Ann Coulter: What?

Posted on | February 25, 2012 | 44 Comments

by Smitty

The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney — though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then.
Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican Party fiddled with the vote tally to take Romney’s victory away from him and give it to Rick Santorum — even though the “official count” was missing eight precincts. Isn’t the party apparatus of a state considered part of the Establishment?

So, Limbaugh and Levin play by the Buckley Rule, and support the most conservative electable candidate. . .even if that means that 2008’s pick is 2012’s pan? Consistency can do that.

And what does ‘purely to hurt Romney’ mean? Does Rick Santorum exist? A reasonable alternative scenario, borne out by irregularities in New Hampshire, is that some state committees are owned by some candidates, and may not have made the initial victory calls in an unbiased way. Ann, you’ve been great in the past, and I hope that the shocking spectacle of your 2012 beclownment is something you can overcome. But the sad truth is that the Romney infatuation is starting to resemble some of the creepy BHO infatuation I’ve seen from a couple of Lefties I know.

Whoever wins the GOP nomination shall have earned it by August, and these over-wrought appeals to end the process now seem more emotionally driven than anything else.

via iOwnTheWorld

Category: Ann Coulter, Mitt Romney

Comments

44 Responses to “Ann Coulter: What?”

Erik McA
February 25th, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

Anne’s next book is going to have very poor sales.
Pathfinder's wife
February 25th, 2012 @ 10:39 pm

Ann’s always had a problem with her inner elitist, and now that slip is showing (well, it’s been showing since her Olbermann rant; I can’t stand Olbermann, but her snide little quips about Cornell, which is a top drawer school for its specialty — as though the “cow school” was somehow beneath a “real” school — showed her own bias). Bad form Annie, bad form and terribly narrow visioned.
Reliapundit
February 25th, 2012 @ 11:20 pm

i am sure ann is shaking with fear and regret knowing you have lowered your opinion of her.

santorum – who gave earmarks to his pals and endorsed arlen, and newt – the serial adulterer who, like rick, is a career pol/lobbyist who digs pelosi and sharpton (and hates capitalism) are so so so so obviously better than mitt it’s bewildering that ann can’t see that.

it’s so obvious that santorum and newt are perfect conservatives and mitt is an ower.

yes: you are right and coulter and bolton and thune and ayotte and haley and issa are all wrong. and ace is wrong too.

/.

santorum decided to run for potus because he knew he could not beat casey.

newt is so smart he couldn’t even get on the ballot in his home state.
Shark
February 25th, 2012 @ 11:35 pm

You would not believe how high that girl can jump! Missed my dorsal fin by several feet and landed on this leather-jacketed guy’s shoulders. She got a standing ovation from a bunch of nerds on the beach. Hell, even Charlie Tuna was impressed. Sure, I’ll never get her, but the guy she landed on… next time he’s goin’ down.
TannerSmith
February 25th, 2012 @ 11:53 pm

“yes: you are right and coulter and bolton and thune and ayotte and haley and issa are all wrong. and ace is wrong too.”

I don’t know why Bolton is supporting Mittens. Probably why Ron Paul isn’t speaking out against the Romneycare creator, some secret deal. But let’s look at the mittbots that you forgot to mention.

Trump: Has given money equally to democrats and republicans and wants to impose federal tariffs to china.

John Huntsman: Has said that we should have a third party candidacy if Mittens loses.

Big Government Sununu: He gave us David Souter. ‘Nuff said.
—
As Coulter said, “If Christie isn’t the nominee, the GOP will pick Romney…and he will lose to Obama.”

Only one candidate has balanced the budget with his Contract with America – something that Mittens opposed.
Garym
February 26th, 2012 @ 12:08 am

Romneycare.
Garym
February 26th, 2012 @ 12:10 am

Da bitch iz unhinged!
richard mcenroe
February 26th, 2012 @ 12:36 am

The thing about people who sell out in politics is, sooner or later they look back and realize they sold out for peanuts compared to what they had…
Adjoran
February 26th, 2012 @ 1:11 am

What exactly is the “free speech” issue here? Did Coulter suggest anyone be censored by the government? No, she did not.

