Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

The Most Important Reason Why Ann Coulter Is the Best Conservative Columnist

Conservatism 3.0 starts with a clear-eyed, Coulterian focus on the battle of Good vs Evil in the real world. See Andrew Klavan on Coulter yesterday: We Are the Lifeboats We’ve Been Waiting For.

by
Dave Swindle

Bio

November 19, 2013 - 9:00 am
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page

BreakingBad_fixingood11470321_10101558758926618_509928259_n

This is Week 7 of Season 3 in my new 13 Weeks of Wild Man Writing and Radical Reading Series. Every week day I try to blog about compelling writers, their ideas, and the news cycle’s most interesting headlines.

Midway through this third 13 Weeks writing season now, I’ll restate the objective of this series. I’m trying to organize a collection of the best writers and thinkers today and their most useful ideas. Inspired by James C. Bennett and Michael J. Lotus’s book America 3.0: Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century-Why America’s Greatest Days Are Yet to ComeI’m now describing this new ideological approach as Conservatism 3.0.

Now I move on to a much-procrastinated part of this project: the determination of the Top 10 Conservative Columnists (a list apart from the PJ columnists I edit who I’ve been writing about first since August). Exhibit A for Ann Coulter as the most skilled polemicist of her generation is her new book, collecting her best columns of the last decade, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican. (See Susan L.M. Goldberg’s writings on it here, here, and here. I’ll have more blogging on my favorite parts soon.) 

Inspired by this compilation, I’ve decided to get caught up on the rest of Coulter’s books:

1475977_10101560065513208_1994589385_n

An Ann Coulter collection, well-guarded. I’ve already read Demonic, which is still my pick for Coulter’s best book. I’m 99 pages into Godless; Guilty, Treason, and Mugged are the next three in line.

At some point I’ll finish a top 10 list of ideas every Conservative 3.0 activist should steal from Coulter. But for now, I’ll lead with the #1 reason why her columns and books hit harder than any other columnist today:

Ann Coulter is not a conservative columnist who happens to be a Christian and a lawyer. She is a Christian trained and practiced as a lawyer who uses a conservative column to expose evil by name. Conservatism is a means to an end: the defeat of all criminal cultures — from street thugs to Islamists to Democrat Marxist liars — who live in rebellion against Western civilization. 

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I'll answer both of you, Dave and Art.
1. In case you hadn't noticed you are in no position for a "see, I told you so." Romney got SPANKED! You try to blame it on conservatives staying home, but he didn't win in the liberal Northeast. He didn't win in the most of the West. He didn't win ANY swing states. What supposed crucial demographic groups (read, not white land owning hetero males) did he win?? As a matter of fact he didn't even win EITHER of his home states! The only states he won were deep red! Art, you like to look down your nose at the sticks, and the "rural South", but guess what? They're the only ones who held their noses and voted for your guy! Who would I think would have had a better chance against obama? Hell's bells, I think Ross Freaking Perot could have done better.
2. We wouldn't really have been any better off if Romney had won anyway. He built the very model for obamacare, and refused repeatedly to admit it was a mistake. Even if he had repealed it, he would have simply replaced it with ANOTHER big government program to replace obama's big government program. "Oh yes, big government is bad, unless I'm in charge of it, cuz I'm so much smarter."

I will not be holding my nose this time. If I don't have a conservative choice, I see no reason to bother.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Art, we're not looking for a "true conservative". We're just looking for any conservative and so far what the Republican establishment keeps pushing in the way of candidates are not conservative at all.

The problem is being fed a sh*t sandwich, election after election, does not improve the taste just because you've managed to choke it down multiple times.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
What's with the Ann Coulter cult this week? Is PJM the official publicity arm for her books now?
She lost credibility with me during the 2012 primaries when she joined in the rest of the establishment, trashing anyone who wasn't The Electable Golden Boy. Apparently she's gop first, constitutionalist second. Or third. Or whenever it's not inconvenient.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (65)
All Comments   (65)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Is it just me, or is anyone else repulsed by Dave Swindle's constant stream of fawning over this or that "conservative" celebrity?

Well, perhaps "fawning over" isn't quite correct. "Simpering about" would be more accurate.

