A statment released over the CRNC listserv from Ann Coulter’s PR firm Shirley & Banister states that she is not taking a stand in the race. There are a lot of rumors flying right now, though I am looking into what I can. For now sufice it to say that the only wrongdoing on the part of the Davidson campaign is that they never got her endorsement in writing.

This is what Ann Coulter said on the radio from a transcript:

“He’s fought for conservative principles on America’s most liberal campus, of course I endorse him! Without a doubt he’s well prepared to take the fight to college campuses across America. It’s the new McCarthyism and we have to expose the Left for what they are.”

-Ann Coulter on the radio Feb 22 2005

Davidson statement on the issue
Coulter statement here

UPDATE: Now there are some questions to ask on this one as I have been able to confirm that Coulter definitely released that statement available on CRVets but also did make the statement above where she specifically said “of course I endorse him.” This seems to be an unfortunate situation, that I am sure will be spun hard by the Gourley folks over at CRVets but that’s the game ain’t it. To say the endorsement was “faked” is dubious at best, what would be better to say is that there was likely a misunderstanding going on here. There is more developing that I will report as it comes.

UPDATE 2: After some more digging, I think this is honestly a blow to the Davidson campaign as its the loss of a key endorsement, but I do not think it was faked as CRVets claimed. Let’s get serious, if Davidson was going to “fake” an endorsement he wouldn’t have plastered his website with it. He honestly believed Ann Coulter supported him. The long lag between the endorsement in February and its retraction today also indicates that it is likely of recent political origin. Gourley’s campaign isn’t stupid and I am sure they followed up with Coulter’s endorsement in February, and likely found it valid. Somethign occured to cause Ann Coulter to change her mind or atleast rephrase her previous statement. In the end it looks to be a miscommunication or something much more benign than is being played out. So while I think the Davidson campaign deserves criticism for not getting it in writing, it certainly is not a deal breaker or shows some kind of major inescapable fault.

I feel that that another CRVets post deserves a bit of a further examination. He equates the pro-Davidson blogs as being Jesse Jackson b/c of the complaints in regards to this election. I respect Brian and have worked with him lightly on SS Reform, but I must disagree because it is a very poor analogy. Jesse Jackson complained AFTER the election when the votes were counted and his guy lost, in this instance the election has not even happened yet. Delegates can defect and a lot of crazy things can happen between now and then, the fat lady (sorry to offend political correct ears) has not yet sung.

That being said congrats to Gourley on this well devised political move of declaring victory and then forcing the onus on Davidson. From a political strategy standpoint it is brilliant, but from a perspective of truth it is not. I know for a fact of atleast one delegate defection Gourley to Davidson and I suspect there are atleast a possibility of five more. Would you not concede that CRVets? Come the day after the election we can talk unity (and mourn for another two years of political hacktocracy and ethical impotence).

For comic relief.