Nobody ever accused Ann Coulter of not knowing how to get attention and gin up conservative anger. She’s an expert at it.
Her latest target is Marco Rubio and immigration reform. Predictably, she is saying controversial things. And, of course, it’s working like charm. We slap it on our website, and cable TV producers lap it up and inviting her back for more. It’s a fabulous business model.
But why should conservatives care what she has to say about, well, anything?
A look at her recent track record seems to imply we shouldn’t. As a reminder, she backed Chris Christie for president (you know, who went on to hug Obama). Once Cristie decided not to run, she spent the rest of the primary season foisting Mitt Romney on us.
She even went so far as to endorse “RomneyCare.”
The day before the election, Coulter dismissed Christie’s betrayal, saying: “We’ll find out tomorrow, when Romney wins, that he didn’t do any damage.”
Even after Romney lost, Coulter continued defending him by taking shots at Ronald Reagan: “Reagan picked a pro-choice, anti-supply side Republican as his running mate,” she wrote. “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.'”
Look, Ann Coulter is a talented writer, author, and pundit. But before following her off the cliff on immigration reform, conservatives should look at her track record of picking candidates and causes — and, frankly, of making bad, if newsworthy, predictions.