Hey, Dave, these people really might be the best thing since sliced bread, but you aren't a 14 year old girl talking about Justin Bieber! Stop acting like one! Go rent some self-respect somewhere!

49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
You can find somewhere else to troll, please.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
You still need to learn the correct usage of "troll".
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
You don't believe that the rude comment you left above doesn't qualify as trolling? You ignore the points I make and instead make an ad hominem smear against me, comparing me to an immature teenage girl. Going on to an article and insulting an author while ignoring the points he is arguing is the definition of trolling. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet%20troll
"A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues. Such arguments can happen on blogs, Facebook, Myspace and a host of others.
The best thing you can do to fight an internet troll is to not answer..or report them."
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dave, please enroll in a basic reading comprehension course.

Or maybe get help for your insecurities.

49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
One of the big problems here is that "conservative" and "republican" are used to mean a lot of different things by a lot of different people. Libertarian-leaning conservatives get mad when an establishment GOPer gets the nomination for President. That's fine, I get it. But I think we're losing sight of a lot.

First, Ann is right. Conservatives tend to snipe each other a lot because we have comparatively small differences. With McCain, I get it. He's a RINO who's WAAAAY to prone to compromise with the other side of the aisle. That's not a minor philosophical difference; that's capitulation. However, with Romney, we would at least have gotten someone with a coherent foreign policy, an energy policy that would have jump-started the economy, and a stop to the bailouts and quantitative easing that are killing us right now.

Much as I hate to say it, even though Libertarians and Tea Partiers have made huge inroads in the GOP, we're still not in a position to dictate a nominee for the President. And staying home just got us four more years of President Stompy Pants.

A better battle strategy is this:
Focus for the time being on continuing to improve Libertarian and Tea Party holdings at local and State levels, and getting House and Congressional seats. This is very doable, and has led to Boehner returning to the committee process for bills, and a lot less backroom budget deals. Libertarians and Tea Partiers are starting to be very good at holding the GOP's feet to the fire in the House. They're getting governorships and state legislature positions. Keep this up; make more inroads here. THIS is where real conservatives can transform the party. But it's a long battle.

In the meantime, improve conservative communications and campaign skills. Conservatives tend to be very bright and principled; we also tend to be over-passionate and off-putting. This alienates swing voters that we need for the long haul. We need a concrete platform based on states' rights and constitutional restraints on power that conservatives across the spectrum can get together on and that will draw in the swing voters. Obama is perfect fodder for this. "Do you REALLY need DC telling you how/where/when/if you can get a doctor/defend yourself/educate your kids/get a student loan/go to college/buy a home/get a car etc?" We need to polish communications skills in ordinary conversations and in campaigning, the more swing voters will respond. The Constitution is the answer to our problems, but screaming "the Constitution" at people only makes us alienate people. Dave's right. real conservatives need to learn the political process, realize that we're in a marathon, not a sprint, and learn to engage common people. THEN we can start dictating candidates for the presidency.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Conservatives tend to snipe each other a lot because we have comparatively small differences."

I disagree actually. I think amongst people who call themselves "conservatives" often the differences can be profound. A mostly secular guy who cares primarily about Israel and fighting the Jihad is very different from a daily church-goer mostly concerned about abortion and gay marriage.

"The Constitution is the answer to our problems, but screaming "the Constitution" at people only makes us alienate people. Dave's right. real conservatives need to learn the political process, realize that we're in a marathon, not a sprint, and learn to engage common people."

Educating people about constitutionalism is one answer and part of the solution but it's not THE answer. I'm more concerned with getting people to recognize Good and Evil. Figuring out the Constitution will flow from that. But it's a waste of time trying to explain the constitution to someone who doesn't believe in God, doesn't believe that human life is sacred or worth defending, and who thinks that all opinions and facts are equally valid.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Best.Comment.Thread.Exchanges.Ever.
But leave some room for the Leftie Soros Trolls, Gentlemen
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I can comprehend an Ann Coulter as a Christian, constitutionalist, conservative. What I can't comprehend is how she thinks those who aren't will do her bidding. So we share a party name. So what? Anybody have a crazy uncle who shares your name you would never rely on? Romney couldn't get the white, independent vote. That's the clincher. Not Hispanics. Not blacks. Those voters are right/centrists. Romney certainly didn't come across as too much to the right.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
She reads fast, but you want to check her endnotes. They are usually harsher than her jokes. I thought, on a few, she was reaching for an exaggerated snarky joke. But no, it was always worse than her comment. It pays to re-read her books. Once for speed and wit, once for fact-checking. FWIW, her facts are always right, and always heart-breaking.

I found Ann Coulter b/c I was reading a Joe Conason book trashing her. His notes didn't match what he'd written. Hers did. She went over Sacco and Vanzetti, and that's when I became a huge fan of hers, and turned far more conservative. Two teachers in high school had a class of 60+ students- they were "team-teaching"- and they excoriated us for wanting to go to college, and get good jobs. They went on and on about Sacco and Vanzetti. I must say, it was enraging to find out they were basing their entire lectures on lies, damned lies, and historical lies. They also managed to sneer at all of us- we were in a suburb- our houses were paid for by corporate jobs held by our dads, or grandparents, or the very few single mothers at the time. We were, for the most part, the first generation to benefit from families with well-paying, good corporate jobs.

The mom I admired the most had grown up in a coal camp. The other had a high school diploma. The most educated one had been to executive secretarial school. They were so proud of us- well-educated, well-rounded due to extra-curriculars, headed to college. And these teachers, in awful bodies, awful minds, awful clothes- sneered at all the striving, and care and work. I'm still mad about it, if you can't tell.

I mean, I get that some people sneer at suburbs. But the thing is- they are very good for raising kids. And they aren't given to you- you have to buy that house. It's expensive. It's not public housing. It's not even really inheritable- most suburbs are post-war. The original owners are still alive.

I watched 10 Breaking Bad's on Ann's column's advice. Then I went for reviews. I'm perplexed at all the reviews that say "we are cheering walter white on..." Who is cheering him on? He has a good life- he's a charismatic, careful, conscientious teacher- and yet, the camera pans across bored, inept students??? The only ones paying attention are the criminals? He's pretty much evil from the get-go. I'm not seeing any cheering to be done. Are people so bored that they want to live next door to a meth dealer? Is that it? It's so fictional? I can't bear to watch it anymore.

49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's at times like these that I really miss Bill Buckley.

49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Buckley would be good. Breitbart would be better.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
What's with the Ann Coulter cult this week? Is PJM the official publicity arm for her books now?
She lost credibility with me during the 2012 primaries when she joined in the rest of the establishment, trashing anyone who wasn't The Electable Golden Boy. Apparently she's gop first, constitutionalist second. Or third. Or whenever it's not inconvenient.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Who should have been nominated instead of Romney who had a better chance of beating Obama?
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Romney couldn't run against Obamacare - a fatal flaw. His conservative credentials were compromised when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Newt Gingrich understood that to win, one needed to run against Obama AND the liberal media, attacking both. The RNC should have never agreed to the debate formats.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Romney could've run against Obamacare. Romneycare and Obamacare are not the same thing at all. The key difference: one is done by the federal government. State governments can do what they want. If Maine wants single-payer than what do the rest of us in the country care?

"Newt Gingrich understood that to win, one needed to run against Obama AND the liberal media, attacking both"
But what Newt didn't get is that you have to run FOR something, not just base yourself on attacking others.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
And the real thing that chaps *my* ass is that what we should be running *for* is NOTHING. That is, we shouldn't WANT to replace ObamaCare with some giant government program that represents the Repub flavor of ObamaCare...we should be looking for ways to get the government out of our business and get us out of each other's business.

The main problem I have with this or any other gov program is where does it stop? Especially with healthcare. So we socialize it. So then I'm paying for Joe Blow's care. Which means that I have a say in whether Joe gets to smoke or drink or hang glide or skydive or have a gun in his house or whatever. It makes me care about things I have no earthly business caring about. Pretty soon you're passing laws against hang gliding and limiting people's 2nd amendment on health care grounds and doing all sorts of insane things.

It's hard when they attack you as "heartless" for saying that hey, some people have to go without insurance and are only going to get barebones care...but that's the world. If you think you're going to make the world a perfect place you're insane.

We should only be supporting those things that increase freedom and decrease government involvement, or at least stay neutral on those two scores. Interstate insurance competition. Instituting loser pays for malpractice suits. There are a couple of others I've heard floated.

But other than those, when someone asks, just point to the fact that care was affordable for more people before the government decided to "help" us. And it can be again. Having a baby delivered should not normally cost more than a few hundred dollars. It costs THOUSANDS. Why? Defensive medicine. Same for any number of other routine treatments or procedures.

But in the main, we need to come around to the fact that we're fighting to replace ObamaCare essentially with NOTHING. Repeal it, and then increase freedom as much as possible, get the government OUT of it and if someone wants to do something in the health field they can do it as a private individual or group. But leave the rest of us out of it, and keep your hands to yourself.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"And the real thing that chaps *my* ass is that what we should be running *for* is NOTHING."
No, that's not what I mean when I say that "But what Newt didn't get is that you have to run FOR something, not just base yourself on attacking others."

I am not asking for a conservative version of Obamacare. I am asking for a conservative articulation of how decreasing the amount of regulations can increase the amount of competition in the health and insurance industries, thus decreasing price and improving quality.

It's not that we have NOTHING to do, it's that we have DISASSEMBLING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to do. See the book that I linked to and mentioned in the beginning of the article, America 3.0 by Bennett and Lotus. Gingrich is not committed to a vision like that. He does not believe in anything more than his own self-glorification.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Some self-annointed "true conservative" who could carry maybe half a dozen districts in the rural South and intermountain West. Then they could be pure and proud of themselves.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'll answer both of you, Dave and Art.
1. In case you hadn't noticed you are in no position for a "see, I told you so." Romney got SPANKED! You try to blame it on conservatives staying home, but he didn't win in the liberal Northeast. He didn't win in the most of the West. He didn't win ANY swing states. What supposed crucial demographic groups (read, not white land owning hetero males) did he win?? As a matter of fact he didn't even win EITHER of his home states! The only states he won were deep red! Art, you like to look down your nose at the sticks, and the "rural South", but guess what? They're the only ones who held their noses and voted for your guy! Who would I think would have had a better chance against obama? Hell's bells, I think Ross Freaking Perot could have done better.
2. We wouldn't really have been any better off if Romney had won anyway. He built the very model for obamacare, and refused repeatedly to admit it was a mistake. Even if he had repealed it, he would have simply replaced it with ANOTHER big government program to replace obama's big government program. "Oh yes, big government is bad, unless I'm in charge of it, cuz I'm so much smarter."

I will not be holding my nose this time. If I don't have a conservative choice, I see no reason to bother.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Agreed!

And FWIW, I haven't bothered to pay attention to ANYTHING Coulter has written since her "only electable" comments in the last primary, followed up by promoting Christie of all people.

She absolutely couldn't bring herself to support Gingrich, for instance, because of his marital history - like that's a qualification for president - yet Gingrich did realize and express early on that the republicans were getting suckered on the media issue and needed to address it.

As I recall, he was the only one to push back on it at all while the rest went along and played the game with the opposition's media cheerleaders.

That media issue was crystalized most definitively by Crowley's defense of Obama during the debates - and Coulter's man Romney had no clue how to handle that situation and ended up looking ridiculous.

He was right in his assertions during the debate - but it doesn't matter now because he frickin LOST!

Obamacare was THE issue of that election, and the RINOs made sure that the only candidate who couldn't speak out against Obamacare headed up the ticket.

Coulter was right in the middle cheerleading for Romney.

Not saying Gingrich could have done better than Romney - but at least he recognized the problems and spoke out on them and would have been able to argue against Obamacare forcefully and effectively.

Coulter's political judgement sucks, and I'm really tired of holding my nose and voting republican when the party can't even bother to put up a candidate I can really get behind and support.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"She absolutely couldn't bring herself to support Gingrich, for instance, because of his marital history - like that's a qualification for president"

That's not true. Gingrich's marital history is one reason but hardly the only one. Here's her whole column making the case against Newt, and I agree with it: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-12-14.html

"Obamacare was THE issue of that election, and the RINOs made sure that the only candidate who couldn't speak out against Obamacare headed up the ticket."

This is a cliche and not true at all. Obamacare is only one issue among many and the way that so many conservatives fefishize it as the end-all, be-all of Obama is unfortunate. Plenty of people in this country are indifferent or confused by Obama but not as emotionally engaged by it as political obsessives.

