Ann Coulter Lies About Romney-Care


It’s horrible when you realize that one who you had thought had been conservative makes a point of proving your belief wrong, while insisting otherwise.  The meaning of the word “disappointment” hardly covers what has gone wrong with Ann Coulter’s writing over the last year, but when you realize that she has sidled up to the GOP establishment, the truth becomes undeniably clear.  Proving that Ann Coulter is willing to forsake all her principles in favor of the latest establishment candidate, she has written a piece that is not only manipulative, but purposefully omits several important facts.  Worse still, at one point, Coulter flatly lies, and no excuse of incomplete information can possibly cover it.  Coulter wishes Three Cheers For Romneycare, but I know her cheers are really for Mitt Romney, and this cobbled-together nonsense constitutes a lie Ann Coulter ought not to have told.

Coulter couldn’t wait to posit the lie, but it’s such a well-known lie, she buried it at the end of a paragraph leaning on Rick Santorum for out-of-context, irrelevant support:

“Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally.”

This is demonstrably untrue, but what is stunning about this claim is the un-writing of history it proposes.  My readers will doubtless remember the flap over the line pulled from the second printing of Mitt Romney’s book, where he originally made this very argument.  This was of such controversy that it has been mentioned in the debates, so how is it possible that Ann Coulter ignored this while depositing this steaming pile in your midst.  The original text of Romney’s book(H/T ABCNews) included the following text:

We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.” –No Apology – Mitt Romney (emphasis added)

As you can plainly see, Ann Coulter lied, and it angers me that not only did she lie, but that I was forced to dig up a link from the ABCNews site to prove it.  This also demonstrates another point, and it’s an important one you should note:  While Ann Coulter tells lies on Romney’s behalf, the radical left will give him no such pass in the general election should he become our nominee. Shame on Coulter for this lie in obstinate denial of well-known and widely-viewed fact. If Coulter doesn’t know this, I can only wonder how, since it’s clear that she reported watching the debate in which Governor Rick Perry(R-TX) raised the issue.

“No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.”

Really?  I am claiming it.   I am.  Several states and individuals are suing over this requirement of Obamacare. That Coulter doesn’t seem to notice that many Americans aren’t claiming a right not to buy it, but that this is the result of the opposite concept – that government has no authority to force us to buy it – makes it perfectly clear that Coulter now holds a view of individual liberties perfectly compatible with Barack Obama’s views on so-called “negative rights.”   That Coulter is now reduced to making the backward argument of leftist filth-mongers should tell you all you really need to know, but I am still shocked by it.  Nevertheless, unable to deal with reality, she throws out this laughable tripe:

“The only reason the “individual mandate” has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product.”

One might wonder what is controversial in conservative circles about the idea of the unconstitutionality of an individual mandate, except for the fact that Ann now seems to support the notion.  I almost cannot believe that Coulter has written this, as she urges the nomination of Mitt Romney as our only chance to repeal Obamacare. Why?  Why repeal it, Ms. Coulter?  Her article suggests she has absolutely no problem with it.  I’ve told my readers over the last few days that I believe the GOP establishment doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare, and that Mitt Romney is the Trojan horse to make sure repeal never happens, but now Coulter comes along to virtually flaunt this in our faces.

Incredibly, she concludes her article after paragraphs of misdirection, manipulation, and at least one flat-out lie with the following:

“The problem isn’t health insurance mandates. The problem isn’t Romneycare. The problem isn’t welfare reform. The problem is Democrats.”

The problem is the health insurance mandate.  The problem includes Romneycare.  Democrats are indeed a party to this problem, but by this incredible piece of dishonesty posted under the banner of what had been thought to be a conservative writer, what we now know the real problem is that we can no longer tell how Ms. Coulter is any different from those who would rule over us.  If this is Ann Coulter’s version of conservatism, she can keep it along with the rest of her lies.

It’s getting so that we can no longer discern when Coulter is telling the truth or a lie, since she now carries Romney’s water in ludicrous pieces like this one, but less than one year ago, before Christie bowed out, Coulter insisted to us that Mitt Romney could not win.  Take Coulter with a grain of salt. This episode makes me question all the things she has ever written, never mind what she’s said.  I remember her attacks on Sarah Palin, but at least we now know why, don’t we?  Of course, I did believe she meant it when she implied that the Tea Party consisted of emotionally driven morons.  Coulter has a sad obsession with the GOP establishment, but we have known that for some time.

Do I believe you, Ms. Coulter?  No, I must state emphatically now that the real problem we face as conservatives lies also in part with you.

Leave a comment ?

25 Responses to Ann Coulter Lies About Romney-Care

  1. Gail says:

    I am very disappointed with Ann Coulter…I use to be fan of hers…NOT anymore

    • dnr says:

      I've said it before, but it bears repeating, I suppose. Ann has jumped the shark. I simply can't understand why.

      • Ray Gun says:

        It started quite a while ago. Once McCain became the 2008 front-runner with the FL Primary, Ann said she'd campaign for Hillary, called herself a "Hillay Girl" in one article, attacked McCain in several articles, and never endorsed McCain over Obama.

  2. moonprinces says:

    i think anne wants oboma reelected because she sure is acting like a demorat

  3. I also was a fan of hers last year, but it seems her fame, perhaps money causes her to think what ever she says is believed. It is a shame. ego does many things to people. With her, she lost her insight, her common sense and even her digence to research. A commentator (journalist, writer) with only opinion, backed by lack of facts is worthless to all of us. She has lost her credibility.

  4. Who cares what Coulter thinks. The important thing is that the Republican Establishment is ensuring they nominate a candidate that at least has a shot at making the President work for reelection.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Romney has no shot. Wake up.

      • MaryL says:

        Agreed! That is why they want Romney. They know he won't win.

      • alma george says:

        That I believe. Romney couldn't debate Newt, I know he can't beat Obama (unless Obama lost his teleprompter) in a debate. I think the GOP made a deal with the Democraps.

      • He may have little chance of winning the election, but Gingrich would have no chance. It would be an entertaining campaign but he would lose in a landslide. Too much baggage. I like the guy but he seems to be hated by everyone who worked with him.

    • kilt1iron says:

      I will say this, Blindfolded Monkey — yer illogik be real hard ta falla, or swalla …


      Mr. Mark America — bless you. What you do EVERY day is awesome and important.

      May you remain in good health, sound mind, and be free from censorship from Big Brother.


  5. CPB says:

    Great article Mark! I got the email with Ann's article about 20 minutes before yours came in. I was completely disgusted with her Romney-worship and this writing just seems like she is trying to justify the main argument she THINKS conservatives have with Mitt. (I certainly have other problems with him.) I am convinced that Mitt wouldn't repeal Obamacare on his own. IF he is the nominee AND he manages to defeat Obama (I have my doubts on both counts), we'd better have lots of conservatives in the House and Senate to get the repeal through. Surely he wouldn't have the guts to veto a repeal if they managed it. Right? Could he ever live that one down in history?

  6. 777denny says:

    We should remember that Mr. Obama was not vetted properly and neither is Mr. Romney, since I cannot find stories about his Mormon church and how it supports the PLO over Israel and posthumously baptizes mass murderers like Hitler and his henchmen, Communist dictators and other mass murderers before billions of other "Gentiles." Does Mr. Romney want to own his very own planet one day as Mormonism teaches, while also demanding utter and absolute obedience to their "death vows" of silence about Tabernacle requirements on how to own your own planet. It is one thing to have a Mormon to just about anything OTHER than be POTUS, since their religion and their role with Israel and the claims they make about their inheritance there are questionable at best, and downright dangerous at most. And at this point, it looks as if Rick Santorum, instead of wanting to lead the Conservative movement to defeat RINO Romney, is now only ensuring that Conservatives have NO REAL VOTE this year. History may prove to be very rough on Rick Santorum, since he may well cost the Conservative movement any real chance at beating Obama and getting off the current road to Hell America is on. Thanks for nothing, Santorum!!! Go Newt!!!

  7. Cary says:

    I cannot even follow the train of thought in your article. Where is the sin Ann committed. I am not saying it is not there, but I have little time to read your crap unless you first produce the lie. I need to establish the lie as true before I waste or seem to waste my precious time. What a ill written article.

  8. Matt says:


    It's funny that you rip Ann apart for not being the conservative you thought she was. Interstingly, I was feeling about the same way about Sarah for her support of Newt. I'm surprised that she didn't support Santorum, clearly more conservative than Newt, and yes, Mitt. I know you'd like to talk about Ann, but if you're going to tear her apart for being a disappointment to
    conservatism, please show some intellectual honesty and do the same about Sarah.

    about Sarah.

    • MarkAmerica says:


      I haven't heard Sarah Palin lie on Newt's behalf. Ms. Coulter, in contrast… See my point?

      Also, let's be clear about the difference between Sarah Palin's support of Newt intended by her description to extend the process, and Ann Coulter's flat-out endorsement of all things Mitt. See my point?

      Newt, whatever his flaws(and they are many) is demonstrably more conservative than Mitt.

      How's that for intellectual honesty?

      Give it a try, sometime!

      • kilt1iron says:


        I did get that from Sarah Palin — she said "support Newt to extend the process"

      • Matt says:

        Oh please Mark. You can be so condescending. I don't think you or anyone can be sure that Sarah is being honest when she says her support for Newt is to "extend the process" and not because she genuinely thinks Newt is, as you say, "demonstrably more conservative" than Mitt. I won't go as far as saying she's flat out lying, but I can't help but wonder what she would say if asked (had Newt beat Mitt in FL), "who do you support at this point, going into NV, Gov Palin? Yes , I wonder if she would encourage voters to vote for Mitt going into NV to "extend the process". Something tells me she wouldn't do that. And, as far as Newt being "demonstrably more conservative than Mitt" . Well, you've got some esplainin to do. This I gotta hear. Again, I can understand supporting Bachmann or Santorum. But Newt? That just doesn't make any sense.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Matt, I don't know why you'd doubt what Gov Palin is saying. She has consistently said these candidates need a full vetting on the issues. I think we're only just now beginning to get that. For instance, Romney's stance on the minimum wage, about which I wrote this morning. WOW! That's liberal.

          Bachmann is out. Santorum is a nice guy, but I am not sure he has the chops to win. If he became the front-runner, or the prevailing non-Romney, I could support him.

          The problem is that Romney is a liberal.

      • Matt says:

        I've never felt Romney was as conservative as I'd like but he's a good man, has done many conservative things. I think he could do a lot more good than you and some individuals like you think he could. So Mark, if Romney is the nominee? What then?

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: