Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    So much of what the left-wing said about Coulter turns out to be true

    So much of what the left-wing said about Coulter turns out to be true

    Who would have expected it.  Ann Coulter in her endorsement of Mitt Romney gave a very misleading account of Rick Santorum’s immigration record, asserting that he voted against E-Verify.

    Ann’s a lawyer, so she knows that omitting material facts can be just as much a fraud as stating false facts.  And Ann omitted from her narrative the fact that the rejection of E-Verify was not a stand alone, it was a rejection of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill.

    Good for Santorum for calling her out:

    Arguing on behalf of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in her syndicated column Wednesday, Coulter portrayed Santorum as soft on illegal immigration, citing his vote against the so-called “E-Verify” measure to provide automatic electronic verification of workers’ immigration status. But Santorum said that he voted against “E-Verify” in 2006 because it was part of a measure sponsored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy that would have provided amnesty to illegals.

    Asked after the speech about his criticism of Coulter, Santorum replied: “Why would Ann Coulter criticize me for voting against the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill? I mean, Ann, should I have voted for amnesty? Should I have voted for comprehensive immigration reform? Because if that’s what you’re saying, then, doesn’t sound like you’re the real conservative here. I think when Jim DeMint and every conservative in the United States Senate voted against the McCain-Kennedy bill — yes, we voted against E-Verify, but we voted against a pretty bad bill that I think, at least you said you were against.”

    Ann Coulter is willing to say anything to elect Romney.  Her attack on Santorum is just a small taste of what she has said about Newt and Tea Party supporters.

    It’s sad to have to admit that so much of what the left-wing said about Coulter is true, it just didn’t seem so bad when it was pointed in the other direction.  But as they say, what goes around ….

    And it has come around to bite conservatives.

    Update:  It gets worse. Thanks to reader JohnJ2427 for the link to Coulter’s 2006 column arguing against the immigration bill she now criticizes Santorum for not supporting, Read My Lips, No New Amnesty.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    jakee308 | December 30, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    For me, Coulter’s 180 is like waking up one morning to find your Mom is a lesbian or your Dad is a tranny.

    HOW can she have been apparently so dedicated to conservative ideals AND making cogent arguments bolstered by facts, anecdotes and their own words against Liberals/Progressives for so long, yet hoist this fake, phony, fraud upon us as the epitome of conservativism?

    I’m going to have some empty shelf space in my library.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Spirit Crusher | December 30, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    I don’t know what Coulter’s ultimate end game in all of this is. She has certainly done irreparable harm to her integrity and reputation among conservatives, ostensibly her target audience, with her kamikaze attacks on the tea party and various candidates. Ann is obviously positioning herself for the post “firebrand sexpot” phase of her career, but I think she has scuttled any meaningful impact she may have had in the future. However, I’ve never claimed or pretended to understand what makes women tick, so it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out for the fickle [email protected]


       
       0 
       
       0
      katiejane in reply to Spirit Crusher. | December 30, 2011 at 5:42 pm

      It does seem odd -there is no way the Left will ever accept Ann even if she had some Eureka “I’m a Lib” moment — so why would she attack the people who have been her audience. Some things are hard to get beyond and being damned as a birther/racist by someone supposedly on my side is inexcusable.

        I agree. Same with Beck, whom I have long defended.

        Like Newt or not going in, he won every debate fair and square, and won with it a grudging respect, and recognition that here was a man who truly does understand what makes Washington tic, and is able to make it work. It’s recognizing how we have been played by all the negative press against him, and acknowledging that he not only has a shot at the nomination, but at winning, on his own merits. We owe him that.

        To turn the guns on him – and face it, once he is gone, it will be whoever is next – is unconscionable. We knew it would come from the Soros-backed media, it’s shocking to see it coming from the right. Coulter should be celebrating the marvelous variety of ideas and approaches that our candidates bring to the table, the incredible discussions to be had, and the solutions to be aired and found, and maybe someday employed. Instead she became a poor-mouthing assassin.

        I won’t get to vote til June. I want to have more than one choice when that day comes. All this is happening before a single vote has been cast, judging candidates on the basis of a grueling debate schedule alone.

        I pray that Sarah Palin IS planning an upset, because this mess is depressing beyond belief.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Aitch748 | December 30, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    The Republican establishment as a whole is really jumping the shark this year.

    My breaking point with Ann Coulter was a few years back, but as time goes on, she looks more and more like an opportunist who happened to latch onto smashmouth rhetoric as a way to make piles of money.


     
     0 
     
     0
    damocles | December 30, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    I have never been a fan of Coulter. She always grated on me, even her laugh. (I know, it’s a small thing). Begging Chris Christie to run, convinced me that she is not a Conservative. Ms. Coulter is in the business of promoting herself and selling her books. She is best ignored.


     
     0 
     
     0
    flataffect | December 30, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Tough choice. Coulter puts me off too, but I really don’t think Santorum has a chance. The thing about these primaries is that there’s only only candidate other than Ron Paul who came prepared with organization and fundraising. The whole Not-Romney movement was stupid and self-defeating and nobody should have listened to it. None of their candidates can win as their surges peaking and dropping away shows.

    The first check should be how well organized you are beyond Iowa and how much money have you raised. That’s why Romney was considered the likely candidate, all the spite toward the GOP establishment notwithstanding.

    Iowa is not the kingmaker it’s been hyped to be. I have nothing against Perry, Bachmann or Santorum, although I think Paul is a blot and Gingrich is the real flip-flopper here.

    Coulter may have misstated the factoid about Santorum, but her endorsement is still valid, and Santorum doesn’t have a chance, even if he wins in Iowa.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend