Recently, Ann Coulter, conservative columnist extraordinaire, wrote a column entitled, “What’s Their Problem With Romney?” However, this article was less about Mitt Romney and more about who is, or is not, the establishment candidate. Two words for Ms. Coulter – who cares?
Instead of focusing on what’s right with Romney, Ms. Coulter went out of her way to discuss/barrage his critics – that in essence is the problem with Romney; the best defense of him seems to be found in criticizing others.
For example, Ms. Coulter, in this article, pointed out that prominent conservatives, such as Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Herman Cain, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Rick Santorum, and others, who are critical of Mr. Romney today, supported him in 2008. This, of course, is an obvious attempt to paint Romney’s critics as hypocrites in order to change the focus from the criticism to the critics.
With respect to Ms. Coulter, this is not hypocrisy, but rather logic. Many will often choose the least offensive course when presented with limited unsatisfactory options and that choice is not necessarily indicative of what one may actually prefer above all else. For example, given the choice between broccoli and liver many people will likely choose broccoli. Is this evidence that people absolutely love broccoli and would choose broccoli above all else, including chocolate? Of course not.
Consequently, the fact that some critics today have supported Romney over McCain in the past is neither evidence that they are being hypocritical nor a good reason to support Romney in this election. Perhaps these critics simply disliked Romney a little less than they disliked McCain in 2008. In building her defense of Romney, Ms. Coulter would have done better to address why Romney, rather than to attack the critics.
If the basis of supporting Romney is found in cheaply attacking those that do not support him, then what is there to support?