I don’t pay much attention to Ann Coulter because I think she is ridiculous, but I did note with interest that she is enthusiastically endorsing Mitt Romney. I assume this is because she thinks Romney has the best chance to win. But it does present a bit of problem for her because she was so hostile to John McCain four years ago. To hear her talk, she hates John McCain because she thinks John McCain hates conservatives and likes to piss them off for fun. I don’t know if that goes back to McCain dissing the Christian right in 2000 or if it has something to do with policy disagreements over the years, but it strikes me as odd that she’d be so angry with McCain and not hold Romney in the same degree of scorn. It’s true that McCain is better at making enemies than Romney, but they both have perfected the art of bashing conservative ideas until the precise moment that they need conservative votes. I don’t see them as much different in that regard.
I also think it’s probably not the best way to help Romney’s campaign to go on cable television and say that John McCain is a douche bag. I don’t know that this is that helpful either:
“Consistency is not a great thing, and especially someone like John McCain who consistently annoyed conservatives, bragged about annoying conservatives, and would claim he was courageous by attacking conservatives and getting good press in the New York Times.”
She’s be better off pointing out that John McCain wasn’t consistent. In other words, if McCain’s flip-flopping wasn’t disqualifying, why should Romney’s flip-flopping be a problem?
But, instead, she tries to say that being consistent “is not a great thing.” I don’t think she’ll convince anyone of that. But convincing people of that is going to be a full-time job for the Republican establishment if they make Romney the nominee.
Course she was the one who jumped up and down telling anyone who would listen that Chris Christie was the only one to prop up because if he wasn’t in then Mitt would be the nominee and ‘we will lose’.
that’s true. I had forgotten the latter part of that. But consistency isn’t a great thing so…no biggie.
ah yes, to be inconsistent might mean one had to evolve…ha!
Picking someone more exciting and more Conservative for VP only highlighted McCain’s weaknesses and was one of his biggest mistakes.
What are the chances Mitt will choose a non-crazy for the VP slot?
Not being led around by the Wingnuts is the only thing that might give Romney some credibility. My dream is to see the Wingnuts completely cut out of this election.
I really doubt Romney would go out of the GOP for a VP choice. Hence he will choose a crazy by default.
it strikes me as odd that she’d be so angry with McCain and not hold Romney in the same degree of scorn
Really? Let’s see, something happened in between these two observations…right on the tip of my tongue…oh yeah! The Republicans lost the White House! That’s it!
Electoral defeat has a certain way of reordering one’s sense of priorities…even if one is a freakish, attention-starved invention of cable-TV producers.
Lame. If you are going to defend inconsistency, the best way to do it is to quote Emerson:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.
And Whitman:
Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then, I contradict myself;
(I am large–I contain multitudes.)
But then what can you expect from a shithead like Ann Coulter?
I’m surprised she’s not a Gingrich fan. They seem like two peas in a pod.
I think she feared that McCain really might be a “straight talker” to some degree, and hence an unreliable “conservative”. No worries about Romney on that score: any spectre of integrity rearing its ugly head under his coiffure is null and void.