Coulter Vs. Rush on Romney

Coulter endorses Romney, which surprises me, as I got the feeling from her earlier she was a Giuliani girl but didn't want to admit it.

Meanwhile, Rush says women who support Romney are "Mittens" who support him due to his capacity to sexually arouse them.

Silly. Mitt's handsome but in that nonthreatening, uninteresting way. He may play well with women (actually, he doesn't, but whatever), but I really doubt it's because so many women want to get with him.

As Allah says (and I've said myself before), you're going to say silly stuff when you have three hours to fill. You just can't afford an internal editor.

Bonus: Huckabee's Latest Misstep: I'm sure he doesn't really mean this; he just said it without thinking about it. But that's a frequent problem with the Huckster -- he plainly hasn't thought about very much at all so many of his statements are just first-time-I-even-considered-this gibberish.

Confronted with the fact that his supporters are push-polling, he says he wants to outlaw all negative campaigning against candidates, unless the candidate being criticized approves of the negative ad.

What?

Again, I don't think he means it. I don't think he's thought about this long enough to mean it.

But just like with his tax-hiking ways, he seeks to immunize himself by being more Catholic than the pope on taxes and promising to abolish the IRS; stung by criticisms that he's soft on illegals, he plagiarizes most of Mark Krikorian's plan for immigration.

And now, confronted with his supporters engaging in illegal and sleazy push-polling, he suddenly endorses making all negative ads illegal.

Whenever something unsavory or undesirable about him pops up, he lurches suddenly and wildly in the exact opposite direction, sometimes with comical results (he still wants to reform the INS, which doesn't actually exist anymore) and sometimes frightening ones (pass a law making it illegal to criticize politicians without their express written consent).

This guy is seriously not ready for prime time.

After every debate people say "Well, he really answered the religion question well." Well, no friggin' duh. He's a preacher. But how about his answers regarding actual policy?

Clarification: Prarie Wind explains what Huck almost certainly meant:

What he meant is others should not be allowed to do negative campaigning on behalf of a candidate unless that candidate approves. I guess he means "official" approval.

I know it doesn't help what he said much but there is a slight distinction. I wonder if Huck Boy has ever read the Bill of Rights. I know most of the Democrats haven't but I expect better from Republicans.

Well there's a big distinction, and that does make sense... in broad outline. The problem is that it couldn't be implemented, because a group would just claim "We don't support the candidate we obviously support, we just don't like the rest of these guys," etc. These groups would just claim to be nonpartisan.

Admittedly, though, this interpretation makes his remarks non-crazy.

But still not terribly well thought through. Still off-the-cuff, first-time-this-occurred-to-me crap.

posted by Ace at 06:30 PM

| Access Comments