Ann Coulter NEWT GINGRICH US politics

MARK LEVIN CALLS OUT COULTER AND 8PM’ER FOR DUMPING ON GINGRICH……..

BUT FIRST COULTER AND THE 8 PM’ER

 Posted by The Right Scoop on Dec 16, 2011: Mark Levin accuses Ann Coulter (and BillO) of using what is a perfect opportunity to discuss Newt’s comments last night on changing the judiciary to instead trash him in favor of her candidate, calling him bombastic and minimizing him by saying that he never achieves anything anyway:

She won’t even give the man credit for what he has achieved! Taking back the House from 44 years of Democrat monopoly was never thought possible and in doing so he had to defeat the Republican establishment! You can’t even give him that?

No they can’t, because they have a hate-on. They have a hate-on. …

Do you know why I resent this? Because now we have a bunch of bullies running around. And Giuliani was 100% right. They’re trying to turn this guy into a crazy man.

And I resent it and I resist it! He’s not even my guy and I resent it and I resist it!

4 Responses

  1. Ann Coulter is a Christian conservative who has no time for Gingrich.

    Although not spelled out in black and white print (at least not at the moment), she would have had a lot of trouble accommodating his personal history and the claim that he made plenty out of Freddie Mac.

    For Ann Coulter, Romney is a foregone conclusion.

    A pity that Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, or even Paul Ryan were not prepared to enter the fray.

    Rick Perry is still an outside chance but I have misgivings about Newt Gingrich , even though he has a first class intellect.

    Let’s see what happens in South Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Florida.

  2. Ann Coulter is a con artist who spouts what she knows to be utter nonsense only for shock value in order to advance her book sales and get speaking fees.

    Newt, though I despised him for how he behaved during the Clinton years has shown himself to be the most intelligent and capable republican nomine on offer. Though I do not agree with every part of his domestic economic point of view he is the only nomine who seems to have any real understanding of what is going on in the world.

    Again , though I think he was a scumbag for how he behaved during the Clinton years, I am mature enough to admit that the behavior I didn’t like shows he understands the legislative branch. This understanding was what was behind the successes of President Johnon and behind many of the failures of subsequent presidents, especially our current president. I won’t agree with everything Newt does but he will be very effective.

    It is a very fascinating quandry. Would one prefer an incompetent president who says he believes in the same things but won’t be able to achieve his goals or would one prefer a president who one is in aggreement with on some things but not all – but who will be very effective?

    Do I want a president who will achieve things I want as well as things I don’t or do I want a president who can’t achieve anything I do want?

    1. I wouldn’t actually call her a ‘con artist’, she is selling her books and uses inflamed hyperbole in doing so to maximize the coverage of it.

  3. I like Mark Levin and have just two criticisms of him, one is trivial: I wish he had a deeper radio voice and I wish he stopped supporting “Goldline” who have been indicted recently on 19 counts of fraud. They RIP OFF people Mark! Plain and simple. O’Reilly, and Coulter never appealed to me. Neither do Romney or Gingrich. Neither of them is pro-capitalism or pro-business enough for my taste. Sure they’re an improvement over Obama, but they lack principles. Mitt Romney is an empty shell with no principles and no ideas. He’s influenced by the dominant political players around him. Having no principles or ideas is detrimental in a crisis because he’ll be clueless on how to respond. Sure he’s a decent businessman, but that doesn’t translate into political wisdom or philosophy. Newt Gingrich on the other hand has a strong personality and plenty of ideas, but they’re random, and also unprincipled. Being unprincipled is why he peddled his influence for Freddie Mac for $1.6 million. IMO that negates ALL accomplishments he’s achieved because he helped ensure Freddie Mac was able to inflate the housing bubble which lead to this mess we’re in. Gingrich also displays his lack of business acumen when he attacks Romney for being a guy who restructures companies and lays people off, failing to understand that private equity serves a very important and productive function in the economy by re-allocating capital and labor to more efficient means. Attacking Romney for being a private equity guy, hints to me that Gingrich is anti-business and lacks a solid understanding of how capitalism works. I’m so DISGUSTED with politics and politicians and elections! I should run for President!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *