Ann Coulter "heartbroken" that loss deprives America of President Romney

November 08, 2012

Writer

Ann Coulter has been one of the most vocal personalities in the media in the months and weeks leading up to the election. A staunch Mitt Romney supporter, she told Glenn on radio this morning that she was heartbroken that America was denied a Romney presidency, believing the candidate would have found solutions to a lot of problems facing the country. However, in the interview she addressed two key reasons for his defeat: the power of incumbency and the immigrant vote. You can read a rough transcript of the interview below and watch it in the clip above.

Below is a rough transcript of the interview:

GLENN: Let's see we couldn't get Ann Coulter to call the fat bastard the fat bastard from New Jersey last time. At least admit that the pictures of Chris Christie, and Barack Obama walking down the tarmac together look like Larry the cucumber, and Bob the tomato. Now --

PAT: You're a veggie tails fan.

COULTER: Huge.

GLENN: We thought Larry the cucumber. Archibald the asparagus he kind of looks like Barack Obama. If Barack Obama would use a monocle, and Bob the tomato, that's who they are.

COULTER: I'm really enjoying this today.

COULTER: I will put in an emergency call to Chris Christie to find out if it's true that he wept when he met Bruce Springsteen. That may be the first thing that's going to knock it down.

GLENN: Say it.

COULTER: But I do have an important update for you.

GLENN: You have a Chris Christie problem. Say it he's a fat bastard. I think that the hurricane hurt with or without Chris Christie.

PAT: Chris Christie certainly didn't help.

COULTER: And I think it's the real problem and I certainly hasn't thought about it. That was the whole reason I was so wild about Chris Christie midway through Obama's term, and famously if we didn't run Chris Christie, and we'd win Romney and I was wrong about that. Romney was the best candidate we could have run this time. But the reason --

GLENN: But he did lose.

COULTER: I do know that. I think Chris Christie would have lost by more. I hope I'm wrong about that because we may run him in four years. It's almost impossible to take out an incumbent. Republicans have done it in 80 years and that was Ronald Reagan. I thought Chris Christie was the galvanizing star. I know so many people that have never worked in politics. And I would say half of them if that man ever runs for President I'd come and work for him. He was exciting like Ronald Reagan. I don't think Sandy made a huge difference. And but incumbency was the main thing of all. One important update I have because neither Chris Christie is not going to be our President at least today, and Obama is, and he did Obama did the same thing with the Michael Bloomberg. That's why he wrote that endorsement in the "New York Times". I got that tip from insiders in New York. That was a shakedown for an endorsement playing with federal relief disaster funds. Why I said Chris Christie invited Obama in. He had to care about New Jersey. He needed federal disaster relief funds, and as quickly as possible. And if you read Bloomberg's story in the "New York Times" after Sandy hit get down to the last paragraph, and see if that sounds like a ringing endorsement.

GLENN: I got news for you the Chris Christie is even less the man he is. Believe me I've seen the picture. He's quite a man. What I like about Chris Christie when he standing in front of people, and he knows what he believes and he says it. He stands in front of the cameras, and I'm sorry that's just the way it is. He's real. I love that. But if folded --

COULTER: I think he knew what happened when he became governor the first time. At the beginning of the Obama Department of Justice said no no no left child funds for you because you didn't produce the October 2006 numbers.

GLENN: There's an difference between an education number that nobody can get your arms around, and Chris Christie getting on television. The one thing he's good is the television camera. But I didn't kiss Romney's butt either, and Obama's butt. And our state was affected by it. I think people would have lined up to help him.

COULTER: It's very hard to prove that the government is being more incompetent than it is. When they're working hard it's difficult to tell the difference that they're purposefully getting there slowly.

STU: That's a good government that states shouldn't be dependent on federal funds.

COULTER: Yes. That's why $1 million I'm heartbroken that Romney was going to be our President. He was going to fix so many things. To have America deprived of having this President who could have fixed so much that is broken is heartbreaking. But I do think we'll -- we're going to work hard. Not only do you have the law of the incumbency President. The other side of the is 2004. It didn't occur to me until two nights ago because I thought John Kerry was a jackass. And yet still two years later Republicans were wiped out in the congressionally Lexis. Which suggest that Americans were not thrilled with Republicans. Yet they voted to reelect George Bush. This is all segment of the society including us what we ended was the exact same President, and basically the same Senate, and basically the same house. Nothing changed after all this, and how powerful incumbency is. But the other flip side to reelect the other side the power comes roaring over. And no more Sharron Angle's, and Todd Akins. When it comes time to pick a President. I think Romney was hurt. And sometimes this is inevitable. It wasn't inevitable to have that the primary go on and go. It definitely hurt Mitt Romney. Obama was spending money denouncing Romney as a rich elitist out of touch Country Clubber in Ohio. He always knew that Ohio was in play. Even more than them I loved Herman Cain, and 999 but if you haven't won a major election and not just in a little house seat you're probably never going to be President so you shouldn't run.

PAT: I like that.

PAT: So no former pizza skew tiffs, and no other members.

COULTER: Nobody has won an election. I think preferably for governor. I don't think that a house member can do it.

PAT: Governor or Senator.

GLENN: Ann, take a deep breathe.

COULTER: But that probably won't be until 2024.

GLENN: Take a deep breath. Remember you're the one that like Bob the tomato. You remember this. -- this country is split right down the middle, and everybody everybody on the right is saying maybe we should be more moderate. Are you out of your mind.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: I'm so sick of this, and John Boehner, John Boehner I have to tell you. What a fat bastard that guy even though he's not fat. He's growing in size in my mind every single day. What is wrong with that guy.

COULTER: You have to keep the pressure on these guys. I would like to think that he was saying that for media consumption.

COULTER:

GLENN: No he's not. Even "The Blaze" is running this. Everybody is publishing their list who can run in 2016. If somebody tells me one more time Jeb Bush I'm going to hang myself.

COULTER: Thank you. And he and his rotten family, and the "Wall Street Journal".

GLENN: You say that about the Bushes and but you won't call Chris Christie a fat bastard which is half true.

COULTER: One teeny tiny mistake he made. All of these Republicans who have telling us all this time don't worry immigration. Illegal immigration it's fantastic we're going to turn the Hispanics into Republicans just like the Italians. When the Italians came here. This is back in the 20s 30% of them went back home because they didn't make it. We got the creme de la creme. You get here, and the Democrats immediately start giving you government assistance. Thus I was in despair for the first 16 hours after the election results came in. Because we are heading for a tipping point. Whether we hit that in this election or not. It was all 1965 Teddy Kennedy's immigration act. 60% of the legal immigrants come from the third world, and government gets them on assistance, and they have automatic democratic voters. Maybe we can get them in 100 years. But it's too late. They vote by race. And a white person could vote nor a Democrat or Republican, and no one will say you voted for the Democrat. How could you vote against your race. That is sad to immigrants from Senegal, to blacks and Mexicans and Hispanics. There is this ethnic voting, and Democrats have gotten them, and it has nothing to do with the economic opportunity. We ought to get as many as we can. I think Mitt Romney was right in the first debate. We can appeal to them by offering them freedom.

GLENN: I have news for you. I think if the Republicans if they don't change their behavior in this 2-year period they're not going to have anybody left. They're not going to have anybody left. I don't care about these guys.

COULTER: There was nothing wrong with Mitt Romney's position on things. It wasn't like he was John McCain.

GLENN: I think Mitt Romney was the best candidate we have run since Ronald Reagan.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: You know you don't know anybody anywhere. But I thought.

COULTER: He was a little that way with Reagan though he had spent a lot more time in public life, and but he didn't run as the caricature as the liberals portrayed him as.

GLENN: No, he didn't. He was a great candidate. I thought he was a great candidate. The thing though is in four years from now this country is going to be -- either this Utopia works or we're a full-fledged fascist nation or we are coming into because executive orders exist, but we could get into the 2015 and this nation has been pounded into the ground because we did nothing for four years except make it worse, and if we're still standing, I'm sorry but the John Boehners of the world are not going to be it. You're going to look for somebody like Rand Paul. And Rand Paul may not be strong enough at that point.

COULTER: I love Rand Paul. The only thing I'd say about him. It reminds me one of my points what we need to avoid, and that is I think people saying we need to be more conservative. I think they're fighting the last war. Mitt Romney was plenty conservative. He was the most conservative on issues like illegal immigration, on tax reform and on government. He was the most conservative is and fact that he was presentable, and attractive, and didn't call Obama a Kenyan anti-colonialist, and demanding some form of the poorism that isn't related to the issues. The poorism in craziness.

GLENN: But we're getting to the point. We have three Supreme Court justices that are going to die in the next three years.

COULTER: We've got to pray for them.

GLENN: Look how that worked out. So we've got three Supreme Court justices. The principle thing that the only thing that will save us in four years will be the constitution. We will be so far off the rails in four years. There won't be anything left in four years. Other than there's somebody making stuff up outside of the margins.

COULTER: Which is why we can't be running -- I think there are no Rockefeller Republicans any more. There are no liberal Republicans who're pro choice as they say whoever run as a President as a Republican anymore. I think that the problem is more the poorism issue. Rand Paul it was the same thing. It is the same thing with poorist libertarians. Berry Goldwater contrary as I describe him, Barry Goldwater nearly destroyed the Republican party by his civil rights act. He wiped Republicans out.

GLENN: You know how I feel about progressivism. You have to take it step by step. You can't eat the whole thing. It won't work. But you've got to start moving in that direction.

COULTER: Yes. And demanding purity or crazy positions -- we can't do any of this unless our candidates get elected. They talk about their positions that are popular, and not suppress the ones that are unpopular.

GLENN: I'll come your way if you just say he is a fat bastard.

COULTER: Good to talk to you.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep