December 29, 2011

Ann Coulter Endorses Rick Santorum (Update: Santorum Ran on E-Verify in 2006)

Filed under: Activism,Health Care,Immigration,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:04 pm

RickSantorum1211RomneyNo0808(Note: I’m interrupting the “So Much Material, So Little Time” series showing relatively recent reasons why Mitt Romney is an unacceptable and objectively unfit presidential candidate to respond to Ann Coulter’s disgraceful column yesterday.)

___________________

Meet your guy, Ann Coulter. He’s pictured on the right.

Note that your guy is NOT the guy whose image is crossed out on the left — where he most definitely belongs because of his issue positions and track record).

Your guy is the other guy, Rick Santorum.

You endorsed him yesterday in your latest column.

Oh, you think you endorsed Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney, but I will prove that you really endorsed Santorum.

Here we go. (Update: A briefer version is here.)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Coulter’s December 28 column, entitled “Only One Candidate Is Right on the Two Most Important Issues,” was meant to be a process-of-elimination exercise performed on the remaining contenders for the GOP presidential nomination (I’m going to exclude Jon Huntsman, because he, unlike the six others, has never been more than a cipher in any poll).

Her column is an epic fail on the facts.

Coulter starts out strongly by identifying what she believes are the two most critical issues we face:

In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.

I would throw the economic Armageddon coming at us if we don’t do something about the federal debt and deficit situation (as I’ve noted several times, I’m not convinced that we’ll be able to reach November 2012 or January 21, 2013 without hitting a financial wall first). It just so happens to be the number one issue on voters’ minds. But if you want to contend that any one of the remaining credible contenders would do a passable job in these matters if armed with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, fine.

After articulating why her two issues are of all-encompassing importance, Coulter commits her first obvious unforced error, one which was proven to be an error literally just yesterday as the ink was drying (or the electrons were cooling) on her column (bolds are obviously mine throughout this post):

All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare. The question for Republican primary voters should be: Who is most likely to win?

If you go to every candidate’s website, I’m sure you’ll find a pledge to “repeal Obamacare.” In fact, even Mitt Romney is promising to do that (“Our next president must repeal Obamacare and replace it with market-based reforms that empower states and individuals and reduce health care costs.”). But the question, using Ann’s word, is who will “overturn” it?

Mitt Romney is absolutely NOT promising to “overturn” Obamacare, Ann.

One of Obamacare principal features — in fact, it has been described as the feature on which the viability of the entire abominable law depends — is the individual mandate, i.e., the government requirement that each and every citizen have and (unless you’re in poverty) buy health insurance.

To demonstrate how unpopular the individual mandate is, Ohio voters just eight weeks ago hardwired an amendment into the state’s constitution declaring that no citizen shall be required to participate in a health insurance plan, and that no citizen shall be required to purchase health insurance. Buckeye State voters did so by passing Issue 3 by a 66%-34% margin.

But it goes way beyond popularity to constitutionality at the federal level, and to the relationship between government and its citizens at all other levels. As Mark Steyn said in his guest-hosting role on Rush Limbaugh’s program today (paraphrasing), if the government can force you to buy health insurance, there really is no practical constraint on what else it can force you to do in virtually any major or minor aspect of your life. At the federal level, such a mandate is plainly unconstitutional; at the state level, it’s authoritarianism at its worst. Regardless of who’s imposing the requirement, it negatively and probably irretrievably changes the nature of the relationship between the government and its citizens forever.

A video playing all over the place from Wednesday demonstrates that Mitt Romney, the creator of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, still supports the individual mandate, and would clearly want to see states incorporate an individual mandate into any form of replacement for Obamacare. Roll tape (Direct YouTube; HT Hot Air):

Here’s the perfect-pitch reaction of Erick Ericksen at RedState:

TODAY, December 28, 2011, Mitt Romney Calls Obamacare “Conservative”

This isn’t a flash back. This is today. Mitt Romney is again declaring the foundation of Obamacare, the individual mandate, “conservative.”

To be sure, it is conservative that one takes responsibility for their own healthcare. But the conservative solution is not to force Americans to buy a product. Forcing Americans, through penalty of law, into purchasing or refraining from purchasing a product is not and will never be conservative.

