Coulter Lies, Yet the Conservative Media is Silent

Ann Coulter’s bizarre behavior towards Christie is getting pretty boring save that her love affair may be rewarded with Christie re-re-re-re-contemplating a presidential run only to respond once again in the negative.

I’ve already written several months ago about how her support for Christie directly contradicts the conservative ideology she identifies with. For quite a while she’s played ignorance and twisted some facts when necessary so that her support of Christie should still fit with her conservative mold.

Last Tuesday though, Coulter was interviewed by Hannity on his radio show and, in addition to her baseless raves over Christie, she lied outright in order to defend her support in him.

Amongst other questions regarding Christie’s record, Hannity questioned Christie’s silence at a time when twenty seven governors from both conservative and not such conservative states had filed lawsuits against Obamacare. Coulter became shrill and defensive and sunk to outright lies in an effort to preserve the twisted image of Christie she had engraved in her mind. She spouted false facts namely that those state have filed the lawsuits before Christie’s election, and then countered that it made no sense for Christie to add his name to something which occurred in the past and is over and done with. Instead, he spent his time fighting the real liberal issues in his state.

Coulter’s response is a 100% lie. Not only have the lawsuits not yet been filed when Christie took office on January 19, 2010, but Obamacare had still been in the works and not yet signed into law. It was signed into law March of 2010 which is two months after he took office and the first few states immediately filed lawsuits after the bill’s passage. Additional states joined existing lawsuits or created new lawsuits, with some of the states having joined almost a complete year later and only a couple of months ago. Oklahoma joined as recently as January of 2011, and they were not alone.

For the sake of pretense, let’s pretend Christie would’ve been sworn in as Governor just one month ago or that Obamacare and the lawsuits occurred a complete year before he became Governor. Despite it not having occurred during his watch, wouldn’t a conservative governor want his state to join the others in their fight against Obamacare? New Jersey will be affected negatively by Obamacare once it goes fully into effect just like the rest of the country. Having his state join one of the lawsuits would’ve put the topic back into the headlines and ignite passion once again to have the bill reversed.

A majority of the citizens still want to see Obamacare repealed and replaced or at least repaired. All conservative candidates including Romney have promised to either completely repeal or at least repair Obamacare. What a load of nonsense from Coulter to demand bygones be bygones when one can still attempt to stop the monster which threatens to overtake a fifth of the private sector and will change forever our healthcare system as we know it. Doesn’t she want our future president to take action against it?

Nice try, Ann Coulter. Try again. If Christie is a conservative and anti-Obamacare why hasn’t he joined over half of the country’s governors who are questioning its constitutionality? Why? Shouldn’t a Governor join an ongoing battle against such a monstrosity even ten years later? How much time and effort would it have cost Christie to join the others?

Additionally, although Coulter repeatedly cited Christie to be pro-life, her saying so until she’s blue in the face will not change the facts. A mere glance at his past record clearly illustrates his pro-choice stance, and his recent lip-changing should not be enough for a true pro-lifer.

So he’s not conservative, not anti-Obamacare, not pro-life, and these are just several facts she’s gotten wrong in the span of a few minutes during one interview. Let alone the previous ones at which she claimed he had no take on illegals or the borders when in fact he has expressed his views on the topic, and they’re not conservative at all, to say the least.

What surprised men the most, is that when Coulter mocked Palin without anything to back her up, many “conservative” sites pounced upon her statement, spreading it and stretching it with open glee. On the other hand, when she messed up big time on Hannity about Christie, no comments or questions were directed her way at any of the above sites.

I guess those sites were too busy last week with more important stuff such as posting twenty posts to remind their readers that Palin hasn’t announced yet. I wonder if they’ll do the same after she announces; remind their readers every hour that the field has changed. 

As for Coulter, her decision to back Romney if Christie doesn't run, says far more about her conservatism than anything else possibly can.

Perry vs. Christie: Coulter's Contradiction

Ann Coulter is a great conservative who does a terrific job explaining conservatism on interviews and in her columns. In her humorous manner she clearly defines the differences between the left and the right, and is never afraid to tell someone directly into their faces what she thinks of them.

I’ve noticed though that at times her humor and views are not necessarily strictly in line with conservative values. Yes, she’s very pro-life and right on the moral and other issues, but while she may preach certain values in public at the same time she lauds and supports individuals that don’t defend those very same values.

For example, the last several months, Coulter fell in love with a Christie campaign, although many other candidates and potential candidates are way more conservative than him. Coulter is never heard discussing Christie's record, his position on issues, or how long he’s been Governor. Rather, she repeatedly stresses how no one’s as good as him and that he’s the only one who can come out strongly to challenge Obama.

In an interview last week with John Hawkin on Right Wing News, I was stunned to see the following:

Hawkins:
You’ve been saying for a while that you think Chris Christie may be the only guy who can stop Mitt Romney. How about Rick Perry, who’s also a big name candidate — and if not, why not?

Coulter:
Chris Christie could eat Rick Perry for breakfast — so to speak.

I can take a joke and enjoy her great sense of humor, but has Coulter ever researched who Christie is and what he supports? Coulter mocks man-made global warming and is anti-stronger gun control, so why from such a large field of candidates does she support Christie who’s not even running and believes in global warming and greater gun control amongst many other non-conservative beliefs.

Additionally, is Coulter aware how Christie became the Governor of New Jersey?

Christie was a popular U.S. Attorney whom the media hyped because of his center-left beliefs. True he had successfully battled many corrupted politicians with many landing behind bars; however his conservative credentials besides being a registered Republican amounted to promising to lower taxes. He ran in support of increased gun control, believed in man-made global warming, and wasn’t pro-life. Despite the above and more, he received support in the primary from the entire Republican Party from conservative Steve Forbes to the former popular Mayor Rudy Giuliani of neighboring NYC.

Christie played the role of popular U.S. Attorney with endorsements from all and lots of name recognition. He was ahead in the polls and it was clear to all that he’ll crush the incumbent unpopular Corzine and become the next Governor of the state.

Several months before the primary, Christie, the candidate who received the support of all major newspapers and politicians, faced an unknown challenger for the primary. A true conservative who had served as the mayor of a small town in NJ, Steve Lonegan campaigned on all conservative issues including shrinking the size of government, anti-gun control, anti-illegal immigration, pro- energy independence, anti-environmentalism, pro-life, pro-flat tax etc. Although Lonegan was articulate and passionate in his beliefs, he faced attacks from Giuliani and many others in the Republican Party because of his staunch conservative values.

Lonegan jumped in to the primary just a few short months before the elections and campaigned endlessly to build up his name recognition. The last several weeks before the election had him inching closer and closer to Christie, but time wasn’t on his side. When Election Day arrived he had bridged a tremendous gap without the help of any in the establishment, although Christie still remained ahead of the game.

At the time, it reminded me very much of the primary playing out between Charlie Christ and Marco Rubio, with the difference being that Rubio started his campaign enough in advance to reach out to voters and establish himself, which led to him beating Christ in the polls which caused Christ to run as Independent.

In addition to his popularity, Christie’s pockets were much deeper than his opponent’s and he was thus able to bombard the air waves and TV waves with ads against his opposition, Lonegan. All of the above resulted in Christie emerging as the victor though not with the overwhelming numbers originally predicted before Lonegan entered the race.

He won the primary with a mere 55% of the votes.

In the general election, Christie actually received endorsements not only from the right but from many on the left including the leftist environmentalist Seattle Club who endorsed him over the Democrat candidate John Corzine! How conservative does that make him appear? On top of the many endorsements, he faced a scandalized incumbent who led the state into deeper economic disaster which resulted in the people seeking for change.

When November arrived, Christie won with five percent of the votes.

And now Coulter wants to convince us that Christie can swallow Perry whole when Perry has a greater favorability than Christie, has won three elections, and has served as the Governor of his state for over ten years? All this is not even including the fact that Perry is far more to the right than Christie on most of the issues. Additionally, Christie’s unfavorable numbers are higher than his favorable numbers and he’s not even Governor for two years. I know New Jersey is a blue state, but Alaska’s majority is not Republican either and Palin had an approval rating of 80% before she was picked as McCain’s VP.

On what does Coulter base her claim that Christie, and only Christie, can beat Obama? Christie has not proven to have fought tough elections in the past, is not a true conservative, has only a little over a year of executive experience, and is not even well liked in his own state!

In these tough economic times, Perry can point to his state’s financial success who’s unemployment numbers are lower than the national average and New Jersey’s. Anyone with the retort that Christie can’t possibly be blamed for his state’s terrible economy since it has preceded him and that he hasn’t yet had the ability to enforce changes; that too is exactly my point. How and why could you trust this guy with the presidency of the United States when he hasn’t been Governor any longer than Obama had been senator before he ran for higher office? Are you looking for a repeat of ’08? Christie hasn’t even been Governor yet for the length of time Palin had been.

Coulter opposes Romney while supports Christie when they are on the same side of the table on many issues – and the opposite of conservatism. On the other hand, Perry is a staunch pro- life, anti-gun control, anti-global warming candidate and so are Palin and Bachmann.

Ann Coulter’s response on Sean Hannity when asked what she thinks of a Palin as president left me quite puzzled. You can watch the entire clip here.

Coulter replied; “I don’t think she’s going to (run) I think she should run for senate or something…….I think she’s a great voice for conservatism, ummm why bother running for president?”

Why Palin should bother?

Firstly, If she runs it will be much more than a bother, she will have to fight with every tooth and nail against the hating left; but she won’t do just to prove that she could win.

If she runs, it will be because this country needs a strong conservative to take control of the government and its out-of-control spending and there’s no one else that has the tools to fight the left like she does.

This country needs someone that has already stood up successfully in the past against her opposition, even from her own party, all so that her state would benefit.

In the same interview Coulter said she needs “someone who’s stellar and a cut above.” What makes Christie so outstanding? His only plus is his fight against unions, so then why not choose Walker who does the same and is a conservative to boot? If Coulter is a true conservative, what is it in Christie that she supports?

Palin had beaten a popular incumbent in the primary with no party support whatsoever and then took on and won in the general election against a former popular Democratic Governor. She had also served previously as a Mayor for two terms, thus gaining lots of executive experience.

Listening to Ann Coulter on Hannity, however, it’s obvious she knows only one thing. And that is, that Christie is the best. How about doing some research into his background as well as the history of the other candidates?

I believe that neither Christie nor Perry will run, and that Perry will endorse a Palin presidency, I simply felt compelled to question Ann Coulter and her unintelligible attitude.

This article was cross posted at Red State.