When Margaret Thatcher passed away, conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter talked with journalist Geraldo Rivera about the UK’s former Prime Minister and about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. What Coulter said has some conservatives attacking her.
Here’s the part Coulter said on Rivera’s program that everybody’s upset over:
“One thing that I know, because I know people who know [Thatcher], is [that] when Sarah Palin first burst on the scene, the political scene, [Thatcher] wanted to have a meeting with Palin, because she saw raw political talent, but wanted to teach Sarah Palin…to speak proper English….What I think a lot of us saw [is] that Sarah Palin did have raw political talent. And if she had been willing to put her nose to the grindstone and pursue improving herself, speaking proper English, reading stuff, knowing lots of things, she could have been great. She’s a fine person, but that isn’t what she’s pursuing.”
There is not one disparaging remark directed from Coulter to Palin in that whole thing. What Coulter is saying is that Thatcher wanted to advise Palin to start talking more properly so that people took her more seriously. Coulter didn’t say anything bad about Palin (not that she’s not allowed to). She simply relayed what she alleges Thatcher said.
And isn’t it true that Palin does not speak properly, and isn’t it also true that that’s part of her appeal? That she’s a real human being, an unpolished everywoman?
The criticism–not that Coulter gave, because she gave none, but that Coulter claims Thatcher gave–is not an attack.
Here’s a detailed blog post from conservative writer Jen Kuznicki, linked to on conservative radio host Mark Levin’s own Twitter page, with Levin calling it an attack by Palin.
The blog post says Coulter is “slamming” Palin, which, as I’ve said, is patently not the case at all. I have serious criticisms of Palin myself because she has done some things contra to conservative principle. I think the real reason other conservatives are so sensitive over everything Coulter says now is because she was an early supporter of Mitt Romney, the candidate who, though he didn’t have a wide-enough appeal, still had the widest appeal of all his fellow Republican candidates, as evidenced by the fact that he won the most primary votes. Romney was appealing; otherwise he wouldn’t have won the nomination.
What sickens me is that conservatives like Mark Levin frequently, and rightly, rail against establishment Republicans, yet they themselves have become part of an establishment of their own. Once they’ve been a big name in the conservative movement for a certain amount of time, they seem to start judging politicians based on the policies they used to have rather than their current ones.
It’s absurd, in my opinion, to consider Ann Coulter a RINO (Republican in Name Only). The phonies who grew to genuinely love Romney by the time Election Day 2012 came, but who are now bitter over Romney’s defeat, are just taking out their anger on Coulter. When we lose, we attack those we pretended to love. It’s very disheartening. This is one of the few qualms I have with conservatives, that they can be just as sore of losers as liberals are. Let’s knock that off, huh?