Coulter is a Coward

Originally posted at The Right Scoop on Novemeber 23, 2012

Everybody has given their explanation of what went wrong in the presidential election. Some say that the electorate has changed, some say that the party has to be less inclined to nominate moderates, some say conservatives have to give up on abortion and amnesty, some say nobody could have won against Obama, and some say massive unprecedented voter fraud in Obama’s favor was the only reason he won.

I read Ann Coulter’s fractured column from Wednesday only because Mark Levin linked to it. Coulter wants it to be clear that Romney wasn’t the problem, so don’t blame him for the loss. I don’t read her stuff regularly anymore like I used to. I don’t watch her on TV, I don’t listen when she is interviewed on radio. I don’t like frauds, I like people who are honest and forthright, straight-talking and who can connect with me on a “we are all Americans” basis. As a huge fan of talk radio and an observer of American politics, it has been clear now for about a year that Ann Coulter is not who I thought she was, and I have written extensively about it.

Wednesday’s column was very telling, and you can tell Coulter directed it at one person. Mark Levin.

It’s no secret I’m a huge fan of Levin, and I summed up why a long time ago on a forum while defending him. I surmised that the reason I defended Mark Levin, was because he defended me. This was years ago, I had no other connection with him than his voice on a radio, but I knew this guy would defend my way of life. My American way of life. Mark defends the coal miner, the mechanic, the truck driver, the farmer, the construction worker, the people who work with their hands who build things and work for others. Beyond that, he marvels at the work they can accomplish, wishes sometimes that he could do the great things they do. Great things that we look at as all in a day’s work, for a paycheck to feed our families. The knowledge that a person far removed from your everyday mundane life understands your world and more than that, respects it, why, that is a powerful bond. And it’s real.

The opening paragraphs of Coulter’s column-

Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.

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.”

Coulter called Levin small-minded and instead of using his name, picked on Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots.

Now, you may ask how I know Coulter was speaking of Levin. I know because those of us who are faithful listeners know that they have had a quarrel for some time, and Levin has talked about how the establishment picks, the Dole, the McCain and the Romney picks are all moderates whom the base rejects. This column, in my view is a spill-over from probably some harshly worded emailing.

Coulter’s action is the action of a coward. I can’t believe it, but even Conor Friedersdorf and David Frum mention Mark by name when they try to diminish him in the eyes of the electorate, so we have to wonder why Coulter will not call Levin out.

See, it is easy for a coward to fight someone whom they feel they can step on without consequence, given that Coulter is speaking from the moderate wing of the Republican party, and Martin is tea party. From the establishment’s point of view, tea partiers are neanderthal meddlers in politics who, not long ago I might add, received harsh reprimands from Coulter for not getting involved in politics sooner. In Coulter’s view, the coal miner, the mechanic, the truck driver, the farmer, the construction worker, and all the retirees and veterans that make up the tea party, ought to shut the %&@# up and go back to whatever it is they do while she is trying to get more PR.

What is not as easy, is aiming your insults at the person you mean to diminish, especially when you know that by doing so, the blowback may take you down. Frum and Friedersdorf don’t hesitate because they did not play at rallying the conservative base at anytime in their career, and that is why they aren’t taken seriously. But Coulter did, and she recognizes the danger she is in.

Are the powers-that-be in the Republican Party sure that they want Ann Coulter as their chief cheerleader and spokesman? I noticed that Ann backed Chris Christie last year and wanted him desperately to get in the race. I noticed he never acknowledged her. I noticed she fiercely defended Romney when it was clear Romneycare was his big elephant in the room, and I noticed that Romney and his people didn’t publicly acknowledge her efforts. When it came time to pick a VP, Ann pushed Christie again saying that the Romney people owed her. But Romney picked Ryan. And now, after the fact, she is still defending Romney and a certain type of Republicanism, and yet nobody holds her out as the prime example of what a loyal Republican should look like. I wonder why?

Do those moderate Republicans really want her driving a wedge between conservatism and whatever it is they call their brand of republicanism? I don’t think so, and it’s clear why they won’t acknowledge her.

She built her career off of her wit and ability to cause a stir. I know now that her PR addiction was the driving force behind many of her most outlandish stances and comments. Some conservatives, including me, mistook her fire for conservative upheaval of the status quo. I know moderates did. But I liked her all those years and they didn’t. They went to great pains to distance themselves from her, not wanting to be associated with her rhetoric.

So now that it seems she is trying to make her place amongst the moderates, seemingly pushing openly for Christie in 2016, defending the brand of politics that Christie represents, hoping that in four years, she may be able to be part of another New England republican victor, this one with a big mouth like her. (Just a theory.)

This tight-wire Coulter is walking is wreaking havoc on her nerves, (just an observation,) because as she slams Jenny Beth Martin she uses this line,

As Trotsky said, in moments of crisis, people with no politics tend to develop the worst possible politics.

and then goes on to trash Cruz, Reagan, and anyone else that the tea party connects with. Anyone who knows anything about Reagan will instantly see red if they bother to read the rest of her column. That said, she may not realize that in her efforts to push Romney’s awesome points, she sharply shows that he had no tea party support. And therein lies the fact of why Romney lost.

As I said in my opening, everyone has their theory as to why Romney lost. Mine is this. Romney lost because he did not get the votes of Reagan Democrats. Obama lost millions of voters this go-round because many many blue-collar people who traditionally vote Democrat could not bring themselves to vote for Obama and could not bring themselves to vote for Romney. I think this because unlike Coulter, I actually live and talk and move amongst people like me, people that work with their hands, and struggle in their daily lives.

As an aside, it was clear during the primaries that conservative Democrats were not going to vote for Obama, and already did not like Romney. When Romney was the nominee, they tuned out until there was something they could see that he would do to understand their lives and where they were coming from. But hey, Obama’s a nice guy, and he doesn’t know how to create jobs. Reagan Democrats have jobs. They will work 17 hour days before taking a handout. Both Obama and Romney had no clue.

But the Republican consultants laughed at me and others when we pointed out that Romney wouldn’t get the Reagan Democrats, and that we needed them to win against Obama. The consultants said that the way to win is to get Democrats to vote for Mitt, and Democrats are not all that keen on the conservative side of the social issues. I was told also, that since I live in the middle of nowhere, by demographical standards, I don’t speak for the rest of the country, so leave them alone and go back to whatever it is I do.

They are so wrong. And now, I and millions of other tea partiers are left without a reason to argue for the Republican party. We are being rejected, quite obviously, and unless there is an intervention within the party, where strong elected conservatives argue on behalf of the tea party patriots across the nation, the Republicans cannot win.

Ann Coulter is just trying to find a place to be where she is comfortable. Perhaps she thinks the tea party is going away. Perhaps she believes that fiercely opposing those that do not agree with her is a good way to rally herself to a new height of PR. Unfortunately, that tactic only works when you are fighting the establishment.

I can’t think of anything more stupid than to go after Mark Levin, and Coulter can say she didn’t because she didn’t name him. But, she has attacked Palin, the tea party, Reagan, conservative candidates, you and me. Even if she didn’t come out and say Mark Levin is small-minded, she clearly insulted everything he stands for.

Please follow and like:
  • Carmela Valente

    I really could never relate to Ann Coulter… Never followed her much. This article is excellent and clearly exposes the reasons that I haven't been drawn to her from the start.

  • task

    You can sense why moderates have a problem with the base. Hell, they have a problem with the whole electorate. Levin often credits democrats and especially the most extreme because they never rest, they persist till they weaken the opposition and then get the most insane legislation approved. We then get slammed from both sides because our base knows it is wrong, the republican politicians know it is wrong and the democrats say they would never have had a problem in the first place if it were not for republicans.

    Republicans need to openly accuse democrats the way democrats accuse them. We have the truth on our side and the Constitution but you would never know that. Are we embarrassed over our Constitution or as illiterate and ant-constitutional as democrats? When Nancy Pelosi says she does not know the difference between the 11th and 14th Amendments but is nevertheless a Constitutionalist that is frightening. It is even worse than that. Most democrats think that their party closely adheres to the Constitution and that republicans are looking to violate their rights. Whose fault is that? It is ours because the other party wants an ignorant public. How can you convince anyone of anything unless you accuse violators of what they are doing wrong? Embarrass them, tell the public today’s democrats are more like the old USSR while previous Soviet bloc eastern Europe is striving to become like 19th century America. When conservatives use the Constitution for a backdrop, preach it, defend it and refuse to allow anyone to violate it they win because the other side is defenseless, people learn what they never before knew and our base rallies.

    We offered McCain and Romney and lost and, yes, it was also about free stuff which something has to be done about because dependents have become too comfortable with their dependency; Franklin warned us about that over two centuries ago. But since the demographics have changed how would you expect them to understand what America is about if you don’t articulate it and articulation requires that you point out that the other side is not representative of the natural law upon which our founding documents were created and hence their proposed utopian solutions are in violation of our Constitutional protected liberty.

    So now after losing with McCain and Romney we have Boehner as our Speaker and the question becomes: what is the difference? Can he articulate Constitutional conservatism? Does he know the Constitution? Does he believe in it? Which side is he really on? We don’t want to hear that he is on America’s side because America and her Constitution are one and the same.

    Consider this as an example. When I listen to the feminist black caucus call McCain and Graham racists because they don’t think that Rice’s performance deserves a promotion it should become apparent that there certainly is a difference between democrats and republicans. Do you think McCain or Graham, on national TV, would say that the caucuses are really the racists, who might dislike older white males and inappropriately and deliberately use words to mask incompetence and confuse the voters? Well, maybe republicans should. That is how you arouse media attention and then bring the argument back to where it belongs; who knew what and when concerning four dead Americans?