"Coulter's political judgement sucks, and I'm really tired of holding my nose and voting republican when the party can't even bother to put up a candidate I can really get behind and support."

What conservative columnist do you regard as better? You admit yourself that Gingrich would not necessarily have done better. WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE NOMINEE IN 2012 INSTEAD OF ROMNEY? It's so easy to trash Coulter for supporting Romney, it's much harder to offer a better argument about what should have been done instead.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Agreed. I find it very interesting that Republicans hate conservatives so much. It's very asymmetrical. Democrats appear to love liberals. They may or may not love their "fringe" supporters, but they appear to be on speaking terms at least and the Democrats will happily use them if the opportunity presents itself.

But that doesn't work for conservatives in the Republican Party. Not at all. Our buddy Art Chance, for example, never misses an opportunity to sneer at them. Much like Karl Rove sneered at Christine O'Donnell when she won the Republican Primary fair and square against a card-carrying RINO. Reverse the parameters: can you imagine any Democratic spokesman publicly sneering at a radical liberal who managed, say, to beat Mary Landrieu in a primary? Or, to go back a ways, Sam Nunn?

It doesn't look the same because it isn't the same. The Democrats tolerate and even patronize their fringes because they sympathize with their goals. The Republicans don't really have any goals, so the Tea Party gets no benefit of the doubt there. Without a shared ideology and set of goals, all that remains is a struggle for power. Republicans are not the conservative party, they are simply the party that is not overtly liberal; compared to Democrats, that's enough to make them look conservative.

And that's the source of the bitterness. All that talk about wanting to field the most "electable" candidate is hogwash. In fact, the GOP leadership would rather lose with a mainstreamer than win with a Tea Partier. They'd rather preside over the minority party than be out on their keisters with a conservative winner. That's the only explanation for the sad state of affairs.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
re: "They'd rather preside over the minority party than be out on their keisters with a conservative winner."

Case in point: Ken Cucinelli (R), candidate for Virginia governor, got NO help from national Republican party or supporters. He lost to "Fast Terry", fund raiser for the Clintons.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
You said it, brother. Oh, and as much as I support Israel and the Old Testament view of the world, Dave's #1 requirement is that you not be an anti-Semite.

News flash, most anti-Semites are anti-American. The capitalist system is Semitic in nature.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
You didn't answer me. I didn't want Romney either -- he was my last choice
1. "You try to blame it on conservatives staying home, but he didn't win in the liberal Northeast."
Actually I blame it on an inadequate campaign and a poor GOTV apparatus. In winning elections the campaign is more important than the candidate or the policies. Ideologues who just think that running a pure candidate will work have no understanding of practical politics.

2. "We wouldn't really have been any better off if Romney had won anyway."
The world would have been much better off not having four more years of an antisemite in office.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
1. "Practical politics" is code speak for "I'll capitulate so Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi/the media won't be mad at me". "Practical Politics" has gotten us where we are today: staring into the gaping maw of tyranny. There is no more time for "compromise".
2. You make a good point about obama's anti-Isreal stance. However, Romney, like basically everyone in national politics was (maybe still is?) clueless about the strategic situation in the Middle East. Neither he nor anyone else making foreign policy even understands the nature or the depth of the threat we face in worldwide jihad. That said, we face an existential threat to OUR OWN future as a sovereign people right here at home. On that score, Romney's the same as the rest of the "government is the answer" types. Romney/Obama, Christie/Hillary - meh.....
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
""Practical politics" is code speak for "I'll capitulate so Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi/the media won't be mad at me"."

No, it doesn't. Stop assuming that I'm a RINO who believes in nothing. "Practical politics" has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with proper get-out-the-vote machinery, which Romney didn't have. If your campaign can't get people to the polls the day of the election then not much that you say or do will matter. There is so much more to politics and elections than just ideology, which is all that so many conservatives want to talk about.

2. "Neither he nor anyone else making foreign policy even understands the nature or the depth of the threat we face in worldwide jihad."
Sure. But who in the 2012 field of GOP contenders did? Romney was the least worst option.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, ok. Getting someone elected is a huge endeavor. To me and other conservatives, this isn't about just getting someone with an (R) after their name elected. If we get a liberal republican, we haven't gained anything. I'd rather take my chances with someone who will engage, destroy, humiliate, crush, and spit on the grave of leftist politics - NOT someone who will reach across the aisle and cooperate with them. Again, that kind of thinking has gotten us into this situation. We have nothing left to lose.
If you'll notice, I took great pains to point out that Romney's far from alone on the islam situation. I have no more of a problem with him on that than I do anyone else - they all need to wake up. And yes, it's nice that he doesn't hate Israel like so many in DC do. But if we allow our society to collapse under the weight of leftist subversion, we won't be in a position to help Israel anyway.

Back to the original topic, the bottom line is that Romney lost because he's Romney. There was nothing he could have done to win. People looked at him and saw Romneycare, and figured "hmm. Might as well stick with the devil we know."
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Back to the original topic, the bottom line is that Romney lost because he's Romney. There was nothing he could have done to win. People looked at him and saw Romneycare, and figured "hmm. Might as well stick with the devil we know.""
I reject this as a wild oversimplification. You apparently think that all voters in all 50 states think the exact same way. "People looked at him"? All "people" think alike? Ridiculous.

I used to think this way too back when all I cared about was ideology. Then I got a degree in political science and realized it's much more complicated. I studied how political campaigns actually operate -- what works and what doesn't. The strategies that a campaign uses or fails to use are what wins elections, not a single issue like the superficiality of Romneycare's fake similarities to Obamacare. Close elections just come down to who has the better Get-out-the-vote operation -- something that Democrat have always excelled at more than Republicans.

There's more to politics than the Left vs Right ideological battle. But that's apparently the only map that you and many conservatives think you need to understand politics.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, it's tough being such a simple minded rube. But it's nice to bask in the glow of such benevolent erudition by conversing at the Pantheon with a superior such as yourself. Guess we conservatives shouldn't be so uppity. I'm properly shamed now. Back to the plantation I go.

Then again.... Look, you go out and get yourself your dream campaign machine. Tune it up the way you want it and let her run. But if the guy you strap onto the back of that machine doesn't BELIEVE in the right things, and doesn't show an unflinching willingness to FIGHT for them, count me out. What have we achieved by putting someone in position who will just let the left continue to march? I'll tell you what: we'll get the same old thing we've been getting for over 50 years...

I myself have been through the "vote for the least bad guy you can get" phase of political thought (Dole, 2nd term of GWB, McCain, Romney). Unfortunately, that model will not hold at this point. It's an outdated mode of thinking. Back then, we still had time to recover. Our country as we know it could be gone tomorrow if we don't get this right today. If you can't see that, then I guess your little Poly-Sci degree wasn't worth a whole lot.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why do you keep talking to me as though I'm a RINO?
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't know if you're a RINO or not (I don't believe in that term anyway - another topic). You asked me who I thought had a better chance against obama than Romney. My answer was even Ross Perot could have done better had he been in the field last year. So, basically any of the republicans could have done better (except Ron Paul - barf) From there, you brought up Israel for some reason, and proceeded to pontificate about how I and other conservatives don't understand politics. It's occured to me throughout this conversation that we probably aren't that far apart issue-wise. But, I and millions of other conservatives no longer believe we can afford to settle for second best. My impression is that you and others who write here don't see the gravity of the crisis we currently face. Politicians like Romney, Christie, McCain, McConnell.... don't see it either, so they have to go. You seem willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, despite their proven track record of failure/capitulation/collaberation.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"My impression is that you and others who write here don't see the gravity of the crisis we currently face."
Your impression is incorrect and I resent you continuing to group me with Romney, Christie, McCain and establishment Republicans when I am on record being very critical of them all, especially McCain.

"You seem willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, despite their proven track record of failure/capitulation/collaberation."

I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. We are just disagreeing about the cause of why Romney lost. You think him personally and his ideology doomed him from the start. I don't. I believe Romney could have won and this country would have been much better off with him for four years than Obama. It wouldn't have been as great as having a Reagan conservative, but it would have been a massive improvement on Obama.

I''ll summarize the disagreement: I agree with you that Romney ideologically is not a conservative. He is a McCain-style moderate who doesn't really believe in much politically. Where I disagree with you is when you say silly things like that we'd been better off with Ross Perot (or Newt Gingrich? Would you have rather had Gingrich than Romney? Or Santorum? Who was your "true conservative" candidate that you wanted? It's a cop out for you to just say "anyone.")

You only care about political ideology. That is the only thing you want to talk about. You're not interesting in analyzing what specific failures the Romney campaign made and what strategies the Obama campaign utilized (including voter fraud) to win. And that's where the real important conversation is at.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
And by the way, I never intended to lump you in with Romney, McCain.... If you will recall, this whole discussion started when I attempted to answer both you and ArtChance. I maybe should have taken it one at a time. He's one who was sneeringly dismissive and personally insulting toward anyone who supported a nonRom from day one during the last primary. I have a long memory.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well you're dead wrong about me "only" caring about ideology. But that is square one. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 if you're a liberal republican. I don't think any of the campaign strategy even matters if you don't get the right nominee. If we get a liberal republican, we ultimiately don't gain a thing if he wins anyway.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Art, we're not looking for a "true conservative". We're just looking for any conservative and so far what the Republican establishment keeps pushing in the way of candidates are not conservative at all.

The problem is being fed a sh*t sandwich, election after election, does not improve the taste just because you've managed to choke it down multiple times.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've never understood Art's rantings. He's the John McCain of these forums.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
On Ann Coulter -

Ann vacillates between a Constitutionalist and a Progressive Nationalist quite a bit. Recently, Andrew Klavan heaped praise on her for recommending that everyone on the political side of smaller government and greater individual freedom just "go along to get along".

Hey, all you Constitutionalists, stop standing on principles! Just knock it off, already. Geez, how in the world are we going to elect the next Mitt Romney if you guys keep stomping your feet like babies and demanding someone who's closer to your own ideology?

You know, if you could just SETTLE, we could elect a man like Newt "I'm really more of a Progressive" Gingrich. C'mon, what do we have to lose?
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Ann vacillates between a Constitutionalist and a Progressive Nationalist quite a bit."
There's more to life than political ideology, you know.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hi, Dave.

I hate to ask a stupid question, but apparently you've demanded exactly that - WTF do you think your article is about?

Thanks,

Jaycen
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I put the most important point in bold at the bottom of the first page:

Ann Coulter is not a conservative columnist who happens to be a Christian and a lawyer. She is a Christian trained and practiced as a lawyer who uses a conservative column to expose evil by name. Conservatism is a means to an end: the defeat of all criminal cultures — from street thugs to Islamists to Democrat Marxist liars — who live in rebellion against Western civilization.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"There's more to life than political ideology, you know."

Try telling that to the left. When is the last time the left & the Democrat party settled for anything less than a lefty. They lost the center quite a long time ago. Yet their base never deserts them. Why? Because they don't go back on their campaign promises & give their loony base EXACTLY what they promise! Maybe the "We want the media to love us!" party should try it some time. It just might work. No one likes to vote for a phony.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
All life is politics. Dave makes his living writing about it. He posts an article on the heart of the subject, and then tells me "there's more to being smarmy than smarmy smarminess".
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't see politics as what I make my living writing off of. It's one subject among several that I write about. But for years now I've been writing about how I don't see things primarily in Right vs Left, Liberal vs Conservative terms. I'm more concerned about Good vs Evil.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Okay...since Good and Evil can't be forces within "politics", you win.

I suppose if you don't call something "politics", then it isn't "politics", right?

I mean, President Obama said a lot of things, and some of us thought those things were lies, but since he doesn't call them lies, then they really aren't....

Well, Dave, you've got me on that point. Masterfully argued.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Okay...since Good and Evil can't be forces within "politics", you win."

I have no idea what this means. Good and Evil certainly are "forces within politics." Politics is just war by other means. Politics is one field among many where Good and Evil fight. But it's not the only one.

"I suppose if you don't call something "politics", then it isn't "politics", right?"
Talking about politics is kind of like talking about the "war on terror." It's not getting to the heart of the issue -- terror being a tactic, the enemy being Jihadists. Politics is just a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

"Well, Dave, you've got me on that point. Masterfully argued."
If you're going to argue with me then please actually argue with what I write instead of just making up arguments that you think I would make. Every time you make a strawman out of my positions I will set it on fire. http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/11/03/what-to-do-when-progressives-and-conservatives-cant-communicate-part-iv-of-lumish-vs-swindle/
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Cute. My point in that last comment is that the strawman is yours.

