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.

[whizeup]

It was not meant for you as I recall...oops I meant U!

[Darksheare]

So?
You post it out there, people will respond to it.
Welcome to FR by the way.

[Pessimist]

"If anyone was "on the ball" it was Bush and former FEMA director Michael Brown"

LOL!

[JeffAtlanta]

I suppose that could lead to a european style system in which coalitions would have to be formed in congress, etc.. But then at least you know where you stand. Much better than this bait and switch approach the pubs have been using on us.

Thanks - I think it would be the best thing of all parties involved. I believe that fiscal conservatives could easily form a bond with those fiscal conservatives that vote for the Democrats because the morality agenda of the GOP scares them.

This is not to bash the social conservatives, but I feel that they scare away and repel more voters than they bring to the table.

It would be best for everyone if there was an anti-abortion and morality party. Maybe that is what the GOP will become when the fiscal conservatives and anti-socialists abandon it.

The fact of the matter is that the current arrangement benefits no one except the democratic party. Even when Republicans win, the democratic agenda is implemented in the form of socialism and legal status of abortion remains unchanged. Social conservatives aren't getting anything out of this deal and neither are fiscal conservatives or those that oppose socialism.

[whizeup]

Okay already...just because I do not know the correct things to do yet on this with pings and all the other stuff does not give anyone the right to keep caling me boy, among the other things that have gone on ..I am not a femi anything..Rush Limbaugh is my favorite and I have a signed autograph from him, so do not think I am not a conservative, I am, just because I do not agree with everything someone says all the time about the President, borders, money ect. does not make me less a CONSERVATIVE!

By the way I loved that song and did not at that time think of it as anti or pro anything...I just loved Helen Reddy's voice ect. I am woman and darn proud of it.

[cyncooper]

No. I don't see that.

She does. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "imply". She certainly doesn't credit Bush the elder (why that would undermine her Bush bashing fest).

And notice at the start when, probably having realized by now that Roberts is a Constitutional conservative jurist and she's on record comparing him endlessly and inanely to Souter, she now claims if Roberts turns out to be conservative (he will), she declares it is inadvertant. She's being completely idiotic and, in fact, a bitch.

[Darksheare]

I could care less about your supposed credentials, it's your behavior that needs modifying.
Nothing in your credentials changes how people will respond to your attitude.
IF you keep saying to people "You need to light up" and "I am woman, hear me roar!" as well as saying that posters who have been here far longer than YOU need to join reality, your stay here will be short.

[ohioWfan]

Playing innocent now after a not too veiled threat in post #430......

[cyncooper]

And to further buttress my charge that Coulter is being idiotic, I offer these two excerpts from this screed column:

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.

~snip~

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.

Yoo hoo...earth to Ann...earth to Ann:

Reagan nominated Kennedy, too. I guess he made a terrible mistake twice.

[exile]

"Interesting human dynamic, for all their bluster against the left and their media, some here cannot resist jumping on their bandwagon."


You hit the nail on the head.

[Pessimist]

"What some who want others to think of them as noncomprimising purists, their views are really populist."

Interesting. I've seen people here on various threads posting polling results showing people puportedly like Bush's response to Katrina as if they were vindication. To me it only shows that in fact the general population does lean toward the left.

[rdb3]

The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are just labels - they have historical meanings but they aren't relevant to the current political environment.

I agree with that. But what underlies this entire debate to me is our citizenry. Where are they? Also, I submit that 90+% of our population does not know or does not appreciate our Constitution. Therefore, if they don't know it, how can they desire to live under it as it is actually written? It would be wonderful if they did, but my question stands. Keep in mind, the actual voters normally get what they want.

Those who seek to have our government delimited by the Constitution first needs citizens who know and appreciate the Constitution, and, desire to live under it. It's no secret that the document is not being taught at grade level nor undergrad level. If it is, you can rest assured that it's with a socialist bent.

In my opinion, the Constitution needs to be "sold" using the average buyer's #1 question: What's in it for me? Once that question is adequately answered, the battle is won.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[rdb3]

To me it only shows that in fact the general population does lean toward the left.

If that's the case, how do you overcome it?

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[cyncooper]

He should have been more ahead of the game in appealing to the LOCAL public particularly the residents of NO on Friday night before the hurricane for instance (instead of wasting his time on Blanco on Friday Night), the way he has been this time round with Rita. I really didn't make myself clear enough in my original comment.

By Sunday, with the national announcement, it was too late for many of them to leave.

He declared a state of emergency in Louisiana on Saturday. Whatever your problem is, perhaps you shouldn't be making public pronouncements without knowing the facts.

[Darksheare]

I noticed that as well.

"me cordially invite U to Big Sky Country at my humble abode on Cougar Ridge and show U how we debate with nut jobs like U" -whizeup, post 430.

Whiz, let me inform you that threats such as the above quoted text from YOUR POST are not tolerated here.

[arasina]

I can understand why whizeup mentioned the 'I am woman' thing---because ohioWfan did keep referring to her as a young man. (For some reason I thought so too, BTW.) So we now know she's not a boy, not a feminist and likes to use the juvenile spelling of the word YOU. We also know that she has become extremely rude and crude and ever so slightly threatening. (reference the meeting ohioWfan in person)

Perhaps it can be chalked up to ignorance of Forum Decorum at this point. We will see. :o)

[Pessimist]

" but I feel that they scare away and repel more voters than they bring to the table"

I suspect as much too. But I assume that any number of pollsters already know that one way or the other, and I still see the pubs courting them so...

One reason might be that the morals people tend to be easier to predict based on single issues. Another could be that the main concern of a politician (and party) is the wielding of power - which inherently requires the expansion of gvt. So in relative terms, its easier to placate the morals people than the fiscal people w/out damaging their fiefdom.

[Darksheare]

Agreed, we shall see.

[Pessimist]

"If that's the case, how do you overcome it?"

I'm not sure we can or will. Maybe its just the lifecycle of a successful empire. (Look at Rome).

Somewhere here the other day though someone had a good point: Wholesale "voucheriziation" of the school system would be a good start. Hoepefully, people would select schools heavy in education and light in indoctrination.

Then... 'ya just have to wait a generation or two.

[TAdams8591]

Whatever your problem is you shouldn't be making statements without reading the posts.