Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attitude Check (on Harriet Miers: contrast in styles - Ann Coulter vs. Mark Levin)
Just a Woman ^ | Monday October 10th, 2005 | Lores Rizkalla

Posted on 10/10/2005 7:52:56 PM PDT by ajolympian2004

"If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country."

"Start an Impeach Bush Committee"

These statements didn't come from the "liberal mainstream media" or the "wacky left." They didn't come from Dick Durbin or Ted Kennedy. No, it wasn't Barbara Streisand or Sean Penn.

The above statements came from conservative icon, Ann Coulter.


Many conservatives, myself included, are hesitant about the president's recent Supreme Court pick. However, that concern does not have to translate into divisiveness and mudslinging.

The other night, at the Sean Hannity Event, when Mark Levin shared his thoughts on Harriet Miers. His frustration had to do with what little we know about Miers. He had many of the same questions that Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer expressed last week. At the same time, however, he has a measure of trust in the president. Perhaps not quite as much as Hugh Hewitt embodies.

There was one thing he said that I hadn't heard before: "The difference between me and Kristol and Krauthammer is that I'm not going to trash my president."


That struck me. What a great attitude. If you know anything about Mark Levin, then you know that he's not afraid to challenge anyone. And, he can easily make anyone look stupid, both by his style and his intellect. (You should have seen him taking on Gloria Allred that night. Absolutely hysterical. She came off like a bumbling idiot in their debate. )

Levin's tone in this matter is worth emulating. I'm not going to trash my president. I'm not going to disrespect my president. I'm not going to attack his character, his ability or his intellect. I will not strengthen the opposition by demeaning my president.

I believe it's possible to disagree, question and even criticize respectfully. I'd like to see more conservatives as well as liberals to do just that.


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; billkristol; blog; blogger; coulter; hannity; harrietmiers; hewitt; hughhewitt; justawoman; kristol; levin; loresrizkalla; marklevin; miers; scotus; seanhannity; supremecourt; talkradio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: trubluolyguy
Do you need a trained jurist to tell you what this means:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Do you find the language of the constitution so incredibly difficult that you must find someone much smarter than yourself to tell you what it means? You honestly can't read a document written for farmers and merchants without a jurist interpreting the plain words for you?

21 posted on 10/10/2005 8:48:26 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jess35

So is your kool aid grape or cherry?

I am sorry if I have in some way offended you by disagreeing with you or the POTUS on this pick, but gee darn, that's what America is all about. This would be a very boring place if we all agreed 100% of the time. Believe it or not, the Pres. isn't infallible. Matter of fact, I can think of three things he has screwed up on besides wimping out on this nomination...but I don't want to make you choke on your kool aid.

Yes, I voted for him. In a choice between a moderate and a socialist, I chose the moderate. A choice I will NEVER make again. From now on I vote for conservatives first, last and only. I don't give half a damn what party they belong to.

As far as attacking Meiers, I am not. I am totally in disagreement with the President that nominated her calling her the "most qualified" person for the job. I can tell you that if he truly believes that, he didn't look too damned hard.


22 posted on 10/10/2005 8:58:17 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (Come to the darkside....we have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004; Americanwolf

Coulter has shown her elitist snobbery full force with the Miers nomination. I've never been a fan of hers. She is more interested in book sales than she is in supporting Conservative values. I was not surprised by her reaction. I much prefer Michelle Malkin to Coulter.


23 posted on 10/10/2005 8:59:27 PM PDT by Americanwolfsbrother (Don't hate on someone for using their mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

Are you unable to answer the question posed in post #21? I thought it rather simple myself, and it rebuts your presumption of who is and is not qualified.


24 posted on 10/10/2005 9:12:02 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jess35

Do you find the language of the constitution so incredibly difficult that you must find someone much smarter than yourself to tell you what it means?




No.

But if you think that Meiers was the MOST QUALIFIED, you are either delusional or twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend the President's mistake.


25 posted on 10/10/2005 9:15:56 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (Come to the darkside....we have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

I have no idea of what you personally mean by "most qualified". Lawyers and ignorant citizens who allow them define the plain language of the constitution have caused more damage to that document than can be repaired by one justice.


