Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Coulter: Santorum “more of a Catholic than a conservative”

Coulter: Santorum “more of a Catholic than a conservative”

Having called the Tea Party birthers and Newt Ahmadinejad, Ann Coulter has identified another way of demonizing and belittling someone who is not Mitt Romney:

As a two-time senator from a light-blue state, Rick Santorum is not as obviously unelectable as the rest. But don’t leap too fast, Republicans. Remember how Rick Perry broke your heart.

Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go, but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.”

Tom at BizzyBlog addresses a number of Coulter’s charges against Santorum, Incurable Romniac Ann Coulter Smears Santorum.

The “more of a Catholic than a conservative” is curious, but since I’m not Catholic, I’ll not try to interpret it.  I wonder if she’ll use the line when she gives her featured speech at CPAC 2012.

When she calls Eric Cantor “more of a Jew than a conservative” I’ll weigh in.

And I’ll promise not to be bombastic.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

As a Catholic, I think what the comment refers to is that first, Catholics tend to be Democrats, and second, that the Church requires the faithful to have some understanding of the world about them and have a social conscience. The Church rejects the ‘Marxist theology’ advocated by some priests and bishops, but the Church does believe that we are called to ease the suffering and problems in the world.

Therefore, a proper role of government is to look after those who need help. That is something that an Ann Coulter-style conservative would reject; if you need help, help yourself or depend on the kindness of others, because government isn’t there to help you.

Then again, Ms. Coulter is as much a nutter on the right as Glenn Greenwald is on the left, so who can tell?

    Ernst Schreiber in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 6, 2012 at 1:27 am

    The proper role of government is to create the conditions where you can act as your social conscience dictates, not to act for you.

Uh, does Ann really want to go there, considering she is supporting a “Mormon missionary”?

Sadly, I have to agree with Ann on this one. His comments at a breakfast meeting I attended years ago revealed way more than I he may have intended. I don’t remember his exact words, but I remember nearly choking on what I was eating. I think he thought he was somewhere else. The Protestant and Jewish attendees at my table were quite astonished at his religious references regarding the beliefs of those not Catholic. Ever since then I’ve categorized him as a religious bigot. Then there’s his residency and cyber-school scandals – not to forget his support of Specter. But! He’s not Obama.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Jenny. | January 5, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    Jenny :

    You need to validate that with a date /place

    Them there words need some proof .

    But then again you can’t remember his exact words .

    We are not talking opinion or reactions which everyone has a right to.

    You have made an allegation.

A sad figure. She evidently has no idea the damage she’s doing to herself. It’s one thing to sacrifice your standing and future earnings for something principled and important. Another thing to do for it for Mitt Romney.

    jakee308 in reply to raven. | January 5, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    IMO she is throwing years of being a conservative icon and liberal enrager down the tubes for a man who can’t hold a position from day to day, month to month year to year.

    I cannot believe this is the hill she’s decided to stand on.

Coulter is right and your hatred of Romney (unfortunately) has turned you into a babbling idiot. Santorum is a proponent of big government, earmarks, and dictating social mores. Please return to your normal self.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-v-limited-government/

http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/santorum-states-do-not-have-the-right-to-do-wrong/

    William A. Jacobson in reply to TomB. | January 5, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    My “hatred of Romney”? Why is it hatred to question the assumptions of his candidacy, primarily his conservative bona fides and his electability? Are you saying that being a good Catholic precludes one from being a good conservative? That’s similar to a line liberal Jews like to use towards conservative (politically) Jews, that being a good Jew requires voting Democratic. Writing off the Catholic vote is not a winning strategy.

      Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to William A. Jacobson. | January 5, 2012 at 5:06 pm

      My dear Professor… didn’t you get the memo? To criticize Romney is to practice ‘hate’ of Romney in much the same way that to Criticize Obama is to practice racism.

      A fairly disgusting tactic I’ve been noticing as of late from some of the more fevered supporters of Romney. Attack and smear opponents via your PAC? Well, that’s okay… that’s just politics – just the way the game is played. Have your opponent hit you back? Zany/Unstable/Angry/HATER! There, see how it works?

      Oh, and Ms. Coulter’s sudden undying affection for Romney really isn’t much of a mystery… all relates back to her crush on Chris Christie. The possibility that Romney would pick Christie (ugh) as his VP, well, that’s practically a path to the White House for her main man in four to eight years. No real mystery there.

        Thank You, Snorkdoodle Whizbang. I have been trying to imagine what, what, what Ann Coulter is doing. Your hypothesis makes sense.

        I still am so shocked, though. I’ve read her books. She changed my understanding of Sen. Joe McCarthy. I’ve read three of Ann’s books. I haven’t read the latest one. Her books were simply EXCELLENT, well-researched, well written, groundbreaking, with outstanding thought and logic.

        How Ann Coulter can endorse anyone but Newt is a total mystery to me.

        How she can endorse Romney is a total mystery to me; except, I guess, if what you say is true. And it does make sense. She does love Chris Christie.

        I mean, I do, too, but Chris Christie, who I think is GRRREat, is not a conservative or a libertarian. Chris Christie IS a guy to tell the truth and stands up to the unions, which is awesome and necessary. I do think Chris Christie is more conservative than Romney is, though.

        Maybe Ann has lost her mind?

      You are going after Coulter because she strongly supports Romney. But her comment about Santorum was not wrong. Perhaps it one could argue that she was wrong, but there is very clear basis for questioning whether he is conservative or merely a social conservative.

      Perhaps “hatred” is a strong word. But your frequent complaints about Romney and attacks of those who support him are becoming increasingly tenuous. I’m not a big fan of Romney either, though I do think he is least bad of terrible choices.

    jakee308 in reply to TomB. | January 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    I think you should sit back and relax.

    1. I have yet to see the Professor “babble”
    2. Or be an idiot.

    I have observed you foaming at the mouth.

    Relax take your meds and rethink your attitude.

    Thank you.

    WarEagle82 in reply to TomB. | January 5, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Uh, what web site are you reading? It certainly isn’t this one…

She says it like it’s a bad thing.

People can fairly judge Santorum on his qualities as both a Catholic and a conservative; why would any sensible person weigh her opinion against their own views?

PS. I am a Catholic. I have a classical liberal heart. I would prefer all the candidates to stay out of social issues and focus on fiscal responsibility. I think that is the best pathway to ensuring we all can practice our faith in the manner that best suits our conscience. In fact, that is a theme of my post today, in which the dear Professor is featured prominently.

I suppose it could be worse.

She could be for Ron Paul.

Her language choice to me (a Catholic) is more unclear than offensive. Coulter does have a point here though.

Santorum is a Social Con, he’s definitely NOT a fiscal Con. He’s more in the tradition of a George W. Bush, with his “compassionate conservatism”. Which, to me, is a contradiction in terms. There’s no such thing as a “Big Government Conservative”. If you are for Big Government, you are a Liberal. Period. But, there they are occupying elected office as Republicans…

Santorum is no deficit hawk, never has been. His record on earmarks is abysmal, for starters. Santorum is a Big Government Liberal, in terms of believing the federal government is the answer to all our problems. He’s a Republican because his views on marriage, abortion and ‘gay rights’ puts him further outside of the Democratic Party than his fiscal liberalism puts him outside the Republican Party.

Despite his tie for the win in Iowa, his campaign there was really pathetic. He didn’t win by convincing people to vote for him with effective retail politics. He surged as the last “not-Romney” that hadn’t been trashed by the liberal media and the establishment Republicans. His ad buy for the month was a feeble $30k and he really didn’t get much PAC help. Romney, Perry and Paul each dumped about a million in negative ads on Gingrich. Gingrich faded and his supporters went to Santorum pretty much by default as being preferable to Romney (Perry having already been trashed in Sept & Oct).

This is a Fiscal Conservative year though, more than any I can recall. The Tea Party in particular exists to fight overspending, the deficit, Obamacare and Government overreach in general (not necessarily in that order). They’re not likely to get behind a “Big Government” anything, and once it becomes known what Santorum stands for he’ll fade as quickly as he rose. He has no money or organization to fight back once the attacks start coming (which his performance in Iowa has guaranteed).

    jakee308 in reply to Aarradin. | January 5, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Though I realize we’re here somewhat because of GW but wouldn’t he be preferable to what we have?

      I R A Darth Aggie in reply to jakee308. | January 5, 2012 at 6:15 pm

      I suppose having a “compassionate conservative” who allows the deficit to only grow slowly instead of by leaps and bounds is preferable.

      The better court nominees and other appointments, and respect for rule of law and the bounds of the Constitution would be a refreshing breath of fresh air. I will absolutely vote against Teh Won.

      But driving off the fiscal cliff at 300 mph instead of 600 mph is small comfort when the end result of either is a loud *splat*. That day of reckoning is coming, and it will be here sooner than later.

      Who has the courage to take a chainsaw to our deficit? Sadly, that’s only RP…

    tsrblke in reply to Aarradin. | January 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    @Aarradin,
    I’ve always said that Republicans signed their death warrents when they hitched their wagons to the Relgious Right. It made sense at the time (The Democrats having abandoned religion all together) to claim the “disenfranchised” (metaphorically) but it would eventually bite us in the arse when it came time to focus on fiscal issues and government intrusion (Which inevitably become a necessary part of policing morality.)

      Astroman in reply to tsrblke. | January 5, 2012 at 9:11 pm

      You want a political “death warrant” for the right? Try to get Republicans elected without the support of the religious right.

      The truth is, social conservatism is inseparable from fiscal conservatism. If the people are immoral, and the families are destroyed, that will create huge drains on the state. As an example, see the enormous fiscal cost to the state because of the rise of single-motherhood.

      I think Republicans would do much better in the elections if they’d stop trying to poke social conservatives in the eye.

        tsrblke in reply to Astroman. | January 6, 2012 at 11:50 am

        I couldn’t disagree more actually. As a matter of fact I’d say that fiscal conservativism is more highly connected to social libertarianism than anything. Perhaps in my old age (26) I’ve just become philosophically lazy and social libertarianism is the easiest position to defend (especially in contrast to modern liberalism).
        Or (more likely) perhaps it’s just that I’ve come to better understand the nature of secular pluralism (per MacIntyre) that the likely hood of a large nation (or any large group) coming to a moral agreement is slim and that true freedom rests in the freedom to choose the communities with which one associates. (Communities here used in the context of “thick moral communities” which share ideals and a common conception of the good.) By it’s very nature social conservativism rejects this and argues that the good can be legislated.
        (Before someone beats me up over abortion, it’s not inconsistant to argue that the the unborn child has rights which should not be usurped even under a social libertarian schema.)

    dad29 in reply to Aarradin. | January 5, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    If Santorum follows ACTUAL Catholic thinking on Government, he will utilize the Principle of Subsidiarity, meaning that the FedGov will be shrinking while States/Locals might be increasing.

    Drooling and simpering “Catholics” who do NOT mention subsidiarity are just like those “Catholics” who wink at abortion-funding.

    Fakes.

When 19 Jesuits hijack 4 planes and use them in a suicide attack on America I’ll be worried about someone being “more Catholic than conservative”.

Until that happens attacking anyone on the Christian or Jewish spectrum for being true to their religion is a really reprehensible thing.

Coulter is dead wrong, and reveals her combined ignorance and religious bigotry in one pass.

Catholicism poses no bar to being a political conservative. To be sure there are many within the Church who are not conservative, and some of those would even want you to believe you cannot be conservative and be a good Catholic. They are wrong. Some are merely misinformed, others are quite aware of their error but are more concerned with serving their true faith – that being Marxism.

A key component of Catholic philosophy and religious doctrine is the concept of Free Will. This means that, if there is a responsibility to do good works for the benefit of society, the duty cannot be met by advocating or sanctioning governmental compulsion. No matter how well intentioned a Catholic cannot fulfill his obligations to God via any agency; social responsibilities must be met directly.

I guess I must be an anomaly, a Catholic and conservative. I agree with Mutnodjmet | January 5, 2012 at 4:54 pm that the candidates should stay away from social issues and focus on fiscal responsibility. Oh, and I do all I can to help those in need. I don’t need anyone dictating social mores to me. There are governmental programs in place already to help the needy, all they need is oversight and proper management to actually help people, instead of promoting an entitlement mentality.

BannedbytheGuardian | January 5, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Ok, you made me put on the Dr. Memory hat – A Bucks County Country Club venue, somewhere in the 2001-2003 range. I do recall quite clearly leaving with the permanent impression that I previously described. It is my opinion based on his remarks.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Jenny. | January 5, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    Thanks for the reply.

    As a child I grew up in a Protestant vs Catholic social divide. There was my Public school & 30 metres away a Catholic one. I never saw one word exchanged amongst 500 kids. I was sh*t scared of the nuns though I once braved everything & carried a Nun’s bag up the railway station stairs. She smiled at me & I also took it across the road. I was on a roll.

    Then one day it all just disappeared. To be a catholic was no big deal anymore.

    Thhe good thing in your post was that Jewish were at the Country Club.

Oh oh! Does this mean it’s time to break out the Catholic Credintials! Because, you know, it’s so homogenous that you could just lump it all together. So let’s lay it all out there. Yep, I’m a Catholic. But I’m sure I could stick a few more modifiers on that to clarify it a bit. I’m a conservative Catholic. Still not enough, damnable! I’m a conservative catholic on his 10th year of Jesuit education. Drat, not descriptive enough still. I’m a consevative Catholic with tons of Jesuit education who is currently pursuing a PhD in biothics (incidental focus on Catholic Bioethics) who’s undergrad creditials include a BS in biology and minored (heavily) in Catholic Theology and tends towards the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. (TL;DR: Academic Catholic.)
Drat, that’s still vague and not really helpful. Let’s try this one more time. I’m a Catholic who believes in the Principle of Subsidiarity. That’s pretty descriptive actually, and it may explain why I tend towards libertarianism on some issues. Oh, and why Liberation Theology can kiss my…nevermind.

What’s my point in this rambling mess of stream of consciousness? Well for starters, its to show that even when dealing with something as monolithic as the Catholic Church (Hierarchy and all) things are far more complicated than most people would expect. Also, it’s to make the connected point I hate it when people try to say “Well Catholics believe” or “I’m a Catholic and I know the teaching is…”

Case in Point @stevewhitemd, your logic is pretty good, but also lacks a few points. I can make a fairly convincing counter argument from a theological standpoint about precisely why that is not the role of Government. (Short form: It doesn’t encourage the development of charity by individuals, governments are necessarily based on coercion, free will, consequences, etc. It’s sort of a build your own argument past that, I have the vice of laziness and don’t feel like typing.) Also, most Catholics are democrats? [Citation needed]*

Let’s also not forget that the “Catholic” understanding of certain topics (coughJUSTICEcough) are misrepresented and maligned, sometimes by well…catholics and others. In the case of justice, Social justice is often wrongy held to be the ultimate form of justice at the expense of the equally important other aspects (intergenerational, transactional, retribuitive). But this isn’t a blog on Religion. (Unless the Prof wants it to be, in which case I have some slightly more coherant writings he can have 😉 ).

*I found a citation from some CNN exit polling in 2k6. It shows 55% Dems and 45% Republicans under “Catholic” which (given margins of error as well as obvious problems with self identifying polls) I’d call a “Statistical dead heat”: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

    dad29 in reply to tsrblke. | January 5, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    ++++

    stevewhitemd in reply to tsrblke. | January 5, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    to tsrblke at 5:21

    Case in Point @stevewhitemd, your logic is pretty good, but also lacks a few points. I can make a fairly convincing counter argument from a theological standpoint about precisely why that is not the role of Government. (Short form: It doesn’t encourage the development of charity by individuals, governments are necessarily based on coercion, free will, consequences, etc. It’s sort of a build your own argument past that, I have the vice of laziness and don’t feel like typing.)

