OK, she may not actually stand on a street corner and lift her skirt for a price, but women with far greater virtue than Ann Coulter do just that. They may sell their bodies, but Ann Coulter sold out the Republican Party, the conservative movement and all of the United States in one evil blow. By helping the Republican Party nominate a sure loser, she snatched defeat from the jaws of a certain landslide victory.
Let your memory drift back to the summer of 2011. One of the most hated Presidents in American history sat in the White House. One of those rare electoral opportunities was on the horizon. In 1932, the saying was that Democrats could win the election with “a Chinaman running on a laundry ticket.” OK, that saying is not politically correct today, but it was the way EVERYBODY spoke in 1932, and the whole US blamed its problems on President Herbert Hoover. In 1980, Jimmy Carter had managed to hack off so many people that he almost lost his re-election bid in the primaries. Needless to say, Peanut-Butter Jimmy lost to Ronald Reagan in a major landslide.
2012 was destined to be one of those rare elections where most any Republican could beat the weak incumbent. And the field of candidates was so strong.
Sarah Palin could have almost walked to the nomination. She had done great on the campaign trial in her bid for the Vice-Presidency in 2008. In many ways, she put conservative Republican women on the map. However, she chose not to run.
Michele Bachmann was a woman of principle. She won the important Ames, Iowa Straw poll and, with Sarah Palin’s hat not in the ring, offered to capture the imagination of conservative women.
Jon Huntsman had some appeal to certain Republican primary voters. While his name was not a household word, he offered the party something truly rare. Congressmen tend to develop a background in foreign affairs. Governors have the administrative experience necessary for the Presidency. In fact, the jobs of governors and presidents are very similar. Huntsman had been both an ambassador and the governor of Utah, a rare combination that could make him more electable than some candidates.
Former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer offered a certain southern appeal. He had also been a congressman, so he had both administrative experience and knowledge of how business is done in Washington.
The young Rick Santorum offered a no-nonsense conservative campaign. As a former Senator from Pennsylvania, he offered to appeal to voters in states where the Democrats normally run strong.
Herman Cain was an outstanding candidate. He had been a successful black businessman and is a radio talk show host. He was one of the best opportunities the Republicans have had to win back black voters since the 1940s.
It is hard to stop talking about all the things that Texas governor, Rick Perry, brought to the race. Other than a minor memory slip during a debate, he was great on the campaign trail.
Newt Gingrich was probably the strongest candidate. He had been Speaker of the House. He knew Washington inside and out. He one of the smartest men you could ever want to meet. Just ask ANYONE who has ever been in the same room with him. If not for Romney’s dirty negative ads, we most certainly would be calling him “president elect.”
And Ron Paul, wow! What a great candidate! He was not fishing in the same pond with the rest of the Republican candidates, he was bringing in his own people – people who might never find the GOP even with an engraved invitation. What a VP choice for any of the candidates. Heck, even if you don’t want him on the ticket, let him help with the platform. New ideas, new voters, what more could the Republican Party ask for?
However, the whore Ann Coulter first pushed for the beefy, but sexy, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a/k/a Public Enemy #1. It is so obvious that she votes with her hormones and not her brains. But, like all whores, Coulter could easily go from john to john. So, she got behind the one Republican candidate capable of actually losing the 2012 election, Mittens Flip-Flop, better known as Mitt Romney.
Like Father, Like Son
OK, this is not my first rodeo. I am an old man now, but I started following politics before I was old enough to read. The 1960s was a time when I could not get enough politics. I can still remember that sinking feeling when my father suggested that George Romney might get the nomination. If I remember right, old Georgie Romney couldn’t stick to a position. During the 1960s, it was really good idea to have a position on the war in Vietnam. If you needed to change it, you’d better have a reason other than “I was brainwashed.” Old Georgie boy did not! Whenever the wind blew, George became a weather vane. Like father, like son!
Mitt Romney invented Obamacare and installed in it Massachusetts, something that all of that state’s far-left-leaning Democrats had been unable to do. But in 2012, he tried to convince us that he would undo Obamacare for the US. One could only hope that he would, but come on! Apparently, the name Romney must mean “flip-flop” in some language.
Lacking any other political credibility, Romney focused on his “success” with the Olympics. We have had Olympics used as propaganda ploys, as in 1936. We have had murder, as in 1972. We have had the FBI give their profiling team a really bad name, as in 1996. However, have we ever had an “unsuccessful” Olympics? If we have, I bet it hasn’t happened very often.
Oh, yes. He had a track record as a venture capitalist. Let’s see; what are some of the worst occupations for a candidate planning to run for office? Divorce lawyer, abortionist, sewer worker and venture capitalist. Just try selling those to your potential voter.
Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment
Back in 1980, the US was in serious trouble. The economy was in disarray. We had an enemy in the Soviet Union and perhaps in Red China as well. All the Republican candidates ran hard-fought races, but for the most part, they all agreed that the most important thing was to defeat the incumbent Jimmy Carter. As, Ronald Reagan put it, “Don’t violate the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak evil of any fellow Republican.”
Romney’s entire primary campaign consisted of negative campaigning against whichever other candidate presented the biggest challenge to him at the moment. Negative campaigning cuts both ways. Voters tend to believe the negative ads and find fault with both the accuser and the target. When you go negative in a primary, you may win the nomination, but voters will remember your negativity. Of course, if the poor soul that you are running against manages to win, he will have an uphill fight in the general, as the opposing party will benefit heavily from your negativity.
Ann’s Romney Harlotry Never Ends
One of the first and loudest shills for Romney was Ann Coulter. She polluted the airways of Fox News (a bastion of potential Republican primary voters) with countless pitches for the sure-loser Romney. Once he got the nomination, Coulter gave the Republican voters a false sense of security by endlessly projecting the image that Romney had it in the bag.
So, after the party was over, did Ann Coulter admit she was wrong? Did she even admit that Romney ran a very poor campaign? Did she even point out the very obvious idea that Romney would have needed to reach out to Ron Paul for support to have any chance of winning? No. Instead, she bashed other Republicans simply for running against Romney in the primary!
The Right to Vote
I had a very impressive grandmother. She was a very smart woman. Had she not married, she might have one of America’s pioneer women lawyers. She used to work as an election judge. She and my grandfather boldly took the position of being anti-Franklin-Roosevelt Democrats throughout the 1930s and 40s. So, it was always hard for me to understand why giving women the right to vote was so controversial to my great-grandfathers’ generation.
Thank you, Ann Coulter! I now understand why my great-grandfather’s generation had so much trouble with the idea of giving women the vote. True women of the suffrage moment, such as Emma Goldman, gave their bodies away freely. But you, Ann, have given the whole country away. You have demonstrated a whole new type of harlotry. I guess my great-grandfather’s generation must have seen women like you destroying America.
Viral Video: Flipper’s Greatest Flops Starring Mitt Romney & Friends
(h/t: Bumr50)
Uploaded by EnHaleCentral on Jan 30, 2012
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
For someone who was so ugly against his GOP primary opponents, Mitt Romney sure was soft on Obama in the debates and during the campaign.
Guess we don’t have to ask whose side he was on.
Editor’s note: This is the latest individual on our troll parade. He either did not bother to read our comment policy or chose to violated it. So, none of his short comment will go up. However, we will use some of our valuable time to explain why.
1. 1389 blog is NOT a debate club; it is here dispense information and ideas. If the title of the article is “Grass is Green”, please don’t bother to try to post a comment about grass being purple. We just are not interested. If you want to debate, go to Blogmocracy; they argue about everything.
2. We don’t allow commenters to post ad homimem attacks against our columnists or other commenters. If you don’t like the message, don’t blame the 1389 Blog messenger.
It is not clear whether this troll was an Obama supporter or just a name-calling spoilsport. However, we probably would have accepted the comment, had it made a point about some strength that Romney had as a candidate that we had somehow missed. However, Romney just lost a race to one of the most hated presidents in American history, so we are not sure what the point would be.
The only things I can find to disagree with in this post is the insult to sewer workers (they provide a valuable service and it is not known to be a dishonorable profession) and the implication that the whore Ann Coulter somehow invalidates MY right to vote. NO, I have been a long time critic of hers and people should have freaking listened to me. I will not be surrendering MY vote just because some whore is an idiot that stupid people listened to. No, no , no. I don’t know many Conservative women who were not disgusted by her behavior all along, so that bitch doesn’t represent US!
Otherwise, your post is excellent, even though you insult me by insinuating that because I am female that I am somehow responsible for that whore Ann Coulter’s assheadedness, and that I should be punished for HER fuckery, and I think your insult to sewer workers is ignorant. I’ll take a sewer worker over a community organizer any day of the week and I think a lot of other decent blue collar people would too.
@Zilla
Please read the article C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y. No one is suggesting that anyone lose her right to vote over the whore, Ann Coulter’s, evil works. There is a big difference between UNDERSTANDING an argument and believing said argument. Ask anyone who has been to law school. That said, every time I see Ann Coulter open her mouth, I see a man in Victorian era garb telling me, “We told you so.”
I don’t know whether or not you have managed a political campaign or sat in a high-level, very visible, position on a political campaign. Some people have careers that sound good on campaign brochures and some don’t. Even when you clean them up, the opposition makes them sound dirty. I have considerable experience working local political races. I can remember one incident that was kind of funny. While he never ran for public office himself, one of the local party leaders had a pig farm. One of other party leaders said that we should NOT call him a “pig farmer” and instead use the term “pork producer.” When confronted with this new job title, the individual said, “Heck, no, I am a pig farmer.”
At any rate, if I were to return to the folly of my misspent youth by once again helping good men and women to obtain public office, and if I were to find that a wonderful candidate needing my help was a co-worker of Ed Norton himself, I would think of an honest and honorable term, such as “sanitation technician,” and pray that this individual did not receive an Ann Coulter endorsement.
And please don’t take this stuff so personally. While my tone is often serious, you need to see a bit of comic relief. If you put aside political correctness, even my nom de plume can conjure up some lighter images, like making a breakfast of rye-bread toast and grits.
Don’t forget, Ann Coulter called an Ultra-Conservative Senate candidate, Todd Akin, a “swine” for not dropping out of the race. Although she claims to be a Conservative, she squeals like a RINO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPrkuMDWIGs
I used to so admire Ann Coulter.
What the hell has happened to her?
So many people whom I used to admire have so greatly disappointed me that I’m totally disgusted with politics.
Oops. Forgot to check the email notification box.
When Ann Coulter chose to back Romney, I had something to say about it then.
I also asked on many blogs, who are we going to blame if Romney loses? Personally, I blame Coulter for selling us a bill of goods. Well, it wasn’t much of a sale, it was more of having a RINO thrust down our throats. And more importantly, what will be the outcome of that loss? It is obvious — the Republican party is interested in “electable” candidates while the democrats are interested in marxist candidates. The GOP is splintering into conservatives, libertarian, and “electable” segments while the donkeys are coalescing around hard left-wing marxist/leninist/socialist candidates.
Yes, I know there was massive vote fraud. You don’t have 140% of registered voters voting with a smidgen of fraud. You don’t have complete precincts that fail to register even one vote for Romney without fraud. Without revamping the entire electoral process, I don’t know how to stop democrat vote fraud.
And it seems like the GOP doesn’t care. It’s as if they are content with being the minority party. I am tired of holding my nose when I vote. I didn’t do that when I voted for Reagan, twice! But I have for every GOP candidate since. Bush 41 was never a good choice and Bob “It’s his turn” Dole was a joke. Bush 43 was average and John “I’m a maverick” McCain was awful. (I voted for Palin).
Now Romney comes along. I will grant you he is a fairly honest man, being as religious as he is. But he was always a go-along-to-get-along RINO and never one to go for the throat. Unfortunately, I have no idea who is our hope for 2016. Maybe one of the first 2000 people from the Boston phone book?
@ Doctor Bulldog
Thanks for reminding me!
I posted a comment earlier, which never appeared. Could it be in the spam filter?
@ no2liberals
Not likely, but in this world of computers, who knows? Please post it again.
CzechRebel
The thrill (and verbosity) is gone
@no2liberals,
We didn’t see anything from you in our spam bin. Your comment probably got lost in some other way.
And to actually think she and the RNC gushed over Christie; doesn’t anyone do vettings any more?
A month or so ago, Christie was whining when he was confronted about this meeting, “I’m being attacked by bigots and Islamophobists”. Does he not know how Christians and Jews are being attacked by his buddies?
And some of this happened before the RNC Convention. Check out the background on these bad boys.( h/t creeping sharia)
Gov Christie puts Hamas-linked imam facing deportation, 3 more Islamists, on outreach committee
Posted on November 16, 2012 by creeping
This will surely promote him to the top of the list of 2016 presidential candidates possibly as a Democrat. via Four Islamists on Gov. Christie’s Muslim Outreach Committee
A RadicalIslam.org investigation has discovered that at least four Islamists sit on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s Muslim outreach committee, which was formed after Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa concluded in May that NYPD intelligence-gathering operations in New Jersey did not break any laws.
