January 5, 2012

Incurable Romniac Ann Coulter Smears Rick Santorum

RomneySignsHealthBill0406Three items in Ann Coulter’s latest column are so self-evidently false that they simply cannot be accidents.

First:

Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

This is from the woman who falsely claimed last week (as shown in two BizzyBlog posts: long version; short version) that Santorum opposes E-Verify because he voted against the de facto immigration amnesty bill (which happened to contain E-Verify — big whoop), but has otherwise consistently supported E-Verify.

Oh, did I mention that the amnesty bill Santorum voted against was co-sponsored by John McCain, who endorsed Mitt Romney yesterday, and, uh … Ted Kennedy?

And who can forget that Ann Coulter’s very next column after the 2006 shamnesty vote ripped into Republicans who supported the law, thereby taking the same position of opposition Rick Santorum took when he voted against it the previous week?

Coulter’s “Ted Kennedy” slur — and yes, I consider associating Rick Santorum with the criminal of Chappaquiddick a sluris not an accident or oversight. Santorum corrected “Chairman Ann” about McCain-Kennedy and E-Verify publicly last week. Clearly, she has thrown any concern about the truth overboard.

Second and third:

The Catholic missionary (i.e., Santorum — Ed.) was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous “bridge to nowhere.”

Coulter has a point on earmarks, but it ends there:

  • A Manchester Union Leader editorial today with a great title (“Establish-Mitt: Romney the insider”) notes that Coulter’s guy Mitt Romney also supported No Child Left Behind, which was championed by George W. Bush and, uh … Ted Kennedy.
  • Mitt Romney didn’t just do a “drug entitlement.” He established comprehensive, state-run, abortion-allowing health care, i.e., RomneyCare, something Santorum has always opposed, when he was Massachusetts Governor, using many of the same people who moved on to design the statist nightmare known as Obamacare. Standing by at the RomneyCare law’s signing ceremony was the one, the only … (as seen at the top right) Ted Kennedy.

That’s three huge whoppers about Santorum or Santorum v. Romney.

What Bill Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection wrote a week ago has again been shown to be true, this time in triplicate:

Ann’s a lawyer, so she knows that omitting material facts can be just as much a fraud as stating false facts.

… Ann Coulter is willing to say anything to elect Romney.

Coulter’s high-water mark was Treason. That was nine years ago. Since then, when it comes to Republican presidential politics, she has gradually turned into a reckless polemicist with almost no regard for the truth.

Oh, and one more thing — Here’s Coulter in yesterday’s column:

Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that (i.e., defeating Obama — Ed.) won.

Here is Coulter in February 2011:

(at the 0:45 mark) I’ll put it in a nutshell: If we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee, and we’ll lose.

__________________________________________

UPDATE: At Legal Insurrection — “Coulter: Santorum ‘more of a Catholic than a conservative’”

UPDATE 2: The comments at the NewsBusters post of Chairman Ann’s column are mostly less than complimentary.

Share

10 Comments

  1. Look, Ann is way off on Romney and is allowing her misguided loyalty to lead her down many false paths. But this ceaseless and very personal attack on her for it is out of control and incredibly Pyrrhic in it’s eventual outcome if it continues. We will have torn her down, and one of the more powerful pieces on our chessboard will be removed and the left will have even more room to maneuver.

    Can’t we civilly disagree? It’s telling that Ann has not personally attacked any conservative blogger or columnist by name yet many have done the same to her. That’s sad and tragic.

    In regards to her comparing Santorum to Kennedy, I think it’s a stretch to say it’s a slur in the sense you make it. It’s obvious she means the comparison in a political sense (a lot of people will compare a left leaning Republican to being like Ted Kennedy, because Ted is such an hideous example of liberalism) not that Santorum would commit a likewise murder or has the same morals. I’ve seen plenty of conservatives compare various Republican politicians with Ted but not once did I assume that meant they were saying the politician was murderous or personally reprehensible like Ted. Heck, I’ve sometimes said, “this guy or woman is like Ted Kennedy” and not once was I meaning it to say, “yeah, he or she is a murderer like Ted.”

    In regards to Bill Jacobson, I like and respect the guy. But for him to imply that “so much” of what the Left says about her is “true” is the real slur and is ridiculous. The idea that she will “say anything” to elect Romney is unproven. For instance, she has not said Romney is like Reagan. In regards to her *intentionally* omitting facts, I’m sorry, but unless you have a photographic memory you’re not going to mention every single possible fact in a discussion. I’ve seen Jacobson make more then a few such errors himself, but never once did I think that meant he was deliberately doing so. And Will, you’ve made some very questionable calls yourself, such as implying that it’s okay to pass a bill that tramples constitutional rights, just so long as it upholds other rights and is overall for the “greater good.” Very tyrannical and short sighted that was. So, you have not always been a conservative purist yourself. So what right does he have to try and purge Ann? To say that liberal attacks on a conservative are true is the ultimate slap in the face and stab in the back.

    And if a conservative sticking to his or her guns (rightly or wrongly) makes them a “reckless polemic” then we are all polemics.

    In regards to Ann mention Mitt losing and now saying he can win, c’mon. That previous statement was nearly a year ago. Mitt’s position (as everyones) has changed a lot since then. Inarguably (good or not) Mitt is stronger now than in Feb. of last year. If we’re going to have the high ground on the Mitt issue, we can’t engage in the same sloppiness that Ann is.

    Comment by zf — January 5, 2012 @ 11:40 am

  2. [...] Romniac Ann Coulter Smears Rick Santorum 0 Translatorvar ackuna_src = "en";Incurable Romniac Ann Coulter Smears Rick Santorum, [...]

    Pingback by Incurable Romniac Ann Coulter Smears Rick Santorum | PERSUASION IN INK — January 5, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

  3. #1, look, I get the criticism, and have to emphasize that I didn’t come to my assessments lightly.

    These unforced errors from someone who knows the law, the Constitution (US and MA), and follows the news closely are at a minimum irresponsibly reckless and at a maximum deliberately designed to falsely discredit Romney’s opponents, apparently even if her hard-fought reputation earned during the decade preceding 2003, which didn’t really go into serious decline until 2007, goes up in flames.

    In a way, it’s analogous to Romney himself post-Goodridge in 2003 and 2004, when social conservatives were saying, “He wouldn’t betray us like that, would he?” My reaction to Coulter’s calamities is: “She’s not really burning down her credibility before our eyes, is she?”

    Every time I read Ann’s falsehoods, all too often I’m forced to wonder why’s she’s saying them, because she can’t really believe them herself. She’s tearing herself down. Her rep in the conservative blogosphere has dropped significantly over the years (see this and this and this and this).

    Oh, and did I mention GOProud? Even taking it on faith that it is a legitimate Republican group, it’s a group from which even gay-sympathetic Andrew Breitbart resigned last month because of their nasty habit of outing people. If it bothers GOProud advisory board member Ann, as far as I know she hasn’t told us.

    Remember, SHE is the one who 2-1/2 years ago likened anyone who dares speak the truth about how Romney imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts — which now includes Rick Santorum — to the 9/11 truthers. She doesn’t get a pass for that merely because of the alleged conservative pedestal on which she supposedly sits.

    As to her change of tune on Romney’s electability, I think she owes us an explanation as to what changed her mind, which as far as I know she’s never provided. But she’s seemingly above being accountable for her changing opinions.

    Comment by TBlumer — January 5, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

  4. #1, Uhmmm,

    But this ceaseless and very personal attack on her for it is out of control and incredibly Pyrrhic in it’s eventual outcome if it continues.

    Don’t you think this should be directed to the person who is making waves by engaging in out of control personal attacks in the first place, i.e. Ann? It’s one thing to truth tell, i.e. Swift Boat someone for covering up their hyped resume and less than glorious behavior, stances and character, it’s quite another to be literally misleading people about the opponent.

    Our objection here is Ann is not playing cricket (consistent), we can’t complain about the double standards of liberals when Ann is employing the same kind of smearing we have come to expect from liberals. If anyone is going for the Pyrrhic victory here its Ann when she goes over the top in bashing GOP candidates to advance Romney. Her behavior is unacceptable and she is damaging her own standing in the Conservative community by acting like a liberal.

    Comment by dscott — January 5, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

  5. As I tweeted yesterday, there’s something going on between AC and the Romney campaign in exchange for her nonsensical shilling and fluffing. My guess is some quid pro quo (i.e. $ or job).

    Comment by Joe C. — January 5, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

  6. #5, the least you can do is link me to your tweet. :–>

    Thx. HERE it is.

    Comment by TBlumer — January 5, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

  7. [...] Tom at BizzyBlog addresses a number of Coulter’s charges against Santorum, Incurable Romniac Ann Coulter Smears Santorum. [...]

    Pingback by » Coulter: Santorum “more of a Catholic than a conservative” - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion — January 5, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

  8. #6, HUH? I don’t tweet. twitter, or whatever that crazy thing-a-ma-bob program does. That’s what posting at blogs are for…

    Heck, I don’t like Facebook either, I have just have an account to check up on the kids.

    Comment by dscott — January 5, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

  9. #8, my bad. My comment counter in the WP control panel wasn’t updating timely.

    Comment by TBlumer — January 5, 2012 @ 5:34 pm

  10. With Ann Coulter on our side, who needs Democrats? Her refusal to tell the truth about the legal aspects of Romney’s dysfunction is ignorant at best, complicit at worst, and her arrogance is both disgraceful and dangerous. She is proof that law schools do indeed employ affirmative action for blondes.

    Comment by Rose — January 6, 2012 @ 10:43 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.