With Friends Like These: Romney and Coulter Court the Tea Party, Results Are Predictable

Amid the other fusses this last week or so, Mitt Romney’s enlistment of Ann Coulter as a surrogate after she had expressed grave reservations about his wingnut credentials earlier in the year was a little overshadowed. For some reason, the Romney campaign imagined that inflicting her dulcet tones in robocalls to voters in Iowa would be a winning tactic.

Mitt is desperate to win Tea Party support from current GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich, and recently picked up the endorsement of South Carolina’s Tea Party darling, Governor Nikki Haley, flitting round the state in a series of town halls where he declared:

“I actually think that on the issues of the day and the experience that I would bring to the White House, that I line up pretty darn well with Tea Partiers.”

Meanwhile, Coulter’s televised contribution to the rough wooing was highlighted by Media Matters and picked up by Mediaite.

It’s a Sunday morning, you may be fragile after the excesses of last night or the rigors of the week, so unless you have the stomach or the masochistic streak to view Coulter in full cry at this hour of the day, here’s the punchline from the interview:

Pemmaraju pressed Coulter on Romney’s conservatism, adding that the Tea Party has resisted him strongly, an indication he may not be as conservative as she thinks. Coulter replied that the Tea Party was “wrong about this” because “they’re looking at who is going to go around bombastically demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate or calling him a Kenyan,” instead of substance.

For further internecine hilarity, this has not escaped the notice of the permanently dyspeptic arch-Newtite William A. Jacobson, still gagging and spluttering from Glenn Beck’s treasonous playing of the “race card” last week:

Beck ... said that anyone who votes for Newt over Obama is doing so on the basis of race:

“If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.”

Wiping his chin and rheumy eyes on a tattered scrap of the Constitution, Jacobson wheezes:

Coulter, who told us just 11 months ago that Romney was certain to lose to Obama, has become the face of the anti-Newt strategy of crazy, at least on Fox News.

Now Coulter has turned on the Tea Party as well, claiming that supporters of the Tea Party movement do not support Romney because they want someone not just to go birther on Obama, but to do so bombastically ...

Like Glenn Beck, Coulter is playing the race card on Tea Party supporters, and not just those who support Newt.

Some in the conservative media who support Romney are becoming his worst enemies, and destroying their own credibility in the process.  When Ann Coulter calls Tea Party members birthers for not supporting Romney, the end is near.

“Race card,” “birthers,” “the end is near” ... why, it’s almost as if they were reenacting the Democratic primary of ‘08.

Posted by YAFB on 12/18/11 at 08:51 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBedwettersElection '12MittensNuttersTeabaggeryOur Stupid MediaPoliblogsSkull Hampers

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Now the Teabaggers think Coulter and Beck are turning on them? (Egads, is it possible that the suck that is Mitt Romney is so powerful it sinks both of their miserable name-brand hate-careers? And if so, I propose the term Romnitude as a measure of suck.  As in: Wouldn’t is be funny if Beck and Coulter went down swinging against bigotry on the right, of all things?  Although it would suck Romnitudes to be them.)

Limbaugh is on the case too. According to him, Nikki Haley had to endorse Romney because she’s ambitious and Romney is the establishment choice.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. I think one of the reasons the 2008 Dem primary got so vicious was that the candidates really weren’t very far apart on policy. On paper, the GOP candidates aren’t either since all have been forced into extreme positions, but the perceptions are all over the place.

I find it hilarious that, by virtue of all the years of Luntz-speak, “establishment choice” is now a dirty word to people (and I use the term “people” loosely here) like Limbaugh.  With his 8 figure annual income and position as hate-monger in chief, Limbaugh reeks of “Republican establishment”; he’s not pulling down that income by being a plucky insurgent against The Man.  Of course the rethug establishment loved them some Rush when he was giving them what they wanted; is his current anti-disestablishmentarianism just a pose, or is it the Oxy talking? 

I suppose it is more proof of just how insane the whole rethug party has become, with the new version of the Red Guard and their Glorious Cultural Revolution about to be played out with the tea party as the new boss.  Same as the old boss, except much more insane.

I guess Romney thinks that courting the Tea Party will help him but if he picks a Tea Party-acceptable candidate for VP won’t he lose what teeny bit of credibility he has with the non-crazies?  And picking someone more exciting to the Wingnuts was one of McCain’s biggest problems as it magnified his faults with them.

The tea partiers should just quit fecking around and go with their ideal write-in candidate: Gengis Khan.  Or Vlad the Impaler.  It is my understanding that they both had the same opinion on the 2nd Amendment.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main