Coulter endorses Hillary

Apparently she prefers her to McCain.

At least, so claims Drudge.

coulterhillsm.jpg

While it's tough to evaluate the claim (as the link goes nowhere), if it's true I'm not surprised at all. I've been predicting something along such lines.

What I'm still trying to figure out is why McCain didn't make this list.

And why Romney did.

This is the first time in my life that I've had to decide whom I'm more against in a primary.

The Coulter endorsement helps.

I guess you could say this is clarifying.

(After all, I don't defend McCain, and I don't defend conservatism, so I need guidance from someone.)

UPDATE: Drudge now supplies the link to the Coulter endorsement, which is this YouTube video. She says Hillary will be better for the war on terror, and says the following:

"I'll campaign for her."

"Compared to John McCain, she will be better."

"Hillary is absolutely more conservative."

"She lies less than John McCain."

"She's smarter than John McCain."

"He is very very bad for the country."

It could have been worse.

At least she didn't call him the "fag candidate."

Perhaps I should stay tuned.

UPDATE: Watching last night's Democratic debate, Victor Davis Hanson opined:

The gulf between Hillary and McCain is Grand-Canyon like.
(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

What's a little Grand Canyon to Ann Coulter?

MORE: I don't know whether pork is a Coulter war issue, but Examiner columnist Tim Carney found a sharp contrast between McCain and Hillary:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a leading opponent of pork and one of the only lawmakers to forswear earmarks, while Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is Congress' leading porker.
"Leading porker" versus "leading opponent of pork"?

(Shhh! Better not let Ann hear about that or she'll call McCain an apologist for Sharia, and Islamofascism.... And Hillary a Great American Patriot!)

UPDATE: My thanks Glenn Reynolds for the link, and a warm welcome to all.

Comments always appreciated, agree or not; I discussed the comment about the slowly boiled frog here.

UPDATE: Calling Coulter's outburst a "hysterical demand for extortion rather than a considered and thoughtful political position," Ed Morrissey wonders whether she's finally jumped the shark:

It appears Coulter hates McCain more than she cares about conservative values. She has acquired McCain Derangement Syndrome, and is rather obviously unbalanced by it. Sean Hannity was clearly embarrassed to listen to this tirade, and Coulter should have been embarrassed to have indulged in it.
I don't think Ann Coulter is embarrassed by anything she says. Whether she's an entertainer or a troll, her shock marketing technique obviously works, for she sells a lot of books.

UPDATE (02/03/08): Via Glenn Reynolds, a reminder from Ann Coulter that she is serious.

(Whether she should be taken seriously is another matter.)

UPDATE: A reader helpfully emailed me with a quote from Ann Coulter's web site -- AnnCoulter.com:

"The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain."
Maybe Hillary can hire Ann to do Republican outreach.

UPDATE: Hillary has welcomed Ann Coulter's support!

Strange bedfellows beware!

posted by Eric on 02.01.08 at 12:01 AM










Comments

I suspect that some conservatives are thinking in terms of the 'putting a frog into a pot of hot water' analogy as opposed to a slow, drawn out death from creeping socialism and the steady encroachment of nanny-statism.

There is some merit to that argument.

RE   ·  February 1, 2008 7:26 AM

By this summer's conventions, I predict the presidential tickets will be:

Hillary/McCain
vs
McCain/Hillary

The presidential debates will just be those two laughing their heads off.

Richard   ·  February 1, 2008 2:54 PM

Keating 7

huggy   ·  February 1, 2008 3:03 PM

Why is everyone calling it the keating 7? Including me. I looked for the other members and it came up: Keating Five Scandal.

huggy   ·  February 1, 2008 3:13 PM

Well, one could even opine that a Hillary victory could be the worst possible outcome for the Democrats (and, conversely, the best for the Republicans).

To wit:

1. Hillary is already damaged goods and I think there's an excellent possibility that she'll be even MORE damaged as time drags on. Bubba is NOT going to be an asset to Hillary's administration and she'll probably tell him to keep his mouth shut and amuse himself with another intern. I strongly suspect we'll see more and more Clinton-era shenanigans surfacing thanks to a very pissed-off, Obama-friendly element in the MSM.

2. Hillary is decidedly a "divider." That suggests, to me anyway, that she'll already be at war with major elements of her own party before she's even crowned...oops!...inaugurated in January 2009.

3. Ergo, if the above is true, then Hillary is will already compromised to the extent that she will, bizarrely, discover that the Republicans are her "new bestest buddies." However, I daresay the GOP will, if it's smart, extract a very high price for such a new-found friendship.

4. Hillary wants to be a two-termer. She's smart enough to know that if she screws the proverbial pooch in foreign and/or domestic affairs (e.g., a "super 9/11") not only she, but her party, will be royally f***ed and there will be no legacy for her. No one will ever trust the Democrats again: the Republicans will need only "wave the bloody shirt" every election cycle and crow, "We told you so!"

This is the problem for Hillary or Obama. They'll quickly discover that there are two very large swords in the shape of the Twin Towers hanging over their desk in the Oval Office. If they have any residual sanity, they should be asking themselves right now, "Damn, I could actually win in November. What will I do after that?"

MarkJ   ·  February 1, 2008 3:18 PM

This is further proof that Ann Coulter is either a Democratic Party mole or engaged in an extremely subtle piece of performance art.

Either way, she is an embarrassment.

Anthony   ·  February 1, 2008 3:33 PM

Hmm. I always thought that Mr. Clinton was the "leading porker", but I must have been wrong.

Kyle   ·  February 1, 2008 3:38 PM

"Why pick the lesser of two evils? Hillary '08."

Russ   ·  February 1, 2008 3:38 PM

McCain's record as a conservative is very spotty issue by issue, but on one issue at least he has the most conservative record of any presidential candidtate in at least 40 years. That issue is government spending. At least that is something, that and the war, and abortion.

Now if we could get him to come around on some other issues like immigration, taxes, regulation, free speech, global warming, etc. But show me any of those issues where Hillary is better, just one.

Kazinski   ·  February 1, 2008 3:40 PM

That RINO list seem to be very abortion/gay focused. As such, I guess McCain didn't register on their radar. FWIW, I consider McCain's not only stated positions but demonstrated intentions vis-a-vis immigration and the First Amendment to be stronger non-conservative credentials than many have on that list.

submandave   ·  February 1, 2008 3:47 PM

Keating 7 instead of Keating 5 - Because people want you to think that McCain was as deeply guilty as the top 5, even though he wasn't. Sort of like telling you that the 2000 election vote in the Supreme Court was 5-4, when that was on a technical issue, not on the merits (which was 7-2). Or the study two weeks ago that switched from measuring whether Iraq had any WMD or contact with AQ to whether there was enough to y'know, really, really count. It is just cherrry-picking the data.

As for Ann, she needs to take a breath.

Assistant Village Idiot   ·  February 1, 2008 3:47 PM

McCain is an embarrassment. I'll be writing in Fred in November. Better that the country goes to hell under a democrat than a republican. That at least will leave us with the hope that a recovery is possible.

Hoth   ·  February 1, 2008 3:49 PM

Ann Coulter is actually quite smart. She is endorsing Hillary to move the far-left vote away from Hillary, shrinking her base.

GK   ·  February 1, 2008 3:55 PM

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a leading opponent of pork...Of course, if what you were really concerned with was the size and expense of government, you might logically ask, "Which will cost more over the long run? Earmarks, or McCain's vigorous support for the trillion dollar (at least) Prescription Drug Entitlement?"

Earmarks aren't going to bankrupt us, but entitlements just might.

Bill Quick   ·  February 1, 2008 4:08 PM

Entitlements and the economy crushing McCain-Leiberman bill.

Hoth   ·  February 1, 2008 4:20 PM

There will be a cold day in hell before I cast a vote for McCain. And I have voted Republican in every election since 1980. Believe me, if McCain gets the nomination, not only will he loose against the Democratic nominee, but Republican Congressional candidates downticket will be slaughtered. It will be the end of GOP as we know it.

Anybody but McCain   ·  February 1, 2008 4:24 PM

The idea that McCain will govern with any significant difference from Hillary is a joke. They'll both move the country in roughly the same direction. Hillary isn't going to abandon the war, she can't get her healthcare plan through Congress, her global warming plan may even be superior if it's a tax versus cap & trade (assuming we're getting a GW plan)

The question is, will Republicans be hoodwinked by McCain the way they were by Bush? Conservatives need to be adversarial with the Executive, that's the takeaway.

