I never thought Ann Coulter and I would be on the same page, but reading her latest post its clear, it not just Hillary supporters who see what a hoax the election of Obama, or as I prefer to call him, “The Pretender to the Throne”, really was.

  • Caution! For those not familiar with AC, she has honed sarcasm to a fine art. Careful, her words can sting!

    Obama Was Selected, Not Elected

  • Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

  • When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College — or, for short, “the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents” — anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

  • But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the “popular vote” has any relevance whatsoever.

  • It’s the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary’s more of a man than Gore ever was).

    Unbeknownst to liberals, who seem to imagine the Constitution is a treatise on gay marriage, our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all. (Don’t fret Democrats: According to five liberals on the Supreme Court, you do have a right to sodomy and abortion!)

  • Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors’ vote.

    The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

  • When you vote for president this fall, you will not be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain; you will be voting for an elector who pledges to cast his vote for Obama or McCain. (For those new Obama voters who may be reading, it’s like voting for Paula, Randy or Simon to represent you, instead of texting your vote directly.)

  • Any state could abolish general elections for president tomorrow and have the legislature pick the electors. States could also abolish their winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors — as Nebraska and Maine have already done, allowing their electors to be allocated in proportion to the popular vote. And of course there’s always the option of voting electors off the island one by one.

  • If presidential elections were popular vote contests, Bush might have spent more than five minutes campaigning in big liberal states like California and New York. But under a winner-take-all regime, close doesn’t count. If a Republican doesn’t have a chance to actually win a state, he may as well lose in a landslide. Using the same logic, Gore didn’t spend a lot of time campaigning in Texas (and Walter Mondale campaigned exclusively in Minnesota).

  • Consequently, under both the law and common sense, the famed “popular vote” is utterly irrelevant to presidential elections. It would be like the winner of “Miss Congeniality” claiming that title also made her “Miss America.” Obviously, Bush might well have won the popular vote, but he would have used a completely different campaign strategy.

  • By contrast, there are no constitutional rules to follow with party primaries. Primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election.

    Hillary’s argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

  • And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn’t exist. That’s a station that depends entirely on “superviewers.”)

  • After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was “selected, not elected,” this is a shocking about-face. Apparently unaware of the new party line that the popular vote amounts to nothing more than warm spit, just last week HBO ran its movie “Recount,” about the 2000 Florida election, the premise of which is that sneaky Republicans stole the presidency from popular vote champion Al Gore. (Despite massive publicity, the movie bombed, with only about 1 million viewers, so now HBO is demanding a “recount.”)

    So where is Kevin Spacey from HBO’s “Recount,” to defend Hillary, shouting: “WHO WON THIS PRIMARY?”

  • In the Democrats’ “1984” world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging on crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.



    Filed under Barack Obama, cable networks, Culture, Democratic National Committee, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, political party, politics, Uncategorized


    1. londonamerican

      it’s a strange day when we agree with coulter – but that’s how far obama’s unscrupulous campaign has pushed democrats.

    2. sportsone234

      Strange indeed.

      Here’s another one even stranger. Sean Hannity defended Hillary twice on his show the other night!

      Go figure!

    3. carley

      Go figure is right! I, a liberal’s liberal who has never voted for a Republican in 35 years, have taken to listening to Rush Limbaugh, Faux News, Sean Hannity, and (LORDY!) Ann Coulter. Oy Vey!

      I don’t quite understand what’s happened here. Obama is no fool. He’s certainly cutthroat, passive aggressive and downright sneaky in his way of attacking Hillary; but Presidential-ready he is not. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I feel safer with John McCain at the helm. Let’s just hope he’s really as liberal as he used to be. I’m assuming all this conservative crap he’s been living for the last 4 years in particular is just a ruse to finally get elected President. Hopefully, he’s only planning on 4 years, and will do the right thing by the Supreme Court if he gets a chance (meaning he’ll pick a more liberal minded justice). If he doesn’t, the Democrats won’t let him get away with it. I think I’m rationalizing the fact that I plan to vote for him (a Republican, no less!) over Obama. May God have mercy on my soul for this one!

    4. preach on!

    5. Obambi:

      You are a strange one, indeed. I haven’t been able figure you out yet and I usually have a pretty good read on people. Are you possibly the supreme cynic?

      In any event, we’re not preaching. We’re organizing and we’ll be working hard to see that Obama is not elected.

    6. You don’t think Coulter’s “support” for Hillary had anything to do with the fact that McCain stands NO chance against Obama?

      Against Clinton, McCain would still have been the underdog– but he’d have a chance with the independent voters (The ‘idiot voters’ according to Coulter) and he could count on the evangelicals mobilizing against Clinton.

    7. I disagree with you.

      When you have people as far right as Coulter, Hannity, and others (whose “crackpot” opinions I have dismissed for years) genuinely saying positive things about Hillary after years of ridicule, it shows you have far to left the Democratic party has swung.

      Not only do I think McCain has a shot against Obama, I’m going to do everything I can to support his candidacy. There are millions of Hillary’s supporters who will do the same.

      If the DNC had any common sense, the Democratic ticket in November would have been Hillary with Barack as her VP, but they don’t . . . and that’s why we’ve had such sterling candidates as McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. A Clinton/Obama ticket would have insured a Democrat in the White House for 16 years.

      This country has had to suffer the consequences of one beginner president for the last seven plus years; we don’t need to replace beginner Bush with beginner Barack.

    8. karen

      If you agree with coulter, you need to reevaluate your thinking.

      Real Hillary supporters would be helping elect a democrat, so that she can continue to get things done in the senate. Duh guys, if you elect a republican she’ll be fighting with him. That’s how politics works.

    9. Karen:

      Real Hillary supporters are defying the will of a Democratic Party and much of the national media that has gone wild.

      Do really think an all Democratic Congress with Obama will be any better than an all Republican Congress & presidency? Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

      The thought of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama controlling this country is appalling and downright scary!

    10. Michael

      Hillary and Barack are essentially identical on the issues, I wonder why all the angst that he is the presumptive nominee? I hope that Hillary does run again and win the nomination in 2012. Trust me there will be TWICE the uproar in the black community to not vote for her just as there is now amongst you “Angry Hillary Supporters. Its a free country vote for who you want. But believe me WE WON’T FORGET.

    11. Sorry, Michael, I don’t understand your post.

      I can’t tell if you are a member of the black community and that is the reason for the “twice the uproar” reference and the We won’t forget reference. Please explain.

      It is important for us to have open and honest discussions.

    12. Michael

      Had Hillary won the nomination I would have supported her because I USED to care about the democratic party. I see now that some factions in the democratic party care about their own agendas, not whats best for the country. Had Hillary won the nomination it would have been great not only for women but for the party, and country as well. Its clear from this movement that some factions in the party could care less about the party and what happens to the country. When and if McCain is elected and Roe V.Wade is overturned by ultra conservative justices on the Supreme Court nominated by McCain, and the children of poor, uneducated, blue collar, working class people continue to die in a senseless war. The people the democratic party is supposed to champion,Then tell me if your petty, immature causes were worth your son and daughters life, or the ideals that you hold so dear. Yes I am black, and proud that Obama may be the nominee, I would have been just as proud if Hillary had won the nomination. You see there was a time in America’s history when NEITHER of these groups could vote, and now to trivialize that because the person you wanted to win didn’t is unfortunate. My point is now since there is such a chasm in the party, we will fight just as hard to keep Hillary from getting elected in the future as you are now to keep Obama from getting elected. I am sad to say.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s