Do you understand what “free speech” is, and that it includes the right to criticize anyone else’s exercise of it? Or is it only deserving of protection when it fits your narrow world view?
Dianna Deeley
February 26th, 2012 @ 1:34 am

Why Ann Coulter is doing this is a mystery. That’s all I can say, because I read her initial analysis that Romney would lose, and nodded, since it agreed with what I thought – having looked at Romney in 2008 and said, “Nah. Not good enough.”

Please, please, please, folks: I’m out in California, and we don’t even have a primary until June. Don’t make me have to vote for Romney, please!

Please?
Dianna Deeley
February 26th, 2012 @ 1:37 am

She’s actively contradicted herself, a bit. I don’t know how that fits into anything, but I read Ann on a weekly basis, and I’m just…confused. Some of what she’s saying simply makes no sense to me, in context of what she’s said before.

You are, of course, right that she has a perfect right to say what she is saying. I’m just expressing my confusion.
JackieO
February 26th, 2012 @ 1:42 am

People like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Erick Erickson, etc. have zero credibility after this primary. The fact these clowns endorsed Romney for President in 2008 and now portray him as Satan just shows that this more an empty schtick than any real root in public policy.
Dave
February 26th, 2012 @ 1:57 am

I understand Ann. I’ve lost tons of respect for her because of this, but I understand her. Ann has convinced herself of two things: #1, that Obama must be defeated in November or America as we know it will be gone and #2, only Mitt Romney can beat him, so she is desperate to have Mitt be the nominee. Unfortunately for Ann, she’s only half right. Don’t get me wrong, Mitt can win-but only in an election that ANY Republican would win, in other words, an election that is a complete rejection of Obama rather than an endorsement of his opponent. This could happen-$5/gal gas alone may bring it about-but it’s far from inevitable.

In a “normal” election, however, Mitt is about the WORST candidate we could run out there short of digging up and reanimating Richard Nixon, and I’ll give you three reasons why:

#1. This is going to be a dirty, dirty campaign, and Mitt does NOT take criticism well. He gets angry and defensive, and that doesn’t play well in Peoria. Obama is a petulant child, but he does have the ability to feign an air of glacial cool when he needs to (I suspect he fuels it with his utter contempt for the American people), and that’s all he needs because the MSM is so completely in the tank protecting him. He doesn’t have to be good at it, if he can hold the pose for 3 seconds that all the footage the media will ever run. Mitt’s going to be portrayed as an angry elitist, which leads right to point…

#2. Obama has been preparing to run against Mitt since 2010. Certainly I’m not saying we should let our opponents determine who we run, but anyone with half an eye can see that we’re already deep into a well planned strategy to make Mitt toxic to the American people. OWS was a test run for a summer and fall that I’m very afraid is going to make ’68 look like a walk in the park. The rhetoric, the news reports, the narrative…all of it is aimed squarely at Romney as an out of touch, mean, rich, white member of the 1% opposing the hip populist president who gave us free health care. It’s Obama’s ONLY “accomplishment” even though it’s generally unpopular…..and poor Mitt can’t attack it without sounding like a clown car full of idiots because it’s his damn plan.

#3. Romney’s religion will be his downfall. Now, this certainly isn’t right or fair, but we’re talking about an election pitting a group of corrupt Chicago machine politicians who are within inches of obtaining their totalitarian nirvana opposed by a man who openly professes his faith in a religion that polls show 80% of Americans don’t really know anything about. It’s already started. Gawker did a story about how the wacko Romneys baptized his atheist father-in-law after he died. The WaPo and NYT have had writers chuckling about “magic underwear”. Slate did a story on something else “odd” about Mormons, I forget just what at the moment. It’s going to grow and grow and grow until anyone who doesn’t know better (and doesn’t bother to find out the truth for themselves) will be convinced the LDS are a bigger cult than Westboro Baptist by October. It won’t be the Obama camp itself you realize, but all of the various Democrat agencies in the MSM (but I repeat myself). MMFA and CAP will get the web humming with ridiculous lies about Mormons. Expect 60 minutes to do a segment on Warren Jeffs by September, watch him be refereed to as a “Mormon leader” at least a dozen times. “Under the Banner of Heaven” will be made into a mini-series (Nielson Sweeps start Oct 25, I swear it’s just a coincidence that the election is 1st week of November! Pinkie swear, honest!). The role of the “evil Mormon church” in the Prop 8 fight against peaceful gay folks who just want, damnit (sob!), to live peacefully in wedded bliss with the one they love will be highlighted any time anyone remotely gay is mentioned on TV. The View ladies will do a special show on the “horrors” endured by their special guest, a woman who was one of many wives in a fundamentalist LDS family. And so on, and so on, and so on. As I said, it’s dirty and dishonest and unfair as fuck, but these are Donks we’re talking about, nothing is beyond them.

