November 12, 2008
GOP Vote Declines Less Than NYT Profit
Printer FriendlyBy: Ann Coulter
For the first time in 32 years, Democrats got more than 50 percent of the country to vote for their candidate in a national election, and now they want to lecture the Republican Party on how to win elections. Liberal Republicans have joined them, both groups hoping no one will notice that we just lost this election by running the candidate they chose for us.
For years, New York Times columnist David Brooks has been writing mash notes to John McCain. In November 2007, he quoted an allegedly "smart-alecky" political consultant who exclaimed, in private, "You know, there's really only one great man running for president this year, and that's McCain."
"My friend's remark," Brooks somberly intoned, "had the added weight of truth."
Brooks gushed, "I can tell you there is nobody in politics remotely like him," and even threw down the gauntlet, saying: "You will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men."
That took guts at the Times, where McCain is constantly praised by the op-ed columnists and was endorsed by the paper in the Republican primary. Even Frank Rich has hailed McCain as the "most experienced and principled" of the Republicans and said no one in either party "has more experience in matters of war than the Arizona senator" -- the biggest rave issued by Rich since "Rent" opened on Broadway.
They adored McCain at the Times! Does anyone here not see a cluster of bright red flags?
In January this year, Brooks boasted of McCain's ability to attract "independents."
And then Election Day arrived, and all the liberals who had spent years praising McCain all voted for Obama. Independents voted for Palin or voted against Obama. No one outside of McCain's immediate family was specifically voting for McCain.
But now Brooks presumes to lecture Republicans about what to do next time. How about: "Don't take David Brooks' advice"?
According to Brooks, the reason McCain lost was -- naturally -- that he ran as a conservative. If only presidential candidates would spurn polls, modern political history, evidence from campaign rallies, facts on the ground and listen to the wishful thinking of Times columnists!
If McCain lost because he ran as a conservative, then how come I knew McCain was going to lose before Brooks did? About the same time Brooks was touting McCain's uncanny ability to attract independents, I was writing, accurately: "John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth."
Using the latest euphemism for "liberal," Brooks complains that "reformist" Republicans like John McCain are forced to run for president as smelly old conservatives: "National candidates who begin with reformist records -- Giuliani, Romney or McCain -- immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base." (Some "tack" so far to the right they almost adopt the positions in the GOP platform!)
In another sign of how popular liberalism is, liberals have to keep changing their name, like grifters moving from town to town. Liberal Republicans used to be known as "moderates," then "mavericks" or "centrists." I guess now they're "reformists." Why, liberals are so popular they have to disguise themselves for fear of being mobbed by an adoring public!
I gather by "reformist," Brooks means liberal only on the social issues like gay marriage and abortion because -- apart from abortion and gay marriage -- Rudy Giuliani was a right-wing lunatic. He engaged in aggressive policing, cut taxes and government bureaucracies, abolished New York's affirmative action office and was repeatedly denounced as a storm trooper by The New York Times.
The same thing goes for Romney, who also cut taxes and government regulations, but promised Massachusetts voters he would not tinker with their beloved abortion rights.
Ironically, McCain was a liberal on virtually every issue except abortion and gay marriage, but he bashed social conservatives to his friends in the press, so they excused his pro-life voting record as a cynical ploy to get votes in Arizona.
So "reformist" evidently means a Republican who is liberal on social issues. My term for that is "Joe Lieberman." Whatever the merit of being liberal on social issues, both Joe Lieberman and the Republican Party's history suggest that the winning formula is the exact opposite combination.
If liberals are going to use their first majority vote in a national election since Helen Thomas was spilling champagne on Liza at Studio 54 to lecture Republicans on how to win elections, I have a tip for them based on the exact same election: Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed in every state they were on the ballot -- Florida, Arizona, even in liberal California.
I'll accept the results of the presidential election, if you anti-Proposition 8 die-hards in California accept the results of that vote. Earth to protestors: Most Americans oppose gay marriage. On this, even blacks and Mormons are agreed! Why don't you people go find something useful to do?
Let's see, who was avidly pro-gay-marriage? Oh I remember: The guy who's once again lecturing Republicans on how to win elections: David Brooks.
Posted by redguy at November 12, 2008 08:43 PM
Comments
Newsflash to the GOP: The OLD GUY DOESNT WORK! Not electable, not marketable, even if you put a hot young girl next to him as VP. DOES NOT WORK!
Posted by: gladstocker ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.redstatesusa.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 13, 2008 09:45 AM
Ann, you should know better than to tell "liberals" to go find something useful to do. Especially in California, that means bogging down legislatures and sucking up tax money with proposed laws banning weed eaters and cook-outs.
But your point is well taken. If McCain had come out as a hard-line conservative, he'd have at least made a better showing and very likely might've won (even though he's too old) because it's Obama's conservative agenda--going back in time and making things like they used to be--that won the election.
Now we're all going to work real hard, pay our debts, stop borrowing like idiots, decide another war has ended, renegotiate the NAFTA and start bringing American jobs back to America, and we have a young president with style . . . just like 45 years ago before adolescently anti-American leftism invaded the public forum and bashed every tradition Obama now wants to bring back.
I say, "Go for it, Barry."
Posted by: Florida Cane at November 13, 2008 10:05 AM
McCain was stroked by the press. He was used and snookered.
The libs knew we wouldn't buy McCain.
It was all a set up.
The RNC was just snookered.
and if anyone thinks that Obama will lean over to the right, then THEY are snookered, too..
He'll lean right when it suits his agenda..
but it won't last.
Look at his voting record, both as a Senator in DC, and in Illinois.
Look at who his friends are.
Look at his history.
They speak louder then the "right" sounding words he used in the campaign.
Leftists always lie.
Posted by: seven at November 13, 2008 10:22 PM
McCain leaned a little too far to the left one last time when he screwed up his chances to be President. I honestly don't think his heart was in it and Democrats helped him win in the primary in states with open primaries (and probably others that didn't by registering temporarily has Republicans). He refused to use honest to God facts to show his opponent's true colors (a lot more red ... as in communism - for all you dumb liberals out there ... than brown!). We might as well have had a lump of mashed potatoes running. Plus I can never forgive him for smooching up with Russ Feingold to create the failed Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. If it hadn't been for Sarah Palin, Republicans everywhere would have stayed home on election day with the covers over their heads. Now we can look forward to further terrorist attacks on American soil, higher taxes, support of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, higher energy costs ... let's just say loss of freedom and misery for everyone! My mantra for the next 4 years is, "It took a Carter to get a Reagan."
Thanks, Ann, for telling it like it is and not pulling a McCain by refusing to tell the truth because it might hurt someone's feelings.
Posted by: The_Kat™ at November 14, 2008 12:17 AM
Excellent points, Ann!
Basically, the choice for president in this election can be summed up as "The Tale of Two Liberals".
There are problems with BOTH parties.
Liberal Democrats get elected by NOT running on who they really are. Their tools are lies, subterfuge, back-peddling after they get into office, and "make the other guy appear to be what we really are" tactics. They cannot run on the truth of themselves. If they ever did, they'd be "run out of Dodge".
Conservative Republicans get elected by running on who they are, but immediately turn tail and run to the left as soon as they are elected; especially when they are the majority party. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, they do not stick to the conservative principles that got them elected.
Liberal Democrats do not run on blatant liberal principles because they know they will never get elected. But, to ensure conservative Republican defeats forever, they instruct conservative Republicans to run on the exact same liberal nonsense they themselves are afraid to run on.
Conservative Republicans need to find their brains and their backbones!
Posted by: LynnJG at November 18, 2008 03:33 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