(Aside: It must really sting to see a core contention of a column you’ve just written debunked — by your guy — in virtually real time.)

Ann, in case you haven’t figured it out, if you “repeal” Obamacare and “replace” it with something containing an individual mandate — what Erick properly characterized as “the foundation of Obamacare” — you have not “overturned” Obamacare. “Overturning” Obamacare is YOUR column’s benchmark, and Mitt Romney fails your first test. I suspect that many readers are tiring of my employment of the word, but the point is simply not arguable.

That leaves the remaining candidates to be tested against Coulter’s second standard: “halting illegal immigration.” Here’s Ann’s “analysis”:

Only Romney (already eliminated per the above — Ed.) and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election. (This knocks out Michelle Bachmann, as Coulter later notes. — Ed.)

But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue — illegal immigration — and he’ll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.

… almost all Republican presidential candidates support some form of amnesty for illegals in order to appeal to the business lobby.

Among the most effective measures against illegal immigration is E-Verify, the Homeland Security program that gives employers the ability to instantly confirm that their employees’ Social Security numbers are legitimate. It is more than 99 percent accurate, and no employee is denied a job without an opportunity to challenge the records.

Although wildly popular with Americans — including Hispanic Americans — the business lobby hates E-Verify. Employers like hiring non-Americans because they can pay illegal aliens less and ignore state and federal employment laws.

Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration. If anything, E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote.

Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.

There’s only one problem with Ann’s “logic.” Rick Santorum does NOT oppose E-Verify. A source within the Santorum campaign forwarded me the following concerning Rick’s position on E-Verify (internal links to roll call votes added by me):

Rick voted against the McCain / Kennedy Global Immigration bill on May 25th 2006. The bill passed 62 – 36. DeMint, Grassley, Coburn, Inhofe, Sessions, Thune (some of the most conservative Senators) all voted no. One of the cornerstones of the McCain/Kennedy amnesty immigration bill was the reauthorization of the E-Verify program. By opposing the overall bill, Rick in turn opposed the re-authorization of E-Verify program.

Actually, Rick supports the E-Verify program. Original E-Verify Program was known as the Basic Pilot Program Act. It was included in H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997. Rick voted for the entire bill on July 18, 1996 at 10:27am.

On 11/12/2003 the Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003 passed the US Senate by UC (if Rick opposed, he would have objected). Signed into law by President Bush on 12/3/2003. (“UC” stands for “Unanimous Consent” — Ed.)

The program was eventually reauthorized (Rick was out of Congress) till September 30, 2009. Then it was granted a one month reauthorization till October 31, 2009 (Rick was not in Congress). In October 2009, the Congress agreed to a three year extension of the E-Verify program.

Ann Coulter is trying to say that Rick opposes e-verify simply because he opposed John McCain’s liberal / amnesty immigration bill in 2006.

Concerning that 2006 vote mentioned in the email’s first paragraph:

  • Santorum had to oppose Kennedy/McCain even though it contained E-Verify, because the rest of the bill was so awful. He had a lot of sensible conservative company.
  • (You really can’t make this up, Ann — gotcha bigtime) Ann Coulter also opposed what the Senate did in her very next column on June 1, 2006. Specifically, she vehemently criticized “The ‘path to citizenship’ that Bush and the Senate are trying to pawn off on Americans …” Uh, so did Rick Santorum.

Thus, Ann Coulter is obviously wrong. What about “Rick supports the E-Verify program” don’t you understand, dear?

Okay, let’s recap based on actual facts and Ann Coulter’s requirements:

  • Romney — Out, because he won’t overturn Obamacare. (He’s not credible on any other issue, given his history of flip-flops, but one reason, especially this big of a reason, is enough.)
  • Gingrich — Out, partially because, in Coulter’s words, he has “never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.” Coulter also spent her entire December 21 column on reasons why Newt shouldn’t get the nomination. Her likely correct conclusion is that “Gingrich would be a disaster for everything they (newly active conservatives) believe in.” She also contends with historical support that (at least for a conservative or Republican) Newt “is almost certainly unelectable based solely on his having cheated on and divorced two wives.”
  • Perry — Out, for two reasons. First, his opposition to E-Verify. Second (again, Coulter’s take), Perry ran in an extremely red state that doesn’t “resemble the American electorate.”
  • Paul — Out, for the same two reasons as Perry (I’m sure there are others from her point of view, but that’s plenty for now).
  • Bachmann — Out, because, even though she meets Coulter’s issues benchmarks, “… 2012 isn’t the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.”

That leaves Rick Santorum as Ann Coulter’s only supportable candidate, based on her December 28 column’s benchmarks. Specifically, Santorum:

  • Will overturn Obamacare.
  • Supports E-Verify.
  • Is electable, having “won a statewide election in a blue state” — twice. (Mitt Romney only won once, and was a fairly good bet to lose had he run for reelection.)

You can pretend to be Mitt Romney’s gal all you want, Ann Coulter, but by your column’s benchmarks, Rick Santorum is your guy. I’m sure he’s grateful for your well thought-out endorsement. You should be grateful that I’ve straightened you out.

______________________________________________

UPDATE: Santorum ran on his support of E-Verify in his 2006 race against prolife pretender Bob Casey. Specifically (bolds other than headings are mine) –

No Amnesty
Giving blanket amnesty, approving guest worker programs masked as amnesty, or charging nominal fines to become an American citizen mocks and demeans the sacrifices of legal immigrants. Illegally crossing our border and breaking our immigration laws must carry real and serious consequences. Rick Santorum will not vote for any immigration bill that includes amnesty.

… Reform the System and Defend American Culture
Rick Santorum supports an improved worker verification program to protect American taxpayers from fraudulent benefit payouts. He is pushing to make temporary workers just that — temporary, not citizens.

“An improved worker verification program” means “an improved E-Verify.”

Rick Santorum is quite serious about illegal immigration.

Really Ann, I’m supposed to believe that you didn’t know ANY of this?

UPDATE 2:Stacy McCain Notes Rick Santorum Calling Out Ann Coulter”

Share

16 Comments

  1. Just finished reading Ann’s column. I knew something was fishy. Every informed and sensible American knows that bills in Congress are often larded up with pork, earmarks, or just plain ol’ BS that doesn’t belong in the bill, so I knew there had to be more to the story of Santorum voting against E-Verify than what Ann was telling us. And now, thanks to Bizzyblog, I know the rest of the story. I only wish Bizzyblog’s rebuttal would be seen by as many as those who read Ann’s column. This site was the 30th hit on a Google search, With 27 of the 1st 30 hits being links to Ann’s column.

    Comment by Elias — December 30, 2011 @ 12:31 am

  2. A few points:

    While I agree with your post here completely, I think the use of the term “gal” and “dearie” in referring to Ann is over the top and a bit patronizing and condescending. I don’t think I’ve ever heard you talk so to say Pelosi or Michelle Obama. So that bothers me a little. Also, Ann’s analysis was way off, but calling it “disgraceful” is a tad overblown. Even the best commit errors, including grievous ones.

    I disagree with her (and others) notion that the GOP candidate has to run from the center or “appeal” to the blue states. Considering that the majority of the country is center right I think such a tactic is doomed to fail. It sure didn’t work for McCain. Even in Blue States there are large amounts of increasing right wingers who want nothing to do with “moderation.” So I reject her “had to win in a blue state” criteria.

    Comment by zf — December 30, 2011 @ 8:16 am

  3. Forgot to mention: it looks like we’re going to be stuck with either Mitt or Newt, because I don’t see Rick or Bachmann gaining enough ground to get the nomination. Sigh.

    So again I ask my so far unanswered question: what do we do? Who do we support among the candidates?

    Comment by zf — December 30, 2011 @ 8:25 am

  4. #1, if you post at Newsbusters, you can post the link there on one of the existing threads that talks about Santorum. I’m not sure if Tom can mirror the post there since Ann Coulter’s opinion piece is not what NB considers an MSM mishandling of the facts. BUT, then again Tom, it is a mishandling of the facts as you have pointed out. Bias is bias even when a conservative does it. Ann, while clearly a conservative, has demonstrated her bias in favor of Romney to the point she has mishandled the facts which is an affront to conservatism (at least mine anyway and it disappoints me.)

