Ann Coulter's Defense of Romney

Coulter on Romneycare, federal spending, and China-bashing

Mitt Romney tells people he won't fire federal workers or cut education spending. He says he'll spend more on the military. He sounds like a big-government guy. Or is he just pandering for votes?

Ann Coulter came on my TV show to defend Romney. "What you call pandering is called getting elected," Coulter said.

Romney says he'll repeal Obamacare. Great! But he wants to keep popular parts: coverage for pre-existing conditions and keeping grown kids on their parents' policies until age 26. Those mandates are popular. But that's not insurance. That's welfare.

Coulter: "If we do not repeal Obamacare in the next few years, America takes the first step into 1,000 years of darkness. ... Romney is far more free market than any recent Republican candidate, including George Bush. What Romney is talking about here is the free market."

But that's not the free market. It's a forced handout.

Coulter: "If it's popular, it will be provided on the free market. There are insurance products we can't even think of, including buying insurance for your unborn children.... The problem with health care—and the reason Romneycare was a libertarian solution for a governor to provide because the governor can't repeal all the federal government stuff—is that right now, you already have government intervention. Government pays for nearly 50 percent of all health care in America. It is already 50 percent socialist. Romney is going to roll it back, apply free-market magic, and everything you want covered is going to be covered."       

But he says he will force every insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions.

Coulter: "He's not saying 'force.'... The free market will cover it. I promise you that's what he means."

Really? He does say, "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." That sounds like force. A free market is voluntary. But I decided to move on.

Romney wants to increase military spending. America is going broke, and yet we still spend about as much on "defense" as all other countries combined. How can we afford this?

Coulter: "For one thing, I do trust Romney to cut a lot of government—more than Ronald Reagan did. That's why we need Romney right now as much as we needed Reagan in 1980. This is a free-market guy. He saved companies from going into bankruptcy. He saved the Olympics from going into bankruptcy. In Massachusetts—the Soviet Union—he balanced the budget and cut taxes. You need someone who'll go through the budget line by line and look at the things that can be cut."

But he says he's going to increase military spending by $2 trillion!

Coulter: "With a booming economy we're going to have under Romney, we will have so much money we won't know where to spend it."

I moved on again. In one debate with Obama, Romney said, "I don't have any plan to cut education funding." He doesn't? Why not? Education is a local responsibility. The federal government wastes $100 billion every year, intruding on local schools. But Romney won't even cut that?

Coulter wouldn't defend her candidate on that point.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I'd love to be as optimistic as Coulter on this, but Romney's a quasi-progressive and an asshole. I'm not supporting the guy for anything, thank you very much.

  • Hyperion||

    Coulter is a red team hack, so you can't take anything she says too seriously.

    Also, she looks like a giraffe wearing a blonde wig. Nothing that discredits her views, but an observation that I find difficult not to make.

  • ||

    She has a tendency to make good points, and then completely fuck them up by shilling for RINOs. It's a trademark, I guess.

    Michelle Malkin, too.

  • Hyperion||

    But at least Michelle is hot.

  • ||

    Yeah, she's welcome in my bedchamber any day of the week.

  • $park¥||

    Just imagine a hot Malkin/Coulter lesbian love scene.

  • Hyperion||

    I would rather leave Coulter out of that. But if it must be, you know Coulter is going to be playing the masculine role.

  • ||

    http://s12.postimage.org/vtq7dg3nf/1842.jpg

    NSFW

    Something like that, eh?

  • ||

    Damn, that neck has got to be a full foot long.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No one's asking you to support him, only oppose him less.

  • ||

    No one's asking you to be a TEAM RED douchebag, yet you do it anyway.

  • $park¥||

    But not voting for Obama at the same time as not voting for Romney actually IS opposing him less. But that's still not good enough for you guys.

  • Cytotoxic||

    +1

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Less than what? Supporting Obama?

