Full Caf Americano™
Ann Coulter penned a second article this week on why we shouldn’t blame Mitt Romney for losing the election to Barack Obama. In it she compares Romney’s campaign to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 race and roundly denigrates his detractors, whom are many.
Here’s part of it and the link:
Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.
But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: “What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them.”
There was also the seven months of primaries, during which Romney got more votes than the rest of the field combined. So there’s that. Moreover, the idea that Mitt Romney was “a weak, moderate candidate” is preposterous.
There is also no truth to the rumor that Coulter is Liz Trotta’s love child by Teddy Kennedy.
No really, you have to wonder. Do pretend conservatives like Coulter learn the meme and write a few books, rise to acclaim and have pies lobbed at them by campus radicals, just so they can date liberals who’ll tie them up and tell them what naughty little right-wingers they are? Coulter is a walking contradiction.
Full Caf Americano
Here’s the truth from a regular guy’s perspective. Because obviously Ann Coulter has her own truth, so I get mine.
Yes, Mitt Romney received more votes during the primaries. There hasn’t been a Republican-left-wing media lovefest like that since Betty Ford took her last overdose.
Every media outlet from the New York Times to NBC touted a Romney nomination for years.
How did they do this without actually embracing Romney? By destroying his competition as the right wing fringe. Yes, they occasionally took a swipe at Mitt, but it has not been a secret since 2009 who the MSM wanted as Obama’s opponent.
They went after Herman Cain with unfounded allegations branding him, not only as a womanizer, but as a womanizer of white women, the most blatantly racist attack on a black conservative in history.
In the course of this process Romney spent multiplied millions of his own money running false negative ads against his opponents, which he doubled down on with Newt Gingrich in Florida.
So, yes, Mitt won the primaries, and drawing Coulter’s parallel so did Ronald Reagan in 1980. But Ronald Reagan really was a conservative and he won the presidency. What did Ronnie do differently than Romney? Well, first he brought his party together, something that seems lost on Ann Coulter.
Conversely Romney went through the entire election cycle acting as though there had been no Sarah Palin, or the 2010 grassroots revolt she spearheaded. He dissed the tea party movement, distanced himself from evangelical Christians and pretended RomneyCare wasn’t what RomneyCare was — the blueprint for ObamaCare.
But in a sense Ann Coulter is right in saying Mitt Romney is not to blame for our loss this year; it is really her fault, and that of the multitude of beltway RINOs who fronted his nomination.