Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Would Reagan Do? (Ann Coulter Laments Bush Not Being More Like The Gipper Alert)
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 09/21/05 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 09/21/2005 4:54:29 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; bush43; coulter; coulterhaslostit; democrats; johnroberts; pornstarclinton; presidentbush; reagan; ronaldreagan; thomasclones; worldnutdaily; wwrd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 761-779 next last
To: duckln

Why would you sack Rove?


541 posted on 09/22/2005 4:43:42 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
My thought is that Roberts is W's Sandra O'Conner.

My thought is that Roberts is W's Scalia--another brilliant mind who also understands his job as judge is to apply the Constitution as written.

542 posted on 09/22/2005 4:48:17 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

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

Thanks, I feel a lot better now, knowing I'm only trollish. Whatever. If you get off on labeling people, then go to it guy.


543 posted on 09/22/2005 4:55:48 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: Cautor

ok I was labelling you....right...

go back and read the posts and get back to me after reading them for the first time....


544 posted on 09/22/2005 4:57:26 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (Hey Fox News, MORE MOLLY, LESS Greta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

Yes, whatever you say. You weren't labeling me, just calling me trollish. I understand perfectly. Please feel free to have the last word in your defense since this all seems so important to you.


545 posted on 09/22/2005 5:03:40 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
You are, perhaps, on the wrong forum. Yes, there are fringers here; very vocal, but small in number and advocating the support of fringe candidates, claiming that there is no difference between the Gop and the Dems, is something which the owner of this site is not happy about. No, I am not talking for him; I am repeating what he has said many times over, for many years.

One of the stated goals of FR, is to remove from office, as many Dems as is possible and replacing them with REPUBLICANS. Removing Republicans,increasing the Dems' numbers in both Houses and even place one in the White House, by going fringe, is the antithesis to FR's stated goals!

546 posted on 09/22/2005 5:05:24 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
Voting for a fringe party, in the hope of sending a message", is akin to a two year old holding his/her breath until they pass out, to get their way.

You know what message you and your wife have actually sent? THAT YOU AREN'T A RELIABLE VOTER AND DON'T MATTER TO THE GOP AT ALL. So, in order to appeal to more voters, they go left. Yep, you really "taught 'em a lesson"....NOT! LOL

Read the LP platform! They are for open borders. Are you for that? They are for the legalization of prostitution, all now illegal substances, and for the lowering the voting age to ten years of age. You like all of that too, do you? And they are against the WoT; from going into Afghanistan to Iraq and anything else, the WoT might involve.There's more, but it really should be on your shoulders, to find out what the LP really stands for and doesn't.

547 posted on 09/22/2005 5:14:54 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Cautor

last word


(hey you said so)


548 posted on 09/22/2005 5:17:43 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (Hey Fox News, MORE MOLLY, LESS Greta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Securing the borders is NOT in the Constitution and is omitted therein, from the description of presidential duties.

No matter what I might type, you won't bother taking it to heart, but rather, you will only look for something with which to beat me over the head with. So, go do your own scut work, pet. And FWIW, I never said that CFR is "Conservative" and since this wasn't drawn up by the president, his team, nor anyone who actually IS a Conservative, I suggest that you take it up with McQueeg and the SCOTUS.

549 posted on 09/22/2005 5:19:38 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

"LP platform"

That sounds just like the democrat/liberal platform.

Same face...different label


550 posted on 09/22/2005 5:22:06 PM PDT by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Precisely because you are incapable and/or unwilling to acknowledge the differences between Bloomberg and President Bush, there's less than no point in my "explaining" it all to you. I doubt that there is anyone, anyone at all, who could makes you remove your blinkers and face reality.
551 posted on 09/22/2005 5:22:34 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Securing the borders is NOT in the Constitution and is omitted therein, from the description of presidential duties.

From Article IV, Section 4 of the United State Constitution...

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

552 posted on 09/22/2005 5:34:38 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
And FWIW, I never said that CFR is "Conservative" and since this wasn't drawn up by the president, his team, nor anyone who actually IS a Conservative, I suggest that you take it up with McQueeg and the SCOTUS.

Then why did he sign it into law? Why not force the congress to override a veto?

The GOP controlled congress is certainly responsible for CFR but so is the president since he signed it into law. I have never given a GOP member a free pass when they do something offensive to the Constitution or to liberty.

553 posted on 09/22/2005 5:37:57 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Nope, my seniority here means that unlike you, I have lived through every imaginable kind of troll and disruptor attack imaginable and due to that experience, I am more than capable of spotting a troll in a nonce. There really ARE many telltale giveaways, which someone who hasn't lived through the likes of Eschoir, ASH ALERTS, and thousands of others, would never be able to spot immediately, if at all.

I can smell a fraud three threads away...well, almost. LOL

You weren't here for classygreeneyedgirl, Snowbunny, DeepInTheHuntingtonForset, and 100 others. I was.

Seniority here doesn't always mean that someone has a superior intellect, knows more about everything, is better than everyone who signed up later; however, it DOES mean that most of us know FR's history and exactly how trolls and disruptors behave. I am also a charter member of RKBA and have flown with the Viking Kitties since their inception. That means that I have been in at the kill and "paving", of far more trolls and disruptors than most FREEPERS have.

You may not like it, but seniority really does mean something here.

554 posted on 09/22/2005 5:39:46 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Securing the borders is NOT in the Constitution and is omitted therein, from the description of presidential duties.

If it's not the President's duty, the President who is the leader and head of our government, to secure our borders from millions entering illegally, who's duty is it?

555 posted on 09/22/2005 5:40:01 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

That it is!


556 posted on 09/22/2005 5:40:09 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: nopardons


LOL


557 posted on 09/22/2005 5:42:57 PM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
O'Connor was a terrible mistake and will forever mar Reagan's record, but at least he did it only once.

I don't question Ann very often, but does the name Anthony Kennedy mean anything to her? Sadly, it does to me, and he has too often been the disappointment O'Connor has been, both to the Gipper and to me.

558 posted on 09/22/2005 5:43:03 PM PDT by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

He meant that as a slam.


559 posted on 09/22/2005 5:45:15 PM PDT by Howlin (Yeah, I'm a BushBot.....so what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
You know what message you and your wife have actually sent? THAT YOU AREN'T A RELIABLE VOTER AND DON'T MATTER TO THE GOP AT ALL. So, in order to appeal to more voters, they go left. Yep, you really "taught 'em a lesson"....NOT! LOL

Another poster wrote today that the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

By your logic, if a company keeps promising something that they can't (or won't) deliver then you should keep buying the product anyway so that you will still "matter."

Also by your logic, we could drive the Democratic party to the Right by voting for them.

How does voting for the same bunch of people that pull a bait and switch every election cycle actually accomplish anything? The GOP is certainly light years better than the Democrats but they are both far off course.

560 posted on 09/22/2005 5:45:29 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 761-779 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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