Image 01 Image 03

Ann Coulter’s fragging

Ann Coulter’s fragging

Ann Coulter’s Romney-promoting long ago went far beyond Romney promoting, into cheap shots against the Tea Party movement and just about anyone who was not on Team Romney.  Much like the caustic Jennifer Rubin, insulting the people Romney will need to unite behind him seems to be Coulter’s schtick.

My prior posts from this campaign season:

Coulter is at it again, with gratuitous attacks on Sarah Palin.  Michelle Malkin correctly assesses the situation, Ann Coulter’s “novelty candidate” swipe at Sarah Palin:

Here’s my translation of Coulter-speak:

“Novelty candidate” is her code for a GOP candidate with widespread, grass-roots conservative support who doesn’t make large portions of the rank-and-file Right queasy with doubt.

That was who Sarah Palin represented on the liberal Republican John McCain ticket.

“Novelty candidate” means an outside-the-Beltway, outside-the-establishment public servant who speaks from the heart, lives political and personal life on her own terms, and embodies all that Coulter’s best Hollywood friends like misogynist Bill Maher hate.

Sometimes, the war on conservative women isn’t just being waged by the Left.

This is a form of political fragging. Shame.

Fragging right.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It was obvious from day one that Ann Coulter was jealous of Sarah Palin.
Ann doesn’t like anyone else to be the pretty girl in the room.
She’s the most shallow RINO on the block.

    Mike in reply to Tamminator. | April 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    If Coulter and Palin were in the same room there would be only one girl in the room

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Tamminator. | April 2, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Palin has an influential career plus children and grandchildren waiting at home. Coulter has a career and what? Bill Maher? A close and personal friendship with her house cat? A nice bottle of Chardonnay in the fridge?

    Ann desperately wants to be seen as a kingmaker not just a moderately successful author. Thus she needs someone in power she can point to and say See. I helped sell him to conservative voters. She couldn’t say that about Palin and she can’t say that about Rubio.

      Jake Blues in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | April 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm

      Like so many “career” girls, they hit 50 and look around and see they have built nothing. Coulter was once at least interesting, but that ship sailed years ago. Moving on…

    LukeHandCool in reply to Tamminator. | April 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    I am blown away by the frag-mental nature of Coulter’s frag-mentary.

    Fragging right that’s what that dive-bombing diva’s commentary is.

At some point she’s going to have to see the results of her elitist malice and foolishness show up on her bottom line. I’ve completely tuned her out. I bought several of her books, but no more.

Midwest Rhino | April 2, 2012 at 2:33 pm

Coulter’s books and much of her old commentary seem like a different Ann from the one that seems to have such animosity toward tea party types. Of course she travels in wealthier circles, and has an image as a sophisticate to maintain, I suppose.

Palin was different … a breath of fresh air. But certainly she wasn’t “groomed” properly to be ready to face national media. Palin needed more prep in many ways … but she made up for so much of that by being a real All American gal.

A “novelty” is more of a strange character, than just new. But it wasn’t the novelty that won over America, it was the integrity and guts to stand up against the DC toxic tide. The fact that integrity is rather novel is just a sad testimony on our situation. Palin exudes hope for a better America.

Instead Ann loves Romney, despite his dishonest negative ad campaign. She loves Christie, though he seems pretty moderate. But those guys are steeped in political sleaze, a characteristic Ann loves. How else could she ever date Bill Maher?

Ms. Coulter has lost all credibility this election cycle with her lunatic rantings of Newt Gingrich.

Her flip-flopping on Mitt Romney was certainly an eye opener but her first analysis was quite correct. We will lose with a moderate. I’m extremely bothered by the fact that she either cannot or will not explain why she did that.

As for Sarah Palin, I think it’s more of the female with her claws out, wanting to remain relevant with Republicans. She may sense conservatives hitting back at her whenever she writes a weekly column. I know I have voiced my opinion to her numerous times.

Sarah Palin does remain popular, and I’ll just bet that the “Today” show has its highest ratings tomorrow morning. Sarah is totally going rogue.

gary gulrud | April 2, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Sununu, Talent, Molinari, Coulter, Rubin, Mirengoff,… What a collection of goons. Rove is a serious broker compared to these hacks.

And we were told a couple of weeks ago Team McBain was focussed on post-convention unity.

No wonder Christie, Haley, et al., are looking to 2016.

I have no idea why Ann has done what she is done. I hope Romney is paying her handsomely for destroying her reputation, because she and drudge have completely ruined their reps. I stop reading ann over her treatment of newt, and I have read and enjoyed her column longer than anyone else’s that I can remember.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to imfine. | April 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    I gave up on Coulter in ’08 with her boosting for Romney then. As for Drudge, I used to hit his site at least once a day, but I haven’t been there since he started his assault on Newt. I won’t be returning. Instead, I read this guy. With the almost identical format, I don’t miss Drudge a bit.

You can only insult me so many times before I take notice of you, and then I do what I have to do. Ann and Mitten’s Super Pac’s scorched earth strategy is effective in more ways than one; it got rid of Newt and it left me totally numb to liking their candidate. How many of “me” are out there?
I’m not so sure that they fully considered that number two is the natural consequence to successfully implementing number one, but now I don’t like their candidate and don’t know if I can hold my nose to pull the lever for him.
Actions have consequences, kiddies and you blew it!

she changed (I believe showed her true colors) as soon as she saw grassroots conservatives speaking out and not obeying her.
I have been “yelled” at on conservative sites for pointing out her hatred of conservatives.
at least now I can say I told you so to some.
she is a republican, not a conservative. this is a huge difference she, and people like her, purposely gloss over.

Robert Janicki | April 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Ann Coulter, by her own hand and mouth, has made herself irrelevant in conservative politics for some time now. What a shame for an otherwise talented woman, to become a part of the problem she ostensibly has railed against in the past. I stopped taking her seriously several years ago and see no reason to revisit my decision to ignore her.

My take on Coulter is that she sincerely believes Obama would wipe the floor with Gingrich, Santorum, and even Palin were any of them the R nominee, and she is convinced Romney is the only one who can win it all. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.

    I might buy that argument if she hadn’t come out for Romneycare ( and didn’t boast that Romney fooled liberal voters in Massachusetts into voting for him because he let them think he was a liberal. If those are her real beliefs, they don’t say anything good about Coulter as a thinker, conservative or someone with even modest ethics.

Unfortunately Ann’s best quality is “reading” her audience. she has found a home with the Romney supporters who are finally realizing that their candidate has little if ay personal appeal to the voters. Can anyone imagine following Mitt into battle?

They see Palin’s base still excited about her in spite of her being out of it. They resent that her base hasn’t/won’t get in line behind Romney. So the call must have gone out to Ann and the other Romneybots that Palin MUST be brought down, she has to be mocked and ridulculed to puff up Romney. As if that is going to make Romney more appealing?

    Karl Rogue in reply to katiejane. | April 2, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Why do you say that Romney supporters realize their guy has little personal appeal? Over and over again, what I get from Romney people is that they could care less what conservatives think of their guy, they are SO convinced that mods, indies and dems are going to jump from Bammy to Mitt.

LukeHandCool | April 2, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Limited Edition “Fraggedy Ann” Doll by Legal Insurrection Toys?


When is Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center gonna give Coulter the hip check she deserves.

Tell The Truth WAAAAATCH !

I have long become tired of being insulted because I don’t support Romeny.

As if my desires to vote for a guy who didn’t run down Reagan makes me anti-American or something.

Coulter and the rest or the Romney-bots are only succeeding in making it far more difficult for me to vote for their guy come November. I won’t vote for Obama, but more and more it looks like I won’t vote for Romney either.

1) I really don’t like voting for people who’s close supporters insult me for not backing their guy – Obama’s crowd calls me a racist and evil, Romney’s call me stupid and anti-American.

2) Doesn’t matter anyways. I live in the People’s Republic of Illinois, so it isn’t like our Electoral College votes are going anywhere besides Obama no matter who I vote for. Might as well vote my heart, instead of a party line for a Party that doesn’t think very much of me.

    Founders1791 in reply to Scott Jacobs. | April 2, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Great comment…forward that to the RNC.

      Heeeeeeeeeeeeel no.

      I dislike those people more than I dislike Illinois. These are the idiots that a) gave us McCain b) gave us McCain 2.0 (Romney), and who beclowned themselves by giving Steele a chance to be a brithering moron in our name.

      No, the RNC can learn this one their own.

      At least they stopped calling me for donations. Apparently if you swear enough, they get the message.

    OcTEApi in reply to Scott Jacobs. | April 2, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    I watched WGN-TV Chicago news today, they had several stories about violent crime including one where the guy served 18 yrs for murder, got out on parole and killed three more people….

    -then had a short news blurb about closing prisons to save money!

    hrh40 in reply to Scott Jacobs. | April 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    And don’t forget anti-Mormon.

    Out of the blue, when you’re talking about policy differences.

    Here comes the “you’re an anti-Mormon bigot” nonsense.

    So we’re faced this fall with being a racist or an anti-Mormon bigot.

    Great choice.

    raven in reply to Scott Jacobs. | April 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Agreed. I’ve told this to them in their groupthink enclaves. They just don’t get it. It’s an amazingly counter-intuitive behavior — the drive to alienate. It’s as if they’re moved most of all by resentment and insecurity and the need to compensate. Fearful premonitions of defeat are written in their anger. “Romney has a chance if all conservatives just get over their stupid hate and support him”; they’re already rehearsing the blame game.

      They are writing their “This is why we lost to Obama” news articles and blog posts already.

      Voting for a pathetic, spineless POS “centrist” didn’t do us any favors in ’08, why does anyone think it will this time?

      I’m just gonna go back to my corner and silently curse Thompson…

Founders1791 | April 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm


Sexism runs far deeper than Racism.

Sarah Palin posses what all woman ‘..secretly want..’, that is the adoration and respect of men (or their man), and all that goes with it.

This requires two things rooted deep in the Male hippocampus:

1st, be attractive physically
2nd, be attractive mentally

If a man is not attracted to a woman physically, they will ‘never be adored’ by them. It is basic biology here. Deal with it. (It also works both ways)

That leaves only one thing left to ‘..compete with..’, and that is ‘..mental attraction..’.

Ann Coulter is not ugly, but she is nowhere near Sarah in looks, and so can’t compete with her on that basis. She subconciously knows that and it is reflected in many of her comments.

Ann is smart, opinionated, and aggressive in a masculine way.
Sarah is smart, opinionated, and aggressive in a feminine way.

90% of most men would choose the latter over the former in a heart beat.

When you are good looking, smart, accomplished, and secure in yourself, you become a target by those that do not possess those qualities who ‘..need to..’ knock others down for their own self esteem issues.

Everyone needs to remember Romney is the guy who lost to McCain and McCain lost to Obama.BLAME the Rino’s if obama wins again

    Scorpio51 in reply to Mike. | April 2, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Actually, the establishment will blame the conservatives because we didn’t fall in line with their candidate.

    They will never admit that they gave us a bad candidate. If truth were to do told, some Repubs think Obama can’t be defeated.

    We just have to do everything in our power to see that Mitt doesn’t get 1144. Then we go to an open, contested convention.

the real losers in this election will be Drudge, Coulter and Hugh Hewitt who are so in the tank for romney that they have alienated many of their audience. Regardless of who wins in November, these three have lost. Also instead of Drudge, try this one

Uncle Samuel | April 2, 2012 at 5:00 pm

Ann Coulter’s Freudian Slip to end all slips:

Methinks she needs to zip her lips to clip such slips.

Or take a nice long vacation until after the Election.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 2, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    CORRECTION – That was Ann ROMNEY – not COULTER, but still….not a very smart quote.

      Karl Rogue in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 2, 2012 at 6:05 pm

      Egads, brain bleach please

      Trucker20 in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 3, 2012 at 9:33 am

      Yeah, that was hilarious…she said you gotta “unzip” Mitt Romney to let the “real Mitt Romney” out….and then once the ‘real Mitt Romney’ has come out, he is “not stiff”

      I’m not sure if this really got noticed…..but it could be comedy gold for Letterman, Maher, et. al. for a few days (until the next Rom-bot goof)

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Trucker20. | April 3, 2012 at 9:56 am

        Can’t stop chuckling.

        Ann Romney also said of her husband:
        “”He never takes anything at face value; he can argue any side of a question. And sometimes you think he’s like really believing his argument, but he’s not.”

        This is not a beneficial comment either – it points out his ability to take any position without actually believing it.

        The more I researched Romney (at first I was for him) the worse he got.

        Finally I realized he was a man with much principal and no principles.
        He does hot adhere to truth. He is the say anything candidate.
        There is no political or social position he has not compromised for a vote or a dollar.

I have long become tired of being insulted because I don’t support Romeny.

Dude. Romney supporters (I’m not one) are saying: “I have long become tired of being insulted because I support Romney.”

See how that works? Politics ain’t beanbag. And clearly Reagan’s 11th Commandment is a dead letter.

I attended the “debate” between Coulter and Bill Maher a few years ago in Chicago (they had a traveling road show in a couple of cities) and moderator Mark Halperin asked Ann for a comment on Sarah Palin and her reply was “45th President of the United States”. So this is a quite odd turn of events.

When you turn yourself into a philosophical pretzel to support Romneycare and reduce conservatism to the Tenth Amendment, you don’t have much worth listening to. Coulter just keeps expanding the base of those she insults. This weekend adding Rubio and Condi Rice to Palin. Even Noel Sheppard (a good guy but who has a soft spot for Coulter) was scratching his head over the Rubio comment.!/NoelSheppard/statuses/186565823220035585

The funniest thing was putting John Kyle up against Chris Christie. A not too artful stacking the deck. Heh.

I vote vote romney no matter what, I refuse to prostitute my vote out as Ann seems to have done.
I got a pencil, will write someone in.
and the gop can kiss my ass.

Well gosh, Ann seems so unfair, especially since nobody from team Santorum or any of his supporters have spent ANY time insulting the people (particularly Romney supporters) that Santorum will need to unite behind him if he should pull off a miracle. None that I can remember, at least.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | April 2, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Ann Coulter has turned into the very thing she railed against her whole career..  Liberalism and Cronyism..

Coulter by her own words, is anti-Tea Party, anti-Reagan Conservative.. She is by her own words a Republican GOP establishment standard bearer, a vanguard of the Rockefeller Nixon Ford style politics.. NOT Ronald Reagan Conservatism and Reaganonmics.

She is now a liberal Republican Party establishment RINO elitist crony hack jour-no-list.

That’s why she is a phony conservative, as that’s what RINOs are all about, pretending to be conservative, but when it comes down to the real core of what conservatism is all about, she is a fraud / a RINO.

#1, Romney is no Ronald Reagan, and never will be, period.  Romney, who called himself a moderate progressive GOP Republican, aka liberal RINO, publically denounced Reagan and Reagan Conservatism, thus is the antithesis of President Ronald Reagan.

#2, how does one defend forced mandated substandard inferior State Socialized Medicine that bankrupts the residents, citizens, and Independent businesses and companies in the Free Market Capitalist Free Enterprise system of a State, let alone the Nation, but then turns around and argues that he must repeal Obamacare, the very same thing he implemented and refuses to refute and repeal in his own State called Romneycare.. And the people actually buy this BS horse manure..

It’s no wonder why Obama was elected in the first place. How easily the people are fooled.. They want to replace one radical progressive liberal, with a moderate progressive liberal.. Well, that makes sense.. No it doesn’t..

Just because someone is deemed electable by the media and the GOP RINO establishment, does mean they are the best person to lead our Nation. Thus also why Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan have done a great disservice to the Tea Party Constitutional Reagan Conservatives, and Conservatism itself.

In other words, how and where do we get to a point that abandoning our Principles for political electable convenience, is best for the Nation.. It is NOT, and is why we stand by the US Constitution, and NOT by the politicians, as Freedom and Liberty are forever, not these fraudulent politically electable politicians.

Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans, and Republicans are not necessarily Conservatives.

I, and millions of other true Tea Party Reagan Conservatives will never support, let alone vote for Romney, period, whether in the Primary, or the General election. Abandoning our values and principles for political electable convenience is not what I will do.

#3, The Tea Party is the embodiment and spirit of the Founding Fathers concept of Individual Freedom and Liberty, an and of a Representative Democracy, called a Republic, ie; America. As President Abraham Lincoln so eloquently stated, a nation “Of the People, By the People, For the People”, which is put into application and practice by their Vote, to whatever party or person best represents their preferred policies and positions.


“In The Tea Party: Three Principles, according to constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley takes on the mainstream media’s characterization of the American Tea Party movement, asserting that it has been distorted in a way that prevents meaningful political dialogue and may even be dangerous for America’s future. Foley sees the Tea Party as a movement of principles over politics. She identifies three ‘core principles’ of American constitutional law that bind the decentralized, wide-ranging movement: limited government, unapologetic US sovereignty and constitutional originalism. These three principles, Foley explains, both define the Tea Party movement and predict its effect on the American political landscape. Foley explains the three principles’ significance to the American founding and constitutional structure. She then connects the principles to current issues such as health care reform, illegal immigration, the war on terror, and internationalism.” unquote

So, if Ann Coulter, or anyone else, is against the Tea Party / Reagan Conservatives, then they are against the US Constitution / Individual Freedom and Liberty, and replaced with a ideological political party allegiance.

    Hope Change in reply to TeaPartyPatriot4ever. | April 3, 2012 at 1:50 am

    wow, TeaPartyPatriot4ever — what a great comment! Thanks!

    You should remember that the whole idea of the individual mandate was dreamed up at the ultra-right-wing Heritage Foundation, and supported by conservatives/Republicans across the board…including Newt Gingrich.

    Only when Obama tried to pass the Republican plan did Republicans decide that it was some kind of socialist monster….they’d had no problem with it before.

      William A. Jacobson in reply to Trucker20. | April 3, 2012 at 9:50 am

      Nice talking point, but not accurate. See “Don’t blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate”

        From the opinion piece you linked, it looks like a distinction without a difference.

        He says: “At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.” — whether the idea was germinated at Heritage or somewhere else (he doesn’t say where), it was brought into our public policy consciousness there.

        He says: “it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others.” — makes no difference what the ‘intention’ was.

        He says: “the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.” — uh huh….whether you ‘lose tax breaks’ or ‘pay a fine’, it’s all the same in the end.

        And he closes with: “Thanks to this good process, I’ve altered my views on many things. The individual mandate in health care is one of them.”

        Seems pretty clear to me.


        Sorry perfessor, but Heritage and conservatism in general can point to a leprechaun sitting on a rock and say HE came up with the mandate idea if it makes them feel better, but it doesn’t change anything.

        Trying to disown the mandate now after nearly all conservatives supported it in the past is like a pregnant woman blaming her date and too much alcohol for her pregnancy. She can do it, but nobody’s really going to buy it.

I’ve lived in the panhandle of Florida for many moons.

We supported a male version of Ann Coulter long ago.

His name is Joe Scarborough.

Live and learn.

Uncle Samuel | April 3, 2012 at 10:07 am

Coulter- Marco Rubio shouldn’t be VP –

Her reasons are not that he is unqualified not being a natural born citizen, but that he is more valuable in the Senate.

Escaped from RI | April 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm

Ann strikes me as if she’s trying to win the Peggy Noonan award for “Conservative Loyalty”. If I think that, as a Romney supporter (now that my adopted Governor, Rick Perry has imploded) I can’t picture what other Republicans think.

Coulter makes money off bomb throwing for the radical right.

But she wants to win…and I don’t think she’s stupid. Unlike you folks, she knows that Gingrich can’t win, Santorum and the rest can’t win, and Romney is the best shot for the GOP this year, sad though that may be.