Image 01 Image 03

So much of what the left-wing said about Coulter turns out to be true

So much of what the left-wing said about Coulter turns out to be true

Who would have expected it.  Ann Coulter in her endorsement of Mitt Romney gave a very misleading account of Rick Santorum’s immigration record, asserting that he voted against E-Verify.

Ann’s a lawyer, so she knows that omitting material facts can be just as much a fraud as stating false facts.  And Ann omitted from her narrative the fact that the rejection of E-Verify was not a stand alone, it was a rejection of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill.

Good for Santorum for calling her out:

Arguing on behalf of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in her syndicated column Wednesday, Coulter portrayed Santorum as soft on illegal immigration, citing his vote against the so-called “E-Verify” measure to provide automatic electronic verification of workers’ immigration status. But Santorum said that he voted against “E-Verify” in 2006 because it was part of a measure sponsored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy that would have provided amnesty to illegals.

Asked after the speech about his criticism of Coulter, Santorum replied: “Why would Ann Coulter criticize me for voting against the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill? I mean, Ann, should I have voted for amnesty? Should I have voted for comprehensive immigration reform? Because if that’s what you’re saying, then, doesn’t sound like you’re the real conservative here. I think when Jim DeMint and every conservative in the United States Senate voted against the McCain-Kennedy bill — yes, we voted against E-Verify, but we voted against a pretty bad bill that I think, at least you said you were against.”

Ann Coulter is willing to say anything to elect Romney.  Her attack on Santorum is just a small taste of what she has said about Newt and Tea Party supporters.

It’s sad to have to admit that so much of what the left-wing said about Coulter is true, it just didn’t seem so bad when it was pointed in the other direction.  But as they say, what goes around ….

And it has come around to bite conservatives.

Update:  It gets worse. Thanks to reader JohnJ2427 for the link to Coulter’s 2006 column arguing against the immigration bill she now criticizes Santorum for not supporting, Read My Lips, No New Amnesty.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Is Ann on the Romney take? This makes no sense. There are plenty of things to criticize Rick for without resorting to something this ridiculous.

the left accuses Coulter of things with no evidence to back them up, here you have caught her in a misquote, fair and square … don’t try and burn her to the ground over her Romney flip flops … we’ll need her next year in the big show …

    William A. Jacobson in reply to dorsaighost. | December 30, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    I don’t think you get my point, or I did not make it clear enough. I don’t want her on any team I am on. We can do better, there’s plenty to go after Obama about without relying on someone who plays the birther card on the Tea Party movement, and treats one of the greatest figures in recent conservative history as a crazy person who never accomplished anything.

      Cassandra Lite in reply to William A. Jacobson. | December 30, 2011 at 4:53 pm

      Agree completely. At this point, it wouldn’t be a surprise if she ended up doing a full Charles Johnson.

      She’s an odd duck, and at this point I don’t want to belong to a team that would have her as a member.

        I don’t want her on my team either.
        I wrote her off when she was drooling over Christie, who insulted people that are justifiably concerned about muslim infiltrators.

      Exactly! Coulter has made a name for herself (and lost of money) over the years launching polemics against liberal Democrats. What we weren’t noticing was that she was especially hard on stressing “liberal” while being soft on “Democrats”. This led us to assume that she is a conservative. We couldn’t have been more wrong.

      Turns out that it’s not liberals that she has a problem with but DEMOCRATS. It’s the uniform not the politics. When it comes to Republicans, she only backs traditional, northeast, liberal country clubbers like Christie and Romney.

      If I have to listen to her pontificating one more time about “How hopeless
      can California be when they wouldn’t even elect SOLID CONSERVATIVES (!!!!) like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina against Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer!” I just might explode. What that election actually proved is that the GOP just doesn’t want to win in CA. Tea Party conservative Chuck Devore WOULD have beat Boxer had he not been bounced by McPalin. And no one even bothers to run for governor anymore once the corrupt state GOP committee has declared which liberal Democrat they are backing so Whitman ended up spending $180 million to take down the entire ticket across the state. What a mess that was.

      I threw Coulter off of my “team” a long time ago. She is just another typical northeast country club Republican defending the franchise for the good ‘ole boys. She should stick to her Log Cabin friends where being partly pregnant and sometimes honest has currency.

Increasingly, Coulter’s ‘help’ becomes counterproductive.

I sure have changed my mind about Coulter. As you say,it is different when she goes after one of us instead of one of them. It is sad to see her lie with half truths and things taken out of context. It was realy dumb of her to do this but I guess when a republican takes up dim tactics against a fllow republican they are no longer a republican.

