“Bombastic” is Ann Coulter’s favorite new word in attacking Newt Gingrich. (irony noted)
Coulter was on O’Reilly last night lambasting Newt as “bombastic” with no policy accomplishments.
Mark Levin, no supporter of Newt, has come to his defense, much as Andrew McCarthy dissented from National Review’s hit job on Newt.
The full audio is at Right Scoop. It is a must listen-to, and reflects what I hope will be a growing backlash (emphasis mine):
[Coulter] won’t even give the man credit for what he has achieved! Taking back the House from 44 years of Democrat monopoly was never thought possible and in doing so he had to defeat the Republican establishment! You can’t even give him that?
No they can’t, because they have a hate-on. They have a hate-on. …
Do you know why I resent this? Because now we have a bunch of bullies running around. And Giuliani was 100% right. They’re trying to turn this guy into a crazy man.
And I resent it and I resist it! He’s not even my guy and I resent it and I resist it!
Coulter, who told us just 11 months ago that Romney was certain to lose to Obama, has become the face of the anti-Newt strategy of crazy, at least on Fox News.
Now Coulter has turned on the Tea Party as well, claiming that supporters of the Tea Party movement do not support Romney because they want someone not just to go birther on Obama, but to do so bombastically (h/t HotAir):
Pemmaraju pressed Coulter on Romney’s conservatism, adding that the Tea Party has resisted him strongly, an indication he may not be as conservative as she thinks. Coulter replied that the Tea Party was “wrong about this” because “they’re looking at who is going to go around bombastically demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate or calling him a Kenyan,” instead of substance. She added that “Rick Santorum and [Rick] Perry are very bad on illegal immigration” despite being considered more conservative.
Like Glenn Beck, Coulter is playing the race card on Tea Party supporters, and not just those who support Newt.
Some in the conservative media who support Romney are becoming his worst enemies, and destroying their own credibility in the process. When Ann Coulter calls Tea Party members birthers for not supporting Romney, the end is near.
Listen to audio starting at 4:00 mark:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Does Ann think that if her boy Mitt does get the nomination the Tea Party people she’s bashing are going to be inclined to listen to her sing his praises? Or buy her books? Does she think this switch is going to convince the “cool” kids in the GOP to stop thinking she’s a loud mouthed embarrassment to the Party?
Does she think that people will just toe the party line and vote for Willard Romney?
Like they didn’t for McCain?
Indies?
For some reason she must feel that it’s important to insult the people who are the real grass roots of conservatism in favor of the country club, big R Republicans.
Of course, this sort of action does make it easier for my predictions to hold true.
I don’t like being accurate about the future. I just am.
Ann and Glenn aren’t thinking clearly, especially Beck with his brandy new tv network.
After they piss off conservatives, who do they think is going to be reading/watching them? #OWS?
As far as credibility goes, I stopped listening to her when she was singing praises of Christie. As far as I’m concerned, he’s in the same category as Romney; and I’m not buying it.
I like Christie and if I could get to sit down with him for ten minutes I think that I could change his mind regarding climate change and illegal immigration.
Christie has led NJ out of near bankruptcy by dealing with a bullet proof democrat legislature. He also takes no crap from the MSM.
I think that he’s one of the bright spots in the Republican party…
I can’t bring myself to watch it. It’s just all too depressing to me.
I shudder to think what this country will be like after eight years of Reverend Wright’s disciple.
Ann is a big supporter of Chris Christie, who in turn supports Mitt. Explains Ann’s angle on this – free campaign work.
Ah, anorectic Annie.
I’m about done with her and her starvation induced mental deficiencies.
Go back to attacking Liberals Anne instead of promoting them.
I guess she’s either convinced that the others aren’t “electable” and she’s frantic about it OR she’s afraid she won’t have much of a career if the Republicans actually elect someone who has the wherewithal to straighten things out and get the country back on track.
Given her previous writings and comments, I can’t figure out why/how she’s turned into such an establishment cheerleader.
Old age?