Just because you call a horse a pig, doesn't make it a pig. You can call things whatever you want, and clearly you do. But don't expect me to blindly nod along. Moreover, don't then accuse me of something for which you were guilty first.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
What is my strawman version of your argument?

I don't need people to blindly nod along. Disagree with me. I'm not going to be right about everything. When better ideas come along I revise my positions. But if you're going to challenge me, actually challenge what I'm saying.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Try telling that to the left."
You know "the Left" isn't actually a real person you can talk to. It's just an abstraction. Talking with real, flesh and blood "liberals," "progressives" and "leftists" isn't as simple as most baby boomer conservatives want to make it.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
In other words you have nothing to say about the fact the Democrats BACKED by the loons on the left continue to achieve political victory by keeping their campaign promises, not giving a damn what their enemies think, & being true to their principles even if not everyone in America agrees with their principles. Not to mention the "We want the media to love us!" party will not attempt the same approach & continue to accept defeat after defeat through trying to out-Democrat the Democrats each & every election while tossing their principles & their dwindling base out the window. The "We want the media to love us!" party don't just experience defeat. They EARN it!
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"In other words you have nothing to say about the fact the Democrats BACKED by the loons on the left continue to achieve political victory by keeping their campaign promises, not giving a damn what their enemies think, & being true to their principles even if not everyone in America agrees with their principles."

I don't see that as a fact. I see that as your opinion. IMHO, I think Democrats have been effective at achieving political victory mostly through voter fraud. We wouldn't have Obamacare if not for voter fraud enabling the Democrats to get enough Senators to pass it.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think that's something conservatives massively overlook, after which they (we) twist ourselves into knots wondering what we're doing wrong. And why does this happen? Because it's a crime perped by the political class, and as such the political class isn't interested in punishing it. Sarah Palin is the only mainstream politician I know of who is an exception.

We talk about drop-dead issues for 2016, and I'll tell you what I'll be asking: Will you, Mr. Candidate, instruct your attorney general to investigate ALL the crimes of Operation Fast & Furious, the IRS, and Benghazi, and prosecute them to the highest level? (Or will you extend professional courtesy to the like of Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and Eric Holder and let them skate on offenses that would land us non-politicians in a federal prison for ten years?)

Sorry to jack your comment, but I think that's where Republican inertia in the face of voter fraud leads. Once again, it's the political class vs. the rest of us.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
No need to apologize for jacking. Great comment. Well said.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"...baby boomer conservatives..."

That's oxymoronic. I know very few baby boomers, with the possible exception of Bill Whittle, who could be characterized as "conservative", and I'd call Bill a Constitutionalist before I'd use the other "C"-word.

Well, Dave, I have to say I'm done with you. I was interested to see where you were going with your "conserva-whatever 3.0" thing, but you, Ron, and Roger all wrap up real nice together, apparently. Based on their writing and your replies to your commentators, I can see where this is going.

Hey, maybe next you can tell us how awesome Newt Gingrich is for your political cause.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Hey, maybe next you can tell us how awesome Newt Gingrich is for your political cause."
You don't seem to be very familiar with me or my writing. I've been very anti-Newt for years: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/17/newt-gingrich-the-gops-fiery-genie-emerges-from-his-lamp/?singlepage=true

When I talk about "baby boomer conservatism" he's a good symbol of what I'm talking about. Anyone strongly associated with George W. Bush's administration tends to be too.

"but you, Ron, and Roger all wrap up real nice together, apparently."
I would disagree. Ron Radosh is a friend and a mentor but mostly on history and Marxism. On practical politics we often disagree. He is more neoconservative and moderate than me. http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/10/31/debate-death-to-the-new-deal-screw-social-security/

And while I agree with Roger (Simon?) much of the time we're certainly not always in synch. (I tend to be more socially conservative and generally more radical than him.)
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ann needs to lose her "Christie derangement syndrome" before I buy any more of her books.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ann Coulter, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney. Does anything else need to be said?
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All