Please tell me why she is going after Santorum at all. Why is she willing to destroy her crediility to take ths guy down. He has no chance to be the nominee any more than Bachmann or Johnson or Huntsman. The numbers just aren’t there. Even if he did win the Iowa primary, the rest of the country has never heard of him and name recognition is everything to some people. I really, really like Samtorum because he is probably the most conservative candidate in the race. He is just not the most electable conservative. Some commenters have derided him because he lost his senate bid for re-election but don’t mention that he ran against Bob Casey, son of a very popular Casey. Anyone with the last name of Casey in Pa was a shoo-in at that time.

    dad29 in reply to BarbaraS. | December 30, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Please tell me why she is going after Santorum at all.

    Isn’t Coulter a bigwig with the Log Cabin Pubbies or some such?

    That would be a hint.

What to do with all my Coulter books…some autographed? Burn or compost?

In fairness to Ann, she probably believes Romney is a stealth conservative. He has, after all, been planning to run for President for decades.

Given that it’s so easy to find her attacking the bill she criticizes Santorum for voting against, one has to wonder why she would go that route, though.

I am totally shocked at what is happening. The Right-Wing circular firing squad is dedicated to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

So many of the rich and powerful voices on the right are turning into – what can we call this? Assassins? Having Ann Coulter shooting Republicans when she should be promoting the BRAND is a terrible terrible blow. Not to the candidates she scorches, but to the ENTIRE Party, field and conservative body. National review. Erick Erickson’s attacks on Sarah Palin. So many, I’ve lost count.

We’ll lose. And we’ll have earned it.

The world will suffer.

    gabilange in reply to Rose. | December 30, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Yes. I know I sound like a broken record, but the GOP is hellbent on losing. Cannibalism on their own, circular firing squad, alienating potential voters. The Repub. Establishment going along with the left-wing media. Calling fellow Repubican names, in imitation of what has been done for 4 years on anyone disagreeing with the Obama party line. Quite a depressing spectacle, as I am (collected names dissenters are called),

    “One of those that D.C. and the media et al call “an ankle biter peasant angry mob moron raaaaaacist troublemaker evilmonger astroturf stupid disruptive rightwingnut Indy hick Neanderthal kkk applicant K street Lobbyist hired mob un-American Nazi-loving brown-shirt bitter clings to guns and Bible homophobic xenophobic redneck teabagger irrational extremist whacky maverick fire-breathing nut job just want to see you die bigot nativist Islamophobe mosque basher psychopath nuts whacko fruitloop flat-out crazy paranoid unwashed ignorant illogical subversive unhinged fanatic loon enemy coward exterminationist captive to my fears don’t think clearly hater scared moonbat flat earther birther carny barker full of extreme rhetoric and vitriol desperate and dangerous with a sloping forehead goofball weasel destructive child Walmart shopper low information voter fragger (baby-kidnapping) terrorist extremist suicide bomber bomb throwing democracy threatening Al Qaeda (Christian)Taliban hostage taker jihadist ignoramus destructive child delusional ignoramous economic terrorist tyrant hobbit real enemy maintaining states rights and slavery going to hell put party before country son of a bitch barbarian at the gate apocalyptic cult zombie mis-information voter extremist small government posse type callous bigoted tool.” (

    Robert Janicki in reply to Rose. | December 30, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    I concur with your comments. I’ve seen more decorum in a biker bar fight, than in the Republican debates leading up to the first primary in Iowa.

    As long as Republicans continue in this self destructive mode in selecting a candidate, Obama will have little to worry about in getting re-elected.

    I once enjoyed what Coulter had to say, but no more. She has become so strident in attacking Republicans in the process of supporting her choices, that she has lost relevance as a political analyst on conservative principles.

    Aitch748 in reply to Rose. | December 30, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    The GOP powers-that-be have become so repulsive to me that I won’t support their candidate. Obama’s a rotten president, but I’m in no mood to help replace him with a Massachusetts liberal who became the GOP nominee thanks in large part to the GOP’s circular firing squad.

    THAT’S how disgusted I am with the GOP — they’ve actually p_ssed me off to the point where I’m actually rethinking the whole “Anybody But Obama” thing just because the idea of rewarding these freaks with a vote for Romney turns my stomach. I suspect that if it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, I won’t vote for either one.

      sablegsd in reply to Aitch748. | December 30, 2011 at 6:36 pm

      Word. Like I have said, I held my nose for mccain, because I liked SP, but I refuse to hold back the vomit and vote for romneycare.

      And I will NOT take the blame if president downgrade wins another term. That will be on the heads of the RNC and the media.

Yes, thanks to you Professor, I have pretty much written Coulter off this cycle and regard everything from he in the ‘verify then trust’ model.

On a separate note, I don’t find ‘E-Verify’ a particularly conservative approach to immigration enforcement. While I do think it works, which is to be appreciated, I think a Federal precedent for intervening in hiring decisions at a local level is opening a mightly lousy can of worms.

I know that as an employer I am already required to verify the things the E-Verify does. So it doesn’t seem like much expansion of power …

However, I do think there are a lot of downsides to this, such as:

– the Federal government opens a door to monitoring even more of what happens between an employer and potential hires in real-time …

– the presumption of innocence goes to a prove yourself innocent just to get hired

– its much easier to propose ‘tacking something on to E-verify’ once its in place and have it seem reasonable than if it doesn’t exist, proposing a major expansion of paperwork

– etc.

I don’t know why, but as the guy who hires people today, and all I have to do is fill out a firm that says I checked your SS and permanent residency/citizenship … to having what feels like the first step towards federal permission / background check being run before hiring someone, it offends me.

As a technology guy, I just don’t like it. It doesn’t feel free, and big government doesn’t feel benign. Asking electronic permission to Uncle Sam for any number of routine things is offensive to me, and feels increasingly like world of total surveillance and dystopic government connectedness.

I dunno, what do others think? Am I overreacting on E-verify? Or do others hate the idea too?

    I was involved in an earlier version of checking SSNs while working at a state DMV back in the day. It was initially helpful and then turned into a bloated mess. It would quickly give us “No’s” and “Yes’s”, but became absolutely worthless qualifying “Maybe’s”. And after a few months it seemed as if most answers were “Maybe”. Chocolate brownie fudgies!

    retire05 in reply to PrincetonAl. | December 30, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    PrincetonAl, the problem is not with the concept of E-Verify, the problem is it doesn’t work. The system is only around 51% accurate and that leaves employers in the lurch.

    I have a friend in Houston who ownes a company that does subdivision post-construction clean up. He is the one that goes in after the homes are built and picks up all the short pieces of wood, the left over brick, the small pieces of pipe and electrical wire, i.e. all the construction trash.

    Now it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to do the work, just someone who is willing to stand out in the weather all day, hot or cold, and clean the construction sites. And residing in a state that has a lot of Hispanics, he is now trying to use E-Verify because he doesn’t want to hire illegals. He was recently telling me that he hired four extra guys last spring to cover a new contract he had gotten for clean-up. So he submitted their info to E-Verify on a Tues after telling them to come back the next Monday. By the following Monday, he had not gotten back any denials, so he hired the guys.

    Four months later he gets a letter from the feds telling him that the Socials don’t match the names and that the workers needed to go to the SS office and get the problem cleared up. He told them they could not work until they got the matter resolved, and the VERY NEXT DAY they all showed up with NEW SS cards and numbers.

    He was livid and this guy can cuss like a sailor. So he railed on them and one finally admitted they just went to Trader’s Village (a flea market) in Houston and bought NEW SS cards.

    Now, had he continued to employ these guys, although he had not heard back from E-Verify, if ICE had hit his place and found out what took him four months to learn, he would have been in violation of federal immigration laws. He would have turned into the law breaker.

    A lot of people slammed Rick Perry because he says that E-Verify doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. I know a number of construction guys who go through this problem day after day, knowing that there is a 1 in 2 chance the feds will report the information wrong and then they are on the hood for hiring illegals.

    Santorum was right in rejecting the Shamnesty Bill. It was a bad bill, VERY bad. I spent the time to read the entire thing and became apoplectic after reading it. It gave benefits to illegals that we citizens don’t have; like allowing them to collect SS after paying in just 10 quarters while we have to pay into the system 40 quarters to be fully invested. No one should slight Santorum over voting against that bill.

    What I do slam Santorum over is going after Rick Perry on border issues when Perry has basically adopted Santorum’s own plan (See S. 3564 109th), strategic fencing, boots on the ground, etc. So in actuality, I guess I don’t feel too sorry for Santorum who just got a dose of his own medicine.

    As to Coulter: she’s a political hack that was in the tank for a non-conservative governor whose claim to fame is a big mouth. He decided against a run, so now she is in the take for another non-conservative ex-governor whose claim to fame is governing like a liberal and becoming a “conservative” when he no longer had to prove it with actions.

Ann Coulter is willing to say anything to elect Romney. Her attack on Santorum is just a small taste of what she has said about Newt and Tea Party supporters.

Yes. For a talk show pundit, media connections have to be priority one.