Something happened to Coulter. About a year ago, she started exhibiting symptoms of clinical anti-Semitism, with little gratuitous digs here and there aimed at Joooos. (For ex, she lamented the death of Joe Sobran and wrote a column about alleged rapists, all of them Jewish.) Historically, that kind of thing has been a bellwether of serious craziness ahead.
Whatever my criticism of her, I see nothing along the lines you suggest. It’s a distraction for the issue of her attack on the Tea Party.
As I said, “symptoms of clinical anti-Semitism”–the old, pseudo-polite kind associated with, say, 1950s Connecticut, restricted-country-club Republicans:
1. A stirring obituary for one of America’s cleverest anti-Semites: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39309
2. A column about Dick Blumenthal that gratuitously points out (second graf) his Jewishness: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39409
3. Her infamous comment to Donny Deutsch that Jews need to be “perfected” (I actually don’t mind this so much, since it’s mainstream Christian evangelical theology; her presentation, however, didn’t score any style points): http://www.haaretz.com/news/ann-coulter-s-dream-of-a-jew-free-america-1.231042
4. A tweet from her about Dominique Strauss-Kahn that–well, let it speak for itself: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/05/ann_coulter_dominique_strauss_kahn_rape_tweet.php
5. A column hooked to DSK that goes out of its way to list only Jewish alleged rapists of all sorts (with the exception of Bill Clinton): http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-05-18.html
6. Last, but maybe most tellingly, her obit for the actor Ron Silver, who was a 9/11 convert to the right. If you believe that Silver said what she claims he did (near the end of the column), there’s a bridge in Arizona for sale: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=302
Yes, Coulter is “bombastic”. But she isn’t running for public office. She is a commentator, just like us. She has strongly held views, some of which I disagree with, but she expresses her views with humor in many cases. And if she doesn’t like anyone in the current field, so what.
I do disagree with her tearing down any Republican candidate because the democrats are smart enough to read her columns and blogs and report her “bombastic” comments to Dear Leader. That having been said, the democrats, regardless of what republicans say about the current field, will make up stories consisting of half truths and outright lies, because that is their nature [think alligator and scorpion].
Don’t recall any anti-semitic remarks from her, but I will say that “about a year ago” is when I started getting disenchanted with the formerly fantastic Ms. Coulter.
After pulling out from the primary races in February 2008, Romney went on Caribbean cruise with hundreds of media people for National Review’s annual outing. (And remember Bain bought the Clear Channel media giant.) If a politician or pundit is yammering inexplicably, follow the money.
Umm, didn’t Ann at one time date Bill Maher? Could be residual effect syndrome..
Ann Coulter wearies me. She has become so incredibly strident, and yes, Professor, bombastic. What has happened to her this year? I no longer consider her a relevant voice for the conservative movement. She was losing me before “the Obama Diaries”; when I paged through it at the library one day, she fully lost me. She needs to take that Godawful hair and slink out of sight.
Ummmmm…… The Obama Diaries were written by Laura Ingraham. Did you mean another of Ann’s books, perhaps, besides Demonic?
Ann has been doing some strange things, like her support of Christie and Romney. However, when this started is debatable. Being banned from a Canadian university campus, pushing Keithie Olberman to the point of near-tears because of his Ag school degree – he is NOT a true Cornell grad, her vocal support for the GOProud group at Conservative conferences – all have been interesting twists over the last year or so, revealing layers of her character.
Maybe the research for her book Demonic has had a deep effect on her; the mob attitude is indeed “bombastic” and outspoken. Hmmmmm…..
Hannity keeps asking about Ann’s boyfriend … and she never responds … if that is Maher, then that might explain a lot.
Maybe Ann will go Mormon next, since the conservative Tea party isn’t her cup of … scotch. And I want to see ANN’S birth certificate … something with a biometric ID … I think the old Ann has been kidnapped and replaced. heh
I was cruising around cable news this morning and on MSNBC someone named Josh was on and he was from National Review. He and the host were having a grand time bashing and sliming Newt. It was really weird. A guy from NR as giddy, giggly, and smug as the hosts and news readers on MSNBC.
I wonder if Coulter, NR, and the rest of the insane circular firing squad members have any idea what this will cost them in the long run. Thus far, it has cost them me. The 11th commandment isn’t just being violated, it is dying in an orgy of hate against one of our own.
Coulter lives (and votes) in Palm Beach, in the midst of northeaster crony capitalists and Romney supporters in the prior election. The powers that be in Florida politics currently in office also lean Romney. It’s about what he can do for them. Romney’s campaign in Florida never ended.
Just as Beck’s statement that tea partiers are racist was offensive, so to is Coulter’s that tea partiers are kooks.
Coulter’s “edgy” schtick is tiresome.
Coulter and Beck joining to try to defeat Newt is one of the strangest things I’ve seen since I started watching politics. And I had my diapers pinned with Nixon buttons . . . when he was trying to defeat JFK. And for Beck to push the Tea Party off his bus just boggles the mind.
This is really getting crazy. Don’t these people (Coulter, Beck) realize there is no turning back? It’s not just their preferences for a particular candidate, it’s their need to denigrate the people they supposedly speak for (and earn their money off of). A lot of masks are slipping during this primary, that’s for sure.
Also just saw over at the Daily Caller that Mark Steyn said Newt was a totalitarian on the Hugh Hewitt show. That’s the really disappointing one for me.
I think that most of you seem to be forgetting that bashing Newt is just plain easy due to the simple fact of his history.
It’s easy for me to see but then again, nobody ever listens to me either.
I am gloating a bit about his apparent curve downward but sure ain’t surprised at all.
If Newt were to be elected, most of you would hate him by eighteen months…
18 Months? Try 18 Days. The sudden, unexpected, fierce loyalty to Newt has come about solely because he is the “Not Romney” du jour. Newt’s support is not even an inch thick; it’s all about finding another outlet to express hatred of Romney and all those horrible elitist Republicans who are allegedly propping Mitt up.
In so doing, the Tea Partiers and conservative “grassroots” are behaving no better than the pundit class they revile. To be sure, Ann Coulter is a bombastic bimbo who will say anything to get attention. And, there has been a certain unfortunately and inappropriate disdain for the Tea Partiers on behalf of establishment conservatives over this nomination battle. Beck, Coulter, the editors of NR, Jennifer Rubin, etc. have embarrassed themselves to some extent
However, that being said, there is solid and inescapable reason why I do not take this sudden Newt-love seriously: It is round four. After Bachmann, Perry and Cain. The support of Gingrich is based almost entirely on opposition to Romney. But being “Not” some other candidate does not a successful nominee make.
Can anyone doubt that if Gingrich does beat Romney, the love fest for him will die down relatively quickly? Can anyone doubt that the serious baggage Gingrich has carried throughout this whole contest will once again weigh heavy on the minds of those who right now are his firecest defenders? Can anyone doubt that as Gingrich stumbles and falls repeatedly and faces an all too easy firestorm of attacks from the Obama-Media Axis that his current fanbase will suddenly develop an acute case of buyer’s remorse, suddenly remember why they ignored him back in the summer of 2011 when initially search for their “Not Romney”?
I certainly have no doubts about any of the above.
But Romney will have been destroyed, which seems to be all that matters to the “Not Romney” crowd.
I have never hidden the fact that I am a Romney supporter. But, I recognize his serious flaws and limitations. If there was an alternative who was more electable and at least as conservative, I would jump ship in a heart beat.
But, alas, there is not. Certainly not Gingrich
I do not understand why the thoughtful folks here — and we’re mostly all on the same team — would repeat these negative memes. It’s “round four” only in a soap opera framed by the media. I for one do not want these people choosing my next president. They did that last time (such an exciting hopey-changey reality show). How did that work out.
You mention that this is Round 4 of the Not Romney Games. One would think that by now Romney supporters would have paused a moment to wonder exactly WHY the conservative base is so desperately and specifically against Romney being their nominee. Maybe, just maybe, the base has a pretty good reason.
Coulter and Beck both have shown us their true colors, they are all about the bottom line and it won’t be forgotten. We all have to play the cards on the table, making this primary healthy. I’m just waiting for the outcome, ABO, we can’t afford to lose.
Anne Coulter is a the Republican RINO Party establishment hack journolist mouthpiece, and will say and so anything to stop Newt, and get Romney, her beloved Republican Party RINO candidate, the Republican Nomination.. and she is doing so by playing by the liberal rules of denigration and demeaning insinuating false accusational attacks agaainst Newt, as well as any other Tea Party constitutional conservative candidate.. whether it be Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, etc, makes no difference, as this is what and who she is.. Anne Coulter, Meghan McCain, Laura Ingraham, should all just get a room..
Newt is the only one, who can effectively wipe up Obama, intellectually, factually, politically, histoically, and every other way possible, like a mop on the floor.. But with Romney, he is almost exactly like Obama, so where’s the difference and contrast to draw on.. there isn’t any, as they both have the same policies, programs, and agenda.. except one has a “D” next to their name, and one has an “R” next to his name.. That’s it.. A liberal Mass Gov., from the most liberal state in the Union, who implemented his own Obamacare before Obama did, is not a conservative, period, In fact Romney stated himself, that forced mandated Universal State Socialized Medicine, was a conservative cause, just so he could justify his claim that he was a conservative.. which is the biggest nuch of BS I have ever heard from an Obama liberal, let alone a liberal Republican Party RINO elitist hypocrite.
Anne Coulter can take her beloved Romney RINO and his Romneycare, and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Now Newt may not be the preferred Tea Party candidate, but he is definitely more constitutionally conservative than Romney, that obama-ite facsimile look alike liberal Republican Party RINO, any day of the week, 24/7..
Ann Coulter, RINO? Never heard that one before.
But you TPP types gave us great nominees like O’Donnell, Buck, Maes, Angle, and Miller, so we should listen to you, right?
If you want to paly this game, I’ll give you that the TTP also gave us West, Lee, Rubio, Johnson, Scott, Rand Paul, Gosar, Gov Martinez, Gov Kasich and Gov Walker.
Your Establishisment gave us Castle, Crist, Whitman-all losers.
At the risk of calling out the Institutional Republicans’ version of the Inquisition because of my heresy; the malice by the Institutionals and their new allies Coulter and Beck against Gingrich leaves open one important question.
It someone other than the pre-anointed candidate, Romney, ends up with the nomination; what will the Institutionals and their allies do?
Conservatives and Patriots are constantly being accused of working for the Democrats if they do not happily swallow whatever loser collaborationist they cram down our throats. Yet, when push comes to shove, it is only the Institutionals who can be depended upon to work to actively fight the Republican candidate if he or she is a Patriot or Conservative. We have the examples in Nevada, Delaware, Alaska, and repeatedly in my poor state of Colorado among others. Will they make the studied decision to throw the presidential election if they are not in control? They do so regularly in Senate and Governors races.
And that leads to a second question:
If the Institutionals take all there marbles and go home if Romney is not the nominee; will that be enough to finally convince Patriots and Conservatives that Restoring America will require defeating both parties?
Subotai Bahadur
Oops, “their” not “there” in the last question.
Already deducted a point, no do overs.
Seeing this question answered is a major reason for my desire to see Romney sent down in flames. How will the establishment respond to a great big DO NOT WANT from the grass-roots?
More broadly it is important to recognize that, although their internal leanings are at some odds, both Coulter’s and Beck’s discomfiture stem from the exact same source – they are unhappy at being disregarded by those they thought were in their thrall.
Newsflash to ALL pundits and would be pundits – the TEA parties weren’t formed as a means of seeking leadership, they were formed to exert leadership.
So, before you shoot your collective(ist) mouths off again, you might want to stop and consider that we don’t agree with you because we like you, we like you because you agree with (and at times, speak for) us.
If you think Newt Gingrich is a Tea Party conservative, you are 100% wrong.
It was the conservatives in the House Republican Caucus who forced him out as Speaker after the worst midterm election results for the party out of the White House since 1934.
It was barely six months ago he was still talking about how a health care insurance mandate is necessary and called Ryan’s budget – which later passed the House and would have saved $5.4 trillion over the ten-year budget window (the Super Committee could not agree on $1.2 trillion) – “right wing social engineering.”
I’ll support the nominee, whoever it is. But if it is Gingrich, we will risk losing, and certainly will win fewer Senate seats than with a better candidate. And even if he wins, Gingrich will screw conservatives early and often.
It’s his nature.
I don’t understand the sudden love affair with Newt. Aren’t some of these the same people who were once Perry lovers, and then Cainiacs? Are you just the girls who can’t say “no”?
Are you just the girls who can’t say “no”?
Well I can’t speak for the other “girls,” but I don’t have any problem saying no to Mitt. Which I guess makes me a bee-eye-itch in the vulgar tongue.
But you on the other hand, claim you’ll “give it up” for anyone with an R on their letter jacket.
So what does that make you?
The fact is that neither of the frontrunners is a “Tea Party conservative.”
It’s one thing for his followers to prefer the father of Romneycare to Gingrich because they believe his more electable.
But to claim that he is a conservative and try to demonize Gingrich for being signicantly less so – come on.
They are both deeply flawed.
Are you just the girls who can’t say “no”?
Love this line.
This election cycle is creating some truly odd bed-fellows.
I can’t see Ann supporting Christie or Romney. Neither are remotely conservative.
I am perplexed by her choice in candidates…
You are playing the race card yourself in a way by implying that calling someone a birther is equivalent to calling them a racist. Not to sympathesize with birthers, if there are still any around, but I wouldn’t equate the two. Especially not in a forum like this that frequently points out how the Democrats imply the worst motives to opponents.
“… want someone not just to go birther on Obama, but do do so bombastically”
From my point of view, that statement is half true.
I don’t subscribe to the “Birther” thing as once Congress approves of the election, it’s done deal .. no matter.
I do want to see “the battle of the smartest men in the room,” but I also want more. I want a “death match of the smartest men in the room.”
There is no way that Romney, Huntsman, Cain, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann or Paul can do that. Palin or Ryan would give good a good fight as well.
I admit that a good part of the reason I’m supporting Newt is that I want a nominee who will personally, directly and aggressively go after Obama, and who is smart enough (and oratorically gifted enough) to make it stick. I don’t see Romney- seemingly the only other realistic possibility at this point- doing that.
Coulter, Beck & Co. are taking a page from Obama himself with the whole “Gingrich as birther wish fulfillment” nonsense. It’s a strawman, and they know it. Sure, there are still birthers out there- but most people think pretty much like I do- his mother was a citizen and his dad was a legal resident, so it doesn’t matter where he was born, he’s a citizen.
It disgusts me that so-called conservative pundits would start spouting this B.S.- knowing that it’s not true- as soon as their golden establishment boy starts having some poll trouble.
The gop is fractured, and the debates are making it obvious.
Haven’t seen a primary this nasty since…the 2008 Hillary-Obama catfight.
We really let the media do a number on us when we allowed them to destroy Palin. As far as I am concerned she is still the only viable candidate in this country and probaby the only one who could save this country.
I would support Newt just to see him destroy obama politically. Somehow, I think the media would still save him though even with only soft questions. Then again he might just refuse to debate at all. How many debats did he do in 2008? One? Two?
I doubt we could win with Romney and might lose all the gains we made in 2010 if he is the nominee. Sometimes I wonder if there is a game in Washington where they draw straws or something to see who is elected president…dim or republican. The republicans sure nominate the sorriest candidates possible at times. And to help destroy Sarah who is a true shining star gives me pause as to the republican establishment’s motives. Are we all pawns in this game of politics? Do we really matter? Does the establishment of both parties run this country and not the people? As you can see, I am very depressed about tis whole farce.
I agree with you. Yes, I think it’s all a game and they’re all the same. I felt optimistic about our future when I thought Palin was running. Now, not so much. And it seems to be getting worse by the day. I like Santorum. Does he have a chance? I doubt it.
Right on Barbara. And not only Palin, but Cain too. You can bet the Obama campaign is more than happy to see Republicans do the mainstream media’s assigned job of smearing other Republicans. That way the thermostat is set so high on the Republican side that whoever the republican nominee is, they have negatives almost as high as Obama’s. Once again, we republicans are proving to be the stupid party.
I agree that we are now seeing the annointing of the media’s chosen candidate – with the help and support of the GOP elite. IMO the media doesn’t really want Mitt to win but they can count on him to play nice and not actually attack Obama while he’s losing. They can both be “gentlemanly” when they debate.
Then after he’s lost, the GOP contingent who supported him will not face up to the possibility/reality that he wasn’t the candidate the base wanted and he wasn’t appealing to enough of the squishy moderates to win.
Anyone want to bet WHO will get blamed for that loss? Mitt? the Independents? the GOP establishment? Let’s not kid ourselves – we will hear laments about how terrible the Conservatves are because they didn’t unite behind the milktoast candidate they didn’t actually want.
Wall Street clearly wants, and is expecting, Romney vs. Obama. Some of this is, no doubt, due to particular partisan leaning, but most broadly it is because ‘the Street’ clearly recognizes that, in terms of their own sandbox, the two are entirely interchangeable.
For them, once it becomes Romney vs. Obama the election (and all uncertainty – which is what they fear the most) is OVER.
I wrote about Ann’s hypocritical slam of “birthers” in her book, Demonic, in this column:
“Birther Card: Coulter’s Turn” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/birther_card_coulters_turn.html
“The liberal mob, writes Coulter, views Americans as ‘either enlightened truth-seekers or racist, paranoid haters.’ Yet with the stroke of her pen she similarly dismissed, Alinsky-style, those who question any facet of Obama’s eligibility as idiots, thereby joining the very mob she abhors.”
Regarding the “birthers are fracturing the GOP” mantra,” if conservative pundits and politicians would simply point out that most “birthers” have a valid Constitutional question (which was true for McCain), much of the “fracture” would not exist. Conservatives who buy into the liberal label of “birthers” as kooks or racist or only believing in conspiracy myths about a foreign birth, feed right into the liberals hands.
The natural born citizenship question is just as valid as the “birthright citizenship” and anchor baby issue–does a birth in the US, to anyone, regardless of the citizenship or domicile status of the parents–entitle one to citizenship, much less the specific type of “natural born” citizenship the Constitution requires for the Presidency? The two-parent requirement has much in history and the law to support it. It is not crazy.
I truly believe, that under the larger umbrella of the need for immigration reform, that a smart GOP candidate could control the spin, properly framing the “birthers” issue as a legitimate question of respect for our Constitution and the citizenship laws in our country, completely steering clear of the birth certificate itself.
That would drive the liberals crazy, and heal the fracture that many in the Tea Party, who have primarily focused on a return to Constitutional principles, have felt as a betrayal by their politicians and prominent pundits.
If I read another slobber piece about Romney’s looks… shades of a previous election? As if the media is choosing a spokes model for the other side. I can see the framing now — beleaguered diversity other community organizer for the 99% versus Ken doll for the nasty privileged 1%. This will work well (not): “Uh huh huh, well as you know, uh, uh, I spent my life in the private sector…”
[…] Why I Won’t Vote For Mitt Romney Posted on December 18, 2011 3:30 pm by Bill Quick » Saturday Night Card Game (Ann Coulter plays birther card on Tea Party for not supporting Romney) … [Coulter] won’t even give the man credit for what he has achieved! Taking back the House […]
Anecdotal, but I belong to a TP org with a catchment area of two rural NC counties. We have about 2200 registered members, though only about 1200 participate with any regularity, and usually 500 or less at any single event – it’s akin to a Mayberry population, OK?
Still, I can’t remember the last time any member brought up Obama’s birth question except as a joke. It’s a non-issue in our groups.