    Well ditto, which is why I didn’t go into great detail. But for some proportion of Catholics, the call to service and charity meant not just themselves in their own lives, but also in a government that would put out a helping hand to others. That generally caused Catholics (who in the early 20th century were mostly white ethnics from Ireland and southern/eastern Europe) to gravitate to the Democratic Party. Also consider the communitarian background of said Europeans, who brought that attitude with them to the new country — also caused them to consider Democrats more favorably, in contrast to the traditional Republican emphasis on individualism, a notion rather foreign to the Euros of that time (and more so today).

    George W Bush’s ‘compassionate conservatism’ was (I suggest) a clear call to such people to get them to consider the Republicans, which (he believed) would match the economic interests of such folks to their beliefs in charity, community and duty. I suggest Santorum has a similar belief, trying to bring together conservative economic principles and individual responsibility with public charity and community. That’s exactly what has Coulter steamed, as she doesn’t think you can (or should) do that.

    Also, most Catholics are democrats? [Citation needed]*

    I don’t have a handy citation, but Catholics are part of the Democratic Party’s conglomeration of interest groups, particularly from the early/mid 20th century. The Dems really like the anti-death penalty bishops but hate the anti-abortion bishops 🙂

      Ernst Schreiber in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 6, 2012 at 1:45 am

      for some proportion of Catholics, the call to service and charity meant not just themselves in their own lives, but also in a government that would put out a helping hand to others. That generally caused Catholics (who in the early 20th century were mostly white ethnics from Ireland and southern/eastern Europe) to gravitate to the Democratic Party.

      Their party affiliation had more to do with the fact that they were recent immigrants concentrated in urban areas controlled by Democrat run political machines (Tammany Hall, anyone?) than any alignment between Catholic social sensibilities and the Democrat party. What your calling a helping hand, the machines called constituent services.

        It should also be pointed out that the original democratic support for Unions (which were originally a product of the Chatholic workforce) helped. I’m not entirely sure it was based on “social issues” as we see them today.
        I’ve always found the historical narrative that has been told to try to get Catholics to join with democrats a bit disturbing. There’s something fundamentally flawed about it. “We’re the part of Social Justice” and whatnot seems to forget the idea that “forced charity” (and oxymoron chosen to make a point) is not charity at all, and taxation and redistribution are forced charity.

      ‘Catholics being Democrats’ goes back to early 1900’s.

      In Wisconsin, (e.g.) the Republicans (early 1900’s) were the “Progressives,” advocating sterilization of the ‘feeble-minded’. That iced it for the Wisconsin Bishops.

      Of course, at that time, the Democrat Party actually used common sense, which lasted until the ’68 Convention and the political death of Humphrey.

    JerryB in reply to tsrblke. | January 5, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    All very good points. I’ll just add that, in many teachings of several popes, socialism is severely condemned, and the right to private property is defended as inviolable. No one, not even the government, is justified in taking money from Peter to hand out to Paul. It’s theft. That the hierarchy today has been infiltrated by socialists is unfortunate, but theft is still theft.

    We now see the corruption that results when the gov’t monopolizes charity. Switching back to private charities – true charitable organizations – will be very difficult.

Hey, don’t worry about Coulter (who is actively trying to destroy her own career). Obama has announced that he is going to share our missile defense secrets with Russia.

Putin is laughing his a$$ off that Americans elected such a fool.

Ann Coulter continues to paint herself into a corner

As a Catholic, I resent her comments. Coulter has proven herself over the past four years as nothing more than a partisan polemicist. She hates liberals when they are Democrats but loves them when they are Republicans. I suggest Ann sticks to her Log Cabin audience of liberals where she is adored. She has worn out her welcome with us conservatives, especially us Tea Party conservatives.

[…] At Legal Insurrection — “Coulter: Santorum ‘more of a Catholic than a […]

Well, there’s Catholic social teaching and there’s Santorum’s version of the same, and, speaking as a Catholic, I think they’re fairly muddled. As president, he would not be in a very good position to enact those beliefs unilaterally, since he would have to get past Congress and the courts. (Remember for example that with the 20 years of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, conservative presidents have not been able to modify the Roe v. Wade regime, despite their preferences on the issue.)

What Santorum should do, without abandoning his ideals, is to put the greatest stress on his plans to improve the economy and defend the country, which, after the Obama demolition, would address the present emergency. On those questions Santorum’s ideas are only a minor variant of mainstream Republican approaches, and they are right in line with what groups like the Tea Party are calling for.

notquiteunBuckley | January 5, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Is Coulter comparing Santorum to William F. Buckley Jr.? If so, that indeeed would be unfair.

https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/

He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

Written by a true-blueblood Episcopalian. Would be a lot more effective if Santorum’s name ended in a vowel, eh?

1.

Coulter is right and your hatred of Romney (unfortunately) has turned you into a babbling idiot. about Santorum and his record demonstrates it. Santorum is a proponent of big government, earmarks, and dictating social mores. Please return to your normal self.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rick-santorum-v-limited-government/

http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/santorum-states-do-not-have-the-right-to-do-wrong/

Fixed it.

2. I entered this comment section to post the Volokh/Cato links, which I (and Coulter?) saw at Instapundit. Unfortunately, the way they were presented has diverted attention from the links, at least temporarily.

3. Bill, afaic the venom in some entries is beginning to affect the usefulness of the comment section. Maybe it’s time to post messages like XYZ, if you want your comment published, resubmit it without the nastiness.

notquiteunBuckley | January 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm

“TITLE : Nuking Newt
SOURCE: National Review v46 D 31 ’94

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission . Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited .

NEW YORK, DECEMBER 1

At a recent gathering of my peers, no small achievement, one observer volunteered that he had never, “including Nixon,” seen so concentrated a battery of derogation as has been fired in the past three weeks on Newt Gingrich.”

I’m a Catholic and because I am I know that Coulter is more a blonde than conservative 🙂

Examples of why the two are different:

“While in Congress, Santorum supported efforts to fight global AIDS, provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries, combat genocide in Sudan, and offer third world debt relief. He also supported homeownership tax credits, offering savings accounts to children from and rewarding savings by low-income families, funding autism research, fighting tuberculosis, and providing housing for people with AIDS. He supported increased funding for Social Services Block Grants and organizations like Healthy Start and the Children’s Aid Society, and financing community health centers.” This sounds somewhat like a Big Government Conservative like W.

Santorum also is a Knight of Malta, which claims to be sovereign entity; depending on the type of Knight he is, he may have taken an order of obedience to the organization. People should be uncomfortable with someone running for the President of the US possibly having taken a vow of obedience to another sovereign power.

Henry Hawkins | January 5, 2012 at 6:44 pm

I think Coulter meant that Santorum comes by his family/social values by virtue of his Catholicism, rather than as a conservative who happens to be Catholic. How this is a negative I do not know.

Countdown to the moment when a visiting commenter assigns the professor’s ‘hatred’ of Romney to racism…. ten… nine… eight…

Seems pretty simple – if it’s ok to dismiss Santorum as a Catholic versus a conservative I guess that opens the door to bringing Mitt’s LDS silly stuff onto the floor for discussion. You’d really think a candidate who has had to deal with those who are anti his religion would not be interested in supporters ragging on the religion of others.

Katiejane, Santorum is a Knight of Malta. He may also be a member of the Opus Dei. The Opus Dei, in particular, is a secretive organization and appears to have some power.

The voters have a right to know what that means with respect to Santorum’s policies and “control”, much like voters should ask whether Romney, being a Mormon bishop, is in some way subject to control by the Mormon church.

I have not gotten a straight answer from Mormons at the WSJ site about whether a stake or ward president can withdraw a Mormon’s ability to attend temple if the president disagrees with a member’s positions on issues. That would appear to give the president some significant power over a member. Does anyone here know?

Henry Hawkins | January 5, 2012 at 7:16 pm

I wonder when someone from the Romney camp will whisper in Coulter’s ear, “Um, love the support, but tone it down a bit, eh?”

Coulter is chasing WH access and has placed her entire stash on Romney. I will admit that a part of me would enjoy the notion of Ann Coulter as Press Secretary in a Republican administration. They’d have to issue Depends before each presser.

