There is no conservative writer that I admire more than Ann
Coulter. She's smart as hell and, more importantly, she is
courageous. She has always been willing to write what other
conservatives believe but don't have the guts to say in print. She
has never played it safe and has certainly never adjusted her
opinions for the sake of conforming to the conventional wisdom of
Old Guard Republicans. In 2008, for example, she
declared that she would not merely vote for, but actively
campaign for Hillary Clinton if the Republican Party were foolish
enough to nominate John McCain for President: "If you are looking
at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name,
manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our
girl, because she's more conservative than he is."
But something has happened to Coulter. I don't have
firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and
taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to
undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent
columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What
else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable
where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a
vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen
opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of
hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly
trashes Republican "moderates" like McCain, yet now supports a
candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater
It first became apparent that something awful had happened
to Coulter last November, when she
wrote a column asking "If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?"
In this surreal effusion, she claimed that the media were "pushing
Newt Gingrich" and other alternatives to Romney "because they are
terrified of running against him." This, as many pointed out at the
time, was preposterous. The only thing that terrifies the media
about Romney is that he might not get the GOP nomination.
This is the man they want to run against. Unlike Coulter,
the media and the Obama reelection team know that Romney can be
easily portrayed as a Wall Street parasite whose only memorable
"accomplishment" as the Governor of Massachusetts was the enactment
of a health "reform" law that renders him unable to credibly
Which brings us to the latest evidence that Coulter has
been somehow altered. Her inexplicable support for Romney has led
her beyond being merely wrong about his chances in the general
election to writing things that are either deliberately
disingenuous or genuinely ignorant. The latest example of this
tragic development is a column
titled, "Three Cheers for RomneyCare." As its title suggests, this
piece actually defends the Massachusetts "universal" health law.
When I first read it, I could hardly believe such horse manure had
emanated from Coulter's keyboard. The column opens with this
howler: "If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food
industry or housing, RomneyCare would probably still be viewed as a
massive triumph for conservative free-market principles -- as it
was at the time."
First, Coulter apparently didn't notice, but the Democrats
did socialize housing, and it triggered the most dangerous
financial crisis since the Great Depression. More to the point, her
suggestion that Romneycare was viewed by conservatives as a
free-market triumph is revisionist nonsense. Coulter attempts to
support this claim by naming a couple of conservatives who
initially supported the law. Somehow, though, she neglects to
mention the large number who opposed it. As Merrill Matthews
pointed out in Forbes, when Newt Gingrich claimed in a
debate that most conservatives once supported the mandate as a way
of countering HillaryCare, "That's wrong. There was, in fact, a
heated battle among conservatives, with a handful pushing for the
mandate and the large majority opposing it."
Nor does Coulter mention that one of the two conservatives
she cites as supporters of Romneycare and its mandate has long
since recanted. Robert Moffitt of the Heritage Foundation, whom
Coulter tells us was so excited about Romneycare that he "flew to
Boston for the bill signing," realized years ago that mandates were
not an effective mechanism for eliminating the "free-rider"
problem. Since 2008, he has vigorously
advocated "far better alternatives to the individual mandate."
And Moffitt's buyer's remorse is by no means an isolated case. As
Matthews puts it, "[V]irtually all conservatives… have come to
realize that the mandate is the gateway drug to control the health
care system." Coulter, in a journalistic sin of omission worthy of
the New York Times, fails to note any of this.
She instead claims that conservatives dislike Romneycare
"because both ObamaCare and Romneycare concern the same general
topic area -- health care -- and can be nicknamed (politician's
name plus "care")." To this ridiculous charge she adds the
irrelevant point that mandates are constitutional when enacted by
states rather than by the federal government. This is true enough,
but it misses what should be an obvious point. Health care
consumers are less concerned with constitutional nuances relating
to federal versus state powers than with the reality that they will
be forced to buy insurance whether they wish to or not. That the
mandate was passed by a state legislature rather than Congress will
not render voters less inclined to resent such government
interference in their private transactions.
Coulter then reminds us that Romney has pledged to repeal
Obamacare, but that promise will ring hollow once Axelrod & Co.
inform the voters that the law is virtually identical, in its
effect on their individual lives, to a law her candidate signed in
Massachusetts. The damage this will do to Romney's credibility will
be exacerbated when Obama's many friends in the "news" media point
out that his reversal of position on health reform is part of a
larger pattern of opportunism. They will gleefully report, for
example, that Romney is also guilty of shameless flip-flops on
Second Amendment rights and abortion. On the latter issue he has
reversed himself no fewer than three times. When the voters see MSM
"reporters" relentlessly pound him for such "evolution," they will
realize that his campaign promises are meaningless.
Yet Coulter, once the scourge of such malleable
"moderates," has gone through some sort of transformation that has
rendered her blind to Romney's cheap opportunism. And if the
primary voters are foolish enough to follow her advice, they will
rue the day they listened to her and the establishment Republicans
with whom she has now made common cause. As Coulter herself
pointed out last year when she spoke at CPAC, Barack Obama will
be reelected in 2012 if the Republican Party nominates Mitt Romney
As I said, I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice that Miss Ann is acting strangely.
Either Ann has spent so much time hanging around with media elites that she has absorbed their worldview or she simply has a crush on Mitt Romney.
The latter idea has logic behind it. Women do seek to "marry up" by finding a man who is more successful than they are, who makes more money and if they are also at least as physically attractive as the woman is so much the better.
In Mitt Miss Ann (or her hormones anyway) may think she has found an ideal match (but for the fact that he is happily married - but the heart wants what it wants). He is, after all, hansom, rich and accomplished. Sure he has displayed a certain "plasticity" on the issues (pro-life when seeking status within the Mormon church, pro-abortion when running for office in a far-left state and pro-life again when seeking national office in the GOP) but who really cares when looking at what a dashing figure he cuts, especially when contemplating his net worth.
Do I really believe that Miss Coulter wants to have some kind of adulterous affair with Mr. Romney or that she wishes him to leave his wife for her? No, not really. But subconscious desires have a powerful affect on conscious attitudes and actions.