Coulter’s argument for Romney
Shedding her usual snarky, weirdly detached persona and jokey asides, Ann Coulter argues with uncharacteristic seriousness and urgency about the Republican race. She says that the main issues are amnesty and Obamacare, that all the candidates are good on Obamacare, but that only Bachmann and Romney are good on amnesty, though Bachmann is better (she has a B- from NumbersUSA on amnesty, Romney has a C-, the others are D- or F). But Bachmann, as a woman who has only won elections in a Congressional district, is a long shot to win the presidency, and we need a proven winner who can garner the votes of Independents and Democrats, which brings Coulter back to Romney as the only choice.
It’s a rational argument, but a flawed argument, mainly because Romney has been ambiguous on both Obamacare and amnesty.
Also, the title of the column, “Only One Candidate is Right on the Two Most Important Issues,” does not reflect what it actually says. It says that both Romney and Bachmann are right on the two most important issues. Further, as I’ve just pointed out (and as Coulter admits with regard to amnesty), Bachmann is notably better than Romney on those two issues. A grade of C- does not indicate that Romney is right on amnesty, only that he is better than those who are terrible.
My qualifications of Coulter’s arguments as to who is right on the issues are to be balanced against Coulter’s main argument—electability. I’ll grant that Romney seems more electable than Bachmann. But electability is largely a matter of guesswork, based on polls and formal criteria such as past election victories. We don’t know that any of that will be borne out in a presidential race. Coulter says that Romney is more electable. But Romney is also a highly equivocal figure who constantly changes his positions and can’t be trusted on anything. Bachmann is a consistent figure who is also attractive and appealing. She has an integrity that Romney notably lacks. People say Romney looks like a president. True. But what people don’t say, yet which is also true, is that Bachmann looks like a president. Indeed, if you were to imagine what the first female U.S. president ought to look like, it is Michele Bachmann. So, notwithstanding Bachmann’s right-wing image, I don’t discount the possibility of her winning if she were the nominee. I’d rather bet on the continued growth and expanding possibilities of the person I like (Bachmann), than on the questionable success of the person who at best leaves me cold (Romney), and who may leave the country cold, leading to Obama’s re-election.
If Bachmann fails in the primaries and drops out of the race, so be it. But until and unless that happens, I am supporting the candidate I believe in. I urge others to do the same.
Stephen T. writes:
I’m greatly appreciative of Coulter for making perfectly clear one point you seldom hear from conservatives: Amnesty for illegal aliens presents a singularly IRREVERSIBLE peril. It’s not like other legislative agendas Republicans obsess over. Abortion, taxes, foreign policy, etc, can be mitigated, modified or canceled after-the-fact by changes in Congress or courts. The arrival of even a partial component of 38 million Mexican nationals (the 34% of Mexico who self-report that they are poised to come), however, will permanently alter the nation and nothing will bring it back, ever. Once it’s done, Americans can’t belatedly wake up and say, “Let’s now pass some meticulously-worded, European-style laws and regulations, print them in a legal volume somewhere, and we’ll get our Anglo civilization back.” That doesn’t work in dealing with Mexico. Americans should realize what Mexicans already know: All they have to do is get here. As long as they can do that by the millions, they don’t need court rulings, they don’t need the democratic process, they don’t need citizenship. They only need the overwhelming force of numbers that amnesty permanently and irrevocably facilitates.James P. writes:
Romney’s supposed “track record of winning elections with voters similar to the entire American electorate” is weak. The Weekly Standard notes:Richard O. writes:
This slicing and dicing of the “electability” of any of the Republican candidates is absurd.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 29, 2011 09:05 AM | Send