    IMO there is no perfect candidate in the Republican field and so by default we must choose the one who will be #1 the least offensive to our conservative views and #2 the most likely bow to peer pressure from the conservative base on things we viscerally object. W eventually bowed to our objections on amnesty and this in my mind mitigates his wrong thinking on the matter as he respected the base enough so as not to jam it down our throats in a fait accompli as Obama would if given the opportunity like he did with ObamaCare and other issues. This IMO makes Gingrich and Perry more acceptable.

    My big issue is of experience running an organization, we shouldn’t nominate a person like Santorum or Bachmann who really doesn’t have executive experience. If Obama proved anything, it was the POTUS position is NOT one that lends itself to on the job training. Either you have the skills and temperament to lead or you don’t. I have seen this in the business sector myself when people are promoted to management positions who may be great technically with the subject matter but totally lack the ability to organize consensus. It is clear by Gingrich’s track record in Congress that he successfully does have this ability. I may not be happy with his solutions but he at least is open to scrapping them when things are pointed out that make them untenable. Gingrich has a solution for everything, but many of them are NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    Perry as a governor has demonstrated leadership as well however, given his initially very poor reflexive response on subsidizing the cost of children of illegals college education we see his inner liberal has not been shed and more importantly that he is easily misled (vulnerable) via liberal emotional appeals. That’s a bad leadership trait. Ironically and most illuminating is Romney’s political capitalizing on what he believes the conservative base’s hot button issues when pointing out Perry’s faults. Romney is a stereotypical politician, an opportunist who tells people what they want to hear. Just because someone tells you what you want doesn’t mean they will do what you want, i.e. the individual mandate and gay marriage in Mass. No one should trust Romney, period. Obama proved that point as well to the independents and moderates when he told them what they wanted to hear to gloss over his putrid background (Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Blgojavich, etc.)

    Comment by dscott — December 30, 2011 @ 8:38 am

  5. #2, I disagree.

    When a person as smart as Ann deliberately puts out a column so obviously misleading (and IMO, fundamentally dishonest, as IMO she knows she’s deliberately deceiving her readers), it’s open season.

    Ann Coulter IS “Mitt Romney’s gal.” There is as far as I can tell nothing he can do which will inspire an objection from her, because (wonder of wonders) he was a blue-state Republican governor (so were Romney’s three predecessors but NOT his successor, but Ann doesn’t seem to get that). If I had time I would have put her in a cheerleader’s uniform. She has for the past four-plus years deliberately ignored (and as pointed out previously, hung up the phone) on people who have tried to challenge her on Romney’s proven imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts to the point of calling such people “the equivalent of 9/11 truthers.” I maintain that she either KNOWS we are right and chooses to ridicule rather than engage, or has shut her mind down to what is obvious.

    And I’m sorry, but her “analysis” was disgraceful and so divorced from the facts and reality that “disgraceful” ends up being a relatively kind term. Romney will NOT “overturn” Obamacare. Santorum IS for E-Verify. IMO, these are not careless or lazy mistakes. They are, well, disgraceful attempts to mislead readers who trust her.

    UPDATE, 11:15 a.m.: My use of “guy” seven times to describe men in this post is consistent with the “gal” tag I hung on Coulter — once. In that sense, taking offense at the “gal” tag seems to be a real stretch.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 30, 2011 @ 8:39 am

  6. #1, within the unfortunate time constraints, we’re working on the visibility thing.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 30, 2011 @ 8:42 am

  7. #3, Money goes to winners and people who show they have the big mo. Let’s see what happens Tuesday.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 30, 2011 @ 8:43 am

  8. Thanx for this-after I read Ann’s column yesterday, I was struck by her ignoring very recent comments by Romney as to keeping parts of ObamaCare that “work” I also found it hard to believe that Rick opposed E-Verify. I appreciate you clearing it up.

    Ann has crossed over into KathleenParkerLand.

    I’m almost 100% in the ABO camp-but Romney will be a tough one to choke down

    Comment by MM — December 30, 2011 @ 9:00 am

  9. #5, I disagree with your disagree. I’ve seen no evidence that she is deliberately misleading anyone and lying. And no, “but the facts are so obvious that she just has to be lying” is not convincing. I consider you a smart guy, Tom, but there are times when I’ve seen you say or take certain potions that to me I can’t understand how such a smart person could possibly be saying or taking that postion. But that doesn’t mean I’ve considered for a second your were deliberately lying and misleading people. Just as I’m sure I’ve said things (maybe what I’m saying right now, lol) that you must think are incredibly stupid. (I won’t assume that you think I’m smart, because that would be presumptuous on my part.) But I doubt you think I’m intentionally trying to hurt people.

    But be all means lets turn on Ann and call her a liar and accuse her of evilly misleading people on purpose. That’s exactly what the liberals want because of all conservatives Ann is one of the few who exposes them for what they are and pulls no punches. They’d love for us to “purge” her. I don’t think her being wrong, and in the process getting facts wrong (which is usually how you end up being wrong) rises to the label of disgraceful. Also, I agree that she is Milt Romney’s gal, it’s just that the term gal in this case rubbed me the wrong way.

    Comment by zf — December 30, 2011 @ 9:40 am

  10. #9, I did not come by that conclusion lightly. But the evidence is painfully strong, going all the way back to an e-mail she sent me four years ago (with no communicated expectation of privacy) which contradicts her published stance. See the last half of this post — and if time, listen to what’s presented in the YouTube in the first half.

    Something is seriously amiss here.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 30, 2011 @ 10:39 am

  11. #4, Your point about executive experience is well taken, BUT, I don’t think Obama is a good example that lack of executive experience means you can’t be President. The real problem with Obama is that the guy just isn’t that bright or talented to begin with. He doesn’t have any real experience in *anything* not just at leading. His resume was thinner than Kate Moss’s arm. All of the training in the world, on the job, in the job, or beside the job wouldn’t help him. You just can’t put lipstick on a pig.

    In regards to your business experience, I don’t doubt that that has occurred, but I also don’t doubt that the opposite has occurred, that people with little exec experience have been put it into those positions and done well.

    It’s just that I don’t like this absolute idea that unless you have executive experience you shouldn’t run or be elected for Pres at all at any time. It makes the field so very, very narrow.

    Plus, the way our very wise founders structured the government and layered and staggered it, a President does not necessarily have to be the greatest leadership skillsperson to get things done.

    The sad thing about the current GOP contender crop is that we did have a golden opportunity to put pretty much anyone we wanted into the White House and we blew it with this weak field.

    In regards to Gingrich, his leadership skills are still open to question, IMHO. It doesn’t help that he got kicked out of the only real leadership position he was ever in. Regardless of whether it was fair or not, it just does not bode good. He might be an effective leader, but to where? He’s such a mixed bag, it might be the toilet.

    Comment by zf — December 30, 2011 @ 10:54 am

  12. [...] Coulter Endorses Rick Santorum (Update: Santorum Ran on E-Verify in 2006) 0 Translatorvar ackuna_src = "en";Ann Coulter Endorses Rick Santorum (Update: Santorum Ran on [...]

    Pingback by Ann Coulter Endorses Rick Santorum (Update: Santorum Ran on E-Verify in 2006) | PERSUASION IN INK — December 30, 2011 @ 1:02 pm

  13. [...] See Also, Bizzy Blog: Ann Coulter Endorses Rick Santorum (Update: Santorum Ran on E-Verify in 2006) [...]

    Pingback by Friday Free-For-All: Iowa Caucus Edition « Nice Deb — December 30, 2011 @ 1:51 pm

  14. [...] have mercy, that Coulter write-up yesterday was how long? (Over 1,900 [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — December 30, 2011 @ 6:11 pm

  15. [...] – Dec. 29 — Ann Coulter Endorses Rick Santorum – Dec. 30 — Ann Coulter Endorses Rick Santorum: [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — December 30, 2011 @ 6:34 pm

  16. [...] (e.g., on shamnesty, which McCain supported in 2006 and which Rick Santorum opposed, contrary to Ann Coulter’s deliberate mislead last week), and therefore no ability to withstand a general election takeout by Team Obama (or to [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — January 4, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.