Flip Flop²: New Romney Ad Features Endorsement By Same Ann Coulter Who Blasted Him At CPAC – Updated
By now, it is a well-established fact that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney flips more often than a Nadia Comaneci flash mob, but a new radio ad from the Romney campaign reveals that his omni-positional malady is, apparently, communicable. The ad contains some recent, glowing praise from conservative mouth-bomber Ann Coulter, which is a 180 degree flip from when she somewhat famously torched Romney just a few months ago, at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
RELATED: Coulter: Without Chris Christie GOP Forced To Nominate Mitt Romney And ‘We’ll Lose’
That’s right, the same Ann Coulter who told a cheering CPAC crowd that “if we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we’ll lose” now praises Romney in his new ad, on exactly the same basis she trashed him on, his chances at beating President Obama. “I think Romney is the strongest candidate,” Coulter said. “And I think Republicans want to beat Obama. And Romney is the best one to do that.”
Here’s that clip from Romney’s new ad, followed by her CPAC declaration, just for comparison’s sake:
Now, this is not a knock on Coulter so much. She’s certainly not the first conservative commentator to do a Linda Blair when it became convenient. Big Journalism Editor Dana Loesch praised Mitt Romney (and voted for him) in 2008, only to turn around and scrub the evidence four years later so she could claim she was against Romney in 2008, and still is. Rush Limbaugh went from calling Romney the “embodiment” of the conservative stool, in 2008, to saying “Mitt Romney is not a conservative” in 2011.
What’s really baffling about this is that the Romney campaign chose to include a quote from Ann Coulter in their own ad. Surely, they were aware of what Coulter told that CPAC crowd, and would realize how including her praise in the ad would look. Set aside the fact that a Coulter flip-flop serves as a comical reminder of their own candidate’s chief weakness. What does it say about Mitt Romney that he’s willing to accept praise from someone who so completely trashed him just this year? At best, it seems desperate, and at worst, it demonstrates that not only will Mitt Romney say anything to get elected, he’ll allow other people to say anything they want about him, as long as it helps him get elected.
Update: Big Journalism’s Dana Loesch wrote up an error-filled “correction” to her tiny part in this post. Real quick, let’s tick ’em off:
(1) Christopher recently wrote a post attacking Rush Limbaugh and later Ann Coulter for criticizing Romney at CPAC and then “praising” him; her remarks were used in a recent Democrat attack ad.
First of all, that would be “Democratic attack ad,” except that Coulter’s remarks were not used in a Democratic attack ad. That’s the whole point, and it’s in the headline. Coulter’s remarks were used in an official Romney campaign radio ad. RIF, Ms. Loesch. RIF.
(2) I didn’t “scrub” any “evidence.” In fact, I’ve never deleted a single post. It’s all still there.
No, it’s not. Here’s the url to her post. Nada. Here’s a screenshot of her blog’s archive. No Feb. 2008. Here’s the Wayback Machine link. Voila!
(3&4) Christopher’s bias leads him to omit this discussion I had of the situation, wherein I discussed voting for Romney as a strategy to eliminate John McCain in the 2008 primaries.
3. I omitted nothing. The response she refers to is linked and thoroughly fisked in the original post that I linked to in this article. 4. Here’s what it said:
Dana Loesch, in her response, explains that she wasn’t for Romney in 2008, she just opposed John McCain more strongly, and cast her vote for Romney to prevent McCain from securing the nomination. After her first choice, Fred Thompson, dropped out, Loesch says “We were, at that point, faced between choosing Mitt Romney or John McCain. I did not like Mitt Romney.”
Now, you would never know that from her blog post, a fair reading of which would lead you to conclude that she at least liked Mitt a little. “I think he’s the best candidate of change,” she said. A fair person would acknowledge that, based on that post, no one would conclude that she was “against” Romney in 2008. A cynical person might think Loesch was just trying to backstop an embarrassing contradiction.
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