Now Newt and Rick aren’t perfect candidates, both (Newt in particular) have problems with #1 above, but the perfect storm of traits that dooms Romney does not exist with either of them. I think either one would be a far, far stronger candidate, keeping the focus on BHO where it belongs.

MHO only, of course, YMMV, but if Mitt is the nom I’ll bet I’m saying ITYS in November.
Adjoran
February 26th, 2012 @ 2:20 am

I don’t disagree with you at all.

My point is the post opens with “Is free speech a bad thing?” which suggests that what follows is somehow an assault on free speech.

Coulter criticizes Limbaugh and Levin and what they said, but she never says they should be silenced by force – she offers the advice to STFU.

How is that in any way against free speech? And if that isn’t what the opening question intends to suggest, then what the heck DOES it mean?

I think it’s a legitimate inquiry about the post and, if my suppositions are incorrect, an explanation as to how.
richard mcenroe
February 26th, 2012 @ 2:50 am

Mitt Romney hasn’t taken questions from the press corps following him in the last 17 days. But he’s going to stand up to Obama?
smitty
February 26th, 2012 @ 5:24 am

Nicely played.
smitty
February 26th, 2012 @ 5:28 am

Your point is well taken. I should have elaborated that Ann would sound less a doof to note the negative opinions of talk radio personalities, and leave it at that.
Instead, the ad hominem comes off as shrill.
I respect that Mittens has very likely paid Ann a lot of money to buy what appears to be mindless support from an otherwise sharp lady.
ThePaganTemple
February 26th, 2012 @ 6:26 am

I think her point there was that Olbermann was being somewhat deceptive as to what part of Cornell he actually attended.
ThePaganTemple
February 26th, 2012 @ 6:27 am

Willard McCapntrade Romneycare.
ThePaganTemple
February 26th, 2012 @ 6:32 am

I wish somebody would dig into it, because there has to be a reason. Maybe Romney, or some huge Romney contributor, owns her publisher.
John
February 26th, 2012 @ 8:44 am

I’ll add one more thing: as Richard notes, Mitt hasn’t taken a lot of questions. I’d also observe that the Media ‘Template’ has served him well with regards to the primary (i.e., make absurd statement about opponent, Media dutifully repeats, then confronts candidate on absurd charge, putting them on defensive). THIS WILL NOT WORK with BHO. They will NOT simply repeat the charges, they will counter them, and debate Romney as BHO surrogates (“yes, but the President says…”). At which point the Mitt/Fluster problem arises.

I’ll make one other blatantly obvious point. Mitt has money. He has MORE money than anyone else in the primary. He has enough money to blanket his opponents in negative ads. Compared to Obama, he has nada. Explain to me how Romney outspends Obama.
Pathfinder's wife
February 26th, 2012 @ 9:56 am

I know that, but she went overboard with the “cow college” crap.
I’ve known a lot of vet med and ag science people from Cornell — the place has an excellent reputation in that area and didn’t deserve the snark.

You know, people who actually get out there and do something, unlike those liberal arts majors (of which I am one, so duly noted and self-denounced).
Pathfinder's wife
February 26th, 2012 @ 10:03 am

“Because shut up” they/Ann said.

You know, you conservatives have railed about this coming from liberals for quite some time (and with good reason); now however, some on the right are doing it.

Bad form; bad form and short memory. How do you think this plays in Peoria (where the people may be stupid hicks, but they appear to have longer memories than many so called smart people).
Pathfinder's wife
February 26th, 2012 @ 10:36 am

As of late a nagging little voice has been tempting me with “why not write in DeMint/West and be done with it at least your hands will be clean, right?”. Have to admit, that little voice is getting very persuasive as this election season rolls along.
A Stephens
February 26th, 2012 @ 10:51 am

There was NO ObamaCare BASED on RomneyCare in 08. That single item changes things 180 degrees. Anyone who doesn’t get that is just plain obtuse.

