Drowning the Libertarians

Last week, Ann Coulter threatened to drown anyone considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election thereby threatening the Republican’s chances of gaining a majority this year. This was a little over the top, perhaps, as only Ann Coulter can be, but her point is well taken. Another Townhall.com columnist, Nick Sorrentino didn’t much care for Ms. Coulter’s advice.

Is it possible that Anne Coulter’s cocktail dresses are cutting off oxygen to her brain? Is it possible that Ms. Coulter is just naturally a busybody who despises libertarians because she can’t help but stick her nose into other people’s business? Is it possible that Ms. Coulter is little more than a partisan hack with little philosophical meat to her positions?


I get her point. Don’t let the Dems keep the Senate by voting Libertarian and thereby killing the chances of the GOP candidate.

But generally most people who lean libertarian are at least open to voting for a libertarian leaning Republican. There are a few who exist. (And their numbers are growing.) What many libertarians and conservatives can’t palate any longer is voting for another big government neocon just because he or she happens to have a R next to their name.

We killed Romney’s election and we will kill others until the GOP understands that it can’t get people elected unless the candidate is generally inclined in the libertarian direction. It’s not that the libertarians need to “suck it up” as Coulter who seems permanently lodged in 2004 thinks, it’s that Coulter and other old school big government Republicans have to suck it up and recognize that the GOP is going in a new direction whether they like it or not. Either get with it Coulter and Beltway GOP, or we are going to remain on strike.

So, libertarian leaning conservatives killed Romney’s election. How did that work out for you. We got another four years of the most left-wing president in American history. In other words you managed to accomplish the exact opposite result that you intended, more big government and intrusions on our liberties. If libertarian leaning conservatives stay home this November or vote for the Libertarian candidate, all you will accomplish is another two years with a Democratic majority in the Senate, voting to confirm all of President Obama’s appointments to the federal judiciary, no matter how radical.

The American political system is structurally designed to be a two-party system. Because the United States has first past the post, winner take  all elections, it is almost impossible for any third-party candidate to get elected to any office. Since this is the case, a vote for a third-party candidate is, in a very real sense, a vote for the candidate of the opposing party. A vote for the Libertarians helps the Democrats. A vote for the Green Party helps the Republicans. The proper time to register your discontent with the party establishment is during the primaries. Once the candidate of your preferred party is nominated, you can either vote for the person who shares at least some of your ideological preferences, or you can decide he isn’t liberal/conservative enough, stay home or vote for a third-party candidate,  and let the person who is your ideological opposite win. No doubt the people who vote Libertarian or Green feel very proud of themselves for not compromising their principles, but they are responsible for making sure those principles are never enacted. By the way, this holds true for party establishments who would rather support the opposing party’s candidate than their own that they feel is too “extreme”. This kind of back stabbing is despicable.

Any conservative who would rather have another two years of a Democratic majority than vote for a candidate that does not meet their exacting criteria deserves to have Ann Coulter come to their house and drown them.

Mitt or Newt?

Here is a cartoon in USA Today that neatly illustrates the dilemma I feel about the two frontrunners for the Republican nomination.

I feel like a woman who must choose between two lovers. Mitt is the nice, dependable boyfriend. He seem to be the steadier, safer of the two. Newt is the bad boy. He is more exciting, but maybe more dangerous.  I should prefer the safer choice. But, I keep having the nagging feeling that these are not the times for safety.

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter has been spending the last few columns promoting Romney. She clearly has no use for Newt Gingrich. She makes a good case but the truth is that neither man is clearly superior in terms of Conservative credentials or even, I think, electability. Coulter is right in noting that Gingrich is far more the Washington insider than Romney, but that isn’t really the point. Romney is the clear favorite of the Republican establishment, whoever that might be exactly, simply because they feel he is more electable. They may well be correct, but they really haven’t had a stellar record in picking winners in the past.

Coulter concludes her column with this observation.

Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate.

No, it won’t be impossible for the media to demonize this Mormon. The Mormons have a number of beliefs and practices that to non-Mormons seem weird or even cultish. There are certain aspects of the history of the LDS church that are not very positive. Something like that could perhaps be said of any religion, which is why decent people today do not mock other peoples’ religions. The liberals in the media feel no such decency. The only religion they are reluctant to criticize is Islam and that is out of cowardice. They have never forgiven the Mormon church for supporting Proposition 8 in Califoria This is, of course, no reason not to vote for Romney, but if he ends up being the nominee, we had better be prepared for media exposes of the Mormons and late night comedians making jokes about magic underwear.

Also, for a look for what might have been, check out Mitch Daniel’s response to Obama’s State of the Union address.


I wish he had chosen to run.


Over the Weekend

I have been rather busy over the weekend with my job and all, and I was actually out of town all day yesterday, so I haven’t been able to write about much of anything. Here are just a few snippets.

I  noticed that I have been getting quite a few  more page views than normal because of my post about Professor Avery. If a blog like this is getting attention, I can only imagine what kind of grief Professor Avery must be getting from blogs and such that a lot of people read. He deserves it, though, and probably likes it. I don’t know anything about him, of course, but I suppose that he might be one of those people who enjoy getting attention by saying obnoxious and unpopular things.

I really haven’t been paying much attention to the upcoming presidential elections. I really don’t know if Herman Cain has done anything that could be remotely considered sexual harassment or not. Everyone knows, though, that if he were a Democrat these sort of allegations would never see the light of day. Being black makes it worse for him. Again everyone knows that a black Republican is a target for the main stream media in a way a black Democrat never could be. If a Black is a Republican, the liberals are free to indulge their inner racists.

And their inner homophobe too. Evidently one Taylor Garrett, a gay Republican had his car vandalized because he is a gay Republican who is a friend of Ann Coulter. I guess gays have to be Democrats too.

I noticed that Newt Gingrich is riding high in the polls right now. He is probably the smartest one of the lot but I don’t think he is much of a leader.

Here at Drudge is a story from CNN Nancy Pelosi says that contrary to a 60 minutes report, she is not corrupt. When a politician says he or she is not a crook, that usually means that he or she is a crook.



Ann Coulter can be called many things; controversial, partisan, pugnacious, acerbic. One thing she never is dull or uninteresting in her writing.  Coulter is a natural polemicist and pulls no punches as she attacks Liberals. Her jabs are always right on target and do not fail to draw blood. Although she writes with a cutting tone, she is able to display a leaven of humor that distinguishes her from mere spewers of bile from the Left and Right.

In her latest work, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, Coulter uses  the 1896 book by French sociologist Gustave Le BonThe Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, to explain the actions of Liberals, especially their preference for acting in mobs. This might seem to be her usual partisanship but even a casual observer of politics cannot help but notice that Liberals often form mobs and protest. Conservatives never do. The TEA parties might fairly be called anti-mob s since the participants obeyed the laws and even picked up their trash.

The best part of Demonic is part 2, the Historical Context of the Liberal, in which Ann Coulter gives a brief summary of the French Revolution and contrasts it with the American Revolution, emphasizing the preference of the former’s leaders for mob rule and the latter’s for ordered liberty.

The only fault that I can find with Ann Coulter is that she is sometimes overly simplistic, equating Democrats with Liberals with both being irredeemably bad. For example, in Chapter 12, she relates the history of political violence in America, noting that every presidential assassin has been a Liberal. That is true of Charles Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, and Lee Harvey Oswald, but it is a stretch for John Wilkes Booth. The Ku Klux Klan was, largely, a Democratic organization, but the men who made up the Klan had a very different viewpoint than most Democrats today.

Still, I highly recommend Demonic to any Conservative who wants to know more about why Liberals act the way they do, or who just wants something fun to read. Liberals with a weak heart should probably avoid reading anything by Ann Coulter.