What Would Reagan Do? (Ann Coulter Laments Bush Not Being More Like The Gipper Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 09/21/05 | Ann Coulter

[goldstategop]

Perhaps President Bush has inadvertently nominated a true conservative to the court with this Roberts fellow. I remain skeptical based on the following facts:

Anita Hill has not stepped forward to accuse Roberts of sexual harassment.

The Democrats did not accuse Roberts of having a secret life as a racist.

We have no idea what kind of videos he rents.

Also, I'm still steamed that Bush has now dashed my dreams of an all-black Supreme Court composed of eight more Clarence Thomases. Incidentally, eight more Clarence Thomases is the only form of human cloning I would ever support.

As liberal Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in the New Yorker, Roberts was a scared choice. After Hurricane Katrina, Bush was even more scared. So when he had to pick a chief justice, he renominated the Rorschach blot.

For Christians, it's "What Would Jesus Do?" For Republicans, it's "What Would Reagan Do?" Bush doesn't have to be Reagan; he just has to consult his WWRD bracelet. If Bush had followed the WWRD guidelines, he would have nominated Antonin Scalia for the chief justiceship.

As proof, I refer you to the evidence. When Reagan had an opening for chief justice, he nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist. While liberals were preoccupied staging die-ins against Rehnquist and accusing him of chasing black people away from the polls with a stick – something they did not accuse Roberts of – Reagan slipped Scalia onto the court.

That's what Reaganesque presidents with a five-vote margin in the Senate typically do. Apart from toppling the Soviet Empire, Scalia remains Reagan's greatest triumph.

Scalia deserved the chief justiceship. He's the best man for the job. He has suffered lo these many years with Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. He believes in a sedentary judiciary. He's for judicial passivism. Scalia also would have been the first cigar-smoking, hot-blooded Italian chief justice, which I note the diversity crowd never mentions.

But most important, if Bush had nominated Scalia, liberals would have responded with their usual understated screams of genocide, and Bush could have nominated absolutely anyone to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. He also could have cut taxes, invaded Syria, and bombed North Korea and Cuba just for laughs. He could even have done something totally nuts, like enforce the immigration laws.

Even if Roberts turns out to be another Rehnquist (too much to hope for another Scalia!), we don't know that, Bush doesn't know that, and Bush has blown a golden opportunity to make Chuck Schumer the public face of the Democratic Party. A few weeks of Schumer as their spokesman, and normal Democrats would be clamoring for Howard Dean to get back on the stick. Teddy Kennedy would start showing up at hearings actually holding a double scotch.

Inasmuch as Bush must still choose a replacement for O'Connor, it's important to remember the "Sandra Day O'Connor bylaw" to the WWRD guidelines: Never appoint anyone like Sandra Day O'Connor to any court at any level.

Reagan had made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. He didn't say anything about appointing a ninny. But back in 1981, it was slim pickings for experienced female judges. O'Connor was a terrible mistake and will forever mar Reagan's record, but at least he did it only once.

Bush has already fulfilled all his campaign promises to liberals – and then some! He said he'd be a "compassionate conservative," which liberals interpreted to mean that he would bend to their will, enact massive spending programs, and be nice to liberals. When Bush won the election, that sealed the deal. It meant the Democrats won.

Consequently, Bush has enacted massive new spending programs, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He's even sent his own father to socialize with aging porn star Bill Clinton.

(Sidebar on the aging porn star: Idiot Republicans fraternizing with the Clintons has not harmed the decadent buffoon's reputation abroad. A Chinese condom manufacturer recently named one of its condoms the "Clinton," a fitting tribute to the man who had Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office on Easter Sunday. Their advertising slogans are: "Always wear a 'Clinton' when you're getting a 'Lewinsky'!"; "I still believe in a place called the G-spot"; "Extra-thin skinned!"; "For when you really, really want to feel her pain." Note to Bush: This isn't Walter Mondale. How about sending Pops on the road with Joey Buttafuoco?)

According to my WWRD wristwatch, it's time for Bush to invade Grenada, bomb Libya, fire the air traffic controllers, and joke about launching a first strike against the Soviet Union. In lieu of that, how about nominating a conservative to O'Connor's seat on the court? It would be a bold gesture.

[ohioWfan]

What a pant-load. Unless you're a lot older than I suspect, you were still filling your diapers when we "DU trolls" were laying the groundwork for today's conservatives. You have no clue what we braved for the cause. Because I support Bush does not mean I have to be an uncritical sycophant.

Just to remind you CHILD, that this was your first post to me, completely and utterly misunderstanding the post you were responding to, and saying nasty things out of complete ignorance....

Making THIS statement.....

Try actually reading a post before you fire off a "clever" response

.......REALLY funny.

I have engaged in much serious discussion on this very thread, with respectable people with whom I differ. Have you?

And btw, I note by your tagline that you were drug or alcohol impaired during the '60's. SOME of us who were teenagers and twenty-somethings during the '60's were actually conservative and mature enough to stay away from hallucinogens and live productive, patriotic and conservative lives.

And WE are the ones that YOU are making fun of now.....

[ohioWfan]

THAT's IT! Gabe KAPLAN!

Thanks, rep!

[whizeup]

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU, I have been insulted and assaulted by Ohiowfan since I first joined. I really enjoy the value and learning and interchange with other people's ideas, it makes you stop and think...I can't remember when I went to bed at three in the a.m. except for a Pres. election, company, or a party, which is pretty rare these days.

I am just learning about the PC and alot of people on this have helped me alot, thank you all.

Of course all people don't agree on all things, that's what makes the world go round...never dull, plus a thirst for knowledge and interchange with other people is GREAT!

(I know you weren't directly talking to me, but what I saw last night was terrible to be treated the way some people are just because you are new on this and dare to express a little constructive criticism.)

[whizeup]

Here! Here!

[ohioWfan]

arasina. You know me..........so you know he's not telling the truth.

whizeup, if you don't stop this (unethical) assault behind my back, I will consult with the mods. Stop it.

[whizeup]

Good morning to you too Professer Sunshine, sunshine, let the sunshine in...oops, bad news for you I forgot...have your blinds closed tightly and room completely dark? wouldn't want to lose an absolutely fair and balanced person...

(everything I have posted has been in the open btw.)

[whizeup]

Ooooh, I'm shaking in my boots....

btw who are the mods. you have threatened me with for the third time?

[ChildOfThe60s]

If I misunderstood your post and over reacted, I offer my [sincere] apologies.

As far as my tagline, well, lighten up a little. I knew a surprising number of people that indulged a little that were politically conservative. I wouldn't/didn't recommend it to my kid, but, on the other hand, I am not [at all] ashamed of it either.

[ohioWfan]

It is FR procedure and courtesy to ping a person you are criticizing, so that he/she has the opportunity to defend him/herself (in this case with the truth).

I asked you multiple times to ping me when you were doing so, and you refused, and continued to give a very one-sided account, which is, at the very least, misleading.

It's a matter of decency to other freepers, and you have been informed. There are too many posts and threads to assume that the one you are wrongly insulting (in this case, me) is reading it. I just happened to read your multiple misleading posts about me because I was scrolling through in my (rational) discussions with others here.

Now might I suggest that we start over? If you really are 50, you're not that much younger than I, so I would expect you would have the maturity to understand that we got off on the wrong foot, and need to wipe the slate clean.

But at the very least please ping me if you decide to insult me again so I can correct your erroneous comments?

[ohioWfan]

I accept your apology. Thank you.

I understand that a large group of my baby boomer peers did not have the self-discipline to control their behavior during the '60's, but your tagline is a comment that excuses it, and implies that there was something wrong with those of us who remained sober and moral.

I have never liked that..........nor have any of my many friends and family who also lived through the '60's and remember them well.

Actually.........the over indulgence of the self-absorbed baby boomers (not judging you.....I don't know you), is part of what has led to the mess we're in now with the anti-war, anti-morality, anti-personal responsibility "do whatever feels good" left.

As a conservative, I REALLY don't like what the '60's did to us as a country.

[whizeup]

Seems to me that I have replied to everone of your insulting posts to me in the open. You have referred to me in other posts that I have read...I wrote you yesterday and said I thought it was a shame the way things had gone on because you would think basically we were on the same side.

You wrote back a very rude response,(I wrote and told you I was 50 with 13 grandchildren, you did not figure it out)in response to your earlier response that was rude to me last afternoon I offered to pray and said Amen..next thing I know later on in the evening you are attacking me and other people again...it is not fruitful and very "mean-spirited"(where have I heard that before? Does that mean I am DU? Phuuulease give me a break ...I would like once again to try to agree to disagree politely it would make for better discourse.

Btw..I am WOMAN...hear me roar?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Question: Has Ann Coulter jumped the shark? Discuss among yourselves.

[jmc813]

I thinks that is fair also, but why should Dubya VETO legislation passed by a Republican controled Congress?

Uh, because his JOB is to veto unconstitutional legislation, regardless of which party passes it.

[hosepipe]

[ President Bush is less conservative than I, but he is still a conservative, and to say he's not a Republican is just silly. ]

Look, Donkey breath; I didn't say Bush was NO republican, I said he was a RINO.. all three of them(Bush's) are RINOs..

[ohioWfan]

OK. Whatever you say.......you behaved perfectly and respectfully, and I was mean spirited. You did nothing wrong whatsoever.

And we will not start over because you don't want to. That's fine if that's the way you like to deal with problems.

Now, moving along..........do you see the box with "To:" in it at the top when you reply to a post? Next time you talk about me to someone else and share with them how awful a person I am, add a semi-colon after the name already there, and then type in ohioWfan. That way I am informed that you are talking about me. Understand yet?

It is a FR courtesy. Just saying things 'in the open' and volunteering insults about me right and left as you have done, is not what I'm talking about. The courtesy is to inform the other person that you are insulting him or her, so he/she can defend him/herself, which you have not done.

Thank you for your consideration of this longstanding FR custom.

[ohioWfan]

Donkey breath?? LOL!

R-I-N-O = Republican-In-Name-Only.......ie, NOT a real Republican (like Hillary is a Wife in Name Only......you get that?).

If Bush is RINO, then by definition, he is NOT a real Republican. That's what the term means, sir.

(Nurse let you out of your room, did she? :)

[whizeup]

I take back what I said about fair and balanced...mistake on spelling a few posts back..it was suppose to be UNbalanced...

Make sure you keep those curtains drawn tightly..the sun is out...you might consider taking your med's this morning..oops afternoon where you dwell in that deep dark cave of a mind...if you do not take med's I would give it some serious consideration...might need to double the dose, might make you rational...then again you wouldn't want to lose your superior rep.....my oh my....like I said earlier in a post let the sunshine in and do the world a favor....

[hosepipe]

[ If Bush is RINO, then by definition, he is NOT a real Republican. That's what the term means, sir. ]

Exactly.. And since most republicans are RINOs.. meaning ex-democrats.. its no wonder that most elected republican federal officials are too(RINOs).. Not all republicans are RINOs just most.. We have the republican government NOW that best represents the general republican constituency>> socialist.. Probably the ditz vote is factored in too.. meaning republican women.. not all but most are socialists..

Thats why reps. like Pence are so rare, there are a few like him, but very rare.. The democrats have brain washed(successfully) most republicans into being being big government malefactors.. because that is what a democrat IS.. a big government drone.. If Bush is not a big government drone.. then he IS stupid.. and manipulated by those that are..

[ohioWfan]

Once again, I will pose the question about the Republican party.

Is Bush less conservative than Nixon? Is Bush less conservative than Ford? Is Bush less conservative than Eisenhower? Is Bush less conservative than (fill in the blank).........Reagan is the only past Republican President who might have been more conservative, and that is clearly debateable depending on the issue.

You keep saying that the Republican party has moved to the left, but that presumption can't be backed up with history.

All I care about are the facts, hosepipe, and your comments aren't backed up with them....

That is an entirely different discussion from whether or not any of us think Bush is as conservative as we would prefer.

[ohioWfan]

Well thank you for proving my point to anyone reading this thread with that thoughtful post.

Enjoy the day, son.........you have 3 hours more of it than I do (now you know that, thanks to my geography lesson the other day).

Make the most of it. :)