Unsurprisingly, Ann Coulter is still defensive about her support for Mitt Romney. She has written two columns defending the candidate, and, by extension, herself from the charge of political misjudgment.
Even though Romney lost an eminently winnable election, leaving the Republican Party leaderless and rudderless, Coulter still insists that he was the best of the best.
If he is the best of the best, then Republicans have good reason to be demoralized, discouraged, and in disarray.
Coulter notwithstanding, Mitt Romney will never have a prominent role in the Republican Party. That says it all.
For those who are looking for consolation, Coulter opens her column today with some conservative Schadenfreude. She notes, sagely, that the people who provided the largest percentages for Obama are also the people who are most likely to suffer from his policies.
In her words:
One bright spot of Barack Obama's re-election was knowing that unemployment rates were about to soar for the precise groups that voted for him -- young people, unskilled workers and single women with degrees in gender studies.
You may not think that it’s social justice, so let’s call it divine justice. It’s something to feel good about.
For those who are not too distracted by what are called social issues, budget issues are front and center.
Everyone is becoming more optimistic about the economy, but I believe that today’s political wrangling is really about who is going to take the blame when the economy fails.
My optimistic side says that Obama will take the blame—because who else can take it—but my pessimistic side tells me that Obama and the media are trying to set up Republicans to take the fall.
Coulter echoes a point that I, among others, have analyzed:
But now the Democrats are sullying my silver lining by forcing Republicans to block an utterly pointless tax-raising scheme in order to blame the coming economic Armageddon on them.
Surely, Obama knows that raising taxes on the rich will do nothing to reduce the deficit. He must know that it will damage the economy.
Yesterday, the London Telegraph reported that when the British government raised taxes on people who earned more than a million pounds, two-thirds of the millionaires left the country. The net result was less tax revenue.
More likely, Obama loves the politics and the symbolism of raising taxes on the rich. By forcing Republicans to choose between voting for higher taxes, and thus, alienating many of their constituents, and taking the blame for an incipient economic collapse, he has boxed them into a corner.
If the budget goes over the fiscal cliff and a recession ensues, the media will surely blame Republican intransigence. Moreover, Republicans they will be accused, as Coulter says, of “caring only about the rich.”
Coulter is persuaded, as I am, that the Obama program will ensure an economic calamity, no matter what.
In her words:
The economy will tank because, as you will recall, Obama is still president. Government rules, regulations, restrictions, forms and inspections are about to drown the productive sector.
Obamacare is descending on job creators like a fly swatter on a gnat. Obama has already managed to produce the only "recovery" that is worse than the preceding recession since the Great Depression. And he says, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
The coming economic collapse is written in the stars, but if Republicans "obstruct" the Democrats by blocking tax hikes on top income earners, they're going to take 100 percent of the blame for the Obama economy.
With heavy heart, she recommends, as I have, that Republicans give Obama what he wants. They need, above all else, to ensure that the economy belongs to Barack Obama.
The key for Republicans, Coulter continues, is getting their message out. Considering the headwinds called mainstream media bias, it is easier said than done.
She does not notice that a messaging problem is often the messenger. Which Republican leader of national importance can do the job?
The Romney campaign has made some Republicans nostalgic for John McCain, but the senator from Arizona has already demonstrated a marked ineptitude when it comes to communicating ideas about economic policy.
Republicans would be in a better place if they had had a presidential candidate who had made the case against Barack Obama, a candidate who took the fight to Obama.
Mitt Romney could not do it and did not do it. He ran scared and tried to run out the clock.
The Ann Coulters of this world should have considered the point when they were beating the drums for Romney.
And then there is Chris Christie. Arguably the best communicator in the Republican Party, admired by Coulter and by me, Christie has now taken himself out of the game.
Whatever he thought he was doing by embracing President Obama in the last days of the campaign, Christie has alienated major segments of the Republican Party. When push came to shove, the big guy blinked.
Four years is a long time, but Christie will have a very difficult time restoring his position within the Republican Party.
A communicator as savvy as Chris Christie could have found a way to lead his state, even to welcome the president to his state, without damaging himself by showering Obama with excessive and unearned encomia.