Ann Coulter: Romney was superior to Ronald Reagan, you know

Ann Coulter really has lost her mind. In her latest column, she manages to shed whatever conservative cred (if any) she still had. Let’s run through some of the highlights lowlights of her piece, shall we:

But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the  explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: “What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway  elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The  presidential loss is unequivocally on them.”

There was also the seven months of primaries, during which Romney got more  votes than the rest of the field combined. So there’s that. Moreover, the idea  that Mitt Romney was “a weak, moderate candidate” is preposterous.

Got that? According to Ann, it’s "preposterous" to suggest the guy who’s supported — or still supports — nutty liberal ideas like minimum wage indexationcap and trade, ethanol subsidies, government health care mandates, the appointment of liberal judges, and man-made global warming, to name but a few, is a moderate. Coulter next knocks a real conservative, Ted Cruz, while claiming it’s "nonsense" to suggest Mitt didn’t present a sharp, conservative contrast to Obama’s statism:

Even newly elected Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas complained that Romney failed to  get across that there are “two viewpoints and directions for the country” and  that he erred by trying to “be a nice guy.” As Cruz said, “I’m pretty certain  Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama” in the third debate — proving  once again that comedy is harder than it looks.

The idea that Romney failed to present a clear contrast with Obama or was too “nice” is also nonsense. If Republicans continue to tell themselves comforting  myths about our candidate being the problem, they better get used to losing a  lot more elections.

I’ll make a couple points here. First, as the Wall Street Journal noted a year and a half before the election, how could Romney credibly present a contrast to Obama when he’s with him on a number of issues (see above)? Obamacare remained unpopular throughout the election cycle, but Romney barely mentioned it during the campaign because, well, he invented it, and thus had zero credibility on an issue that should have been Obama’s Achilles’ heel. Second, when Ted Cruz mocked Romney’s "Obama’s a nice guy" strategy, he was absolutely correct. Despite the fact Team Obama essentially accused Romney of being a felon who infected a woman with cancer, Romney averred the following about his opponent:

The president exudes an air of likability and friendliness, which is endearing.

Couple that with the fact Romney refused to even bring Benghazi up at the foreign policy debate and I’d say Ted Cruz, and anyone else who believes Romney was too "nice" (to borrow Coulter’s word) has a point. How am I wrong? Coulter next goes into this bizarre, lengthy screed in which she trashes Ronald Reagan and leaves readers with the impression that Romney’s the more conservative of the two. I’m not making this up:

Reagan picked a pro-choice, anti-supply side Republican as his running mate.  He lavishly praised FDR in his acceptance speech at the national convention,  leading The New York Times to title an editorial about him “Franklin Delano  Reagan.”


As governor of a purple state, Reagan had signed the most liberal abortion law  in the country and imposed the three largest state tax hikes in the nation’s  history. Nevada Sen. Paul Laxalt’s nominating speech hailed Reagan’s  governorship of California for producing “a veritable Great Society of aid for  schools, minorities and the handicapped,” as the Times put it. Reagan had also been an actual member of the godless, treason party.

I’ll let Mark Levin respond to this calumny:

Really Ann?  You mean Romney’s one debate bests Reagan’s decades of advocacy for conservatism, his battles with the Republican establishment, and his building a conservative movement? Fact is Romney has done nothing for conservatism. I repeat, nothing. No leadership.  No grassroots efforts. No major policy initiatives.  Nothing. Reagan won two landslides. Romney won nothing. Cherry-picking facts Ann, in some strange cult-like obsession, fools no one. Same with your cheerleading for Chris Christie.

There’s plenty more silliness in Coulter’s piece. Here’s one of my favorites:

Romney was the most libertarian candidate Republicans have run since Calvin  Coolidge.

Of course, Ann. You know how much us libertarians love health care mandates, ethanol subsidies, and crony capitalism.  Coulter also suggests there are no moderates left in the Republican Party. Or something:

To the extent Republicans have a problem with their candidates, it’s not that  they’re not conservative enough. Where are today’s Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen  Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy.

Er, what about Mitt Romney, Ann? Oh yes, he’s a libertarian who’s more conservative than Ronald Reagan. My mistake. Seriously, I knew Coulter was losing it last winter when she said Romneycare is a great conservative program and Governor Palin, not Mandate Mitt, was the establishment candidate.  C4P contributor Roderic Deane suggests in an email that Ann Coulter is bucking to become the next Arianna Huffington. I think he has a point.

(18853 Posts)