Ann has changed. Ann has abandoned long-held principles to invest emotional hope in a man who has spent several decades funding opposition to everything she stands for.

You might say I was for Ann Coulter before I was against her. Or maybe that Coulter was for conservatism before she was against it, or before she was for Northeastern moderates Chris Christie, or Mitt Romney -- and certainly before she was for northeastern liberal Donald Trump. That was before she started her rants against one of the most conservative senators in the land in decades, the last being the straw that broke this camel's back.

Lets' start our Coulter v. Coulter -- which could be called Coulter v. Trump -- contest with the economy. I begin with this issue because A: limited government conservative economics and free markets are a major foundation of conservatism and B: Barack Obama has won two elections with almost precisely the same percentage of voters who still blame Bush (and all Republicans by extension) for the economy.

Or to be exact, Obama got the votes of those who agree with him, as Trump does, about Bush, the economy, and the proper blame for the 2008 collapse. Now, Ann didn't used to think this way. From a couple of her own syndicated columns comes this:

"You know what really irritates me about liberals? They always think liberalism fixes the problem -- even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place! Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan -- who with his seductive "B-actor" charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity… Unfortunately, the facts -- as always when you're talking about liberal theories -- tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government."

Unfortunately for Ann today, Trump parrots those very liberal talking points. And I mean recently. In July, he explained to Morning Joe (another conservative sellout) “when the economy crashed so horribly under George Bush, because of mistakes they (Republicans) made… with banking and a lot of other things… I don’t think the Democrats would have done that.”

Yes, he blamed Bush and not Reagan here, but that's because he had already blamed Reagan in the 90s calling Reaganomics "an absolute catastrophe for the country". More on that in a minute. First, keep in mind his last sentence -- about not thinking the "Democrats would have done that." Donald, dude, it was precisely Democrats who did it. This is not theory. It's history. Ann used to know this. From the same column above, she writes:

"From the "Community Reinvestment Act" (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as "investment grade" securities -- the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end. But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policymakers. Nor does history -- true history."

Ann, neither does truth have a place in the Trump campaign. On this major transformative issue, Trump throws in with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and the liberal media. On an election defining issue, Trump parrots Barack Obama. And Ann dispenses with her long-held principles to throw in with Trump.

And less you think these were nonconsequential comments from Trump, you need to hear Ann from 2010 quoting a Leno bit to explain the fanciful PR around the disastrous Dodd Frank Act.

" 'The head of Goldman Sachs was going through security and was asked to empty his pockets -- and five Republican senators fell out.' How out of touch with reality would you have to be to laugh at that joke? It’s not just untrue, it’s a perfect inversion of the truth. Why didn't Barack Obama or Chuck Schumer fall out? Why not Rahm Emanuel? The fact that anyone laughed at that joke proves that Republicans have a serious PR problem. It's almost as if we have a liberal media."

Yeah Ann, and it's almost as if we have a liberal candidate that you support who is adding to our "serious PR problem."

Ann was also at one time an opponent of government bailouts, saying in late 2011 “when the bets go bad and they go running to their Democrat friends in the White House from Bill Clinton to President Obama and get bailed out by the American taxpayer, that is not a free market. I think all Americans should be angry about that crony capitalism.”

For some reason now, however, Ann thinks our solution is to hire the quintessential crony capitalist who not only applauded and supported TARP and the Stimulus, but all bailouts.

Speaking of the Stimulus, Coulter wrote in 2009 "Obama's stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of Congressional Democrats of O and friends of O."

Uh Ann, that would also be friends of DT -- your boy -- who was a big Stimulus supporter as well.

In that same column, Ann deftly swerved into Reaganomics and liberal lies about Reagan saying "the perfect bar bet with a liberal would be to wager that massive government deficits in the '80s were not caused by Reagan's tax cuts. Casually mention that you thought Reagan's tax cuts brought the government more revenue – they did – and you could get odds in Hollywood and Manhattan."

And as we know from Trump's "expert witness" testimony to Congress, he would have taken Ann's bet in 2009. He even went so far into nonsense as to say "the incentive was taken away (for real estate investment) when the tax rates came down for high income people." Huh? He doubled down, saying those tax cuts caused us to be "no different right now than the Soviet Union." Huh huh?

I don't care if that was 1990. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now, and when you see that in 2016 he still exonerates all Democrats for the 2008 meltdown, his thinking has not become any more coherent, or conservative. He called Reagan a catastrophe, and today many Trump sycophants compare him to Reagan as in, “he is today's Reagan.”

And yet Coulter, who has written widely and positively on Reagan and Reaganomics, insists on supporting a man who decries Reaganomics, and has yet to utter the words "limited government" and "liberty" in a single debate or speech. He is a man who routinely and recently launched into liberal talking points while donating to Democrats like Chuck Schumer running against Republicans and Republicans like Mitch McConnell when they were running against Tea Party challengers.

This all matters greatly, too. Coulter said above, and she was right, that we have a major PR problem when it comes to what government policies and which political party has ruined the economy. She is right. Remember the stat about Obama voters being the universe of voters who believe Bush (all Republicans) are still to blame for the economy? And yet, she supports a PR wizard who advances the ball greatly in the wrong direction. Ann, what gives?

Edmund Wright is a contributor to American Thinker, Breitbart, Newsmax TV and Talk Radio Network - as well as bestselling author and conservative speaker. He is currently working on a book about the fracturing of the conservative media in the 2016 election cycle.