Tag Archives: presidential election

Coulter Dictates

Since becoming a conservative celebrity in 1998, Ann Coulter has felt compelled to dictate to Americans whom they should vote for. In the last presidential cycle, Coulter foisted Romney on reluctant Republicans, and we all know how that turned out. (Although Coulter, alone, still thinks Romney was an “ideal” candidate who ran a “magnificent” campaign.)

Ever since Romney’s debacle in 2012, Coulter has insisted that only governors or senators run for president. (But wasn’t Romney a former governor?)

Now Coulter is becoming even more strident in her zeal to coronate the next Republican nominee.


Nevertheless, with the 2016 election almost two years away, Coulter is insistent that her choices – and only her choices – be considered as Republican nominees for President.

Coulter’s Criteria for President

On Fox & Friends, Coulter explained, “On the Republican side, for the first time ever, I would really like if we didn’t have a bunch of crazy candidates.”[1]

Those “crazy candidates” would, of course, be those who were not governors or senators.

Coulter again reiterated her general criteria for a presidential nominee: “If you haven’t been a governor or a senator – preferably a governor – please do not run for President as a Republican.”

She then whittled away specific candidates who do not conform to her criteria: “We do not want Carly Fiorina. I love her, but no, she can’t run.”

Who is “we,” Ann? Who says “we” don’t want Carly? And why “can’t” she run?

Coulter quickly continued, “Same thing with Ben Carson. Fantastic surgeon. I never wanted Ronald Reagan to be my surgeon.”

Who asked Reagan to perform surgery? How about another non sequitur – Did Ann ask Reagan to act?

Next, Coulter dispensed with an entire category of politicians: “You can’t have congressmen.”

What does Coulter mean by “You can’t have …?” Coulter is telling us (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, Americans) whom we can or cannot nominate! What we can or cannot do!

Advocacy for a particular candidate or policy position is one thing, but dictating whom we can vote for is quite another.

Coulter’s Very Short List

In the end, Coulter offered conservatives her four choices for Republican presidential candidates: “No wasting time. It’s down to Romney, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, or Scott Walker. That’s it, Republicans!”

Romney and Christie are both on her very short list. 50% RINOs! Romney – her first choice! Again!

And why is Christie back in favor if amnesty is the single most important issue facing Americans today? Remember, Coulter claimed, “I’m now a single-issue voter (on immigration), so Christie is off my list.”[2] Moreover, Coulter insisted, “The only thing I can’t forgive [Chris Christie] for is amnesty.”[3]

It makes no sense!

I guess Coulter has forgiven Christie. Or, far more likely, she does not care that Christie is a RINO. All that matters to Coulter is that Christie is “electable.”

Coulter’s entire convoluted set of criteria for presidential candidates is not really about selecting the best candidate, but the most electable one. For Coulter, it’s about position, not policies.

Whereas most conservatives want a robust and vigorous debate, Coulter wants to stifle and control debate – and be the one in control.

When she tells us she ponders being “czar of the universe,” it should give us pause. When she admits that she wants and needs to be the “ayatollah of the conservative movement,” we have been forewarned. We have already seen her habitual abuse of power.

Principles have never been very important to Ann Coulter. Not in her personal life. Not in her professional life. Not in her spiritual life. And clearly not in politics.


[1]       Ann Coulter, Fox & Friends, FNC, 12/6/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, CPAC, 3/16/13.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 11/6/13.