Until now, Ann Coulter has been one of the purity trolls of the Republican Party. It was only a year or so ago that she claimed if Chris Christie didn't run, Romney would get the nomination and Obama would win. Remember that? Not that I'm a huge Ann Coulter fan, but she has at least been consistent about getting her Mittens hate on.
That is, until Saturday evening. One of two things has happened. Either Ann has had an epiphany in the form of a lightning bolt to the brain, or else her evil twin Skippy has taken over her body and is inhabiting it as a moderate.
When the American Spectator wonders who castrated her, you know something is amiss.
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."
It seems Republicans have a little problem with intellectual honesty. It's either that, or evil twins. You be the judge. In this clip, she throws everyone but the kitchen sink under the bus, and I do mean everyone. Goldwater Republicans, the Tea Party, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich. Everybody. She has thrown them all over for Mittens, or MRMoney, if I switch two letters.
Transcript below the fold.
BAIER: Ann, your take on this win tonight and what it means for the GOP Race.
COULTER: Well, we're getting closer to the end and I think the sooner the primaries and the bitter infighting ends, I think the better it's going to be for the eventual nominee. I really think this is not good for the general election against Obama if it continues much longer. It's a lot of fun. I'm a political nut like a lot of people.
I like watching the debates and the returns but in the end a lot of money is being spent that ought to be used against Obama in the general election, and I do think it's going to be Romney and he's our strongest candidate. I think he's the most conservative and you don't have the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problems.
Newt Gingrich was great many years ago but I don't think he's a strong candidate in the general election and I really just think for the sake of the country which is to say for the sake of beating Obama, wish we could wrap it up and begin the era of good feeling among Republicans.
BAIER: Let me ask you this. Rick Santorum said tonight in Colorado "We're not going to win this election if either of these two guys is nominated. We will lose, let me assure you." Then he went on to talk about the 'very poor' comment that as we talked about in a number of places has been taken out of context. But he said 'what person running for public office would say he doesn't care about the very poor? How many of you say you don't care about the very poor?' That's from Rick Santorum on the stump.
COULTER: Um yes, I mean he's losing to Romney. I don't think that was a gaffe at all, what Romney said, beyond being out of context. I think most people would listen to that and say "Yeah! We're spending a lot of money on the poor. What about the vast, suffering middle class?"
As for what Michael said, I think we should be -- I think conservatives ought to be popping champagne corks, because the era of Rockefeller Republicans is over, they are dead. I mean just in 2008 we had one candidate who was validly, openly pro choice, we had one candidate who opposed Clinton's impeachment. We had one candidate -- our nominee -- who wanted to shut down Guantanamo, said waterboarding is torture, voted against the Bush tax cuts.
We don't have any of that on the positions right now. They are all conservative on their positions now and I completely agree that it's going to be very difficult to take out a sitting President, the first Black President who is personally charming and liked personally by most Americans though they don't like his policies with the entire mainstream media behind him.
But as for the positions, I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today. The whole country will go that way if we don't do something about illegal immigration and I think the Tea Party is admitting they're utter hypocrites if they vote for a guy who was an influence peddler for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I mean that was the spark that the Tea Party. Santelli complaining "I don't want to be paying for my neighbor's mortgage".