Ann Coulter's Short-Sighted Vision

The only small mind in Ann Coulter's world is her own.

In her column last Wednesday, she blamed everyone in the conservative wing of the Republican Party for Romney's loss. One person she didn't blame was Romney.

Now let me be clear: This election was rife with fraud. The corrupt Chicago machine was at it again. There were enough statistics in key states pointing to voter fraud, either by human surrogates, machine tampering, or both. So much that there should have been a demand for a recount in some of the swing states. But of course there wasn't – the GOP is a squishy bunch – like Romney, they don't want controversy. And race was involved: They weren’t about to go against a black man and Obama knew it. Not a problem for the other side: It was all over the Twitter-verse before the election that there would be riots and violence should Romney win. And, anecdotally, since Romney and Ryan were playing to packed houses, while Obama was speaking to half-empty venues, it's highly suspicious regarding the numbers Obama pulled out of key states.

But Ann doesn't mention this either. No, she puts blame on exactly where it doesn't belong: the tea party and other conservatives who weren’t all-in with her political paramour.

Conservatives used to think Ann was conservative, but obviously she’s been drinking the water too long up in New York. (Remember when Arianna Huffington was a conservative?) Of course being a conservative can be lonely in places like New York and California. It will probably be just be a matter of time before she’s also a bitter, old former conservative writing a liberal blog. Unfortunately, we saw the beginning earlier this year. Not only was she head-over-heels for the moderate Gov. Romney, she campaigned to get the verbose, pro-gun control Gov. Christie for his running mate. She made vicious attacks on real conservative, Newt Gingrich, like a jealous ex-wife. Newt may not have been in a position to win and certainly had baggage, but no one could deny that he would have kicked the pants off Obama in the debates!

Romney is a nice man—I think most can at least concede that. He’d make a great neighbor. We know he was apparently a shrewd businessman. He is a hard-core moderate: Even after knowing the majority of people were against Obamacare and states were in rebellion, he promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. (No one said they wanted a replacement—just to get rid of the damn thing.) He wouldn't challenge the president enough, even on the campaign trail. There were a laundry list of topics he could have used to attack this administration that were left untouched. After a slam-dunk first debate, he turned into Mr. Nice Guy again, instead of pressing his advantage. He tried to moderate to fit his audience and that is a mistake—no one can trust you when they don’t know where you really stand. Not sure if that’s because he had bad advice or if he was just not up to laying waste to the unprepared president. We need a candidate that can overcome the fraud as well as the democrat candidate. In at least one way, Romney is exactly like McCain and Dole: He is a loser.

Don’t Let the Left Silence You – Food for Thought

It's interesting that, according to Michael Moore on the election, "Hate lost yesterday." He and others on the left spewed some of the most vile hatred at President George W. Bush the eight years he was in office. What was that — constructive criticism?

But no, now that they won, conservatives are criticized for not being "good sports." No, being a good sport is something you teach your kid in Little League. You don't stand by and watch your country destroyed so you can be a good sport.

One thing that disturbed me on Facebook and Twitter today is when I saw people who would do anything to avoid conflict between their friends. You see, they have friends on the left and the right and don't want to make anyone angry. With relatives, keeping the peace is another matter – you're stuck with them, although it can make Thanksgiving dinner awkward. But it got me to thinking: How can you not care what your friends believe in? That you’d rather have “peace” in the house instead of dealing with the problem? That, for the sake of being nice, you’re willing to say nothing—no matter what they say about your beliefs? It's not like you're just playing for rival teams and come together afterwards to have a beer. Liberals have some seriously disturbed ideas on how the world should work. Suddenly, after eight years of bashing Bush, they want us to be nice and get along—and keep our mouths shut because they won, after all.

Liberals, by their nature, thrive on emotion—they are incapable of logic no matter how much education they’ve had. Everything is based on how they feel, which is why you can’t get a logical reason on why they support something. They support it because it makes them feel good, not because it actually does good!

Unfortunately, conservatives tend to fall for this line. Some are weary of the fight and fighting is not their nature. The media and the left tell them that they're mean and who wants to appear mean? I've been told that I'm mean or words to that effect. One woman I didn't even know called me passive-aggressive and greedy because I didn't like Obamacare. Then she proceeded to accuse me of pointing fingers when I told her I thought she was a typical liberal who doesn't care about helping anyone, except with other people's money. But see, that's what the left does — they accuse you of the very thing they're doing. They resort to name-calling, then accuse you of name-calling when you stand up to them. That's the way they shut you up — don't let them!

But it made me think — can (or should) a conservative even have liberal friends? I can only speak as a conservative; some liberals may feel the same way toward having conservative friends. But being a true liberal goes beyond the normal differences friends have — it affects their behavior. So even if you don't discuss politics, unless you have a very distant friendship, you're going to come into conflict. They are going to make a comment to one of their liberal friends on FB or post a cartoon derogatory about conservatives and their (your) values. They're going to express some liberal talking point that will drive you mad — usually along the lines that it "was all Bush’s fault." Or they’ll support legislation that’s drives the county toward the fiscal cliff like a lemming.

You're eventually going to slip and either try to argue logically (which never works) or simply make an enlightening comparison between lemmings and liberal ideas. Then they'll hit you with it: You're just mean! They, on the other hand, are liberal and therefore, they care. It doesn't matter if they've ever done a damn thing for anyone else, or if they just applauded the use of other people's tax dollars. Liberals, by their nature, thrive on emotion—they are incapable of logic, no matter how much education they’ve had. Everything is based on how they feel, which is why you can’t get a logical reason on why they support something. They support it because it makes them feel good, not because it actually does good!

And how are you going to handle that? Are you going to allow them to play the passive-aggressive tune and snap back into line? Or will you tell them to go fuck themselves? They're counting on the former — they want you to be a nice, passive friend — someone who’s pleasant (for a conservative), while they tear down your beliefs behind your back, or even in front of your face. They count on that you won't fight back because you're a "nice" person. I'm telling you now: There's nothing wrong with debate or disagreement. You can’t lead or educate others if you don’t speak up. Don't be a doormat for liberals. Don't let them oppress your opinion or roll over. We may have lost, but there is nothing wrong with righteous anger! If anything, many conservatives need to practice expressing what they believe and standing up for those beliefs in the face of the liberal mindset.