Tag Archives: Christie

Coulter Wrong Again! Romney Caves on Amnesty!

Ann Coulter is wrong again!

In the wake of a GOP election tsunami with a decisive anti-Obama mandate, Mitt Romney caves to a lame-duck president whose policies and agenda were repudiated at the ballot box.


Romney caves on amnesty!

Romney envisions a multi-pronged approach to immigration reform which one could call “comprehensive,” a code-word for amnesty (because the Obama administration would ignore border security provisions in any law and solely enforce amnesty provisions).

Indeed, Romney “indicated that he still felt the new Congress should pass a more permanent amnesty bill.”[1]

For years, Ann Coulter has extolled Romney’s virtues, calling him a perfect, magnificent, and ideal candidate. Amnesty was Coulter’s primary issue.

According to Coulter, “Amnesty is a winner for Republicans and it will only help in 2016, and I would use Romney as an example. That was the reason I supported Romney. He was very good on immigration.”[2]

Coulter has repeatedly claimed that Romney was and remains the very best GOP candidate on immigration. Repeatedly, in 2014 alone, Coulter has championed Romney, asserting, “that’s why Mitt Romney was my favorite candidate, he was the most aggressive on immigration.”[3]

Now that Romney has adopted the very same comprehensive immigration strategy as Sen. Marco Rubio once did – a strategy Coulter ridiculed from a senator she excoriated – what will Coulter do? Excoriate her presidential beau?

Remember, Coulter continually favors establishment Republicans over Tea Party candidates. And she falls in love with RINOs for president, from Romney to Christie.

Coulter desperately wants to be a president maker and she has long contended that she knows better than most Americans and better than most politicos. Her hubris – and her many errors in presidential prognostication – dictate that we should Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.


[1]       Tony Lee, “Mitt Romney: Republicans Should ‘Swallow Hard,’ Pass “Permanent’ Amnesty Bill,” Breitbart, 11/27/14, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/26/Mitt-Romney-Republicans-Should-Swallow-Hard-Pass-Permanent-Amnesty-Bill. See also, Tony Lee, “Mitt Romney; Not Healthy Congress Hasn’t Passed Amnesty,” Breitbart, 5/30/14, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/30/Mitt-Romney-Not-Healthy-Congress-Hasn-t-Passed-Amnesty. See Also, Mike Lillis, “GOP hardliners won’t attack Romney’s ‘amnesty’ plan on illegal immigration,” The Hill, 6/23/12, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/234401-gop-hardliners-wont-attack-romneys-amnesty-plan.

[2]       Ann Coulter, Kelly File, FNC, 6/10/14.

[3]       Ann Coulter, CPAC 2014, 3/8/14.

Ann Coulter, Orwell’s Protégé

Ann Coulter was recently called a “Manchurian Columnist,” conjuring up images of propaganda and brainwashing. Certainly, Coulter is the consummate propagandist and her recent polemic against Republican Senate candidate Chris McDaniel is representative of her work.


Orwellian Techniques

Coulter utilizes many Orwellian techniques to fool her readers into believing her big lies. Among them, Newspeak, doublethink, the memory hole, and character assassination. Coulter also uses humor and ridicule to delegitimize her foes, and uses exaggeration to effect.

Let’s look at a few of the techniques she used in her attack on Chris McDaniel and his campaign. (Remember, McDaniel is a surrogate for the Tea Party and all those who oppose her establishment candidates.)

Coulter’s Big Lies

Since 9/11, Coulter has postulated two principle big lies which were presented in her 2003 best-seller, Treason. Treason – and the entirety of Ann Coulter’s post-impeachment work – is predicated upon a worldview encapsulated by two equations: liberalism = terrorism = treason and conservatism = McCarthyism = patriotism. No subtleties or ambiguities. No nuances. No sense.

Moreover, Coulter claimed that “The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times.” In 2005, at CPAC, Coulter even called for a New McCarthyism.

But even before then, in order to ensure the candidacy of her man, George W. Bush, Coulter attacked presidential candidate Gary Bauer, calling him a fascist. Her political equation, her big lie? Christian conservative = fascist. Her essay title: “Must Christian Conservatives be Fascists?” Why were they fascists? For seeking a constitutional solution to abortion.

