Conservatives Slam Ann Coulter–But Why?

Jenny Beth Martin, in an article for, slams Ann Coulter for her latest column. In her column, Coulter tries to make the case that it wasn’t entirely Mitt Romney’s fault that he lost. She decries the Monday morning quarterbacks on the Right who said that Romney wasn’t conservative enough, or he didn’t attack Obama enough, or that he was too centrist. Coulter then uses Ronald Reagan as a contrasting example in order to back-up her opinion. Here are several quotes from Coulter’s column:

“But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: “What we got was a weak, moderate candidate handpicked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them.”

“There was also the seven months of primaries, during which Romney got more votes than the rest of the field combined. So there’s that. Moreover, the idea that Mitt Romney was ‘a weak, moderate candidate’ is preposterous.”

“The idea that Romney failed to present a clear contrast with Obama or was too ‘nice’ is also nonsense.”

“Reagan picked a pro-choice, anti-supply side Republican as his running mate. He lavishly praised FDR in his acceptance speech at the national convention, leading The New York Times to title an editorial about him “Franklin Delano Reagan.”

“Meanwhile, Romney promised to institute major reforms to Medicare, repeal Obamacare and impose a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. He said he’d issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare on his first day in office. (Why he didn’t promise it to all 57 states I’ll never know.) He chose a pro-life, fiscal conservative as his running mate and never praised FDR.”

In the end, Ann Coulter makes sure to mention that she is not trying to diminish Reagan; she still admires him greatly. She only is using the comparison to show that Romney’s conservative credentials were not the problem.

In her column, Jenny Beth Martin accuses Coulter of “Trash[ing] the legacy of Ronald Reagan…in a desperate attempt to deflect blame for Romney’s loss away from the candidate, and away from those who backed him.”

She has more to say:

“…and now they’re getting blamed for Romney’s loss by his #1 cheerleader, Ann, whose latest screed ‘ROMNEY WAS NOT THE PROBLEM’ also slammed the legacy of Ronald Reagan.”

“Would Reagan have sat silent and passive, like Romney did, over the murder of an American Ambassador?  We all know the answer is: ‘no.’ Because we all know the difference between Reagan and Romney, no amount of Ann’s trashing of Reagan will change what we all know is true.”

“Yet, rather than take responsibility for their loss, the GOP establishment and pundits like Ann blamed their voters, blamed their volunteers, and blamed their fellow Americans.”

Now, I see several things wrong with Martin’s column.

1. Coulter didn’t trash Reagan to make Romney look good; she was simply trying to show a contrast. She was showing that Romney was much more conservative than people gave him credit for.

2. The article claims that Coulter blamed voters. She didn’t.

3. As Coulter mentions in her article, Romney won the primaries. It wasn’t the beltway that chose him, and it wasn’t Ann Coulter who hand-picked him. He won, so she supported him.

4. The article claims that Romney sat by passively on the Benghazi issue. He mentioned Benghazi several times, to the point that Obama got angry. In addition to that, he held a conference the day after the violence, criticizing Obama’s handling of the Benghazi bungle.

5. Ann Coulter didn’t want Romney, but she got him. Once Romney was the nominee, she had no choice but to champion him. If she had diminished him constantly, that would not have been good for conservative morale. In addition to that, she would have been the recipient of much hate for slamming the only person that stood between Obama and a second term. It was a lose-lose.

6. Coulter contrasted Reagan with Romney to show that Romney was indeed conservative. Coulter has praised Reagan for years, so it’s not as if she hates Reagan; she just wanted to remove the rose colored glasses from our collective eyes.

In the end, our opinions sometimes change based on new sets of circumstances. Ann Coulter changed her opinion on Romney when he became our only hope. In her column, she is simply trying to show that out of the crop of candidates we had, Romney was the best chance. She’s not slamming voters or blaming her “fellow Americans,” she is simply doing her best to pull back the curtain on Romney’s loss.