March 29, 2009

Ann Coulter Is ‘Guilty’ — Of Willful Blindness to Mitt Romney’s Dreadful Massachusetts Legacy

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:59 am

Sometimes, waiting has its benefits. This is one of those times.

Because I’ve waited, I’m able to post an outstanding video from American Right to Life (ARTL) instead of having to recite particulars about certain of Ann Coulter’s recent interviews I’ve been meaning to get to.

Coulter fans, brace yourselves. The woman has a hang-up, which has led to a few telephonic hang-ups:

Ann Coulter has accomplished a lot. Probably her most important contribution is documenting in layman’s terms the definitive defense and vindication of Joe McCarthy in “Treason” (M. Stanton Evans’s subsequent “Blacklisted by History” is the definitive scholar’s version).

Thus, to hear Ann seemingly lock herself into defending Mitt Romney’s indefensible record on abortion and same-sex “marriage” while he was the governor of Massachusetts, and to attack those of us who have long since proven the obvious about that record, is truly sad. The YouTube clearly demonstrates that Coulter’s position is so weak that, in “response” to legitimate questions about Mitt Romney’s Bay State legacy, she’s forced to alternate between employing attack language she normally reserves for 9-11 truthers and other obsessives, and running and hiding when she’s out of arguments. This is the childish stuff liberals all too often pull when, as is usually the case, they’re on the losing end of an argument.

It also appears that knowledge of Coulter’s hang-ups is no longer limited to a precious few beyond those who happened to be listening to the related interviews at the time they took place. Fox Business News, of all places, is carrying ARTL’s Friday press release, which also announces a related website,

Coulter’s current defensive posture on Romney also seems to contradict her response to an e-mail I sent her on January 22, 2008, two weeks before Super Tuesday, at 11:31 p.m.

Keep in mind that this was five days after Coulter, in her syndicated column, wrote that:

….. My thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best candidate.

….. The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide.

Here is my e-mail (after one grammar correction from the original):


It pains me to see you, a constitutional lawyer, accept the idea that Mitt Romney is a desirable presidential candidate, as your column last Wednesday clearly did.

It’s hard to imagine that you don’t know, or understand, or care, how Romney undermined Massachusetts’s Constitution, violated his oath of office, and did more to legitimize same-sex marriage than any one person in the entire country — all to keep a campaign promise. But in case you don’t, that’s exactly what he did.

And that’s just the start of Mitt Romney’s betrayal of conservative and constitutional principles. If you don’t believe me, PLEASE read for yourself:

Family leaders call Romney ‘disaster’
Why is Mitt Romney Objectively Unfit to Be President?
The Mitt Romney Deception

These are not “fringe” views, Ann — any more than your views of Joe McCarthy. The historical record shows McCarthy was right, and did right. The historical record also shows inarguably that Mitt Romney was wrong, and did wrong.

The historical record has been exposed by people who lived through the Romney Era in Massachusetts. They have seen the truth for what it is, even though most of them voted for him in 2002. They have seen Mitt Romney betray conservatives and clear thinkers time, and time, and time again. That they are betrayals has been confirmed by many clear-eyed constitutional experts who have looked at the situation closely and reached the only conclusions any constitution-honoring person could reach.

Why would you not expect Romney, as President, if faced with a Supreme Court ruling that gun ownership is not an individual right, to do exactly as he did with Goodridge — and unilaterally start confiscating citizens’ guns?

I’m not going to belabor the points made at the links any further. You’re a smart person, Ann; you know the law; and you know separation of powers. I only hope that you will face the truth about Romney and publicly reject his candidacy as the clear and present constitutional danger that it is.

Lest I be accused of breaching presumed confidentiality (a presumption that is dubious in the first place, as no promise of confidentiality was ever made), I’ll limit my description of Coulter’s response, which came 25 minutes later. First, the response was brief, and did not address my e-mail’s specific concerns about Mitt Romney’s record. Second, despite the virtual endorsement in her column (and it WAS interpreted as endorsement), her response to me was NOT complimentary to Romney.

The contrast between that e-mail response, when compared to her five-days-earlier column and her subsequent public actions and statements, is very troubling, on more levels than I can adequately address here.

Face the facts, and the music, Ann. If acknowledging the drop-dead obvious truth about Mitt Romney’s records represents the worst case of an unconditional “I was wrong, I am sorry” confession you ever have to deliver, you’ll be a lucky woman indeed.



  1. Given Ann’s long standing advocacy for issues Romney betrayed, I would not equate her poor choice in endorsing a definitely flawed candidate. As you know Tom, I was also dead set against Romney. I think we can forgive her for thinking a Romney candidacy was better than a McCain candidacy in order to win the election. Obviously her objective was to deny Obama the presidency regardless of which “Repub” could potentially win. This is the problem with winning at any cost, sometimes the real devil is not the one your fighting.

    Comment by dscott — March 29, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

  2. #1 dscott, it goes way beyond that. She knows what the constitutional issues are and chooses to pretend they don’t exist. Over a year after what Romney had done was made clear to her by several others whose influence is exponentially beyond mine, she still treats them like dirt, and worse, as I’m sure you’ve heard on the YouTube. She had an excuse until early last year, as most of the $ocial con$ervative movement kept what had happened in Massachusetts tightly bottled up.

    Of course, the pro-abort, pro-SSM media in the Northeast was glad to play along, and would have stayed that way until Romney won the nomination, at which point the nation would have learned it all in short order (along with RomneyCare, along with Bain, along with guns, the MLK lie, etc., etc.). Romney would have been thumped into oblivion by a margin far worse than the semi-close Obama-McCain contest was (and McCain should have and would have won had he campaigned aggressively).

    Comment by TBlumer — March 29, 2009 @ 7:00 pm

  3. Wow. I would tend to agree with T. Blumer here. Why not come out and say “Mitt Romney is FAR from perfect and he screwed up here, here & here…and I STILL believe he is the best candidate.”

    The fact that Ann (and others) didn’t do that leads me to believe that she is either A) not near as smart & conservative as she claims to be; B) believes that we are all idiots who cannot read or put two and two together; C) was paid in some way; or D) all of the above.

    “Mrs. [self-described] Pro-Life” Laura Ingraham was no better on this. Thus her obstinate, negligent support of Romney nullifies absolutely any credibility she had up until that point.

    Careless & reckless.

    Comment by Steve — March 30, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

  4. #3,thx for noting. Coulter and Ingraham are by no means alone.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 30, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

  5. #3 or another choice E) chose in their opinion the lessor of bad choices before them, but then got personally involved in defending that poor choice.

    I am not going to question their commentment to their stated positions on being pro-life. What I question is their humility in the face of making a bad choice.

    Romney was a really crappy choice given his Universal Health Care plan, I questioned his choice of solutions from the very beginning and plainly stated you can’t be a conservative and support his solution. Anytime the government is mandating solution they automatically get to mandate the level of that solution, it violates the entire premise of free markets and individual choice, i.e. freedom. This was a classic case of a politician claiming he had to do something when in fact it was their meddling that caused the problem in the first place. Abortions for $50 under Romney Care was just insult to injury, IMO. Don’t get me wrong, abortion is murder, it’s just that these clowns made it cheaper.

    Comment by dscott — March 30, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

  6. #5, all great points, thx.

    Comment by Steve — March 31, 2009 @ 9:38 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.