Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

What was this all about?

What was this all about?

I had not heard this story before, but then again, I didn’t pay much attention to the Republican primaries in 2008:

In 2008 it was uncovered long after the primaries had been concluded that the Romney campaign staff had in unethical and covert ways infiltrated prominent conservative opinion sources like the National Review with leads and exclusives that were designed to adversely harm all the other candidacies minus Romney. Most specifically National Review repeated false assertions made by these Romney operatives about Governor Mike Huckabee. Coulter parroted them in her syndicated space and was never called to account to it until she appeared on the Huckabee television show–to tout her book of course–when the Governor politely, but assertively called her inaccuracies into question.

It caused such consternation to Coulter that she walked out after one segment, though she had been booked for two

Is there anything to it?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“… and this week in her syndicated column she claims that none of the candidates in the race other than Mitt Romney have a chance of defeating incumbent Barack Obama in the general election.”

I think this is true … in the same way Newt didn’t have a chance of exceeding low single digits in the polls until his performance in the debates.

In other words … it’s true until it ain’t … and at this point it ain’t and then some.

I don’t watch much TV, but when I do it’s to watch something I’m really looking forward to and I prepare a nice spread of snacks to accompany the flow of beer.

If Newt debates Barack, I’ll have some nice cold bottles of Asahi Super-Dry with edamame and the ultimate beer accoutrement, atarime (open-air, sun-dried squid you tear into strips and hold a few seconds over an open flame on the stove, then dip in soy sauce mixed with mayonnaise … to die for) and end the evening with the piece de resistance (a complex Belgian Trappist ale) as Newt delivers the coup de grace.

Please let an exciting new era in our politics begin with a little gastronomic orgy.

LukeHandCool (who recently likes to watch “International House Hunters” with his 10-year-old daughter and is as much amused as he is chagrined to realize she could become quite the princess if Luke and his wife aren’t careful).

DINORightMarie | November 20, 2011 at 3:36 pm

I remember something vague about this, but my memory is too clogged up with all the horribles of this administration to recall that tiny morsel about Romney.

Hope to find more, and will link here if I do……

I love Ann Coulter – most of the time. She has moments of near-lunacy, IMHO, with an apparent weak spot for Northeastern elistist Republicans. Could be that Ivy League education she got…… 😉

BTW – Newt has a page up on his newt.org site taking on the smears before they get a foothold. Good information!

Newt ain’t purty and he has some warts, but he’s a damn site better than any of the others. Coulter is way out there on this one.

SoCA Conservative Mom | November 20, 2011 at 4:03 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t Coulter claimed on quite a few occasions that Republicans get beat every time they tack left and to win they need to be more conservative?

I don’t know Ann”s part in it but I do remember some rumblings that Romney was getting his hands a wee bit wet with Republican blood …ask McCain

Which Romney are you talking about? I get confused. Yesterday he had horizontal stripes today they appear to be vertical.

I just watched the Huckabee – Coulter video where Huckabee pointed out where Ann lied about him. However, there was no discussion of Romney (Huckabee would only discuss Huckabee) and Coulter did indeed return for the second half of that show.

StephenMonteith | November 20, 2011 at 7:19 pm

It’s a load of crap. You’ll notice he gives no link nor any other source of evidence to back up his claim.

As for smears and false assertions in 2008, Huckabee was the man responsible for all the anti-Mormon backlash in Iowa in the final weeks leading up to the Caucuses. “Don’t Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers?” Talk about loads of crap.

    Which part is “a load of crap”? Am just trying to figure out which is in disagreement – the questionable tactics of a candidate, or the Mormon belief?

    A person can agree/disagree with the strategies of a candidate. The merits or lack of merit can be debated. What can’t be debated, is theological teachings which are in extreme conflict with Christian theology. (Jesus/Satan brothers, is just one major conflict… there are plenty of others).

    DocWahala
    Today’s Fortune Cookie:
    “Out of Service”

    “Don’t Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers?” Talk about loads of crap.

    Mormons *do* believe that.

      StephenMonteith in reply to Same Same. | November 21, 2011 at 7:04 pm

      First, it is a load of crap because it distorts Mormon doctrine. Mormons believe that God created everything and everyone, so in that sense, Jesus and Satan are both “spirit children” of Heavenly Father. That doesn’t make them brothers.

      Second, it’s a load of crap because of the way Huckabee brought it up. He was being interviewed by the New York Times in the last couple of weeks before the Caucuses, and the reporter asked him if he had any comment about Romney’s Mormonism. Huckabee said he’d rather not talk about it, and then followed up with “Don’t they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?” He didn’t ask because he wanted an answer; as an ordained minister with a much-touted degree in theology, he already knew quite a bit more about Mormonism than whoever was interviewing him would have known. He asked it because he knew it would end up in the paper the next day and that evangelicals in Iowa would be outraged by the thought. It was a load of crap, and it’s the kind of dirty trick that convinced me Huckabee doesn’t deserve to hold any public office.

When the Herman Cain bimbo-eruption turned into the circular firing squad last month, Fred Thompson wrote a column suggesting that Romney’s campaign could be behind it because of some dirty tricks they’d played during the 2008 cycle:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/282182/who-dropped-dime-cain-fred-thompson

Also, someone from RedState has written about his experience in 2008 of having Romney’s campaign try to feed him oppo research very similarly to what Jennifer Rubin’s doing this year.

I cannot speak to this specific occurance however while volunteering to GOTV for another candidate in the SC primary-not Huckabee or McCain-the Romney camp had garnered a reputation for unethical and covert campaigning. Dirty, dirty players are they, I chalk it up to ‘politics is a blood-sport’.

And one more thing, if I must endure another campaign season in which Romeny’s people once again accuse anyone who does not support Romney as being anti-Mormon or Mormon-haters then I’m definately not voting for Romney.

Romney’s problem in garnering more than 25% approval in his own party is because of his bad politics.

In 2012, Jennifer Rubin provides confirmation.

Yes, I read or heard the same things, professor. Y’all can do whatever you want but when I see this much smoke rising from a rooftop, I call the fire department.

The number of “mere coincidences” involved in Romney’s campaigns beggars belief. He’s got the funds to pay for the best tricksters in the business.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend