Friday, November 18, 2011

Ann Coulter throws Newt Gingrich under the bus

I can't believe I'm actually pushing an Ann Coulter column, but I am, sort of. Coulter is a fool who says outrageous things to get noticed. I generally have no interest in what she has to say because she is about nothing but generating publicity for her own brand so she can make a good living.

She is a waste of time.

Today, however, there was something desperate in her post about the recent rise of Newt Gingrich as a potential GOP nominee. It's not so much what she said, which was basically that focusing on Gingrich was pointless because Romney would be the eventual nominee. It was how she said it.

Ann Coulter actually came across, as least to me, as someone who is genuinely terrified that conservatives are screwing around with a bunch of also-rans when what they need to do is get behind the only guy who, apparently, can beat Obama.

It was fascinating to see this miserable women, right-wing hack that she is, argue as a serious apologist for Mitt Romney, even for Romneycare.

She thoroughly trashed Gingrich while anointing Mitt the virtual second coming of Ronald Reagan because she can feel the lack of conservative solidarity as it tries on yet another frontrunner. She knows it's poison for any serious hope of regaining the White House and it's frightening the crap out of her.

By any objective measure, Gingrich should be a candidate to her liking and Romney a disaster, but for Coulter and, very soon, a great many like her, to use the old football cliche, "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."

Looks to me like they're starting to panic.

Check it out. Finally something Ann Coulter has written that's worth reading.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • Hasn't her conservatism mostly been about her commitment to the neocon wars?

    Even her retrospective support for Reagan is mostly gloating about him "winning the Cold War."

    She's a conservative sort of like Krauthammer is a conservative.

    For him, it's mostly about America's commitment to protect Israel.

    For her, it’s mostly about America's massive efforts to kill Muslims.

    Most of the cheerleaders for the neocon wars fully appreciate they are aimed more at safeguarding Israel than doing anything useful for the US.

    Case in point, Krauthammer’s demand in 2008 that we “extend the nuclear umbrella” to Israel – to which Obama replied with a modest assurance of our commitment to defend Israel and Hillary replied with an enthusiastic promise to turn Iran into an ashtray.

    But for AC it has always been more personal (she had friends killed on 9/11 and has not been shy citing that as an explanation for her personal hatred) and more focused on killing ragheads.

    What has her conservatism really been about, beyond that?

    So, no surprise she'll sell out the Koch brothers' neo-Bircher domestic priorities to regain the White House and crank up the war machine, some more.

    Wouldn't she just love to cheer a new American war, this one on Iran?

    And could she possibly be less concerned, when you come right down to it, with undoing Obamacare or, for that matter, Medicare D?

    Sometimes she talks the hard right talk about that stuff, sure.

    But it’s just talk, isn’t it?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home