And that doesn’t begin to take into account what a “severely” weak candidate he is. Or the fact that he has burned through cash at multiple times the rest of the field. Yeah, that’s a guy we can trust our fiscal house to. Un-effing-believable!

Think! It’s not that damn difficult.
Ann Coulter: Who? | Daily Pundit
February 26th, 2012 @ 11:27 am

[…] Coulter: Who? Posted on February 26, 2012 8:27 am by Bill Quick Ann Coulter: What? : The Other McCain Ann, you’ve been great in the past, and I hope that the shocking spectacle of your 2012 […]
Michael Bates
February 26th, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

To Ann and all the RomneyBots: Romney was the Stop McCain candidate in 2008. Conservative pundits and radio hosts called on people to vote for Romney on Tsunami Tuesday in order to halt McCain’s momentum toward wrapping up the nomination. They didn’t back Romney because they thought he was the resurrection of Ronald Reagan, but merely because they believed he was the best positioned to finish ahead of McCain in enough states to keep the competition going. (They would have been shrewder to recognize that Huckabee was better positioned to win in some states, like Oklahoma, and urge voters to back Huck or Romney based on polling in their own state.)
Bob Belvedere
February 26th, 2012 @ 5:50 pm

Or maybe – she has forced us to consider the possibility – it was all an act.
Bob Belvedere
February 26th, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

Some of us are trying hard, Dianna, to make your vote count.
Bob Belvedere
February 26th, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

Some – not me – supported Willard in 2008 because they thought him more trustworthy than John McCain. And they were right.

I supported Fred Thompson and then no one after he dropped out until Sarah Palin was put on the ticket.
Bob Belvedere
February 26th, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

Well put, Dave. Damn fine analysis.

The fact of the matter is, the Morman religion is strange. While it may be a legitimate one, it still is strange enough that it will turn off a lot of Americans. There’s no way you can really explain some of it away. It would be the same if a Pentacostal were running [speaking in tongues, etc].
Bob Belvedere
February 26th, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

‘Palin/West’

There, fixed that for you.
Dave
February 26th, 2012 @ 9:35 pm

Thank you. I’d be curious what Adjoran thinks, as he seems to be the local most infected with Coulter disease believing the garbage that Romney is the only electable one.
ThePaganTemple
February 26th, 2012 @ 10:40 pm

Bob Belvedere-

I don’t think it was an act, but I do think she exaggerated a lot for dramatic and sometimes comedic effect.
ThePaganTemple
February 26th, 2012 @ 10:41 pm

Just think, if we hadn’t been separated at birth I might be a good Catholic now.
Pathfinder's wife
February 26th, 2012 @ 11:04 pm

Since Palin has been regrettably “Palinized” by both the left and some elements on the right I would prefer her in a cabinet position.
Electability, you know.
ThePaganTemple
February 27th, 2012 @ 6:32 am

Fuck electability. Do away with the god damn presidency and make her queen for all the fuck I care.
Bob Belvedere
February 27th, 2012 @ 7:42 am

Mom liked me better.
Bob Belvedere
February 27th, 2012 @ 7:44 am

I think Mrs. Palin would energize a lot of people to work hard for her election.
» It’s days like this - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
February 27th, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

[…] WeirdDave: Come on, Ann. […]
The Camp Of The Saints
February 27th, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

The Spot-On Quote Of The Day……

…is awarded to Smitty for his message to Ann Coulter, who has disappointed the conservatives who have been defending her all these years with her catastrophic loss of Right Reason in her advocacy for non-conservative Willard Mitt Romney: …A…
It’s days like this | Political Punch
February 27th, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

[…] WeirdDave: Come on, Ann. […]
SweetAndy
February 27th, 2012 @ 6:35 pm

Woooooooeeee;
Some snark or what??? 😉
Mike
February 28th, 2012 @ 10:35 am

Dave, you are exactly right. No great candidate, but Romney will be a losing proposition.