    I'm only asking you to oppose Romney so little that you don't mind voting for him. If you go home and puke your guts out afterward or possibly slit your wrists, ok. As long as you vote for him beforehand.

  • $park¥||

    So you show how little you oppose Romney by supporting him? That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You don't have to support him to vote for him. They're two different things.

  • $park¥||

    *facepalm* How deep does this well of insanity go?

  • 0x90||

    Let me tell you something: voting means never having to say you're sorry.

    * bats eyelashes *

  • Carston||

    Like if you are in a toss up state, vote for Romney, but still shit on him for every stupid decision he makes.

    Kind of like how actual capitalist Republicans did to Bush. Yeah, we voted him into office because he was better than the alternative, but he still left office with a 10% approval rating.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The psychosis appears to be...intensifying.

  • Question of Auban||

    Tulpa,

    When bargaining in any marketplace the buyer has only as much leverage as his willingness to walk away. Were I willing to vote for any evil monster the GOP nominates my leverage in the election would be zero. My grandfather used to say he would vote for a snake if the Democrats nominated him. With Clinton he had that opportunity and changed his mind on that subject.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I do oppose him less. If he loses, I don't have any desire to turn on Fox and watch the people there weep in misery and shame. So there you go.

  • wareagle||

    Coulter's world sees two viable alternatives; what the incumbent would do is known based on what he has already done. What the challenger might do is less clear. Either way, fedzilla did not happen in one giant step and no matter how much John wishes it would, it cannot be rolled back in a giant step.

  • $park¥||

    I think Stossel's point may be that Romney isn't even going to look in that direction, never mind take a step.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You have to stop before you back up. You have to slow down before you stop. BO has his pedal to the medal.

  • $park¥||

    What medal? His Nobel Prize?

    Your continued support of Mitt Romney for President shows that you aren't as smart as you think you are. I hope I'm not the first person to break that to you.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Substituting insults in place of argument is more of an indicator of lack of smarts than supporting MR.

  • ||

    No, Tulpy-Poo. Being you is more of an indicator of lack of smarts than anything short of having an extra chromosome.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    See my post at 12:43pm.

  • ||

    And see my post at 12:44pm. It's impressive how dense you are.

  • Hyperion||

    fedzilla did not happen in one giant step and no matter how much John wishes it would, it cannot be rolled back in a giant step

    that assuming that team red under Romney would even try, which they won't.

    If there is one thing I am convinced of, it's that the GOP will continue the expansion of this fedzilla critter, maybe more slowly or in different ways, but expand, certainly they will.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I think a large chunk of Team Red would try. Romney, not so much.

  • Hyperion||

    If you mean the large chunk named Rand Paul or Justin Amash, then I agree.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There's some others.

  • Hyperion||

    Maybe, but you can count them using less than the fingers on 2 hands.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I'm convinced that the Tea Party is the Republican equivalent of the anti-war movement. The second there's a Republican president, they're going to disappear just as suddenly as they appeared.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't think so. The "antiwar" Dems never terrorized the Dem establishment the way the TP lopped off heads in the GOP.

    The only scalp they ever got was Liebermann, and that was only temporary.

  • tarran||

    I don't think so.

    Because there's going to be another crisis where selling bonds is not going to resolve the issue.

    They'll have to talk about raising taxes again, and the fun will start.

  • Hyperion||

    They'll have to talk about raising taxes again, and the fun will start

    If you are referring to the Dems, when did they stop? That is all they ever talk about, it's just a matter of on whom and for what. Oh, they talk about war on women and abortion a lot too, but that is just rhetoric, they are always dead serious about raising taxes.

  • tarran||

    I'm talking about Republicans.

  • Hyperion||

    For Republicans to talk about raising taxes would be their death and they know it. It isn't going to happen.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Just like Romney did in MA, he'll just come up with a lot of BS about why his tax increases aren't really tax increases.

    Case in point: do you think a Romney administration is going to extend the payroll tax cuts?

  • Redmanfms||

    Reducing government spending was one of Team Red's major campaign platforms in 2000, look how that turned out.

    Team Red isn't any better with regard to federal spending and power than is Team Blue.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Of course Romney's a big government guy... but BO makes him look like an anarcho-capitalist.

    One of them is going to win. It would be nice if GJ had a chance but that's not happening. Get back to me when 35% of the electorate is seriously considering voting LP and then I'll acknowledge he has a chance.

  • MWG||

    "Of course Romney's a big government guy... but BO makes him look like an anarcho-capitalist."

    Even for hyperbole, this is a stretch.

  • ||

    Not for Tulpa Dumb!

  • sarcasmic||

    "Repeal and replace" has a nice anarcho-capitalist ring to it.

    Not!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Compared to "continue and expand" and "department of business", yes it does.

  • sarcasmic||

    Replace with what? How do you know it won't be worse?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Because there aren't 60 votes in the senate for something worse.

  • Loki||

    There aren't 60 votes in the senate for repeal either. Which is probably why he's now talking about keeping the "popular parts" of Obamacare. Unfortunately that's the best we're going to get.

  • Hyperion||

    There are votes enough for things much worse. That's why we have NDAA.

  • Zeb||

    Just keeping the popular parts would be worse. What would be popular would be losing the mandate and keeping the pre-existing condition stuff and insurance for 26 year old "children". And that would be even uglier.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I love the Reason logic on these things.

    1. Romney is an unprincipled hack who will do or say anything to get votes.

    2. Obamacare is hugely unpopular with voters.

    3. Therefore, Romney will keep OC or replace it with something similarly bad.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Parts of OC are just popular enough that Romney's idiot establishment advisers would tell him to keep those parts of it to show what a great statesmen he is and bring the country together.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The popularity of guaranteed issue is troublesome, I'll warrant. But I'd have to think MR understands that leaving that in place while getting rid of the mandate is suicidal for the insurance industry (and potentially for him). He was a successful businessman, so he must understand these things.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    But I'd have to think MR understands that leaving that in place while getting rid of the mandate is suicidal for the insurance industry

    I'm sure he understands. The question is whether or not he cares. He only has to keep the plates spinning for 8 years and then it's someone else's mess.

  • T||

    That whole thing about somebody else pays my medical bills? People love that shit. The rest of it? Not so much.

  • ||

    Well sure if YOU'RE paying MY bills T. As long as it's not the other way around. Now get back to work, transfer-boy!

  • ||

    Get back to me when 35% of the electorate is seriously considering voting LP and then I'll acknowledge he has a chance.

    Again with the chicken and egg justification.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No. Voting for GJ to go from 0.5% to 1.0% is not going to make the electorate take him or the LP seriously. Hard work, community outreach, and coalition building could, but the LP is atrocious at that, preferring to remain a debate club.

    The time to work to give the 2012 LP candidate a chance was 2009 or earlier. That didn't happen, so now all GJ's people have left is guilt tripping.

  • ||

    Voting for GJ to go from 0.5% to 1.0% is not going to make the electorate take him or the LP seriously.

    But it CAN be used to promote the LP and get more people to vote for it's candidates, growing the party. Eventually that could accrue enough of the vote for the LP to be taken MORE seriously than it is now. It's already being regarded semi-seriously because of it's supposed "spoiler" nature, indicating that the LP is increasing in prominence.

    preferring to remain a debate club.

    I guess you forgot to tell the LP candidates for office.

  • Cavpitalist||

    That didn't happen, so now all GJ's people have left is guilt tripping.

    Also, it is every Libertarian's moral duty to vote for Mitt Romney.

  • Question of Auban||

    Tulpa,

    When bargaining in any marketplace the buyer has only as much leverage as his willingness to walk away. Were I willing to vote for any evil monster the GOP nominates my leverage in the election would be zero. My grandfather used to say he would vote for a snake if the Democrats nominated him. With Clinton he had that opportunity and changed his mind on that subject.