Now, to promote her RINO establishment Republican bedfellows, Coulter has come up with addition political equations, additional big lies:

Being Principled is Unprincipled

Tea Party is bad; Establishment Republicans are good

RINO = True Conservative

 Coulter uses Orwellian techniques to undergird her big lies.


For years now, Coulter has conflated Tea Party and establishment Republicans, switching identities and descriptions. She frequently denigrates members of the Tea Party – and entire organizations – to support her RINO establishment candidates.

Coulter attacked McDaniel’s team (“Clowns and nuts”), claiming selfishness and an obliviousness to endangering a potential Republican majority:

“But some McDaniel supporters can’t think about anything but winning this one primary. They don’t care that they’re gambling with a Republican majority in the Senate …”

But Coulter defended McDaniel’s rival:

“In Mississippi, they’re attempting to destroy a good Republican.”


Targeting McDaniel, Coulter avers that the principled thing to do is to be unprincipled. Coulter admits to election irregularities, yet she wants McDaniel to concede – and to ignore the obvious criminal activities of his opponent. Voter fraud by conservatives is unimportant to her. Coulter wants to save the GOP by destroying its soul.

Similarly, during and after the 2012 election, Coulter attacked pro-lifers for being pro-life (just as she did in 2000).

Coulter acknowledges bad blood between McDaniel and Cochran (between the Tea Party and establishment), yet she repeatedly urges McDaniel to concede so that he can be next in line.

What? The establishment doesn’t want McDaniel, who is anti-establishment. But Coulter writes, “McDaniel’s crew is going to prevent him from having any political career, ever again.” Coulter cautions, “Better to be magnanimous and live to fight another day.”

According to Coulter, his campaign is “destroying McDaniel’s future prospects. (Which could come soon – Cochran isn’t getting any younger.)”

Coulter doesn’t make any sense at all!

Memory Hole

As noted in my previous essay, Coulter “forgot” about Al Gore, Al Franken, and Lisa Murkowski, who did not fit her thesis. Many other examples could have been provided of politicians whose careers thrived after contesting election results.

Coulter also wrote of Richard Nixon, but failed to grasp two salient points. First, Nixon was from a completely different political and cultural era. Second, Nixon was an anomaly. Having lost in 1960, he won in 1968 and 1972. Nixon resigned in ignominy over Watergate, yet rehabilitated his legacy as an author and statesman.

Coulter’s Orwellian constructs emulate Big Brother’s insistence that two plus two equals five.

Additional Resources:

Free Book: Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, available at  www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.


Coulter is Just Wrong About McDaniel

Coulter is wronglegally and politically – about McDaniel because she supports the establishment candidate over him.[1]


The almost two-decades long legal correspondent for Human Events should know better.

Coulter’s Claim: McDaniel can’t win!

“Cochran won the runoff by 7,667 votes, according to the certified vote count announced this week. McDaniel’s partisans don’t just have to prove that more than seven-thousand ineligible voters went to the polls, but also that they all voted for Cochran, not McDaniel. Good luck with that.”

Reality: The election results should be invalidated

The validity of that election is in dispute for a variety of legal and ethical reasons. There are ample reasons for invalidating this run-off and redoing it. Among them, credible accusations of fraud, bribery, destruction of records, illegal crossover votes, and absentee ballot fraud.

The GOP establishment engaged in a multitude of shenanigans to prevent a McDaniel victory. Coulter is part of the establishment.

According to the law, it must be shown that legal votes have been rejected, or illegal votes have been received, and that because of the one or the other, or both, the result does not conform to the will of the voters, or uncertainty has been case upon the result …”

Or consider the decision in NOXUBEE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC E. COM. v. RUSSELL, 443 So.2d 1191 (1983): “We have employed a two pronged test which though it has been stated in different ways, essentially provides that special elections will be required only when (1) enough illegal votes were cast for the contestee to change the result of the election, or (2) so many votes are disqualified that the will of the voters is impossible to discern.”

True the Vote and other organizations are seeking to prove – credibly – that this is the case.

Coulter’s Claim: Republicans wanted Cochran

“There’s no reason to think that a majority of Mississippi Republicans didn’t want Cochran as their nominee.”

Reality: More Republicans voted for McDaniel than Cochran

If Republicans were flocking to Cochran why was Cochran so desperate to reach out to Democrats?

“Coulter falsely argues that Cochran actually won the majority of Republican votes. … McDaniel won the Republican primary and Cochran won the Democratic run-off.”

Coulter’s Claim: McDaniel could be next in line

“…McDaniel’s crew is going to prevent him from having any political career, ever again.”

“They don’t care that they’re gambling with a Republican majority in the Senate – or destroying McDaniel’s future prospects. (Which could come soon – Cochran isn’t getting any younger.)”

Reality: McDaniel is anathema to GOP establishment

Say what? A compliant McDaniel toeing the party line could be Cochran’s successor? On what planet! The GOP establishment has vilified McDaniel who is opposed to them. The Tea Party wants to replace the establishment.

Coulter’s Claim: Al Gore destroyed his career by contesting election results

“Observe that no one is asking Al Gore to run again, except maybe his cardiologist. Even in cases of actual vote fraud, history shows that the contesting politicians get branded as sore losers and destroy their political careers. Better to be magnanimous and live to fight another day.”

Reality: Somehow “sore losers” become winners

Gore remained a significant force within the Democratic Party during the Bush ’43 presidency and he remains a hero to the green movement.

As for destroyed political careers, Al Franken contested his defeat (an eight-month battle) and is now a senator from Minnesota. Also consider Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, who lost her primary but was elected to the Senate by write-in votes.

Ann Coulter – an Establishment Flack

Coulter has been an establishment RINO for many, many years. In the last election cycle, she attacked every Republican who threatened the candidacy of her political savior, Mitt Romney. Indeed, she still regards his as an exemplary candidate who should run for president in 2016.[2]

As a consequence of her factually-challenged polemics, the reputations of good people have been tarnished and the conservative brand has been damaged.

Ann Coulter lost her conservative credentials and her credibility a long, long time ago.[3]


Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.


[1]       Ann Coulter, “Tea Party: Learn From Al Gore,” 7/9/14.

[2]       See “Case Study # 7: Mitt Romney – Ideal Candidate,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]       See Chapter 11: “The Beauty of Conservatism,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

Ann Coulter Attacks Principled Conservatives

Ann Coulter, called “The Manchurian Columnist” by the American Family Association, is busy attacking the Tea Party again. As Bryan Fischer notes, “her attack on McDaniel and his camp is wrongheaded and unprincipled in almost every respect.”


Using rhetoric similar to her attack on soccer fans and players (“throwing hissy fits,” crying on camera), Coulter, in a “condescending and patronizing” manner wrote that McDaniel was behaving as if he were in a “prom queen election.” Rather, Fischer writes, “It’s a hotly contested election for a seat in the most powerful deliberative body in the world.”

Fischer provides numerous principled reasons to contest the primary results, including vote-buying, Cochran campaign irregularities, and other election abnormalities.

According to Fischer, “Coulter falsely argues that Cochran actually won the majority of Republican votes,” adding, “McDaniel won the Republican primary and Cochran won the Democratic run-off.”

Last year, Fischer took Coulter to task for attacking Tea Party candidates.

Coulter claims, “There’s no reason to think that a majority of Mississippi Republicans didn’t want Cochran as their nominee.”

A Red State analysis of the Mississippi election concludes: “But careful analysis of what Chris McDaniel repeatedly said on the campaign trail, against the backdrop of what voters want, shows that McDaniel understood both the people and the community he sought to represent.”

Moreover, “McDaniel, a two term state senator, is a man who knows the people he sought to represent. It is worth pointing out that in his home county, voters supported him with a solid 85% of the vote. Cochran didn’t receive that majority in any other county.”

What does Ann Coulter have against genuine conservatives? Coulter attacks what she is not.

Standing up for principles – and for principled conservatives – seems to be very difficult for Coulter. Indeed, taking Coulter’s “pragmatic” approach has proven counterproductive for several election cycles.

Coulter’s election analysis for several years has been abysmal. Claiming to be a conservative, Coulter consistently attacks the Tea Party and promotes candidates like Romney and Christie. Her political analysis cannot be trusted. See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.