It’s no secret that Ann Coulter is no fan of Newt Gingrich. The staunch Romney supporter isn’t shy about conveying her dissatisfaction with Gingrich in general, and particularly with his straight forward, and occasionally harsh manner of speaking.
Back in December, while the Romney Super PACs were in the midst of engaging in a multi-million dollar attack on Gingrich in Iowa, the attacks were coming from the conservative media as well, and Coulter was at the helm. In a December appearance by Coulter on the O’Reilly factor, she attacked Gingrich saying that he “makes wild overstatements” that are “bombastic” and that his inflammatory rhetoric “hurts good causes.”
Coulter backed off when it appeared that the relentless string of attacks against Gingrich had finally made sure that he was down, and would stay down. Unfortunately for Coulter and those who believe as she does, Newt found himself surging again in South Carolina after most of the media and blogosphere had declared his presidential bid legally dead for a second time this election cycle. The late surge carried him to an easy victory in South Carolina, capturing a double digit margin of victory over his nearest rival, Mitt Romney.
So guess who’s back? Following Newt’s landslide victory, Coulter again came out after Gingrich with some wild rhetoric of her own, dubbing him the “least electable” and “least conservative” candidate in an interview on Fox News. This time, however, her criticism wasn’t limited to the presidential candidate, as she also derided South Carolinians saying that they would “rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall.”
So, according to Coulter’s logic, having a double digit margin of victory in a statewide primary that has consistently predicted the republican nominee for President for the last 30 years, makes you the least electable candidate.
The South Carolina primary’s usually prophetic history doesn’t bare any consequence to Coulter in this case because they were just voting “emotionally” this time. And Newt’s sudden uptick in Florida while Romney is simultaneously fading? I’m sure Coulter would relegate that to Newt’s campaign putting something in the orange juice.
I understand if you don’t support the man, but at least give credit where credit is due. Dismissing a win like the one Newt had in South Carolina as an emotional fit that apparently took hold of an entire state isn’t exactly a logical argument, in fact, I’d say it might even be borderline bombastic.
Who knows, maybe I’m just being emotional.