The only question that remains is whether freeper "outrage" with her will last this time, or whether all be forgiven and a bunch of conservatives here will rush out to buy her next book on "conservative values" and stand in her autograph line drooling.
>> Obviously Coulter dislikes Newt Gingrich personally and is probably acquainted with him. <<
Heh. Can't really fault Ann for that, because I guess the same situation applies with me. I was "on the fence" about Newt til I met the man in person. Since then, I've learned more about his past that gives me even more pause.
>> Ann is being consistent in holding Gingrich to the same standards to which she held Clinton and has found Gingrich lacking. By hitching their wagons to Gingrich, conservatives do give up the high ground on issues relating to marital fidelity and trust (not even getting into the Fannie Mae and ethics stuff) and whether foibles in those areas DO impact eligibility to hold high office. The mantra of Democrats during the Clinton scandals was “we don’t care what he did in his private life as long as he pushes for the issues important to us.” That’s pretty much become the mantra of Gingrich supporters. <<
You make a good point, and that argument about Gingrich is a perfectly valid reason to oppose him. Never-the-less, Ann's support of Romney is indefensible. She can't make the case that Romney is "more conservative" than Newt, but insists he is anyway. That's clear dishonesty on her part, IMO.
I agree her actions in backing Presidential candidates has been consistent (and she hasn't "flip flopped" no matter how much her fans here claim they are "shocked" and try to make that case), but what I question is whether her actions were ever conservative in the first place.
>> As for Romney, she’s bought into the false belief that he’s the only Republican running who can defeat Obama. She supports Mitt simply because he’s the “best situated”, non-Newt candidate. She can’t really defend Mitt’s record and it makes her mad that she is forced into that role. <<
I get a sense that's also her reasoning, she knows deep down this guy's record is indefensible so she hates having to try. Some conservative talk show host (I forgot which) tried to back her into a corner on this in 2009 and she got irate and changed the topic to her favorite subject, touting one of her books. (with Ann, it's always about buying her book. Ironically, that also seems to be the case with Newt prior to his presidential run)
Most of the establishment conservatives who are backing Mitt do the same. My Republican township chairman is a Mitt delegate and basically admitted he didn't like doing so because he'll have a reputation around Illinois for backing "conservative lite" after endorsing Romney in 2012 and Dillard in 2010, but saw no other option since the rest of the GOP field is a bunch of lightweights. I'm sure since he's a local GOP leader in Cook County, he was being heavily pressured to back Mitt. His personal endorsement doesn't mean the township as a whole will endorse Mitt, we have a slating session on Feb. 8. But since you need a 60% vote to endorse a candidate in the primary, my guess is we'll officially be backing no one for President despite most of the room being anti-Mitt. (that was the case for the US Senate race endorsement in 2010 as well). Could be worse... as he says... "we're conservatives here, not Kirk & Topinka people like some Republican organizations" So, he's backing closet RINOs instead of openly liberal Republicans. Ugh.
Doesn't matter anyway, here in Illinois's 1st Congressional district, we have a solid slate of Santorum delegates to go up against the "GOP leaders" on Mitt's slate. Leading our delegation is Eric Wallace in IL-1, the man who SHOULD have been our conservative choice for US Senate before foolish conservatives threw him overboard in favor of Pat Hughes last year.
Endorsing is one thing, what “the establishment”, which includes Andy Coulter is doing to Newt is dispicable IMO.