Liz Mair To Ann Coulter: “You’re In No Way A Conservative”

An epic showdown between two politico wonks. On one side, you have Ann Coulter, who has seemed to relish going way over the line over the past few years, and has lost much of her charm among Conservatives. On the other, you have Liz Mair, Republican media consultant, who, let’s face it, has been attached to multiple losing Republicans (McCain/Palin, Romney, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, Scott Walker (presidential bid)). She’s also a big Libertarian. It made for good TV, for at least the few who watch MSNBC (video available at the link)

(Mediaite) Ann Coulter and Liz Mair fought on MSNBC tonight over Donald Trump‘s conservative credentials… and at one point, Coulter’s own credentials.

Mair repeatedly told Chris Matthews that Trump is a liberal who is to the left of Hillary Clinton on some issues, but said many conservatives only like him because of his immigration stance.

Ann mostly argued the exact same thing, except that Trump’s liberal leanings do not matter, because he’s talking about immigration, and wants to do something about it. I guess it doesn’t matter to Ann that Trump has also talked about amnesty once a wall is built, or that he doesn’t talk about other measures that would limit illegal immigration. I can almost understand Ann’s attachment to Trump, because she has been such a big supporter of stopping illegal immigration. But, he has many leanings to the left of Hillary. And, a lot that are Republican/Conservative.

They also differed on the question of whether Cruz is a natural-born citizen. Mair said yes, while Coulter said it’s a problem. Mair pointed out that Coulter was on the other side of this issue three years ago. Coulter’s response? “I changed my mind.”

Coulter stated ““Natural born … means you have to be born within the country,” she said.” Via Twitter we see

The fight got even better, when Ann said her dream ticket would be Trump/Romney

Mair concluded, “That is the proof right there that you are in no way conservative and no way interested in conservative policy.”

Let’s not forget that Ann was a major Chris Christie supporter. You can see Donald Trump’s positions here, many of which, as stated, are Conservative. But, he’s also, as mentioned, discussed amnesty. Other than just building a wall and deportations, he has a few ideas, some of which are good, some won’t make much of a difference. He was pro-choice, then he switched to pro-life. Maybe he’s legitimate, maybe not. He’s yammered on about wanting Canada’s universal health care system. He’s favored a ban on “assault weapons”. Many of his economic policies are very much liberal. He approves of taking private property for government to give to other private entities.

Say what you will, Trump is pumping up a lot of liberals and moderates, with a smattering of libertarians and conservatives. His support is not eroding. Would he be better than any Democrat running? You bet. Would I prefer him over Rubio or Cruz? Heck no.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Liz Mair To Ann Coulter: “You’re In No Way A Conservative””

  1. david7134 says:

    I have found that many of the people that call themselves conservatives are just repackaged progressives, in other words, they desire for the government to intervene in our lives and force us to do things but just their things.

  2. Jeffery says:


    See, you are not always wrong! In this case you are partly right. Yes, many Republicans (and Democrats too), both in office, but especially in business, call for massive cuts in the budget as long as it doesn’t harm their little corner of crony capitalism.

    Our tax, immigration, international trade, patent and copyright, union, fiscal and monetary policies are by design and in practice supportive of the wealthy and “connected”. This explains why so many Americans support candidates Trump and Sanders – a common desire to see the political donor class’ comeuppance. We have been redistributing the benefits of American productivity UP to the wealthy, not by “natural” market forces but by rigging the markets to benefit capitalists over labor and workers.


    Just one example: A couple of decades ago the big lenders discovered they could make money hand over fist by repackaging supposedly stable mortgage loans into “financial instruments” and selling these worldwide as safe, high quality investments for pension funds etc. What they didn’t tell their investors, and what the investment ratings agencies failed to note, was that the big lenders were writing riskier and riskier loans – it didn’t matter to them, they were getting paid up front and shifting the risk to the buyers of the “financial instruments” and homeowners. These activities drove a housing boom in the US of A that collapsed in 2006-2008 taking the “financial instruments” with it. Many US homeowners were under water, now owing more than their home was worth. The big banks were hemorrhaging. What did our donor class and their minions in DC do? They bailed out the banks with trillions in loan guarantees – the banks were too big to fail! Unfortunately, the homeowners were to small to save or even worry about.

    I know, I know… the donor class and their Republican minions blame shiftless Negroes and the Democrats for “forcing” the poor, oppressed Wall Street bankers to make bad loans. That’s just untrue. What is true, is that in 1999 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act signed by Bill Clinton repealed a couple of important provisions of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. This allowed much of the hankey-pankey between lending banks and investment banks. Note that Gramm, Leach and Bliley were all Republican Senators. During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming “too big to fail.” Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government. True and true. Those too big to fail, bailed out banks are now even bigger than they were a decade ago. It was also unfortunate that those that wrecked the economy were too connected to prosecute.

  3. LOL @ Too big to fail. No. Nothing is too big to fail. Bush feared the failing of the banks. Obama feared the failing of the banks. Both of these were liberal positions.

    You are also ignorant. The banks WERE forced to make loans to people with risky credit, because of laws that were passed. Bush pointed out that this was a problem several times during his tenure in office. Think, man, think! Why are “subprime loans” even a thing?

  4. Jeffery says:

    You are ignorant of what “too big to fail” means. It’s a pejorative term telling a corporation that the US government will cover them for their poor or risky financial decisions. In a true market economy, too big to fail should mean too big to exist. Aided by Clinton’s and Congress’s deregulation fervor and Greenspan’s horrible decisions the housing bubble was created.

    Liberal economists such as Dean Baker, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman had already pointed out that Alan Greenspan’s Fed was ignoring the housing bubble (bubbles always burst) resulting from several contributing factors – low interest rates, unjustified confidence in ever increasing home values, Clinton signing 1999 GLB Act, CFMA and CRA deregulating easing oversight allowing investment banks to package and sell mortgage backed securities (MBSs) into ever increasingly complicated instruments.

    Think, man, think! Subprime loans were a thing because Countrywide, Ameriquest, Option One, Wells Fargo, Wachovia and 50 others were making billions of dollars making high interest rate loans to higher risk homeowners and packaging them with their big brother investment banks into MBS’s to sell. Clinton and Congress had removed the firewall.

    When Greenspan’s bubble burst poor folks lost their home and Mozilo at Countrywide had to pay a $67 million fine (he made almost $500 million in a couple of years there). Mozilo also gave low rate loans to many Dems and Repubs and their family members!

    So no, the banks were not “forced” to make high risk loans, they were “allowed” to make high risk loans and found a way to make billions and pass the risk on to the US homeowners, hapless investors and the US taxpayer.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    So no, the banks were not “forced” to make high risk loans,…….


  6. david7134 says:

    I can’t believe you just through out your ignorance and lies with little self respect. I was invested in banks, Wachovia, Wells and BAC were not, not into the mortgages, they were compelled to purchase mortgage houses by our great government. Now, the only person to name as the one who caused the world wide economic collapse was —— Barney Frank. He instrumented the whole thing, not conspiracy, but because he was a dumb ass.

  7. Jeffery says:

    So no, the banks were not “forced” to make high risk loans,…….



    Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes.

    How could this be? You’ve overlooked a small detail. The CRA covered banks and “thrifts”. Few banks were making the subprime loans – most came from mortgage lenders like Countrywide which are not covered by the CRA.

    Note also that CRA applies only to banks and savings institutions (“thrifts”). It does not apply to credit unions, independent mortgage companies, or investment banks. And banks and thrifts get credit under CRA only for lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers or in low- and moderate-income census tracts in their assessment areas, broadly the area near their branches which, for large institutions, generally includes entire metropolitan areas.

    Federal Reserve Board economists Glenn Canner and Neil Bhutta analyzed the 2005 and 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data to understand the relationship between CRA and the sub-prime crisis. After observing that “the [sub-prime] crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007,” Canner and Bhutta found that in 2006 “only 10 percent of all loans [were] ‘CRA-related’ — that is, lower income loans made by banks and their affiliates in their CRA assessment areas.” Looking at the higher-priced loans that are a proxy for the poor-performing sub-prime loans, they observed that “only 6 percent of all higher-priced loans in 2006 were made by CRA-covered institutions or their affiliates to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their assessment areas.”

  8. gitarcarver says:

    To quote you, “you’ve overlooked a small detail.”

    You tried to shift the goalposts in a failed attempt to blame the CRA – the actual act.

    No one is claiming that the CRA was behind the lending practices.

    However, the bank examiners authorized by the CRA demanded more and more high risk loans.

    Those examiners worked for the Federal government.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Prove it.

  10. Jeffery says:

    I moved the goalposts? The title the article you used instead of making an argument was: “Here’s How the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Led to the Housing Bubble’s Lax Lending”. YOU blamed the CRA for the housing bubble. In fact, your ONLY “argument” was that the CRA led to the housing bubble!!

    OK. So bank examiners “authorized” by the CRA demanded more and more high risk loans. And these bank examiners worked for the feds, presumably the Treasury Department, under then President George W. Bush, who supposedly opposed the whole plan to “force” banks to make high-risk loans. And although most of these loans (>90%) were through independent mortgage companies not affected by CRA guidelines, these CRA “authorized” bank examiners were “forcing” independent mortgage companies to make high-risk loans. This doesn’t mean that Bill Clinton and Congress are innocent, though. They promoted the mess by deregulating the firewall between lending banks and investment banks.

    This exemplifies a major problem with most right-wing conspiracy memes. They don’t hold up under even light scrutiny. No, your theory that the Great Recession was caused by the federal government forcing banks to make loans to shiftless Negroes doesn’t hold up.

  11. Hank_M says:

    “No, your theory that the Great Recession was caused by the federal government forcing banks to make loans to shiftless Negroes doesn’t hold up”

    No one made that argument Jeffery.

    But I see you’re back to you racist rantings. “Shiftless Negroes”?

    Get help.

  12. gitarcarver says:

    YOU blamed the CRA for the housing bubble. In fact, your ONLY “argument” was that the CRA led to the housing bubble!!

    Apparently you have trouble reading and comprehension. The CRA allowed certain actions which in their face did not cause much harm. However, when the authority granted examiners under the CRA was expanded, that led to the housing bubble.

    From the beginning, Fannie and Freddie’s congressional charters required them to buy only mortgages that would be acceptable to institutional investors — in other words, prime mortgages. At the time, a prime mortgage was a loan with a 10-20 percent down payment, made to a borrower with a good credit record who had sufficient income to meet his or her debt obligations after the loan was made. Fannie and Freddie operated under these standards until 1992.

    The 1992 affordable housing goals required that, of all mortgages Fannie and Freddie bought in any year, at least 30 percent had to be loans made to borrowers who were at or below the median income in the places where they lived. Over succeeding years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) increased this requirement, first to 42 percent in 1995, to 50 percent in 2000, and finally to 55 percent in 2007. It is important to note, accordingly, that this occurred during both Democratic and Republican administrations.

    At the 50 percent level, Fannie and Freddie had to acquire at least one goal-eligible loan for every prime loan that they acquired, and since not all subprime loans were goals-eligible Fannie and Freddie were in effect required to buy many more subprime loans than prime loans to meet the goals. As a result of this process, by 2008, Fannie and Freddie held the credit risk of 12 million subprime or otherwise risky loans — almost 40 percent of their single-family book of business.

    But this was not by any means the full extent of the problem. HUD took Congress’s enactment of the affordable housing goals as an expression of a congressional policy to reduce underwriting standards so that low-income borrowers would have greater access to mortgage credit. As outlined in my dissent, by tightening the affordable housing goals, HUD put Fannie and Freddie into competition with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a government agency with an explicit mission to provide credit to low-income borrowers, and with subprime lenders such as Countrywide, that had pledged to reduce underwriting standards in order to make more mortgage credit available to low-income borrowers. Moreover, all these organizations were joined by insured banks and S&Ls, which as noted above were required under the CRA to make mortgage credit available to borrowers who are at or below 80 percent of the median income in the areas where they live.

    It is a distinct difference which because you refuse to believe the government had anything to do with the meltdown, you won’t accept.

    You are certainly free to ignore facts all you want.

    As for your racist rant, that just typifies a liberal debating “tactic.” When confronted with facts, call the other person a racist.

    It is impossible to have an adult discussion with you because you are constantly shifting the goalposts, ignoring facts, and calling others names.

  13. Jeffery says:

    I agree that it’s nearly impossible to have an adult conversation with you because you are constantly shifting the goalposts, ignoring facts and calling others names.

    What name did I call you in this exchange, by the way?

    you refuse to believe the government had anything to do with the meltdown

    Now you’re just lying. I repeatedly and specifically blamed the government for their role in the housing mess! Did you miss my mentions of the Fed, Greenspan, Clinton and Congress?? The whole housing bubble resulted from government malfeasance! The government looked the other way while the mortgage companies and Wall Street banks raped the nation.

    The right’s political position is that the government forced the hapless mortgage companies and Wall Street banksters to make loans to shiftless “Americans” who couldn’t afford them. I apologize if I implied that you personally blamed Blacks, you do not, but please don’t deny that this is part of the right’s meme.

  14. gitarcarver says:

    The right’s political position is that the government forced the hapless mortgage companies and Wall Street banksters to make loans to shiftless “Americans” who couldn’t afford them.

    Which is exactly part of what happened. That’s what you are missing or refuse to understand.

    Please explain what your theory is behind the idea that banks would take on high risk, subprime loans absent of the government regulators basically forcing them to?

    Is it really your belief that banks would risk financial ruin absent the government stick? Why would it be that almost 50% of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae loans were subprime and high risk?

    but please don’t deny that this is part of the right’s meme.

    A meme by definition is “”an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture”.

    I have never heard your accusation at all from any conservative or right wing person.

    It is possible that it is out there, but it is not accurate to say that the right wing believes it as you assert.

  15. Jeffery says:

    Please explain what your theory is behind the idea that banks would take on high risk, subprime loans absent of the government regulators basically forcing them to?

    For one thing, the interest rates for the loans were very high! As I’ve explained more than once, the largely unregulated independent mortgage companies and to a lesser extent lending banks, received fees for their loans and bundled the mortgages into “financial instruments” to be bought and sold as low risk investments. They were anything but. They were raking in good money until the housing bubble burst. No one forced the lenders to make the loans. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act removed the firewall between the lender institutions and investment banks thus promoting the bundling of the high-risk loans into “low-risk”, high-return instruments. The ratings agencies were in on the scam as well.

    Why do venture firms invest in very high-risk technology companies? Because they hope to make a lot money.

Pirate's Cove