26 posted on 10/10/2005 9:24:01 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Sir Elton John should be against Miers confirmation.

After all, she may be retarded enough to try and take his title away! /sarc

27 posted on 10/10/2005 9:27:04 PM PDT by Earthdweller (Republicans should give Miers a fair vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004



You can like, respect and admire both President Bush and Miss Miers and still believe this nomination is first rate blunder.


28 posted on 10/10/2005 9:34:21 PM PDT by msnimje (What in Bork's name was Bush thinking?............................Captain Ed..9 Oct 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Do you even know what "Kool-Aid" drinker means?

Do you the origins of the phrase?
29 posted on 10/10/2005 9:37:04 PM PDT by msnimje (What in Bork's name was Bush thinking?............................Captain Ed..9 Oct 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jess35

I have no idea of what you personally mean by "most qualified".




The President said Meiers is the "most qualified" candidate for the nomination.

My response, when I finished laughing, was Bu!!S.! If he truly believes that then he really didn't look that hard. If he expects us to believe that, he also believes we are stupid.


30 posted on 10/10/2005 9:37:53 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (Come to the darkside....we have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Jim Jones. People's Temple...Guyana.

I've never been accused by anyone who knew me of being a Kool Aid drinker.

31 posted on 10/10/2005 10:14:01 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

What does the phrase "most qualified" mean to you?


32 posted on 10/10/2005 10:15:12 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jess35

What does the phrase "most qualified" mean to you?




It means the person that best do the job in question. I am surprised you didn't know this.


33 posted on 10/10/2005 10:21:54 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (Come to the darkside....we have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
You keep parroting that phrase...but you haven't show any indication that you actually understand what it means. You're using it like a talking point.

What specific qualifications does the job require?

34 posted on 10/10/2005 10:30:24 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jess35

I really don't know how to break it down any simpler than I already have. I really thought you would've understood by now. I am sorry that you apparantly do not. Have a nice night.


35 posted on 10/10/2005 10:48:35 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (Come to the darkside....we have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
She's not the most qualified candidate could mean almost anything. You've yet to list the qualifications you obviously require in a candidate.
36 posted on 10/10/2005 11:09:26 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jess35

She's not the most qualified candidate could mean almost anything. You've yet to list the qualifications you obviously require in a candidate.




More than just, "I know the President and have a law degree," for one. Another, she should have at least stepped foot in a courtroom as a judge. Another, barring those arguments, she should at least be a constitutional scholar.

On that last one, I am not being "elitist" I am simply stating that if you aren't a judge being nominated for the SCOTUS, you should at least be able to explain the Constitution in detail, from memory. She should have a paper trail we could look at and tell what kind of Justice she will make.

The President that nominated her should have had the testicular fortitude to nominate a person with a known judicial philosophy. Yes, chances are there would have been a fight. I was looking forward to the fight. How does one destroy the enemy without a fight? Yes, I want the Democrat party destroyed as a viable political entity. Harriet Meiers as a nomination is the equivalent of...Bush blinked. He didn't want the fight.

Like too many Repubs when faced with controversy...he chickened out.


37 posted on 10/11/2005 9:40:37 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (Come to the darkside....we have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

President Bush may have felt that Senate Republicans lacked the resolve to support a firm conservative choice.


38 posted on 10/11/2005 3:37:53 PM PDT by brivette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: brivette; ajolympian2004

you're exactly right. there may have been reasons considered legitimate by the president and his advisors. they may have felt this was the most confirmable candidate.

that doesn't keep the base from having questions and concerns.

but, it also doesn't mean we need to act in a divisive, mean-spirited manner.


39 posted on 10/11/2005 4:00:02 PM PDT by JustaWoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004

Mark Levin on the Hugh Hewitt show:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500742/posts


40 posted on 10/11/2005 4:02:11 PM PDT by Checkers (I voted for President George W. Bush. Twice. (Long pause.) Oh, by the way, you're welcome!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson