Coulter Defends Romney

One of the interesting aspects of the Republican primary season this year is that one of Mitt Romney’s biggest defenders is Ann Coulter.  Coulter is considered by many to be a “far right, social conservative, Republican.”  And Romney, of course, is deemed by many such conservatives to be the person who they least desire to be the nominee — anyone but Romney seems to be the refrain.   Yet, Coulter has marshalled all of her considerable rhetorical resources to defend Romney.

Coulter appears to have two main reasons for preferring Romney.  She believes he is the only candidate who can beat Obama, and she thinks Romney is the most conservative of the candidates, at least on the issues that matter to her.

Finally, Coulter is even willing to defend Romneycare as the conservative alternative to socialized medicine.  Coulter writes:

Until Obamacare, mandatory private health insurance was considered the free-market alternative to the Democrats’ piecemeal socialization of the entire medical industry.   In November 2004, for example, libertarian Ronald Bailey praised mandated private health insurance in Reason magazine, saying that it “could preserve and extend the advantages of a free market with a minimal amount of coercion.”   A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.  Romneycare was also supported by Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School professor and health policy analyst for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Herzlinger praised Romneycare for making consumers, not business or government, the primary purchasers of health care.

Despite some recent setbacks, Romney is still the likely Republican nominee, with Intrade (link no longer available) giving him a 78 percent chance of becoming the Republican nominee.   While that should make Coulter happy, that Intrade now gives Obama a 60 percent chance of winning the election should not.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on March 05, 2012 at 21:27:32 pm

I'm not sure. When some drugs were legal in Ireland (and that's just a year ago or something), they found that cisnumptoon of strong drugs like LSD decreased. These drugs were very mild though. They had private "head shops" selling them. You know the funniest thing? These head shops were attacked, often burned down. But NOT by drug opponents, but by... former drug dealers! Yes, the drug dealers who had been driven out of business by the legal head shops. They used to make big money selling LSD, but now no-one wanted to buy LSD anymore (people were just fine buying legal drugs and didn't bother taking the risk it meant to buy illegal ones). You see, in order to run a business, even a head shop, you need certain skills and knowledges: You need to know accounting, budgeting, marketing... things that the average crack dealer on the street don't have a clue about. And so the former drug dealers started to set these shops on fire.This was also the reason why the head shops were banned once again in May last year - well, not officially banned, but most substances were banned. There has been a lot of speculation that the reason was that head shops took too much time and resources away from the Police to protect.It is however, and this is what I am worried about, possible that legalizing some drugs will increase people's tolerance for drug use and lead to more drug legalization. I can't understand those who only want to legalize marijuana and who use the argument that "it's your body, you do what you want with it" - well then, why don't we legalize LSD too? I kind of feel that as soon as marijuana has been legalized, they will take the next step and try get LSD legalized too. Another question for the "free the weed"-people: Should the police/fire brigade try to stop jumpers? Normally, they do, as you may recall. But since it's the jumper's own decision, and it is his body that gets killed, maybe they shouldn't? What if you try to stop a jumper from jumping by for instance grabbing his leg (or something), should you then get punished for it? I mean, you are technically speaking committing an act of violence, right? You are stopping him from doing what he wants to do with his body. What should the punishment be?On a theoretical, philosophical level, I can agree it should be a states' rights issue. But in reality, if it is legal in one state, all the other states will get it too. You'd have to set up tariffs between Oregon and California to stop Californian drugs (legal in California) from flooding into Oregon. The US would never be the same again, you wouldn't be able to drive a car from one state to another without having to empty all your baggage to prove to the custom's officers that you weren't bringing any illegal substances to the state. Therefore, practically, it would have to be either illegal or illegal in the entire union of states. Right now, it is illegal. Forcing every state to illegalise drugs is just as wrong as forcing every state to legalize drugs; we should, in that sense, be indifferent between them. Since they are both just as wrong, why change?

read full comment
Image of Sergio
on March 07, 2012 at 23:59:52 pm

OK... Guys if you think that this is an issue for individual stetas, then by necessity that requires a repeal of Federal drug laws. (Specifically the Controlled Substances Act.)Marijuana is perfectly legal for medical purposes in California for example, but because the Federal government continually ignores scientists--going all the way back to their own appointed scientists in 1974, the Shafer Commission who recommended marijuana should be legal--marijuana is still a Schedule I substance by Federal law. So no matter what individual stetas decide, Federal law still trumps them, until it is repealed.Anyone who calls themself a "conservative" should not be against the legalization of drugs, if you truly understand what it means to be a conservative. It means we want more personal freedom, more personal responsibility, and LESS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO OUR LIVES. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are both in favor of marijuana legalization, because they understand what it means to be a conservative. (If you don't believe me, search on YouTube for "Palin Glenn Beck Legalize Marijuana.")Despite the lies the government has been telling for decades, marijuana cannot kill you. You can smoke or eat as much as you can, as fast as you can, and you will still NEVER get anywhere close to a harmful overdose. You'll pass out stone cold long before you get anywhere close to a level of toxicity that would do your body any harm. BUT, take 15 or 20 aspirin, and it could kill you. Yet aspirin is perfectly legal. Eat 15 raw potatoes and it could kill you. Yes, you heard that right, raw potatoes are far more toxic to humans than marijuana. Pot is less harmful than any FDA approved drug. Yet still, the government must protect me from it. WHAT?I am free to go bungee jumping, skydiving, rock climbing, can ride a roller coaster, drive a car, I can legally own a gun, own a knife, own bleach, bug spray, whiskey, or thousands of other lethal poisons and devices, but THE NANNY STATE MUST TELL ME I CANNOT PLUCK A HARMLESS PLANT AND SMOKE IT?? Why, because I don't have the right to experience my own consciousness in any way I please, even if I am not harming anyone or anything?? It's OK to get high using alcohol--which could easily kill me if I have a little too much--but it's not OK to get high using something else? That is ludicrous.The current drug laws are an abomination to our freedoms and our liberty. Period.

read full comment
Image of Waqar
on March 08, 2012 at 01:10:56 am

Wrong again! You seem disappointed with Hannity's itrenview. In two minutes you expect a full defense from Romney. That is a bit ridiculous my friend. I would suggest you are still being led by the drumbeat in the media that Romney's plan is the same as Obamacare. Some sources citing their remarkable similarities when the truth is they are barely similar. If the federal bill was modeled after a state plan, why is it the crafters of the state plan were out of the loop? You think anyone even contacted Romney to learn more about it? No one did, according to Romney himself.Try looking it up yourself. Here is a great resource for all things Romney specific to the health care debate (). You will be heartened with the thoughtful explanations you missed by your self-limiting source, Hannity.You my friend are lost in this idea that the plans are the same because you just now paid attention to it. But Obama has been saying that in itrenviews for a year now. Its a political cheap trick. It overlooks the fact that what Massachusetts did was constitutional, but what Obama did was not. The experiment in Massachusetts was to be studied and learned from, and not imposed on states that did not share Massachusetts unique insurance population. One plan was forced upon us, the other was bi-partisan with nearly unanimous support. One bill was only 70 pages, while the other almost 3k and with the so-called Doc Fix was a thousand more. One began as a way to help the uninured and spend money they were already getting to pay for free healthcare at hospitals and pay for insurance instead. One kept health care in the private sector with decisions made by patients and their doctors, the other took over the healthcare industry and establishing bureaucacies and so called death panels to decide the level of care for all mankind. One plan actually saw more employers offer coverage to their employees, while the other even before its fully implemented is seeing business drop coverage for employees. So before you say they are the same, I would suggest that you not compare Romney's plan to Obama's. But rather compare what should be done to help the uninsured. What plan would work to preserve freedom and encourage personal responsibility and meet the needs of each state? That would be an excellent and fair comparison.Now as to your membership in the church, no explanation is even necessary. You say you are a good member and fine. I applaud you. But it matters not a whit in political discussions. If you oppose Romney, you believe it is based on his record regarding healthcare, that is fine. But why bring up your shared religion? I abhor identity politics. The sort of thing that makes African Americans believe they must vote for African Americans, Latinos for Latinos, evangelicals for evangelicals (read Huckabee), and Mormons for Mormons is divisive. It is not helpful to any discussion about politics. Lets separate church and politics so that we can come together around our shared values and love of country. This discussion is about Romney, 2012 presidential politics, and issues. There is nothing your particular faith really adds to the discussion. On the contrary, it serves as a distraction.But best regards to you. I am sorry that you are misinformed and hope you can broaden your sources for facts and all things Romney to see the whole picture rather than listen to what his detractors throw out picking up Obama's ball and running with it.Response from David Hall:Lori,I did look up the URL you gave me. While the CNN piece was little help, the Chris Wallace itrenview did give him the opportunity to explain more. I think I may have heard that itrenview back 16 months ago. Yes, I see he does express some regrets over the program and does point out some other differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. If that's his approach, maybe he can pull this off.I still think his credibility has been weakened on this issue. And it's also true that elections are fought in sound bites, so he's going to have to figure out some way to make his point in a 30-second or 60-second spot. And his reputation has this moderate Republican overtone bequeathed to him by his father. Plus, I have a problem when supposed conservatives accept the premises of the Statists, and the premise here is that it's government's responsibility to take care of the uninsured. Yes, watching these other itrenviews was helpful. But for me, it doesn't get him onto my A list. The situation in the country has become more dire, and I'm looking for a more solid conservative this time.And as far as identity politics, my point is precisely to take a stab at identity politics. I mention my faith only to underscore the point that I am not practicing identity politics. It's a point that needs to be made. And I'm getting hammered for this by other LDS people. I predict that a substantial majority of LDS voters will darken the oval for Mitt.

read full comment
Image of Yamcha
on March 19, 2012 at 21:48:27 pm

Hmmm...I heard of that last week. It seems plausible ecuabse the reality is that only Dr. Ron Paul and Governor Mitt Romney have actual delegate counts. What the news sites show in the way of delegate counts is utterly false. The real delegate counts show that the Romney camp have a concern that Dr. Paul might be a thorn in their side...and so, they might be trying to broker with him before it gets nasty at the convention. The truth of the matter is that the Romney camp rigged this year's system with the GOP officials so that he would have an easier sweep of the delegates--even if he lost states. Well, Dr. Ron Paul got news of this and is now beating Governor Romney at his game and alerted his supporters across the country to pay attention and to not leave the voting areas after the announcement of the caucus or primary winners ecuabse that's when they pick delegates. If you don't have people who sign up to be delegates then, it's game over--even if you won the state primary. It's slightly complicated, but Rachel Maddow interviewed Doug Wead about all of this nonsense in the wake of the phony Maine results. Sorry I cannot include it here, but if you do a youtube search or go to ronpaulflix.com, you'll find all of it cataloged there. In Christo Rege,[email protected]

read full comment
Image of Perish

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.