  • ||

    "Get back to me when 35% of the electorate is seriously considering voting LP and then I'll acknowledge he has a chance."

    If people who are actually libertarians keep sticking with the likes of Romney, then we'll never get to that point. Maybe you should consider joining the rest of us and saying "enough is enough." I don't know how you can justify a Romney vote when the Republican Party doesn't even pretend to be for small government anymore. Why should any of us let them take our votes for granted? Regardless, an individual vote is an exercise in futility anyway, so you may as well vote for who you agree with. Over time, more people will see the light. Took time for me too. The internet is changing the landscape. It's the spread of ideas that will change things in the right direction, not a vote for Romney.

  • ||

    I was at a Libertarian Party of CT meeting years ago and Anne Coulter was there trying to get the LP's congressional nomination to take on some Rockefeller Republican incumbent. She expected it to be immediately handed over to her, and was aghast and eventually stormed out when some people started questioning her on her support for the War on Drugs.

    Self-important people make me laugh.

  • Jgalt1975||

    "Every libertarian I know is very concerned about intellectual theft."

    Hmmm -- "[Pauline] Kael has often been quoted as having said, in the wake of Richard Nixon's landslide victory in the 1972 presidential election that she 'couldn't believe Nixon had won,' since no one she knew had voted for him." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael)

  • ||

    It's our number 2 issue after enforcing seat belt laws.

  • Cytotoxic||

    People truly concerned with property rights ie real libertarians are concerned with IP.

  • sarcasmic||

    No True Scotsman FTW!

  • A Mathematician||

    Intellectual property and physical property are different. The only valid type of the former is trademarking, for facilitating the fight against fraud. Anything else and you are treading down a dangerous path, since there is no simple axiomatic system with defined limits to what can constitute intellectual property.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Geographical property is fundamentally different from physical property too, yet libertarians are A-OK with that.

    Saying someone has the right to use force against anyone who crosses an imaginary line on the ground is not that different from saying someone has the right to use force against anyone who publishes a book without permission.

  • ||

    yet some libertarians are A-OK with that.

    Fixed your post. It's like you've never even looked at Reason's posts on immigration, or the comment flame-wars that ensue.

    Not to mention that geographical property CAN be a form of physical property, since people really can own plots of land. Would you also claim that no property theft is real, since it depends on an "imaginary tether" between the object and it's owner?

  • dinkster||

    IP is where the free market arguments starfish a hundred different directions, and libertarians start insulting each other heavily. It is one of those philosophical debates that doesn't even have a shred of pragmatism given the current state of affairs.

  • tarran||

    "Every libertarian I know is very concerned about intellectual theft."

    The guy must not know many libertarians; numerous libertarian thinkers (Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, etc) that patterns are neither rivalrous nor economically scarce and hence unownable.

    Or, at the risk of sounding like Free Willy Waterfall Jr, "You can't own ideas, man."

  • Cytotoxic||

    1) Calling Rothbard a 'thinker' is a stretch.

    2) Yes you can own an idea every bit as much as any other creation.

  • T||

    Yes you can own an idea every bit as much as any other creation.

    No, you really can't. You can own the embodiment of an idea. The actual idea is impossible to own.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I created it I own it.

  • ||

    Except I can have that very same idea in my head without "taking" it from you. Information can't truly be owned, only physical representations of it.

    Whether or not the government should regulate the presentation of information is a different question.

  • ||

    Or rather ideas can't truly be STOLEN, since I'm not taking them from you if I have or present the same information.

  • Brandybuck||

    Sure, but once you disclose it you no longer have exclusive control over it. If you don't want anyone using your ideas then keep them secret!

  • tarran||

    1) Calling Rothbard a 'thinker' is a stretch

    By some coincidence, Rothbard wrote something that is appropos, given yet another demonstration of Cytotoxic's superstitious ignorance

    From The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard

    Since every cult is grounded on a faith in the infallibility of the guru, it becomes necessary to keep its disciples in ignorance of contradictory infidel writings which may wean cult members away from the fold. The Catholic Church maintained an Index of Prohibited Books; more sweeping was the ancient Muslim cry: "Burn all books, for all truth is in the Koran!" But cults, which attempt to mold every member into a rigidly integrated world view, must go further. Just as Communists are often instructed not to read anti-Communist literature, the Rand cult went further to disseminate what was virtually an Index of Permitted Books. Since most neophyte Randians were both young and relatively ignorant, a careful channeling of their reading insured that they would remain ignorant of non- or anti-Randian ideas or arguments permanently (except as they were taken up briefly, brusquely, and in a highly distorted and hectoring fashion in Randian publications).
  • tarran||

    ... another reason for this [high turnover among Randian disciples] was the very fact that the movement had a rigid line on literally every subject, from aesthetics to history to epistemology. In the first place it meant that deviation from the correct line was all too easy: Preferring Bach, for example, to Rachmaninoff, subjected one to charges of believing in a "malevolent universe." lf not corrected by self-criticism and psychotherapeutic brainwashing, such deviation could well lead to ejection from the movement. Secondly, it is difficult to impose a rigid line on every area of life and thought when, as was the case with Rand and her top disciples, they were largely ignorant of these various disciplines. Rand admitted that reading was not her strong suit, and the disciples, of course, were not allowed to read the real world of heresies even if they had been inclined to do so. And so the young convert – and they were almost all young – began to buckle when he learned more about his own chosen subject. Thus, the historian, upon learning more his subject, could scarcely rest content with long outdated Burkhardtian clichés about the Renaissance, or the pap about the Founding Fathers. And if the disciple began to realize that Rand was wrong and oversimplified in his own field, it was easy for him to entertain fundamental doubts about her infallibility elsewhere.
  • Cytotoxic||

    TL;DR version: tarran can't make a real point so he copy-pastes some Rothbabble.

  • tarran||

    It's so funny! She's been dead decades, and yet they're terrified of pissing her off! :D

  • Cytotoxic||

    Funnier still: she's been dead for decades and anarcho-babies like you still can't land a hit.

  • ||

    If that description accurately describes a proscription of outside materials, it certainly is a "hit". You provide no rebuttal. And leave it to you to claim anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of "baby" (can't comment on whether tarran's anarchistic or not). That's quite.... childish.

  • Zeb||

    Cytotoxic: define what you mean by "own".

    Do you think that IP should be owned forever by its creator and be able to be passed down to his heirs?

    If so, I think you are nuts. If not, then don't you have to admit that IP is not property in the same way as actual material things are?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Calling Rothbard a 'thinker' is a stretch.

    Yes, the term really falls short in describing the magnitude of Murray's work. It's like calling Edison a "tinkerer".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Stock certificates and treasury bond printouts aren't rivalrous or scarce either if someone can print a copy. Hell, same for dollar bills. Yet we still consider them property.

  • Scarcity||

    The percentage of a corporation that a stock certificate signifies ownership of IS scarce and rivalrous. Pretending to own it when you do not is fraud.

    Not the same.

  • Rasilio||

    Yes, and you can print them out to your hearts content without harming anyone.

    However the instant you tired to redeem them the fact that they were not issued by the owners of the actualy property they signify makes you guilty of Fraud.

  • The Craig||

    With a booming economy we're going to have under Romney, we will have so much money we won't know where to spend it.

    Awesome! What can go wrong when we start pissing money away again?

  • $park¥||

    Saving money is for pussies. All the really smart people keep saying so.

  • sarcasmic||

    Saving money is pretty dumb, since it won't have the same value in the future as it does now.

    Going into debt is where it's at, because the dollars you use to pay off the debt will be worth less than the ones you borrowed!

  • The Craig||

    Debt, now risk free!

  • Cytotoxic||

    What an awful goddamn she looks derpy as hell. Almost as derpy as her Team Red shilling.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    oppose him less.

    Maybe if he didn't suck so hard...

  • ||

    "With a booming economy we're going to have under Romney, we will have so much money we won't know where to spend it."

    Wow, she is seriously chugging the Team Red kool-aid on that one. I really really hope Romney wins, just so Stossel can throw this quote in her face in about 3-4 years.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    She's immune to it. It's not like there's never been a Coulter prophecy that didn't come true.

  • sarcasmic||

    Those obstructionist Democrats stopped Romney from fixing the economy!

    It takes time to dig out of the hole that Obama left behind!

    Stimulus wasn't big enough!

  • Paul.||

    Coulter: "For one thing, I do trust Romney to cut a lot of government—more than Ronald Reagan did.

    So Coulter has bought into the narrative that Romney is the most extreme Republican Candidate in the last schfifty years!

    Because every time a liberal says that, my response is: So if we were in a weird parallel universe where you were forced to vote in a runoff between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan, you'd pick Reagan every time, right? Right? RIGHT?

  • ||

    It's probably because her IQ is schfifty-five.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Ronald Reagan grew government, so that's not a very high bar.

    If she said he was going to cut more than Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, that would be a big deal.

  • Paul.||

    Ahh, when liberals used to complain about the national debt. That ship sure sailed, didn't it?

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't get why Reagan is the best ever and Carter is the worst ever.

    Carter legalized homebrewing and deregulated airlines and trucking.

    What did Reagan legalize?

    What did he deregulate?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Reagan legalized traveling across states with restrictive firearm laws.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Carter also created the Department of Education and made windfall taxes. Reagan legalized sane tax rates. And helped kill unionism.

  • tarran||

    Reagan beat Carter and won his landslide against Mondale thanks to active support from the trade unions, my profoundly uneducated compadre. Reagan didn't kill unionism, market forces did. Reagan bought their support by helping fight against the market forces that were undermining them. Carter betrayed them by supporting deregulations, and Reagan bought their votes by promising then executing a partial reregulation.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You should inform the air-traffic controllers of this.

    Reagan bought their support by helping fight against the market forces that were undermining them.

    How was NAFTA 'helping fight against market forces'?

    You still define 'educated beyond your intelligence'.

  • Calidissident||

    NAFTA? You're joking right? Under Reagan? You're only off by a couple presidents

  • Cytotoxic||

    Reagan got the ball rolling.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N....._Agreement

  • Paul.||

    Reagan was also responsible for what people called 'statutory deregulation' as opposed to 'legislative deregulation'. Ie, he was attributed to have held back or tempered the wildest excesses of the unelected powers within the federal bureaucracy. Back then that might not have seemed like much, but if you could get away with that today, you'd be a national hero, since our government now nearly operates entirely from regulatory agencies with no accountability.

  • Hyperion||

    For one thing, I do trust Romney to cut a lot of government

    Just that right there discredits anything else she has to say, for me.

    It's like trying to read an article written by a progressive over at HuffPo, you typically can't get past the first paragraph without writing the rest of it off as being beyond stupid.

  • Scarcity||

    "For one thing, I do trust Romney to cut a lot of government"

    "I do trust that Romney is lying to me in every speech!"

  • Zeb||

    It's a lot like the Obama true believers who still think he is anti-war or somehow better on drug policy. Even though nothing he has ever said gives you any reason to believe those things, they are going to believe it anyway.

  • Crimson Alliance||

    I understand the arguments to vote for Romney. The problem is, americans will never listen to libertarians until AFTER we fall off the cliff. Electing progressive-lites like Romney only delays the inevitable. Think about this, if Romney is president when we do go off the cliff, and we will eventually, then the libs will scream "Look what these small government conservatives did! Let us confiscate all the evil rich's loot and we will fix this!" The stupid sheep that are the american public will believe them and then that's basically the end. Game over man.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The liberals have been blaming the GOP for the problems we've had during the past 4 years, when the only power they had was less than 2 years of owning the House.

  • Hyperion||

    Miuntil AFTER we fall off the cliff

    Yeah, and the problem with that is, instead of winding up in Libertarian utopia after said fall, we are more likely to wind up in something looking more like Fallout NV.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The Liberals will blame a nonexistant libertarian GOP anyway.

  • PapayaSF||

    One of the core principles of living is "delaying the inevitable."

  • Redmanfms||

    Based on historical precedent, *if* we go over the cliff like Argentina, Greece, Iceland, and Spain did, the electorate will be clamoring for outright Communism and it really won't matter if it is a full-on prog or a prog-less in office.

    Never underestimate the stupidity and naked avarice of the average human, or as Donald Sutherland once uttered in an otherwise forgettable movie, "Trust everyone, just don't trust the devil inside them."

    The Founders really did have their thinking caps on when the limited franchise.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    When Romney rips off the mask following the inauguration, I expect his true self to be a whole lot more like Richard Nixon than Calvin Coolidge.

    So we've got that going for us.

  • Loki||

    But will we recieve total consciousness on our deathbeds?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It would be cool if he were really a giant spider.

  • Crimson Alliance||

    Cool and preferable.

  • ||

    Only Stossel would build a time machine and set it for friggin' 2005.

  • Loki||

    I don't think she knows what the words "free market" and "libertarian" mean.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Lord Almighty. This morning on Laura Ingraham every other word out of her mouth was "free market". I almost spit my OJ all over the table when she was saying Bloomberg is against Obama because he's a billionaire, and billionaires all favor the free market.

  • Hyperion||

    She knows what they mean, in her world. Only a couple of more terms to be thrown around on the campaign trail to keep the sheeples in the herd. To be totally forgotten again after the election is over.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What did Reagan legalize?

    He fired the striking air traffic controllers and replaced them. I'll give him credit for that.

    But I do not revere him as some do.

  • Hyperion||

    I think he is revered for 2 reasons.

    1. Iran let the hostages go, and for whatever reason they did it, is appeared to be because of Reagans tough talk about what would happen if they didn't if he was elected. Carter looked like the biggest wimp ever and a lot of people were very pissed over that.

    2. Carter sucked balls, really badly, he just looked like a real sad sack of a wimp. I clearly remember when they sent that failed rescue mission into Iran and he came on and made his speech that the mission had failed, with that totally sad and pathetically emo type of look.

    Reagan came in and looked presidential(whatever that is) and looked confident and bold, the total opposite of Carter.

    I think that pretty much sums it up from my perspective. Reagan looked so good because Carter was so bad. Romney has the same type of opportunity if elected, but won't be able to pull it off.

  • Zeb||

    Carter looked so bad, anyway. I don't think he was particularly terrible as far as later 20th century presidents go.

  • 0x90||

  • ||

    Can't watch the video, assuming it says derp.

  • PapayaSF||

    It's the group Pilot doing the song "Magic."

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    That's not a woman at all. It's a man, baby.

  • Hyperion||

    She played bass for these guys before the operation and 30 days on the stretching rack:

    Adams Apple

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Just because, from the Infallible Wiki:

    Richard Nixon had imposed price controls on domestic oil, and the resulting shortages caused gas lines during the 1973 Oil Crisis. Gasoline controls were repealed, but controls on domestic US oil remained.

    The Jimmy Carter administration began a phased deregulation of oil prices on April 5, 1979, when the average price of crude oil was US$15.85 per barrel (42 US gallons (160 L)). Starting with the Iranian revolution, the price of crude oil rose to $39.50 per barrel over the next 12 months (its all time highest real price until March 7, 2008.)[8] Deregulating domestic oil price controls allowed domestic U.S. oil output to rise sharply from the large Prudhoe Bay fields, while oil imports fell sharply.

    Carter still gets blamed for shit Nixon did (and Ford continued).

    Carter wasn't perfect, but he was a lot better than the knee-jerk TEAM RED rah-rahs want you to believe.

  • Hyperion||

    Carter wasn't perfect, but he was a lot better than the knee-jerk TEAM RED rah-rahs Obama.

    I will give you that one.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The most unfortunate thing about historical treatment of Watergate is it completely overshadows Nixon's truly horrible economic policies.

    Of course, if not for Watergate, Krugabe would probably be referring to Nixon's Great Works in every other column.

  • Rasilio||

    "Government pays for nearly 50 percent of all health care in America. It is already 50 percent socialist."

    It's funny, even when she tries to make a point it is clear she hasn't really got a clue what she is talking about but rather is just parroting a talking point she heard elsewhere or making shit up off the top of her head.

    The real number is that some level of government pays for over $0.70 of every health care dollar spent in this country. This factors in things that many people who spout the 50% number forget such as the employer contribution to public employee health plans, the VA, the Military medical system, local and state funded health clinics and so on but when you add it all up government already pays for more than 70% of the health care system BEFORE Obamacare goes into effect.

  • Brian from Texas||

    Always nice to see Miss(?) Coulter and her(?) prominent Adams apple.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Coulter still full of shit, film at 11.

    -jcr

  • Woolagaroo||

    So Coulter doesn't want to talk about currency manipulation because it's boring? Yeah, that's a sign of an intelligent political commentator. Although I suspect it's more because she doesn't have a good answer. What a hack.

  • Jim176||

    The easiest way to tell what a candidate is truely like is to ask him one simple question: Do you support zero baseline budgeting? A yes vote is all we need.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Welch and Stoll on Stossel right now trying to tell me that fence-sitters aren't idiots.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stoss isn't buying it, he just isn't buying it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This is Stossel. During the storm for information he was looking at the ticker tape.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stossel breaks out the prop sledgehammer? Give me a break.

  • WRBill||

    Giving ink to Ann Coulter on any supposed libertarian outlet is preposterous. She is a perfect example of vilest of Christian Fascism. What's next ? A memorial to Francisco Franco? (No, he was not a character in Atlas Shrugged.) This is an instance of why I am about done with the Libertarian movement

  • Redmanfms||

    Oh come on, tell us the truth. The real reason you are "about done with the Libertarian movement" is because you either:

    A. Are secretly a prog.
    B. Are intellectually incapable of defending libertarian principles in the company of your prog friends.
    c. Want to be seen as fashionable, hip, and smart by all your prog friends.

    Or,

    D. Some combination of the above three options.

  • nike001||

    Story about attendance may cause curiosity. But he is the most http://www.cheapfootballcleatsmall.com/ important issue, or that mouth filled coffin fox. In any event, the facts can not be implemented in the case, he must find a way to get rid of that coffin. But for some reason, it is http://www.cheapuggsbootsforwomen.org/ difficult to think of a way.

  • sohbet siteleri||

    Or is he just pandering for votes? Sohbet - Chat

  • sohbet siteleri||

    And leave it to you to claim anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of baby Sohbet - Sohbet Odaları

  • sohbet siteleri||

    America takes the first step into 1,000 years of darknessSohbet Siteleri - Chat Siteleri

  • sohbet siteleri||

    The popularity of guaranteed issue is troublesome. Güzel Sözler - Şarkı Sözleri

  • sohbet siteleri||

    It is already 50 percent socialist. Film izle - Dizi izle

  • sohbet siteleri||

    Pretending to own it when you do not is fraud. Sohbet - Sohbet Odaları

  • sohbet siteleri||

    Randians were both young and relatively ignorant. Oyun - Mirc indir

  • sohbet siteleri||

    the right to use force against anyone who publishes a book without permission. Rüya Tabirleri - Yemek Tarifleri

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement