Coulter endorses Romney

posted at 9:58 pm on January 16, 2008 by Allahpundit

As one of the handful of conservatives in America whose endorsement might actually move some votes, why on earth did she wait until after Michigan to do this?

I’ve been casually taking swipes at Mitt Romney for the past year based on the assumption that, in the end, Republicans would choose him as our nominee. My thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best candidate.

I had no idea that Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire planned to do absolutely zero research on the candidates and vote on the basis of random impulses.

Dear Republicans: Please do one-tenth as much research before casting a vote in a presidential election as you do before buying a new car…

The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide…

At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican – a high-IQ, articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican. Of the top five Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn’t dumped his first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) – except Huckabee. And unlike Huckabee, Romney doesn’t have a son who hanged a dog at summer camp.

Exit question request to Fredheads: Tell me how you feel right now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

GEORGE ROMNEY CONTROLS THE UNITED STATES MILITARY! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

Get Freducated! I’m with Fred ’08! It’s a Fredalanche!

right2bright on January 17, 2008 at 1:31 PM

BKennedy on January 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Senators Coburn, Gramm, Burr, Domenici, Thune, Graham, Brownback, Coats, Lieberman, DeWine, and Kyl,

Conservatives? ROFLMAO

Gianni on January 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM

He said if he was drafted, he would have served. Easy to say in hindsight, considering that he wasn’t drafted. And if true, it makes the deferment unnecessary.

Mark Jaquith on January 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Deferments are only temporary.

When Mitt’s deferments ended in 1970 he became eligible for military service, but he drew a high number in the lottery which ensured he was not drafted.

If you want to make an argument (in hindsight) that there should have been no religious or college deferments during the war, go ahead and make one (although Romney was not responsible for Selective Service rules); you cannot argue that he would not have served if he had been called to do so.

Buy Danish on January 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Kyl,

Conservatives? ROFLMAO

Gianni on January 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Jon Kyl has a lifetime rating of 96.9 from the American Conservative Union.

He messed up on that immigration fiasco, but he is a conservative.

JannyMae on January 17, 2008 at 2:27 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3623346

Has anyone tried this yet?

Scary, my first was Ron Paul…ahem, I guess I am more Libertarian than I thought.

2nd Trancredo and 3rd was Duncan Hunter.

AprilOrit on January 17, 2008 at 2:35 PM

One trouble with your 8:01 AM post, snake307, is that some endoresements do have value. I would agree with you about not caring about the endorsement of the New York Times or a pundit such as Ann Coulter. But I do care about people who are experienced public officials. When endorsements for John McCain come from former Secretaries of State Schultz, Kissinger, Haig and Eagleburger, former national security officials MacFarlane, Inman, Woolsey and Kean, former Cabinet officers (outside State) Schlesinger, Mosbacher and Kemp, former Navy Secretaries Lehman and Ball, Senators and former Senators Coburn, Gramm, Burr, Domenici, Thune, Graham, Brownback, Coats, Lieberman, DeWine, and Kyl, then you get the picture of someone in whom public officials have confidence and whose support — coming from a pretty conservative group — belies the anti-McCain rhetoric seen on this site.

Another trouble with your 8:01 AM post is that as much as you complain about not having a reason to vote for a candidate, all I see is a negativity toward McCain groupng him with Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is an anti-military socialist who is pro-choice, who will increase government spending and who will nominate left wing judges ot the federal bench. John McCain is the oppposite: he is a genuine war hero who is a pro-life fiscal conservative who will cut federal spending and will nominate strict constructionist judges to the federal bench.

Phil Byler on January 17, 2008 at 8:48 AM

McCain is no conservative. He’ll raise taxes. Has voted to raise taxes in the past. He voted against tax cuts. Is in favor of Amnesty, or as it’s sometimes known, Shamnesty. Was one of the architects of the biggest assault on free speech in the last 100 years. He is a Democrat with an R after his name. Conservative Judges? On what do you base the idea that he’ll be in favor of Conservative Judges? He hasn’t been in favor of anything Conservative yet.

McCain is a Veteran. He was a POW. I respect his service. I was in the military. That fact alone doesn’t make me the best choice to be dog catcher. If only Veterans were allowed to hold office, the fact of his Military Service would be important, however since we don’t have that rule, everyone pointing out he was a Hero is a pile of dog excrement.

Someone pointed out above that the vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil. Show me a Conservative, and I’ll vote for him or her. Show me a Conservative, and I’ll support them. I voted for and supported Herman Cain when he ran for the Senate. Show me a conservative, and you’ll get my vote. Show me McCain, the Maverick, the leader of the gang of 14 moderates, and you don’t have a Conservative, and you don’t have my vote.

Oh by the way, that’s how I know he wouldn’t present Conservative Judges, he helped hold up dozens of Judicial Nominations with his Gang of 14 nonsense.

He may be President next year, but it won’t be with my money, or my vote. A vote for McCain is a vote for Liberal.

Snake307 on January 17, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Speaking of them (MSM) attacking the enemy

Duuude, watching that exchange it’s painfully obvious that AP reporter is completely professional and unbiased… [/sarc]

SkinnerVic on January 17, 2008 at 3:07 PM

And unlike Huckabee, Romney doesn’t have a son who hanged a dog at summer camp.

LOL….how random of a comment is that?

Livefreeordie on January 17, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Huck’s son hung a dog at summer camp??? EWWW

mattyj86 on January 17, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Romney has no foreign policy experience; and while McCain faithfully supported the troops and their mission in Iraq

Phil Byler on January 17, 2008 at 7:42 AM

A President is basically the country’s CEO. Romney has mucho experience as a CEO, as Governor and in private business. Juan Plantation McVano has none of this. Someone runing a mom and pop grocery store has more.

Juan supports the troops? He supports 15 month multiple tours with short turn around and stop loss. When asked if it would be OK to keep the troops there for fifty years, he responded by saying, “Make it a hundred”.

Flash back to RVN – if a Presidential candidate had said that in country, he would not likely have made it out alive.

MB4 on January 17, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Jon Kyl

He messed up on that immigration fiasco, but he is a conservative.

JannyMae on January 17, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Benedict Arnold “messed up” on one thing too.

MB4 on January 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Feelin’ fine, AP. Anyone is free to endorse whomever they want. I know that Ann’s favorite candidate is Duncan Hunter, but since Hunter’s chances are slim, she likes Mitt.

Me, I’m sticking with Fred for the primary. When the nominee is chosen, even if it’s not Fred, that man gets my vote.

TeeDee on January 17, 2008 at 3:24 PM

I used to like McCain …. before the name change to … John Feingold-Kennedy McCain. You ARE judged by the company you keep. Too bad, he used to be a better man.

Ernest on January 17, 2008 at 3:24 PM

I used to like McCain …. before the name change to … John Feingold-Kennedy McCain. You ARE judged by the company you keep. Too bad, he used to be a better man.

I think the Keating five thing really screwed him up. Since then, he’s always seemed to me to be more interested in the media than conservative principals. Come on, who would have thought to put a ban on negative campaign advertisements before an election? If the guy is a dolt, why can’t we point out he’s a dolt? If he can’t see the Congress shall pass no law abridging part of the Constitution then he’s not my candidate.

Snake307 on January 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM

alright it has to be said.

Romney decided to change his mind on abortion in his early to mid 50′s. either he had a authentic change of heart concerning a core principal or he is lying about his beliefs to become pres.
If he legitimatly had a change of heart,then what else could he have a change of heart about??? immigration?national defense?…. Supreme court judges????

If he’s just flip flopping in order to get elected then he is a lair and too much of a coward to express his views honestly.
If he is pro choice and just said so i would say .. I disagree but he may get my vote …. but with his flip flopping on somthing as important as the value of human life there is no chance…

being pro choice is dissappointing(but he could still get my vote).. but lying about it in order to get more votes is unforgivable…

DarianCounts on January 17, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Exit question request to Fredheads: Tell me how you feel right now.

She’s always said she would prefer a more moderate candidate who was elected in a blue state than a conservative.

And thus her true colors are revealed.

Sir Andrew on January 17, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Romney decided to change his mind on abortion in his early to mid 50’s.

DarianCounts on January 17, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Is this some kind of parody, like for the Onion or something?

Mitt’s D.O.B. March 12th, 1947

Buy Danish on January 17, 2008 at 6:12 PM

Personally, Mitt was my second choice after Fred. Also, a true story about electability, or how to pick a candidate in 5 seconds.

My mom: Who’s that?
Me: Mitt Romney
Mom: He’s handsome. Who’s that?
Me: That’s Fred Thompson.
Mom: He’s ugly.

/first post

Fizzmaister on January 17, 2008 at 6:32 PM

Personally, Mitt was my second choice after Fred. Also, a true story about electability, or how to pick a candidate in 5 seconds.

My mom: Who’s that?
Me: Mitt Romney
Mom: He’s handsome. Who’s that?
Me: That’s Fred Thompson.
Mom: He’s ugly.

/first post yay.

Fizzmaister on January 17, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Ha ha, that’s funny, Fizzmaister. Seriously, though, there are a lot of people who vote with those criteria. How about this – Mitt vs. Silky? Mitt would slaughter him. :0)

Eclectic on January 17, 2008 at 7:55 PM

McCain is like Bob Dole except liberal. Bob Dole was a true war hero and, unlike McCain, a real republican. But he wasnt electible as he was a long-time Washington senator.

Geezus H. Huckachrist is an absolute satanic nutjob. Not only is he a liberal loon, despite being pro-life, but he is about as intelligent as your average grade school teacher. He has the morals of a televangelist.

Fred is an actor. Yes, he is a conservative but he is also a lazy ass. I respect that he picked up on a hot wife….not sure how his first wife that he dumped like a bad habit feels about that though. He has zero chance…cant even beat Ron Paul.

Mitt rules.

I like Rudy too but we need somebody like Mitt at this time. A moral and intelligent dude.

Roger Waters on January 17, 2008 at 8:02 PM

Smart girl!!!

jeanie on January 17, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Why should Ann Coulter’s endorsement move me as a FredHead one Iota?

bopone on January 17, 2008 at 8:50 PM

I for one am sick and tired of the gratuitous Mitt GQ handsome posts…if you hate good looking people I hate you!

freakin commies

windansea on January 17, 2008 at 9:11 PM

Romney decided to change his mind on abortion in his early to mid 50’s.

DarianCounts on January 17, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Is this some kind of parody, like for the Onion or something?

Mitt’s D.O.B. March 12th, 1947

Buy Danish on January 17, 2008 at 6:12 PM

BD..having problems understanding the quote? “in his early to mid fifties” not when he was born bro

Here are some other things missing from the Fred! campaign:
1) a finance chair
2) a clear chain of command
3) top-down loyalty
4) a candidate who was willing to campaign for more than 4 hours at day
5) direct mail
6) a college student coordinator
7) a media strategy
Other than that, the campaign had everything.

windansea on January 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Anne Coulter bashes a fellow Christian, in the person of Mike Huckabee, for not more vigorously debunking the fairy tale of evolution, yet the Mormon church teaches that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers and this women doesn’t say a word!? This alone is heretical (and blasphemous) for it changes Jesus’ claim to be “the only begotten of the Father.” What does she do? Calls Huckabee a “stupid Christian” and endorses Romney!

I used to consider Anne’s opinion seriously, but her choice to support Romney and lie about Huck is too much. There are a number of pundits, bloggers, reporters, and radio hosts that I will never trust again to be “fair and balanced.”

apacalyps on January 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Anybody that espouses TRUE CONSERVATISM should endorse and suppoort Fred Thompson, including Ann. There is no other choice and those that think so are deluding themselves. As Fred stated, “This is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party”….

ultracon on January 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM

On “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert read Thompson the language of the Republican “pro-life” plank and asked Thompson to state his position on it.

Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?”

“No,” said Thompson.

“You would not?” said Russert.

“No,” said Thompson.

“Each state would make their own abortion laws?” Russert asked.

“Yeah,” said Thompson.

This man supports a person’s choice to kill little babies.

apacalyps on January 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM

This man supports a person’s choice to kill little babies.

No, apacalyps, if you actually paid attention to what Fred says instead of cherry-picking, you would realize that it is better for us to take the fight to the states than to try and wrestle with trying to create a census of 66% in Congress, which isn’t going to happen.

Sir Andrew on January 17, 2008 at 10:40 PM

consensus, not census.

Sir Andrew on January 17, 2008 at 10:41 PM

No, apacalyps, if you actually paid attention to what Fred says instead of cherry-picking, you would realize that it is better for us to take the fight to the states than to try and wrestle with trying to create a census of 66% in Congress, which isn’t going to happen.

Sir Andrew on January 17, 2008 at 10:40 PM

You can’t spin this. Fred would give states the right to have abortion laws if they want. If abortion is murder, why give anyone the option to murder?

apacalyps on January 17, 2008 at 11:19 PM

You can’t spin this. Fred would give states the right to have abortion laws if they want. If abortion is murder, why give anyone the option to murder?

You’re looking at this from only once side. What option do we have now at this very moment, again?

We have NO option to get rid of abortion as it currently stands.

Sir Andrew on January 18, 2008 at 12:58 AM

apacalyps on January 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Get your facts right. First of all, it’s Ann, not Anne. Second, the LDS Church very clearly teaches that Jesus was born to Mary, who was a virgin, and therefore He is God’s only begotten son.

Please don’t try to teach doctrine of other religions if you don’t know what it is.

Eclectic on January 18, 2008 at 7:18 AM

windansea on January 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Thanks, you are correct. His not The.

The argument is still ludicrous. At what age is it acceptable to change one’s mind? 20? 30? 40? Never?

Because one moves to the right on abortion one can’t be trusted on national defense issues?

Buy Danish on January 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM

Exit question request to Fredheads: Tell me how you feel right now.

Where’s the “grab ‘em by the throat and beat ‘em to submission” Coulter I know…

Sheesh!

BadBrad on January 18, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Where’s the “grab ‘em by the throat and beat ‘em to submission” Coulter I know…

Buuut Brrraadddd, he was elected in a blue state! LOLzGawsh!!!!11!

He may turn out to be a moderate Republican, but at least he’ll be shiny!

/sarcasm

Yeah, we’re getting the same thing we got with GWB…”He may be fiscally liberal, but at least he’s a social conservative!”

Sir Andrew on January 18, 2008 at 12:17 PM

Ann coulter,

She must be a racist, she called Mitt Romney “articulate.” I mean if you call Obama “articulate.” You are a racist.

mark24609 on January 18, 2008 at 2:21 PM

No surprise noting another expression of Coultier’s lack of good taste. Like a smoker, her burnt pallette has diminished aesthetic sensitivity regarding conservatism.

maverick muse on January 18, 2008 at 3:35 PM

–no slam on smokers.
just noting loss of taste buds.

maverick muse on January 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Eclectic wrote, Get your facts right. First of all, it’s Ann, not Anne.

A typo. Sorry.

Second, the LDS Church very clearly teaches that Jesus was born to Mary, who was a virgin, and therefore He is God’s only begotten son.

You’re either ignorant (that we can fix) or a bold faced liar. The Mormon church teaches that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.

Quote from the Mormon Website. http://www.lds.org/

“On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are BROTHERS may seem surprising to some – especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations,” says the statement. “But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed OFFSPRING of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit BROTHERS. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older BROTHER. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)”

This is heretical (and blasphemous). The Bible clearly teaches Jesus is the only begotten Son of God:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His ONLY begotten Son (Jesus), that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” John 3:16

The other differences are many, but we don’t really need to discuss them. If you have God wrong, you have everything wrong.

Please don’t try to teach doctrine of other religions if you don’t know what it is.

Take your own advice.

apacalyps on January 18, 2008 at 10:39 PM

Its either Fred or Red in ’08.

You decide, cause after eight years of do-little or nothing George W. Bush, I have beyond had it with RINOs.

Get ready for the Queen.

All Hail the Hildeb*tch!

Dave R. on January 19, 2008 at 6:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4