Ann Coulter says she wants Ron Paul for 2012

Posted by Parker V on January 15, 2009 under Elections | Read the First Comment

Appearing on Fox News’ late night show Red Eye talking about her latest book, Ann Coulter responded to a question asking who she wants in 2012 with none other than Ron Paul, the Libertarian underdog, postulating that by then the war would be over and she agrees with him on everything else so he would be perfect to do the “cleaning up” that will allegedly be necessary after the Obama administration.

The discussion focussed mostly on Ann’s recent appearance on The View, but moved to the main premise of her book about phony “victims” who are really victimizers and her excitement over Obama’s inauguration.

Here’s the video. The Ron Paul part comes at the end.

New poll says Hillary gaining momentum

Posted by Parker V on April 28, 2008 under Elections | Be the First to Comment

Ann Coulter and pollster Doug Schoen on a new poll that has the Clinton campaign smiling..

Coulter: If McCain’s the nominee, I’ll campaign for Hillary

Posted by Parker V on February 1, 2008 under Video | Be the First to Comment

Huckabee Responds to Coulter

Posted by Parker V on December 22, 2007 under Video | Be the First to Comment

Team Huck has released this response to Coulter on MikeHuckabee.com. It addresses further comments by Coulter made in a column and not the appearance above specifically:

Ann Coulter’s comments are based on a response I made during a radio call-in show in which a caller asked what I thought about the Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas. At the time I had not read the ruling and was basing my opinion on the summary by the caller. After reading the decision I believe it is obvious that the ruling was wrongly
decided. Lawrence v. Texas is an extreme example of judicial activism. It could, in fact, be inappropriately used to attack our marriage laws nationwide.

I am in agreement with the dissent by Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas:

“[The ruling] dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct, …what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’?”

Furthermore, As Justice Thomas said, we might disagree with the wisdom of a law, but that is the province of the Legislature, not unelected judges. No such activist Justices will be appointed as long as I am President.

I wish Ms. Coulter had contacted me or my campaign to discuss my position in detail before writing her column. I would have appreciated the opportunity to clarify this matter.