Jimmy   ·  February 1, 2008 4:26 PM

As I remember it Hillary's husband was a "check which way the wind blows" sort of president. This could be a good thing, considering that the internet is amplifying public gustiness.

Papertiger   ·  February 1, 2008 4:45 PM

Well if Hillary wins we can all mock the left for voting for Anne Coulters candidate. That should make a few heads explode.

In fact it will probably help Obama in the short run. Perhaps that is the actual point.

rjschwarz   ·  February 1, 2008 4:50 PM

Agree or disagree, I thnk Coulter made her point rather concisely in her column:

"At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers."

edh   ·  February 1, 2008 5:13 PM

Please add the Global Crossing connection to the Keating 5. The Manchurian Candidate, aka, Sen McAmnesty has what to show for his 20+ years in Congress? The man has been consumed by his ego. Hillary will have to beat Hillary for McCain to win. Sad state of affairs for this GOP.

Scottsdale Al   ·  February 1, 2008 5:26 PM

It is easy to burlesque Ann Coulter. She is loud, on television too much, and a leggy blonde without a husband. But the uncomfortable truth is that she arrives at the truth TOO SOON. Think about it. The reace is likely to be Hillary/Obama (or Hillary and Obama) versus McCain. Could any true conservative vote for either ticket except on the basis that Hillary is "worse"? If McCain is elected with a Democratic Congress, what will be get? Endless "reaching across the aisle to get something done" with MdCain refusing to veto ANY bill (since it is "bi-partisan"). If Hillary is President, then the Democratic Congress will try to pass such bills, but the Republicans (those who remain) will be in full opposition mode, along with Democrats from marginal districts. A McCain administratiion would only help to accoomplish the Democratic agenda in ways that are "acceptable" to RINO Republicans. Will McCain be better on the war? Surely. But Hillary is probably enough of a "cast iron bitch" to be as tough as she needs to be in foreign policy. With a Republican President, the Republicans in Congress will be under pressure to "support our President" even as he accomplishes a non-conservative agenda (as Bush signed McCain-Feingold, because it was "popular," thinking that it would later be declared unConstitutional). The best argument for McCain is that he at least would be better on judges than Hillary. Really? Do you really want Warren Rudman (or, if he is too old, a Warren Rudman-like) judge named to the next Supreme Court vacancy? Coulter is right. McCain, despite his admirable personal service, is a "poison pill" to the conservative movement of Ronald Reagan. Better to oppose Hillary than to be lulled to sleep by RINO body-snatchers like McCain, who has built his career sticking his finger in conservative eyes.

Joseph McNulty   ·  February 1, 2008 6:34 PM

Yeah, Ann is just going for shock value.

She's a bright girl who can make good arguments, but she's more interested in selling books with wit and shock values than in being serious.

You can see her column at http://www.anncoulter.com.

Talldave   ·  February 1, 2008 7:52 PM

AN OPEN LETTER TO MIKE HUCKABEE FROM A PREVIOUS SUPPORTER

I am writing on behalf of the thousands of rank and file Republicans who have supported your early attempts to win the Republican nomination for the Presidency, but now are watching aghast as your continued involvement in the race for the nomination seems more and more destined to weaken our party and it's chances to nominate a reliable, electable conservative who can win in November, and, even more importantly, promote our values and ideals leading up to and even beyond the 2008 election. Your continued efforts to push your candidacy into the "super Tuesday" states can at this point insure only one thing; that your candidacy plays the role of "spoiler" similar to Ross Perot in 1992 and result in our party nominating John McCain, who many of us in the Republican party find abhorrent to the values we hold dear. I saw you in New Hampshire and have met most major Republican candidates, (though have only contributed so far to your campaign), and at first your folksy approach and marvelous populist humor and positions on everything from taxes to social issues were a breath of fresh air and unquestionably conservative (and creative). However, it is these very same issues, and their critical importance that goes beyond any one man, that now compels me to write in support of a chance to elect someone who can carry on the fight for those issues and not undermine them by their candidacy! Indeed, in your own campaign e-mailings you routinely point out the importance of border security first instead of amnesty, yet John McCain, the only candidate who can possibly benefit from your continued candidacy, has promoted legislation seriously out of step with our party and America's interests on this issue and would have had the unmistakable effect of granting amnesty to millions here illegally. McCain has also taken other stands and sponsored various pieces of legislation, including those weakening free speech for political campaigns, supporting bigger, more intrusive government to deal with "global warming" and raise gas taxes and refusing to support our President and vote for the much-needed Bush tax cuts which, in many economists' estimation, averted recession these last few years. While McCain talks tough on terrorism, we simply can't afford the luxury in this time of war of having an uncertain maverick like John McCain, who has only grudgingly abandoned many of these positions recently in his bid for the Presidency, to have the office of the most powerful executive in the world come November. Moreover, it is increasingly clear your continued candidacy is siphoning off votes from Presidential candidate and former Republican Governor Mitt Romney and preventing a "head to head" match-up that would give Republican Primary voters a clear choice to nominate the next- most-conservative candidate in what by all counts has become a two-man race for the Republican nomination.

WE THEREFORE, AS CONCERNED CITIZENS AND MEMBERS OF OUR PARTY, URGE YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND PARTY AND PLEASE DROP OUT OF THE REPUBLICAN RACE FOR THE NOMINATION TO ALLOW A CHANCE TO NOMINATE A CLEAR CONSERVATIVE WITH THE APPEAL AND LEADERSHIP CREDENTIALS TO RALLY ALL LEGS OF OUR PARTY AND WIN IN NOVEMBER!

You gave it your best shot, now it's time to do the right thing and give us a choice by withdrawing your candidacy for the nomination, as many others in the Republican field and ALL others in the Democratic field have, or YOU ARE HELPING ELECT SOMEONE WE CAN NOT SUPPORT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION and furthering the intra-party bickering that can only weaken our party in November. We supported you because we believed in you to do the right thing. PLEASE DO THE HONORABLE AND RIGHT THING NOW AND DROP OUT OF THE RACE FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY HUCK!!!

Thank you,


Sincerely,


Jonathan Pahnke, Previous Huckabee supporter, on behalf of Republicans everywhere
Email jpahnke68@gmail.com

j pahnke   ·  February 1, 2008 7:57 PM

McCain bashers must be seriously deluded--does anyone think on foreign policy alone, in these times, that his leadership will not surpass anyone on the left? If you do then you have not thought your position through. It is precisely these divisive, you are with me on everything or against me positions that the broad american electorate is sick of, hence the Obama boomlet.

Brian Durocher   ·  February 1, 2008 8:54 PM

I'm with Ann. Because you want to keep your enemies in front of you, not benind you.

Richard   ·  February 1, 2008 11:12 PM

If you vote for HIllary and claim to be a Republican who thinks she will be better for the country than McCain....then don't tell me you "support the troops" because Hillary as Commander-in-Chief will ruin our military.

If Israle is attacked, she will back Iran and Syria (whome she calls "friends")

And she will support the terrorists and blame America in the Global War on Terror.

So, don't tell me there aren't any differences between McCain and Hillary. At least he knows what the military is for and what it means to serve your country.

She thinks they are bell hops and caddys.

If you support the troops, then shut up and vote for the Republican nominee.

ArtbyRuth   ·  February 1, 2008 11:24 PM

If this was Bill Clinton against McCain, it would make sense.

How did this happen? I don't know. Part of it is that the Big Lie propaganda of the left has done a slow and steady job of convincing the main stream media reliant public, that rich people suck (even though they already pay 90% of taxes), and that the Sky is Falling (Gore's junk science Movie and Nobel Peace Prize), *and* that the USA is doing too well vs. the rest of he world so we better stop being so envied or we'll get attacked, not to mention that a massive Bush recession is starting.

So the question is, what about Obama? Is he far to the left of Hillary? I always hoped it would be the Right that elected a minority or female, somebody like Condi Rice. I blame Condi Rice for not running. Both minority and female voters would change parties, but nobody except Ann Coulter and other strategists will change parties to *support* the GOP this year. But a lot of mildly Republican types will vote for the Dems this year since it's a change from the boredom of white men being in charge, not really magically turning our society into a Utopia, like the Left promises to do.

The one good thing though is that the radical faction of the Left has been exposed, via the Internet as being, well...crazy, so the public who does read serious news on the Internet will be unlikely to hand any of these bad candidates a cooperative congress, so things are likely to remain the same, which is the definition of conservatism.

NikFromNYC   ·  February 2, 2008 12:43 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits