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.

[nopardons]

I was replying in kind, to someone who, for no valid reason, was touting his own political CV. You really shouldn't horn into that kind of debate between two other posters.

You haven't been here very long. The poster I was talking to, has been here even less time than you have. I suggest that you read FR's history threads. Therein, you will find out about trolls and disruptors. They have plagued FR since its inception. And FWIW, I am a charter member of RKBA and have hunted trolls with the Viking Kitties from their beginning. So yes, I know, VERY WIELL, what trolls look like. Though I I didn't actually call the poster a TROLL, I did say that he had the earmarks of one.

Did you ever consider the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and should educate yourself, fully, about this forum and its members, prior to spouting off and making yourself look the fool?

[Lando Lincoln]

Ann, you have no earthly idea what President Reagan would do here. There is absolutely no way of knowing, for he has passed on into eternity and cannot elaborate.

Your point is moot.

Thanks FRiend for a great remark. I am at a point where I bypass almost all Ann Coulter threads. The gushing of FReepers over her anorexic figure is a mystery to me and her caustic, ascerbic wit, while humorous at times, detracts from her usually important message. If she would tone it down a few degrees, I'd like her a whole lot better ( and if she'd eat a cheeseburger now and then). I know, I know..... to all those indignant FRiends out there......I'll shut up and let you continue your gushing.

Lando

[MikefromOhio]

Someone get Ann a donut. She's getting cranky again.

Let's not forget that absence of Democratic yelling doesn't necessarily make him a Liberal.

Wait until next week when Bush nominates someone else.

The President's record for judicial nominees is excellent and it will remain so.

ann is just pissed she isn't getting a conservative activist in there (even though one would NEVER get through the Senate and I figured she was smart enough to know this but apparently she isn't).

[cyncooper]

Um, yeah, OK...Just reading your post as I was busy with my life.

LOL

Face it, your juvenile taunts are not superior to plain common sense. Try that tack.

[nopardons]

You poor thing...it would behoove you to read and not post, in order to get to know others here, before you shoot your mouth off;newbie.

Are you looking in the mirror, as you post? :-)

[JeffAtlanta]

You haven't been here very long. The poster I was talking to, has been here even less time than you have. I suggest that you read FR's history threads.

Respectfully, you've thrown around seniority several times on this thread as if it were a union shop. You may not realize it but it really comes across the wrong way and contribute to honest debate or discussion at all. In fact, it comes across as very condescending.

Your seniority only means that found this site before others did. It doesn't mean that your political views or knowledge of conservatism is any better than someone that signed up 6 months ago.

You have a lot of good and insightful things to say, but when you start flaunting your seniority it all gets lost.

[MikefromOhio]

Bush Jr.

Not accusing, but calling President Bush "Bush JR" is VERY trollish.

[arasina]

Is there any reason you didn't want to use si in your assessment listing? [Answer: non, nyet, nein, niet werkelijk]

I agree with your appraisal. :o)

[nopardons]

This newbie and many of her yearsignups, refuse to adhere to FR's posting rules and then claim that they are the ones being "attacked" and worse.

They behave like trolls, but then take umbrage with being told that this is not accepted behavior on FR and that they are suspect.

Unless they change and change radically, they will soon be smelling ozone

[arasina]

I mean I like Scalia in a manly sort of way. I’d even put up with the cigar smoke. At lest he only smokes them, which is more than we can say about Bill Clinton.

Heh. Good one.

Good 'review' of Ann's column, street_lawyer. Written in an almost Coulterish (Coulter Cult) style. :o)

[MikefromOhio]

It's really easy...

obey the rules, or get whatever you give in return.

If you don't like it, you don't have to stay. Otherwise live with it or live by the rules.

The rest of us have too, why do you need to be special?

[rdb3]

The gushing of FReepers over her anorexic figure is a mystery to me...

Don't get me started on that!

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

[nopardons]

BRAVA !

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I've pointed out repeatedly that while there is a difference, the difference is small enough that doesn't make much difference.

No. Fighting terrorism is possibly the most serious and important issue of our time. How it is handled matters a great deal - and believe me, there is a huge difference between a party who is willing to take the fight to terrorists and one that merely tries to "understand" them.

Don't be a fool.

[Black Tooth]

Bush at U.N. – more foreign aid (President lays out agenda for global war on poverty)

WorldNet Daily September 15, 2005

WASHINGTON – It wasn't just a speech commemorating the 60th anniversary of the United Nations that President Bush delivered in New York yesterday.

Instead, he laid out an ambitious program of increased U.S. foreign aid to tackle worldwide problems of poverty and disease.

Think of it as Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" plan gone global.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1485275/posts?page=50#50 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Peach]

The president urged residents to leave NO on Saturday and by Sunday, he practically demanded that the Mayor order a mandatory evacuation.

[Lando Lincoln]

The more I read of your posts, the more I respect you. Words really do mean things!! I hope your health is improving daily. BTW....I'm ticked off that YOUR Browns beat MY Packers!!! ;>)

Lando

[JSDude1]

I don't trust Roberts, some of the causes he has supported r/and his statement lately have me worried (could it be a strategy?: SURE), but I'd rather have a solid Constitutional Orginalist where I know where they stand, so on this point Ann is Correct, and its not that I disagree with her on much of what she says, but she usually says it in a way that is too heated (non-friendly) to me.

[Cautor]

Hey, I've been a loyal FReeper since before 1999 (that's when they reset things). So I can't imagine what you mean by the term "very trollish." Sounds like a silly thing to say. If you don't like my criticism of Bush, just say so. Don't sneak around calling me trollish.

[MikefromOhio]

I told you I WASN'T calling you a troll.

What I was saying is that calling the President "Bush Jr" is a slang term used by the LEFT.