Is Ann Coulter really a spokesperson for the Republicans?

Question

The question was asked during the debate, "What would you do if two cities in the U.S. were simultaneously attacked by terrorists"? Obama said he would do the usual things but said that it was important to find out who was responsible. Ann Coulter thought it was ridiculous to find out who did it. Does this mean her opinion is that it is more important to show retaliation against someone whether they commited the act or not? Flip a coin?

Answer 1

Not the Republicans I talk to.

It comes down to that she only represents a fraction of the Republican Party. She is only the spokeswoman for the extreme right, and anyone who isn't as far right as she is, becomes a member of the "Church of Liberalism"

Answer 2

not the only one. Ann Coulter is a really insightful human being, and says what a lot of human beings imagine, yet fail to particular. as long as this us of a has 'freedom of speech', she is entitled, as are all of us, to communicate. Ann is likewise nicely conscious of her outcome on the computer and Libs. Her morale compass is immediately and to the point. the finished section about Ann is that she really speaks for the 'silent majority' in this us of a. She also has the braveness of her convictions, and all of us comprehend the position she is coming from. compared to such dissimilar contained in the media that feed us the rubbish time table that suits their favor to subvert the completed element of what's happening. As for Ann Coulter being the 'authentic spokesperson', that merely won't be able to be added from the reality. Ann backs the morale values that this us of a develop into depending upon, regardless of celebration lines. merely so occurs that the 'Democratic celebration' is added out of line then the GOP as we communicate, as they have been for decades now.

Answer 3

Ann Coulter is an attention hog. She writes and says things that cater to the right. You also have people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that cater to them. Than the left has their windbags spewing their endless line of bullsh*t. I really don't know why anyone takes what any one of them says seriously. They are all misinformed misfits who spew lies and deceit. This whole two party system is stupid and corrupt.

Answer 4

YES.

She is a spokesperson for not just the Republican Party, but the Conservative Movement in general.

Note to Conservatives/Republicans: You CAN prove me wrong, just denounce and distance your movement and your party from Ann Coulter, that is all you have to do.

Answer 5

No. She is only a spokesperson for Ann Coulter.

Answer 6

You can bet your bottom dollar that she IS. I'd say she says things rather well and she does not lie. CHECK THIS OUT, IF YOU DOUBT ME:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::at First You Don't Appease -- Cry, Cry Again
by Ann Coulter (More by this author)
Posted: 04/04/2007
In light of the increasing noise from the fifth column in America, it is a serious question whether President Bush would have the will to deploy military force even to stop a deadly serious threat to the United States.
I'm speaking, of course, of Darfur.
Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture -- those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to Darfur, a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it. The climate change "emergency," set to start taking effect sometime during the next century, is a more imminent threat to the United States than Darfur.
These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever -- and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?

This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest. But liberals want our boys to go fight scimitar-wielding dervishes. While the Democrats hold pointless hearings into what George Bush had for breakfast, Republicans should pass a law prohibiting liberals from mentioning Darfur until Horace Mann and Dalton are prepared to put up a battalion.
So no, Darfur is not the threat I was imagining.
I haven't even told you what that threat is -- though a hostage-taking, Holocaust-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us."
Damn that Bush! He's made people who hate our guts not like us.
In uplifting thought No. 57 about the war, liberals keep telling us that Iraqis are genetically indisposed to freedom, which I would characterize as the hard bigotry of low expectations. On this week, let us remember the message of Passover is that freedom doesn't come easy.
Moses had to grab Jews by the scruff of their necks and drag them to the desert for 40 years to get a generation capable of living in freedom -- and even then the Jews were complaining about it being too drafty. The first "stiff-necked" generation didn't even want to leave Egyptian captivity.
Once free, they complained about the food, which apparently compared unfavorably to the food back in Egypt. Kind of reminds you of liberals talking about Saddam's rape rooms.
Even in the desert, the Jews would not stop with the golden calves. God nearly let the whole lot of them perish in the desert, he was so angry about their idolatrous ways. Only when he had a new generation, born in freedom, that didn't complain about the food, did he lead them to the promised land. For you liberals still reading, this is all extensively covered in a book known as the "Bible."
(Also this week, we celebrate a fast-track to freedom that doesn't require 40 years in the desert, but as I recall, the suggestion that we convert Muslims to Christianity was shot down early on in this war.)
If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy -- as well as innocent civilians -- must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it.
Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in World War II. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to pot-smoking, draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings. But enough about Bill Clinton. If we're going to have humane wars, they are going to take a little bit longer.
That wouldn't be so bad, except that it gives fifth columnists more time to demoralize Americans and convince them that we are losing a war in the paramount struggle of our time.

Answer 7

no she is a man and is representing a man