All of the information about the Islamist backgrounds of these four committee members is publicly available, yet the Christie Administration picked them to serve as liaisons to the Muslim community of the state. As a result, they are having private meetings with N.J.’s top security officials. This is just the latest example of Christie’s embrace of Islamists that should be shunned, not exalted.
The discovery that the Islamists were on the committee was made when RadicalIslam.org obtained a previously unreleased list of committee members present at a September 5, 2012 meeting at the Leroy Smith Building in Newark.
The four committee members of concern are:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/gov-christie-puts-hamas-linked-imam-facing-deportation-3-more-islamists-on-outreach-committee/
Huntsman? Really?
@Iron308
Fair question indeed. Let me explain. Huntsman was not exactly my favorite. However, had he won–legitimately gone through the primaries and made his case to the voters–he would have beaten Obama.
The problem is that Romney just bought the nomination. A majority of Republican voters not only favored some other candidate, but also would have preferred anyone else but Romney in the race. As time went on, all the other candidates were weeded out by fair means or foul (mostly foul), Romney was the only one left. At that point, Republicans decided they could live with him as their candidate. There is no way that Huntsman could have outspend everyone to get the nomination. He would have had to actually earn the nomination.
Looking back, Gingrich was the strongest. Ron Paul had the potential to bring new votes into the mix. Perry had the least baggage. They could have handily defeated Obama. Obama would have been like Jimmy Carter who could not wait to get to his concession speech.
Editor’s note: Sometimes we post our answers to a comment within the comment itself. In this case, the commenter does offer some good points. So, we will be responding in italics.
CzechRebel Blog Admin
I have a serious problem with this article, and it’s one I can best illustrate by relating an anecdote I read many years ago, involving the study of military history.
You would have to pick a Confederate anecdote! Had it been about anything else, I might have edited your comment down to the specific point that you were trying to make.
Back in the day, if you read the history of the Civil War, you came across the books of Douglas Southall Freeman. He wrote a 4-volume biography of Robert E. Lee, and then a 3-volume history of Lee’s army (or its senior officers, anyway) titled “Lee’s Lieutenants.” The first quarter or so of volume 3 of that work recounts the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg, Lee’s ultimate disaster. Decades after the book’s publication, long after Freeman was dead, another historian noted that Freeman’s explanation of what went wrong was very lengthy and seemingly exhaustive, but it left out one thing: he failed to even mention the Union Army, which had defeated the Confederates.
That’s right – D-E-C-A-D-E-S after the war people would say that the Union Army defeated the Confederates. But, people of the era did not see it that way. Something went wrong at Gettysburg, and the Confederate army had not taken Grant seriously enough at Vicksburg. Both France and England had been on the verge on helping out. It was only after those decades immediately following the war that people began to see the Confederacy as a “fool’s errand.” Funny how we never give credit to the recorded testimony of contemporary eyes and ears. But for a few mistakes, the South could have held its ground, won international respect, and with the help of one or more foreign powers, remained free.
Similarly here, there seem to be any number of people telling us that if only candidate X had won the nomination, Obama would have been powerless, everyone would have suddenly recognized that he’s an idiot, that he’s a closet Marxist, that he was really born in Kenya, that his economic policies weren’t working, that Benghazi or Fast & Furious is a coverup, whatever. The difficulty with this argument is that Obama and his crew, whatever else they are, are pretty good at running campaigns. Never mind if they’ve won by releasing illicitly-obtained records of his opponents, never mind if they made things up and got away with it, never mind if the race wasn’t fair. They used the tools at hand, and won him election, and reelection, reasonably handily given the circumstances.
That is all true. However, have you ever seen such a hated individual remain in the White House? Nixon comes close, but he had a relatively stable base and none of his potential Democrat opponents had much to offer. Obama, on the other hand, had anti-Obama forces such as the Tea Party pop up almost immediately after his first term began.
There’s absolutely zero evidence that if the Republican candidate had been someone other than Romney–Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann, whoever else I can’t think of right now–that the Obama campaign wouldn’t have found some way to smear the other guy, play on a weakness of his somehow, or otherwise obscure the issue.
❓ We have no idea what you mean by “zero evidence.” You can say that about ANYTHING that didn’t actually happen. We could say that there is “zero evidence” that the Sun would have risen this morning if the stock market had not gone down the day before. We have “zero evidence” that the US could have avoided a nuclear attack had the Giants not won the World Series. No one cares about such “evidence.” We are attempting to analyze what might have happened.
Of course, 1389 Blog did predict this outcome in October of 2011.
We also warned about Ann Coulter in January 2012.
We didn’t lose because our candidate was weak (though I thought him the weakest of the field, frankly) we lost because the deck was so highly stacked against us that we were bound to lose, regardless of who we ran.
You could have said that in 1980! But, Ronald Reagan won! It is hard to imagine any of those other 1980 Republican candidates romping to victory, as Reagan did. It makes all difference in the world who you have nominated as your candidate.
The “evidence” that someone else would have handily beaten Obama is mainly in the fevered imagination of someone who was heavily invested in whichever candidate.
Here is where you are dead wrong! We warned you WELL BEFORE IT HAPPENED that anybody but Romney would be very likely to win and that Romney would be a sure loser. We had NOTHING invested in ANY of the other candidates.
They all would have lost against “The One”.
Look, I have a long, misspent youth in politics. I was the one that everybody asked for such analysis. Oh, I was wrong a few times. However, I was wrong far fewer times than the know-it-alls. I have had to deal with my share of rigged elections. Let me give you one free lesson: They can ONLY steal an election if it is fairly close!
Blog admin 1389 wishes to add the following warning:
On account of changes in the ways that elections are conducted, the “margin of fraud” is growing wider and wider with every election. By that I mean the margin of victory that the GOP candidate needs in order to make it impossible for the Democrats to steal the election.
With a stronger GOP nominee, we could have won in 2012. I would not make such a prediction for 2016. We may have already reached the point where it no longer matters how many citizens we can persuade to vote for our candidates.
Editor’s note: AC raises some good points. So, we will answer them here in italics one-by-one.
CzechRebel Blog Admin
While I do think that Ann Coulter has some basic conservative principles (in terms of finance), she misses that those are rooted in social conservatism – in this she is the typical NorthEastern conservative. Also she has argued that she would give up her right to vote if all women were so restricted, as she finds to many women are voting for sugar daddy gov’t. On this, I’m inclined to agree with Coulter.
So are we.
Interesting fun fact. Married women tend to vote like their husbands, single women break for more gov’t.
Married women tend to be more conservative than single women and they tend to vote that way. But, we never heard that married women were that likely to vote like their husbands. I know a number of women who are more conservative than their husbands. Perhaps you mean that married women are more likely to vote like conservatives.
As to Romney, I think he could have won if amoung other things he hadn’t done a prevent defense after the first debate, but attacked President Obama (perhaps borrowing the suit has no president form Klaven). But he wasn’t the right man to do that.
Yes, Romney could have done a lot more after the first debate. He only got through the primaries by going negative on other Republican candidates. Funny how he didn’t go negative on Obama. Romney will be rewarded for taking the dive, just wait.
I don’t know if any republican running for office is now. Certianly not Chris Christie – I applude him in NJ, but the presidencey…. running for president would be a Peter Principle example.
You are being far kinder to Christie than we would be! 😈
As for the review of the Civil War/Gettysburg, France and England were not going to recognize the Confederacy after Jan 1 1863 (Emancipation proclaimation).
We don’t give the slavery theory of the war any credit here on 1389 blog. Just because your school teachers told you it was about slavery doesn’t make it so. Those same teachers told you that they would have to get rid of the athletic program, the music program and all the fun stuff if your parents didn’t vote in the next tax increase. The War Between the States was about taxes. The South was tried of paying them and Lincoln wanted to tax even more. The stuff about the slavery was nothing more than lies after the fact.
Queen Victoria was to tied to anti slavery to alow her to recognize the South, and France would never go it alone
Have to check and see how much power the queen had in those days. It is not likely that any king or queen of England would have had that much say in those days. In fact, early in the American Revolution, it seemed as though Parliament was the problem. Before the Declaration of Independence was signed, both Patriots and Redcoats would toast “to the King’s health.” It seemed that he had some weight to throw around, but not full control. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of British history will weigh in. And, we do think that France or any other significant power of the day would have enough influence to tip the war in favor of the Confederacy even as late as 1864.
– see how fast they left Mexico once Andrew Johnson reminded them of the Monroe doctrine.
There is a big difference here. The Confederate military was a much greater force to reckon with and the war was on its home court. No comparison.
Lee was a very good General but Gettysburg was lost when General Buford of the Union PICKED the field and defensive possitions for the Union.
Looks like the speculation will never end over what went wrong at Gettysburg. The best theory that I have seen was that the cannon balls fired before Pickett’s Charge were defective and exploded far beyond where they could have done any good. Since Stonewall Jackson–the great artillery expert–was now dead, it seems very plausible. The advocates of this theory do have archeological evidence to support their theory.
Lee lost and was defeated in equal measures. Weapons of the 1860’s favored the person who defended, assuming he had time to establish that defesnive possition.
Well, Lee had been winning on offense up until then.
Buford bought Meade that time. In prior and later battles, Lee picked his feild and defended (exception Chancelorsville, which if the 5th Corp had dug in, would have held and crushed Jackson’s troups, but again prepaired defenses).
We are not experts on the war, but Fredricksburg was the big dig in victory. From First Manasseh on, it seems like Southern victories had plenty of attacks and/or counter-attacks.
Even a win at Gettysburg would have not gotten British or French recognition, although perhaps it could have cost Lincoln the election, which was the base reason that the union won – Lincoln wouldn’t quite.
Had Lee won at Gettysburg, the war would have been all but over in the east. Most likely, the Confederate forces would have marched to Washington, D.C. unmolested. We are sure how France and England would have taken the Confederacy very seriously after Lincoln was force to surrender.
Editor’s note: We have said it before: 1389 Blog is a blog, not a debate forum. We have a clearly-stated comment policy. This commenter is slowly trying to escalate this post into a debate on an unrelated topic. We also refuse to allow this blog to be a forum for US government propaganda. This commenter, perhaps unwittingly, is attempting to dispense government propaganda. If that were not bad enough, he has resorted to name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks, which is something that we refuse to tolerate. For that reason, we are omitting the vast majority of his comment, except for the passage in which he confesses that he is a poor judge of a woman’s character.
CzechRebel Blog Admin
Oh, and on an unrelated note, I’m married, my wife and I don’t see eye-to-eye politically. She’s happy with the outcome of the election, I think we’re doomed…
This is one of the major problems that the US and much of the western world faces. If an individual cannot even pick out a like-minded spouse, how could he possibly have the ability to advise anyone about something as important as public policy?
A marriage is the most important transaction that any of us enter into. If a person cannot evaluate a potential mate, how could he possibly understand historical concepts? If a potential mate can seduce and deceive such an individual, how much more will the liars and deceivers in the academic world and in the political world convince him of highly unsound doctrines?
Now the Orthodox Church takes the institution of marriage very seriously, and generally discourages divorce. However, it has always allowed for the necessity of divorce amongst sinful mankind. So, 1389 Blog does not recommend divorce lightly.
However, when a just man (assuming this commenter is one; we don’t know one way or the other) finds himself married to a woman who supports a candidate who is an adamant proponent of the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn children, how can he stay with her? When his wife believes that the government has the right to violate the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” to the degree that the Obama administration does, how could he possibly remain with her? When a man shares a bed and a life with such a woman, he is traitor.
If you need help finding a good divorce lawyer in your area, email us at 1389 Blog and we will see what we can do to help you rid yourself of your problem.
“And the field of candidates was so strong.”
While I agree with your basic premise, this is quite the stretch by any means. Not a single candidate was worth electing, in my opinion this was absolutely the worst field of candidates I can ever remember. That is the reason there were about 15 choices up until the debates – there wasn’t any clear winner.
Newt may have been the best choice, Santorum couldn’t have been any goofier had he claimed to have been abducted by aliens. but we had Romney thrust upon us. Rick Perry was thought to be the savior, until he actually showed up. Ron Paul would have been a great choice, but only for fiscal matters. Personally, I would have liked to have seen a Ron Paul/Ted Nugent ticket – Eliminate the Fed, and roll with Uncle Ted.
Romney was the best of a bad lot. All of them had loser stamped on their foreheads. Romney just made the loss smaller. Coulter did the GOP a favor. She may go for Kasich this time around. He will lose too.