As a Catholic, I have to put up with the social justice mob (who are closer to European Christian Democrats than Conservatives.) They are social Conservatives and big government social program types. I believe Santorum fits this mold.
Coulter is, and has been, irrelevant to me for a long time. She would drop Romney in a heartbeat if Christie decided to jump in. She should be ignored and perhaps that way, she and Meghan Mc Cain will fade away. (We can only hope.)

We might as well face the fact that we are not going to get a reformer. Newt or Perry are the closest of the present candidates to be that and I’m not totally sure of them. We had a true reformer but the media killed her candidicy. We can look forward to the status quo for the next four years or until the electorate learns self survival and gives up idolotry. It doesn’t matter who is nominated for the republican party because if elected he will be blamed for everything bad or perceived bad that happens. The media will see to that. The trashing of Bush will be nothing compared to what’s to come. The media’s goal is total destruction of the republican party. Until the electorate wakes up and refuses to let the media guide their choices we are toast. Some have already awakened but not enough based on the seesaw of support each of the candidates have received. We have let the media (again) tell us who our candidate will be or at this point who he will not be. We need to ignore them and focus on saving this country and who is the best one to do that and still get elected. We need to forget social issues and lazer in on fiscal issues. I, for one do not believe obamba will be re-elected. He does not have the support he had in 2008. He does, however, have a bag of dirty tricks and the power of the presidency behind him. Then again we do not have the enthusiasm of the electorate we had with Palin.

    Hope Change in reply to BarbaraS. | January 6, 2012 at 12:53 am

    Hi BarbaraS – I hope to make you happy when I say that I think Newt is profoundly a reformer. Newt wants to restore the constitutional balance of power among the three co-equal branches of the federal government, and restore the balance of power between the federal government and the American people by enforcing the 10th Amendment.

    I just found out tonight that there’s a coalition people can join at Newt’s website to help work on the 10th Amendment project to return power from Washington to the local communities.

    I’ve been watching Newt’s speeches for about the last year, on YouTube, and in my opinion, no one else is proposing the kind of transformational change Newt is. He talks about it in many speeches, including his speech to the Polk County GOP, which is on YT.

    There’s also a coalition to figure out how to apply Lean Six Sigma to government. Think about it. Continuous improvement in government. It staggers the imagination. Newt is for sure a true reformer afaics.

Perfesser – please, please do bombastic – I think you’d do a pretty darn good one. Even if only for a single post, it’d be fun to read. Or pick a politician, write a post the way you think they’d do it, then ask the readers to guess which politician you were channeling 🙂

Coulter’s angle is most likely the following. Catholicism is aptly comparable to big government in that it adds degrees of complexity and dependence to plain old Christianity. They may be helpful to believers, but ultimately it spends more money and time than independent churches while mandating additional ‘legislation’ (extrabiblical things).

She is implying that a small-government Catholic hasn’t thoroughly considered their spiritual situation, and so might be two-faced. Actually, sounds like Coulter herself.

Ann must have suffered a head injury. Has she been playing without her helmet again? Her simultaneous infatuations with Christie and Romney are just plain bizarre!

I’m beginning to think she really is a natural blond.

More of a Catholic than a Conservative? Meh. I’d get really excited if she said more of a Jesuit than a Conservative cuz then I’d know he could outfox and devastate Obama.

[…] Coulter has her undies in a wad. Her insane comment today exemplifies the problems we normal Republicans are feeling.  Add to this […]

Waiting for Ann to use the line that Romney is more of a mormon than a conservative. If Rick is right only 60 percent of the time what is Mittenz batting average. Somehow I think it is less than half of that.

Ann has completely baffled me. Most of the so called conservative pundits are totally locked into their own North East liberal republican mindset.

If Ann and others think that Rick is a problem for us because he is Catholic, how does she think the Mormon will do when the left starts talking about magic underwear and such.

The old school GOP folks don’t understand that real conservatives, (and, imo, those who consider themselves tea party folks) will not vote for Romney Care.

The left is pushing Romney for two reasons. One, they know he is a liberal and if their lefty loses, they still have a lefty in the White House. But I also think the O admin is hoping for Romney, because I don’t believe the south will support him at all.

TXL

[…] government. I’m not an Ann Coulter fan, but this made me laugh because it’s true (H/t: Legal Insurrection): Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend