So you are suggesting she should only accept speaking engagements from organizations with whom she is in complete political agreement?
You do realize she had to cancel an appearance in Canada because they couldn't guarantee her safety. She wasn't going there to tell them what they wanted to hear, she was going there to tell them what she thinks...and they didn't even want her to speak.
She's made it clear she's against gay marriage...do you honestly believe she's suddenly going to change from speaking her mind to (a very unCoulter-like) pandering?
“She’s made it clear she’s against gay marriage...do you honestly believe she’s suddenly going to change from speaking her mind to (a very unCoulter-like) pandering?”
Yes, to some extent. I believe she will avoid upsetting this group, which I consider a form of pandering. Also, now that her pride has been ruffled, I expect a radical change in her direction on the homosexual issue to be possible. Bottom line is she doesn’t belong there...period. One cannot compare her addressing a hostile crowd of liberals to her addressing a friendly crowd of sexual deviants wanting to be considered ligitimate.
If NAMBA decides it wants to be for low taxes, limited government, etc. and call itself “conservative.” Will she, et. Al., then address them also? C’mon....time for some common sense to be used here. Homosexual behavior is wrong...it can never be considered conservative...except by “extreme libertarians” which are not conservatives but “libertines.”