I’d very much like to tear down Ann Coulter’s recent piece Three Cheers for RomneyCare point by point. However, I lack the time to even reach for such low hanging fruit. It is difficult to resist however.
I’ve read a few of Coulter’s books, but this is by far one of the least intelligent things I’ve ever read by anyone, from liberals to anti-gun advocates and beyond. There’s better thought out writing in a Maddox article. Besides Coulter’s inability to differentiate issues and simplistic thinking, she serves as a prime example to exactly why a “cornservative” is simply a liberal in sheep’s clothing.
“Corn”servative: A person, often self identifying as an evangelical Christian, who also considers himself a conservative, but does not espouse conservative beliefs. These people often live in America’s bread basket and bible belt. In short, a person who thinks being a conservative means they should exert their energy on such trivial issues as keeping the gays from marrying and drawing a hard line on abortion rather than free markets and individual freedom.
Even for someone as simple minded as Coulter, I’m amazed that she is actually defending the individual mandate. Why? Because Romney has an R next to his name. The money line: “What went wrong withRomneycare wasn’t a problem in the bill, but a problem in Massachusetts: Democrats.” What does this mean? It means that it’s okay to treat people as property, to violate the right to freedom of contract, to completely rewrite the relationship between the citizen and the government, even in an era when the government is already the enemy(basically all the things Democrats do), so long as you keep teh ghey at bay.
Runner up for the money line: “For more on “pandering” and “lobbyists,” see “Gingrich, Newt.” (Yes, that’s an actual person’s name.)”
Really?! I mean she’s making fun of Gingrich because his name is Newt? She’s doing in article where she is defending a guy who goes by “Mitt” because apparently “Willard” would be weird.
