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.

The Woodrow Wilson Mother's Day loophole

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep