Posts Tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Speaking of April Fools…Coulter Attacks Palin Again

Monday, April 2nd, 2012

Here We Go Again...

Ann Coulter seems intent on snuggling up close to the GOP establishment, and her liberal friends in media. On Sunday, notably a day for fools like Coulter, she joined the round table discussion on ABC’s “This Week.”  The problem is that as with all such things, it seems as though the only real intention here was to smear Palin.  The comment was an aside without substantiation, and I now believe she does it just to ingratiate herself with the liberal Republicans and the left.  It’s typical of Coulter to make snide remarks as a throwaway line, but this isn’t the first lately aimed at Sarah Palin.  To attack the former Vice Presidential candidate as having been some sort of “novelty candidate” when she was picked by John McCain as his running mate is simply ridiculous.

Here’s the video:


I think Coulter is losing her grasp on the conservative movement.  Slowly but surely, she’s turning into precisely the caricature the left has painted of her over the years.  Naturally, in discussing the Vice Presidential pick, she acknowledged many are talking about Marco Rubio, and she fairly drooled over the prospect of NJ Governor Chris Christie again, but that’s no surprise.  Coulter has worn out her welcome with me, as she continues to take cheap-shots at conservatives, particularly Sarah Palin.

The Media’s Sick Assault on Conservative Women

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Maybe Stick to Jazz?

From the pages of NewYorkDailyNews, we see one example of the vile thinking of the left, where Stanley Crouch, noted leftist and  general crackpot, has written a piece arguing that Sarah Palin isn’t the right kind of woman to be in leadership.  He spends several paragraphs attacking Palin, but his general point is this:  Women rising to leadership is important, but Palin is evidence of what sort of women we do not need and should not want.  What Crouch reveals about his real agenda is made evident when he gushes over Olympia Snowe(R-ME,) Susan Collins(R-ME,) and Kirsten Gillibrand(D-NY). While he is careful to select two Republicans as the objects of his fawning, it’s important to note that he picked two of the most liberal elected Republicans in the country.  For all intents and purposes, they’re Democrats in Republican clothing, and the two vote with Obama more often than against him.  This example demonstrates the point clearly: While Crouch focuses on Sarah Palin in this article, she is once again a voodoo doll for the disdain he heaps on all conservative women.

One would think that with such a clear ideological litmus test, Crouch might admit he’s not interested in their sex so much as their political persuasion. Instead, Crouch poses a self-contradictory, self-defeating claim:

“Women need not be political targets and ought not be political pawns. They can, instead, be top-shelf leaders. The likes of Sens. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Kirsten Gillibrand make it perfectly evident how well women can set the pace for the doing of good things for themselves — as well as for the entire nation.”

“To do this, they must beat back the hustlers and hucksters in their midst. Even Ann Coulter — a woman not expected to provide insights and facts — sees this point clearly.”

Notice that while he mentions that Ann Coulter is a woman not expected to provide insight and facts, she’s good enough to further his attack if she’s willing to go on the record as slamming Sarah Palin.  Years ago, Coulter would have gotten my sympathy for his characterization, but that’s no longer the case, as she’s abandoned conservatism.  The words of Coulter to which Crouch points are from the video I posted last week:

At a Republican Party dinner in Florida, this is what Coulter said, in reference to a conversation about Palin and others like her:

“I think our party and particularly our movement, the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party. The incentives seem to be set up to allow people, as long as you have a band of a few million fanatical followers, you can make money. The Democrats have figured out how not to do that.”

She went on: “All the Republican nominees for President, I want them to sign a pledge saying, ‘If I lose the nomination, I pledge I will not take a gig with Fox News or write a book.’ ”

Crouch, who wouldn’t ordinarily reference Coulter on anything charges in to point to one of the several, disturbingly more frequent instances when Couter abandons conservatives.  There are at least two lessons in this, and one is the obvious for you, the reader, but the other is for Ann Coulter:  When you attack a conservative icon like Governor Palin, while you’re a purported conservative, expect to find yourself in the company of such worthless hacks as one Stanley Crouch.

For his part, Crouch is undeterred by the fact that he’s dismissed Coulter, because in this case, she’s done his dirty-work, and like most leftists, he’s as intellectually lazy as his is vapid.  His point is that Palin isn’t a real leader, but he doesn’t explain why.  Instead, he relies upon Coulter’s attack, alleging Gov. Palin is a charlatan.  He does nothing to prove his opening thesis either, in which he poses the notion that while Palin was good enough for Alaska, she’s not good enough for the country as a whole.  His assessment of Palin boils down to this, with no evidence to support any part of it:

“She remains embittered by her limitations.”

Embittered?  I’ve seen no evidence of bitterness on the part of Palin, although lately one could certainly detect a fair amount of that in the words of Ann Coulter.  Crouch doesn’t explain what he means by her supposed “limitations,” apart from relying upon Coulter’s attack.  What he says in conclusion is an abject rejection of what he says earlier in the article:

“Women have shown that they are and can be leaders in all fields — not to be defined or dominated by their sex, but to be judged by what they say and do.”

For the life of me, I can’t understand whether he wants us to elect women just because they are women, or not.  He starts out the article explaining how important it is to elect women.  Now he wants to qualify that, but we would be right to examine his list of qualifications, though thankfully, it’s quite short:  Agree with leftists.

This is the only qualification any woman needs to exhibit in order to garner his approval. He has a similar standard for African-Americans, too.  In his view, Allen West is a sell-out, as is JC Watts, but what you must see is that his view on women is quite the same. Conservative women are sell-outs to womanhood, and this is the widely-held view in media. Pick your favorite news outlet, and ask yourself how many of its women are anti-abortion?  No, culturally, you will not find many in any of these newsrooms who are, and yet here’s an inescapable fact: More than half of American women are not pro-choice and do not consider themselves “feminists” as defined by the left.  Governor Palin represents that conservative woman, and the media knows it, and hates her for it.

You see, in order to carry out their empty attacks as Crouch has done in this piece, they must further a talking-point aimed at all women, but particularly those sitting on the fence, or unsure on that issue.  Bashing Palin is a shortcut to prodding these women who would otherwise see themselves as with few other female politicians as examples.  It’s shameful, but it’s the sort of narrow-minded propaganda that hacks like Crouch produce in reams.  The idea is to convince the unconvinced that they’re alone, and that there are no credible women giving voice to an opposing viewpoint.  It’s the anti-syllogistic kissing cousin to the premise that there is a “consensus” on global warming.  You see, it’s not about what’s true, but about what you can convince people is true.  His attack on Palin is about creating an impression rather than telling you anything concrete, and for those souls who may be suffering in ignorance, it’s an effective albeit dishonest approach.

He explains that she is “incompetent,” but he doesn’t bother to explain how; on the witness of a formerly-conservative huckster, he claims that Palin is a “charlatan,” but he offers nothing to support that allegation.  He tells you she is “embittered,” but he offers no syllables in explaining the evidence or the root of such bitterness.  He ultimately wants you to understand that Palin is a woman, but that she’s the wrong sort, without really stating how that’s the case, other than by the examples, from which we can only conclude that he is an intellectual NAZI, who simply doesn’t like women with a viewpoint that contradicts his own leftist ideology.  That’s the real message women should understand from Stanley Crouch: Unless you’re a liberal, he’d rather you just stay home, whether in New York or Alaska, and bake some cookies.  If you’re a conservative woman, he doesn’t think you’re fit for much else.


Ann Coulter Takes Another Swipe at Sarah Palin

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Attacking Like a Liberal

One of the things that I have begun to notice is how similar the GOP establishment and its shills really are to Democrats.  Ann Coulter is a Mitt Romney supporter, who endorsed the former Massachusetts Governor after her preference, Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie announced he would not seek the nomination on October 4th of last year.  Ever since then, Ann Coulter has been a non-stop verbal siren for Mitt Romney, a man she told us only a year ago would lose if nominated.  Coulter is never satisfied to let sleeping dogs lie, or to bury the hatchet and move on, but I think she actually takes her shots at Sarah Palin in a desperate attempt to curry favor with the GOP establishment.  In this video clip, she was asked about the notion of a brokered convention, and possible “outlier candidates,” and she decided the moment was right to take another miserable swipe at former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. It’s bad enough to be attacked by somebody in your own party, but when they resort to the same sort of cheap and nauseating tactics as the left, you know the attacker is a RINO.

Here’s the clip, H/T Sharktank:


Coulter lied.  I have never heard or read one word from Sarah Palin whereby she suggests that she should be the Republican candidate if we wind up with a brokered convention.  Many of her supporters would like to see that, but not once in all her media appearances has she ever said she would be that candidate, and she has explicitly said that the GOP establishment wouldn’t permit it.  She’s likely right, and as if to prove the point, here is Ann Coulter jabbing at Governor Palin for something she never actually said.  It makes one wonder what is next from Ann Coulter.  Will she next tell us that Tina Fey’s portrayal of Governor Palin is accurate, or that Julianne Moore’s is any better?

I realize politics can be a nasty game, complete with a bunch of ankle-biters(and some would throw me in that category) who take their shots at targets of political opportunity, but as a grass-roots activist, I wonder about Ann Coulter.  Apart from appealing to moderates and liberals with her attacks on Sarah Palin, and her unceasing, sycophantic support of Chris Christie, I am now in the position of being forced to ask what Ann Coulter has done for conservatives lately.

The truth is that when you listen to what Ann says, it no longer seems to be the speech of a firebrand conservative, but the compromising and haughty harrumph of an establishment lackey who has overestimated her worth to all concerned. Coulter apparently sees herself as part of the “in crowd,” but even if so, that won’t last the first time she questions something the GOP establishment does.  For the moment, however, she’s safe, and she’s still useful, because she stands ready to propagate their talking points with the unquestioning  obedience of a megaphone.

Actual conservatives hear her real message loud and clear, and are abandoning her to her establishment friends.  I wonder how many copies of her latest literary cacophony the RINO wing of the Republican Party will buy?  It’s a relatively narrow market segment, after all. Maybe that’s the problem:  For a long while, Ann Coulter was the one of just a few highly visible Republican women, and perhaps she doesn’t like the competition?  She’s seems concerned to a state of near distraction that Sarah Palin has the FoxNews job, doesn’t she?


Ann Coulter Finally Loses It – Video

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

Good Grief!

At least she wasn’t ranting and raving, quite. I think Ann has lost the last shred of her rapidly declining credibility.  Her littany is exhausting:

Romney is “conservative.”  Newt isn’t electable.  Obama is “personally charming.”  Tea Party is a bunch of “utter hypocrites” for supporting Newt. The “era of Rockefeller Republicans is over.”

Oh, and again: “Romney is the most conservative….”

H/T GatewayPundit


Ann Coulter Lies About Romney-Care

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012


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.

Coulter Flip-Flop Flashback: Romney Will Lose – Video

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

When Ann Told The Truth

You may remember a time when Ann Coulter was not such a big Romney fan, and well before she decided to conduct her current slash-and-burn campaign against Newt Gingrich.  She was a Chris Christie fan, but now she’s a Romney supporter, but back before it was certain that Chris Christie wouldn’t run, she had some strong opinions on Mitt Romney, including this one.  Remember this?

Here is Ann Coulter’s opinion on February 12th, 2011:


Okay, so let’s ask this question: Since Chris Christie didn’t run, what must we conclude?

That’s right Ann.  We love YouTube.  It’s not only candidates whose flip-flops we’re tracking.

She was against him before she endorsed him.

This was also before she said conservatives and Tea Party folks were emotion-driven oafs.

Romney Bashes Gingrich as “Disgrace”

Monday, January 23rd, 2012

Bashing Newt

As expected, the battle for Florida has turned particularly nasty as Mitt Romney and his numerous surrogates escalate their war on Newt Gingrich. Politico is reporting that Mitt Romney is mudslinging all over the campaign trail, heaping harsh words on Newt Gingrich.  The word that Romney and his surrogates seem to like most is “disgrace” or “embarrassment.”  I don’t know what is more disgraceful or embarrassing than a desperate candidate running around making such attacks.  Romney’s shift into ultra-negative territory is a clear attempt to try to move undecided voters away from Gingrich, but I think it’s clear that the net effect will tend to hurt Romney in the broader audience.  On Sunday, the country watched Romney’s shills run out into the media to deliver scathing attacks on Gingrich, but I doubt it’s very effective. Traveling in Florida, in Ormond Beach, Romney said of Gingrich:

“Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.”

That’s a scathing attack, but the trouble is it’s not reflective of what really happened.  As a matter of fact, Gingrich was ousted by his own party, who feared that he had been the source of some losses in the 1998 election cycle. Romney went on:

“He was investigated over an ethics panel and had to make a payment associated with that and then his fellow Republicans, 88 percent of his Republicans voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich. He has not had a record of successful leadership.”

Let it be said that Romney is skating on thin ice on a factual basis here.  He was “investigated.” Yes, he was.  Was he found guilty?  No, he was not.  The “payment associated” was to defray legal expenses but notice that Romney was at least smart enough not to use the word “fines” as is the template elsewhere in the media, and from his own surrogates.  Romney knows that narrative is false, but he still wants to make mileage from it.

As you may remember, on Sunday, Romney surrogates Ann Coulter and Chris Christie took their respective on-camera shots at Gingrich, with Coulter actually suggesting the people of South Carolina were emotionally-drive and stupid.  Meanwhile, the Governor of New Jersey appeared on another network to say Gingrich had embarrassed the party.  In a state with a strong Tea Party contingent, I don’t think Coulter’s approach will make many friends for Romney, and insofar as Christie is concerned, well, you can be the judge of the term “embarrassment” and to whom it is rightly applied.

This run-up to the Florida primary is going to be a barn-burner. You can expect Romney and his surrogates, as well as the SuperPACs who support him to continue their scorched-earth campaign against Gingrich, but it’s beginning to look desperate. Rather than explaining why voters should support Mitt, they’re doing their best to say why voters shouldn’t support Gingrich, but that’s far from a positive campaign of the sort Romney once promised.  It also doesn’t motivate voters to support him. Romney is in real trouble, and he knows it.  The media is only too willing to help him, but whether they can effectively sling mud after last week’s obvious last-minute smear is another matter. Voters may have had quite enough of that, this season.

Ann Coulter Flails; Implies Conservatives, Tea Party Stupid

Sunday, January 22nd, 2012

Ann Coulter Loses Mind

Another so-called conservative lost her mind in public again today, this time on Fox and Friends. It’s funny to see Ann Coulter attempt to pass herself off as a mainstream Republican.  In New York, maybe.  She puts forward a pair of contradictory premises.  On the one hand, she says that the voters who Republicans need to attract for the general election are those who trend more to the center, or even a little left, but on that basis, Gingrich isn’t the best choice.  Then she attacks Gingrich for being to the left of Romney.  The fact that Coulter can’t see this contradiction before she proposes it is all the evidence you need to know that she has now become completely unhinged.

The war against Newt continues to escalate.  The GOP establishment is clearly terrified.  Here’s the video:


The fact that Coulter dismisses the plurality of the South Carolina electorate who voted for Newt, or the vast majority that didn’t support her guy, Mitt Romney, is a key to understanding that Coulter has now left us.  I’m certain there will be future instances in which she will say something conservatives and Tea Party folks like, but in the main, Coulter has demonstrated repeatedly throughout the last year that she is now irrevocably committed to the GOP establishment.  She’s grown comfortable among them, and is now one of theirs. Of course, as she offers you her contradictory premises, she assumes you’re too stupid to notice, so her dismissal of conservatives is not surprising.

Romney Admits He Will Only Tweak Obamacare

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

Mend it, but don't end it?