For me, Coulter’s 180 is like waking up one morning to find your Mom is a lesbian or your Dad is a tranny.

HOW can she have been apparently so dedicated to conservative ideals AND making cogent arguments bolstered by facts, anecdotes and their own words against Liberals/Progressives for so long, yet hoist this fake, phony, fraud upon us as the epitome of conservativism?

I’m going to have some empty shelf space in my library.

Spirit Crusher | December 30, 2011 at 5:04 pm

I don’t know what Coulter’s ultimate end game in all of this is. She has certainly done irreparable harm to her integrity and reputation among conservatives, ostensibly her target audience, with her kamikaze attacks on the tea party and various candidates. Ann is obviously positioning herself for the post “firebrand sexpot” phase of her career, but I think she has scuttled any meaningful impact she may have had in the future. However, I’ve never claimed or pretended to understand what makes women tick, so it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out for the fickle b!t@h.

    katiejane in reply to Spirit Crusher. | December 30, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    It does seem odd -there is no way the Left will ever accept Ann even if she had some Eureka “I’m a Lib” moment — so why would she attack the people who have been her audience. Some things are hard to get beyond and being damned as a birther/racist by someone supposedly on my side is inexcusable.

      I agree. Same with Beck, whom I have long defended.

      Like Newt or not going in, he won every debate fair and square, and won with it a grudging respect, and recognition that here was a man who truly does understand what makes Washington tic, and is able to make it work. It’s recognizing how we have been played by all the negative press against him, and acknowledging that he not only has a shot at the nomination, but at winning, on his own merits. We owe him that.

      To turn the guns on him – and face it, once he is gone, it will be whoever is next – is unconscionable. We knew it would come from the Soros-backed media, it’s shocking to see it coming from the right. Coulter should be celebrating the marvelous variety of ideas and approaches that our candidates bring to the table, the incredible discussions to be had, and the solutions to be aired and found, and maybe someday employed. Instead she became a poor-mouthing assassin.

      I won’t get to vote til June. I want to have more than one choice when that day comes. All this is happening before a single vote has been cast, judging candidates on the basis of a grueling debate schedule alone.

      I pray that Sarah Palin IS planning an upset, because this mess is depressing beyond belief.

The Republican establishment as a whole is really jumping the shark this year.

My breaking point with Ann Coulter was a few years back, but as time goes on, she looks more and more like an opportunist who happened to latch onto smashmouth rhetoric as a way to make piles of money.

I have never been a fan of Coulter. She always grated on me, even her laugh. (I know, it’s a small thing). Begging Chris Christie to run, convinced me that she is not a Conservative. Ms. Coulter is in the business of promoting herself and selling her books. She is best ignored.

Tough choice. Coulter puts me off too, but I really don’t think Santorum has a chance. The thing about these primaries is that there’s only only candidate other than Ron Paul who came prepared with organization and fundraising. The whole Not-Romney movement was stupid and self-defeating and nobody should have listened to it. None of their candidates can win as their surges peaking and dropping away shows.

The first check should be how well organized you are beyond Iowa and how much money have you raised. That’s why Romney was considered the likely candidate, all the spite toward the GOP establishment notwithstanding.

Iowa is not the kingmaker it’s been hyped to be. I have nothing against Perry, Bachmann or Santorum, although I think Paul is a blot and Gingrich is the real flip-flopper here.

Coulter may have misstated the factoid about Santorum, but her endorsement is still valid, and Santorum doesn’t have a chance, even if he wins in Iowa.


You forgot all republicans are dumb.

    And, when we register as an ‘R’ we suddenly mind meld and our DNA changes.

    Partisanship is the new racism.

    gabilange in reply to BarbaraS. | December 30, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    I apologize, BarbaraS. Yet, I am an anklebiter moron whacko fruitloop flat-out crazy paranoid unwashed ignorant illogical subversive unhinged fanatic loon, bigtime etc., so thanks for paying attention…and I am a dumb waaaacist.

A classic example of why our laws are such a mess…and why we had to read Obamacare to find out what was in it…and why we need a line item veto.

[…] Ann, Should I Have Voted for Amnesty?’ AmSpecBlogGriffinRCThe Daley GatorKaty PunditNice DebLegal InsurrectionThe ConservatoryKaty PunditThe ConservatoryBizzyBlogPrayer For The Egyptian ChristiansPirates […]

[…] Bill Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection wrote a week ago has again been shown to be true, this time in triplicate: Ann’s a lawyer, so she knows that […]

[…] but we voted against a pretty bad bill that I think, at least you said you were againstt. — Rick Santorum After all, at the end of 2010, we elected Republicans in a Congressional landslide. President […]