

A combination of reading informs these observations. Firstly, in the 1970s book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, the author Gary Allen makes the following observation:

In reality, Communism is a tyranny planned by power seekers whose most effective weapon is the big lie. And if one takes all the lies of Communism and boils them down,
you will find they distill into two major lies out of which all others spring. They are: (1) Communism is inevitable, and (2) Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses rising up against exploiting bosses. (p. 18)

This resistance-shriveling meme of “inevitability,” in accordance with Sun Tzu, demoralizes an enemy and removes its will to fight. Allen’s broader point is that most people confuse socialism with a movement of the downtrodden workers, when actually it is an ideology ready-made for elites to accrue political  power. (See my recent article, “The World Banking System: By Socialists, For Socialists” for more on this view, which preceded my reading of Allen’s work.) Just pointing out that both the Communist Party of the USA and the main corporate and banking titans backed Obama in 2008 is sufficient to demonstrate there is no fundamental inconsistency between socialism and big money, for now.

So conservatives have seen this “inevitability” play before, and know it is propaganda meant to disarm resistance. It’s not going to work again.

Secondly, there is Phillis Schafly’s A Choice Not an Echo, which specifically digs into the way Republicans, Democrats, and the media try to preselect the American people’s presidential candidates.

Let us first compare a passage from Jared Peterson’s American Thinker piece:

And finally, responding to Shieffer’s question about whom the White House expects to run against, Norah O’Donnell (CBS News chief White House correspondent, born in Washington, D.C., BA and MA from Georgetown, noted savager and libeler of a young female supporter of Sarah Palin and asserter of false claims of racism against Newt Gingrich) got in the last good riff for Romney:

I think there was a growing sense this week that Mitt Romney is likely going to be the Republican nominee…

But this member of the CBS panel couldn’t stop there, and she proceeded to give the Verdi aria rendition of how Obama’s campaign will trash Romney once he’s nominated: ” … to paint Mitt Romney as Wall Street’s best friend.  I heard from David Plouffe, the President’s senior advisor, that there is, of course, growing anger at Wall Street amongst independents, Republicans, and, of course, Democrats.  They’re going to paint Mitt Romney as a Wall Street sympathizer, someone who wants to roll back Wall Street reforms, who in the debate with Julianna this past week said that he is against a payroll tax, calling it a band-aid.”  And on and on.

Norah seems to have forgotten the plan.  First get him nominated.  Then savage him.

Now let us go to a passage in Schafly’s A Choice Not an Echo, written in 1964:

One of the favorite tricks of the Democrats is to try to get the Republicans to pass over their strongest candidate and nominate instead a candidate who will be easy to beat. For example, in 1948 the Democrats cooperated with the king-makers to persuade Republicans to nominate a “me too” losing candidate, Tom Dewey, instead of the Republican Majority Leader, Bob Taft. The Democrats said they “hoped Republicans would nominate Taft” with the same reverse psychology that Brer Rabbit pleaded with the fox, “Oh, please don’t throw me into the briar patch!” (p. 27)

Can anyone see Mitt Romney really taking it to Obama in general, let alone on such pivotal issues as Obamacare? Are we going to again pander to the “me-too” moderate middle as the country shifts hard to the left? This is like trying to drive straight while the road veers to the left; we’re all headed for a crash.

Americans need a hard-talking, principled, and unafraid leader to take it right at the leftists and their corporatist, crony capitalist allies. There is no perfect GOP candidate running, but those are the minimum requirements. Nominating a moderate version of Obama is not going to cut it. We conservatives need to push back to undo what the socialist Democrats have wrought. And a smiling, status quo candidate like Mitt Romney is not going to get the job done.

There is nothing inevitable about Romney’s nomination. As Schafly’s book demonstrates, since it assisted in getting Goldwater nominated in 1964 despite fierce opposition across the board, we can get our candidate of choice to become the GOP nominee. And importantly, this time, the president cannot hide from his abysmal record. That is why I endorse Herman Cain, warts and all. At least he has shown he is unafraid to take it to the left-wing media. Let’s hope he would show the same verve taking it to Obama.

As posted on Political Crush.

Did CNN Sabotage the GOP Debate?

Sometimes I wonder why Republicans bother going on cable news stations like CNN and MSNBC for their debates.There are rumors circulating that the moderator of CNN’s Las Vegas debate intentionally stoked animosity between Romney and Perry to watch the fireworks fly. Heated exchanges between the two hurt both candidates, and the frontrunner Herman Cain benefited from the kerfuffle.

There is something to be said for going into hostile ideological territory, but the candidates are supposed to be debating each other and not the moderator. Besides, do Democrats ever go on Fox News to debate? I think not. They treat FoxNews like an ideological enemy because it doesn’t toe the left-wing line on all issues.

It’s one thing to go on to a left-wing news outfit for an interview or two, it’s another thing to place the framing, presentation, and potential manipulation of your party’s candidates in a hostile entity’s hands. The mainstream media has shown time and time again that is has even less concern for ratings and decency than it does for advancing the Democrats’ radical agenda.

Don’t Panic: Big Majority Blame Kleptocrats, Not Fat Cats for Bad Economy

A new poll shows big trouble for Democrats who are banking on radical sleight-of-hand to misdirect popular anger away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue onto Wall Street in the upcoming elections. By a comfortable majority of 56% to 33%, more Americans see Washington as the root of all economic evil and not capitalism itself (as perversely defined as it is, nowadays).

This proves a powerful lesson to conservatives not to let media hocus-pocus and a parade of left-wing freaks take our eyes off the prize. We don’t need to go running into the arms of the most “electable candidate,” like the used car salesman Mitt Romney, just because we don’t want Obama to get re-elected. The majority are on the conservative side of things, as usual. Let’s get a common sense conservative out there, like Herman Cain, and the tea party will likely carry him to victory. The sizable enthusiasm gap bears this theory out.

As the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy says, “Don’t Panic.” And especially regarding the non-showering Occupy Wall Street protesters getting caught in the rain, “Carry a towel.”

[Continued at Political Crush]

GOP Establishment Steamrolling Electorate to Get Romney Selected

A theory is being circulated, by conservative heavyweights Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, that the GOP establishment is trying to steamroll the electorate by moving up primaries in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida. The recent addition of New Hampshire moving up its primary to December 6th, and its reasons why, lends further credence to this belief.

The GOP establishment wants Mitt Romney – let there be no doubt. Romney made no bones about it in his last debate that he was fine with TARP, and sees no ethical problem with government at any level forcing individuals to purchase insurance (he weasily and unconvincingly said that he will issue “waivers” – an abuse of executive branch authority).

Romney is still on the manmade climate change bandwagon, although its wheels fell off a long time ago. Mitt Romney is the status quo candidate.

The reasons the primaries being moved up would help Romney are three-fold: first, it would bring closer the New Hampshire primary, which would create much needed momentum for Romney early on; second, it would diminish the importance of later primaries, as poor fundraising and boots on the ground would be magnified in importance and may lead to more drop outs (Mitt Romney has an edge in fundraising); third, it would set up a situation of Romney versus Cain earlier, and there are rumors floating around in Washington D.C. that Herman Cain may be a “stalking horse” for Romney, as Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch reports. Mitt Romney’s avoidance of attacking Cain in the debates adds slight credibility to this claim. [Continued on Political Crush]

Republicans: Be Wary of All Candidates

With Rick Perry entering the race, Republicans should be extremely suspicious and not fall for any new “hope and change.” Each candidate that arises should be thoroughly vetted, including tea party favorites Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.

Why Federalism Requires Individual Rights

In regards to one prominent presidential contender’s slippery dodge that something may be in accordance with morality at one scope of government, though inappropriate at another, I am compelled to rebut that the utter lack of principle among our political elites is the essential cause of this nation’s ongoing flirtation with self-destruction.

Federalism, the pre-eminent challenge to ongoing usurpations by the national government, should always be amended and qualified by a proper respect for individual rights. Citizens of every state, sovereign beings endowed by their Creator with free will, are not born into the possession of a State or even society. Men do not owe their lives to the society or the State, and should not owe their fortunes to either.

For a man is not born powerless into this world, bereft of reason, stricken of the capability of caring for himself. The State should thus not be held out as an enabler of men; for this is akin to saying that men are necessary as enablers of trees to grow. As such, trees do not require men to care for them; but rather, only require from men that they not destroy them. The rest God, or Nature, which is an expression of God’s will, provides for; and withdraws, for reasons impervious to the minds of men.

In as much we acknowledge the capriciousness of elements perpetually beyond man’s control, such as death, the climate, and the natural constitution of the earth, we acknowledge the limits of man’s control; and thus, the natural limits of government. It should not be the province of government to provide for the health of men; it should be the duty of men to do so themselves. Men thus should enter into such relationships as they see fit to accomplish this most natural of duties to oneself, freely in accordance with their nature, and not compelled to either provide for the care of others, nor to have his labor extracted to care for himself. Caring for oneself is ultimately up to the individual to do, or not to do. For what could be more foolish and fruitless than to care for a thing that does not care for itself?

We should recognize men are fallible creatures, and cannot be cured by even a perfect government. America’s government, as it was founded, explicitly recognized the imperfections of both men and governments comprised of men. The Founders’ philosophical deliberations on the nature of man and the nature of government were well-captured by Madison when he wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” And conversely, because men are not angels, no perfect government is possible.

In other words, The Constitution, magnificently enlightened document that it is, is not capable of protecting us from ourselves, just as government is not able to care for us against our desire to care for ourselves. The document is not self-enforcing; it requires an enlightened people to carry on the torch of its illumination. The abandonment in the hearts of men of the principles animating the document, not necessarily replaced by a fervent ideology, but equally by a cynical rejection of ideology, would just as surely issue in a change in the nature of government as any violent revolution.

As such, the incessant and implacable demands of a growing minority in this nation threaten to overthrow the natural order the government was founded to preserve. Without a direct and principled rebuff, they will continue to grow, until the nation is bankrupt, both morally and financially. We must bear in mind, the two conditions are inextricably linked.

The impositions of demands by the growing minority on the fruits of others’ minds and labor, know no natural limitations. Their minds are impervious to reason, and the exhortations of those striving to avert national ruin to those benefiting by the unnatural state of affairs, essentially not to abandon the good in the vain pursuit of the perfect, will fall on deaf ears.

Therefore, time is running out for those who acknowledge reason and the truth of the principles animating The Constitution. The machinations of destruction have already been set in motion, and a lack of firm principled resistance to its immoral designs, which operate according to unnatural presumptions, will just as surely destroy the republic as if we had designed the infernal machine ourselves.

As Montesquieu instructed in The Spirit of the Laws: “It is not a matter of indifference that the minds of the people be enlightened. The prejudices of magistrates have arisen from national prejudice. In a time of ignorance they have committed even the greatest evils without the least scruple; but in an enlightened age they even tremble while conferring the greatest blessings. They perceive the ancient abuses; they see how they must be reformed; but they are sensible also of the abuses of a reformation. They let the evil continue, if they fear a worse; they are content with a lesser good, if they doubt a greater. They examine into the parts, to judge of them in connection; and they examine all the causes, to discover their different effects.”

As a nation, our prejudice has been that our greatness is capable of rewriting the laws of nature, of transcending limitations beyond our control, and of caring for men who have little care for themselves. Nature is the nurturer of greatness, not government. What is natural, in the strict sense, what is in accordance with the demands of nature, is what is rational. When government is unnatural, and is irrational enough to defy the laws of nature itself, the government’s impossible impositions incur a schism in the souls of men. Men become divided not only within themselves, but among themselves. These political and human schisms lead directly to the fall of a society, whose ashes are molded by the tyrant into a vain image of himself. The resulting facsimile of society is destined to crumble, inexorably to be replaced by one in accordance with the demands of nature, and in fulfillment of man’s nature as free sovereign beings.