In what must be considered a statement of intent, Mitt Romney explained that he would only amend of some parts of Obamacare.  That’s simply unacceptable to conservatives.  Romney’s insistence on striking a moderate pose in this primary season is the one thing that promises to derail him.  The idea that a candidate claiming to be conservative would keep any part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(Obamacare) is laughable.  Romney is stuck with this clunker is because he signed very similar legislation while serving as governor of Massachusetts, and the problem is that when Romney offers to tweak this horrid legislation, he admits that he intends to abandon one of the core reasons to elect a Republican.  Republicans cannot win without including a repeal of Obamacare in the laundry list of reasons to elect them, and roughly 65% of American still oppose it and want it repealed.

Watch the video of Willard “Mitt” Romney explaining his intention to modify Obamacare, rather than outright repeal:


This is another reason conservatives don’t trust Romney.  Obamacare is terrible legislation, and it offers to ruin our healthcare system in the long run in favor of a top-down system managed by government in its entirety.  Private health insurance providers are already being squeezed out, and Obama is already robbing Medicare to pay for it.  There are very good reason to want Obamacare repealed, but perhaps the most important is the individual mandate, that will impose fines on those who do not purchase insurance.  As others have pointed out, there is going to government rationing of care through refused reimbursements, and eventually, denied treatments based on considerations of cost.

This is anathema to a broad majority of the American people, and their firmly held notions of liberty, and it’s time Mitt “manned-up” and said so, but he can’t.  He’s stuck because he inflicted a similar system on Massachusetts that is now under severe financial strain as the  economy is weak and tax revenues are down.  In short, it’s another big government program that is destined to fail and will likely drag the entire healthcare sector into the ground with it.  Obamacare is very similar to Romneycare, prompting one to wonder how he expects to sell mere tweaks to Americans who want Obamacare scrapped altogether.  In addition, how will he differentiate himself from Obama if his only claim is to be willing to tinker around the edge’s of Obama’s signature legislation?  That’s not a compelling argument to replace Obama, particularly since Americans are apt to see him as a weak imitation.

If this is what Republicans want, by all means, they should vote for Romney.  I have no intention of supporting any candidate who thinks this sort of program has any business being implemented by any level of government.  Romney’s repeated statement about offering waivers to states that want them is garbage.  I don’t want a waiver, and I’m not sure waivers are actually legal anyway.  It’s time for full repeal before we get saddled permanently with this garbage.  Ann Coulter is on record as saying that if Republicans don’t capture the White House in 2012, we’ll never get rid of Obamacare.  I agree, but unfortunately, the squeamish candidate Ms. Coulter supports won’t get rid of it either.



Ann Coulter’s Sad Obsession With Establishment Republicans

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Coulter Kissing-Up to Willard

In a column entitled “If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?,”  Ann Coulter laid out her stunningly unconvincing case in favor of Willard “Mitt” Romney.  What Coulter seems incapable of grasping is that the base of the party will not accept Romney, and may even abandon the party if he is the nominee.  Coulter’s argument is that Newt Gingrich sucks, so therefore, we must now accept Romney.  She attempts to herd readers into supporting Romney on the basis that Obamacare won’t be overturned if we don’t win the White House in 2012.  I’ve seen this coming for some time, but it seems many conservatives won’t flinch this time.  They shouldn’t.  We will not win the White House in 2012 with a moderate, progressive, flip-flopping Romney, and as I explained at length recently, it is because Romney is an ideological zero.  Conservatives are not satisfied with Willard, and the establishment’s attempt to scare them into Romney’s arms has begun to anger them.  Coulter is speaking for them, but not you.

Coulter’s biggest criticism of Gingrich comes from the flap over his consultancy with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Gingrich earned $300,000 in consulting fees, personally, while his company was paid a total of around $1.6 million. The conclusion being drawn from Coulter(and others) is that this is evidence of some sort of crony capitalism, but given Gingrich’s history of consulting, think-tanking, and similar activities, it may not be a stretch to believe that this was a legitimate consultancy.

After assailing Newt, she moves on to make her case about Romney and Obamacare, and makes some rather bombastic claims on Romney’s behalf:

“The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.

“Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.”

Coulter seems rather certain of herself, but I remain unconvinced.  Coulter reduces criticisms of Romney to “Romneycare and Mormonism.”  To be honest, I don’t know anybody who is criticizing Willard on the latter, because most Americans are relatively accepting of religions that are not their own.   Romneycare is another matter, however, and it’s not the only instance of his statist reflex.  There was the “Welfare Wheels” program, among other things I’ve covered, and of course the whole flap over the illegal immigrants hired by his landscaping contractor, who he publicly chastised, continued to use, and who ultimately brought illegal aliens back to work on Romney’s lawn.  I’m sorry, but I don’t view Romney as a conservative.  Among conservatives, he’s consider a “Mush” Republican, a “Repubic,” and a “RINO.”  I think that’s a fair assessment, so that I am baffled by Coulter’s unceasing support of this sort of Republican.

Coulter has long claimed to be a conservative, but I have serious doubts about her claim.  She couldn’t wait to bash Sarah Palin’s voice, or anything else that may have displeased her.  She spent the majority of 2011 pushing the notion of a Chris Christie candidacy, and as soon as Christie announced he would not run, but would instead endorse Romney, Coulter spent a five minutes one day in mourning for the Christie candidacy that would not be, but then jumped into supporting Romney.  I don’t trust Romney, like many conservatives, and the reason is simple: Mitt Romney goes out of his way to avoid staking out positions that we can later reference when he ultimately screws conservatives.  It’s what the establishment does.  It puts me in a mind to remember the words of another conservative who had some troubles with  progressive Republicans:

“I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they’re the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!” –Warren G. Harding

Of course, with Coulter on the warpath for Romney, arguing that only Willard can save us from Obama, I am likewise reminded of Harding’s Vice President and successor, Calvin “Silent Cal” Coolidge, who famously said:

“When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.” –Calvin Coolidge




Ann Coulter Gets Emotional, er, um…”Annoyed”

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Gotcha Ann!

I have to laugh at the establishment.  Ann Coulter had hung all her hopes on Chris Christie.  This afternoon, on the drive home, I listened to Hannity talking to Ann Coulter who seemed on the verge of a complete meltdown.  I couldn’t help but wonder what sort of breakdown I was hearing, and when Hannity told her she was being too emotional, Coulter responded:

“I’m not emotional, I’m annoyed…”

Apparently, Coulter had so thoroughly lost her perspective that her usual precision failed her:  Annoyance is an emotion, Ann.

I also had to laugh, because the same woman who had taken part in criticizing Sarah Palin’s tone of voice was now at least two octaves above any note ever to emanate from the former Governor of Alaska.

There are few things funnier than when somebody gets back as good as they’ve given, and Christie was asked this evening after his speech if he intended to run for President.  He referenced a video montage on Politico, and indicated it was a clear “no.”

If you want to hear Ann Coulter screeching a bit:


It’s time for Ms. Coulter to grasp reality. Notice Coulter’s insistence that Hannity should look at what Christie does, and not what he says.

Wednesday’s Talk Radio Response

Thursday, September 8th, 2011

Bruce and Levin Confront the Lies

On Tuesday, at least two radio greats responded to the attacks on Sarah Palin by Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter on Tuesday night’s edition of the O’Reilly Factor. If you missed either show, or the reason for these two patriotic hosts to get a bit exercised, you can see the video of the Fox broadcast here.

Each of the radio talkers expressed it in their own way, but both noticed the clear hypocrisy implicit in the attacks on Palin by Coulter.  It’s no secret that these two, featured prominently in The Undefeated, both think the world of Governor Sarah Palin.

Say what you want about either of them, but don’t expect them to shut up about the folks on the right who attack Palin any more than they’ll refrain from responding to the rabid left.

First, Tammy Bruce responds:


Then Wednesday evening, Mark Levin takes them on, too:


It seems as though I’m not alone in picking up on the hypocrisy of Coulter in all of this.  My own critics have complained I’m merely being a “crazed knee-jerk” Palin supporter, but if it leaves we Palinistas in the company of Tammy Bruce and Mark Levin, we won’t mind.