Its Ann, not Anne!
Posted on 10/03/2005 3:07:23 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Count Ann Coulter among the conservatives who are unhappy with President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
Asked by NewsMax.com if she considers Miers to be what she had called John Roberts after his nomination - a "tabula rasa” - Coulter, who’s now out with the paperback edition of her best-seller "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” said:
"No. She’s something new: a complete mediocrity.”
Ouch.
Sorry, class is closed. I also regret to inform you that you are on the wrong thread to be discussing your "issues" with Alaska.
Good to see that so many Freeper Republicans are in the corner with Reid, Schumer, Feinstein...and against Savage, Coulter, Kristol, Limbaugh, Levin.
Is this "judge" in the mold of Thomas and Scalia?....No.
This is the standard that Bush himself set during the campaign.
When Earl Warren was nominated, people had at least heard of him before.
It's a pretty stiff competition today, huh?
No, the sky seems fine. I'd say it's a political party that's failing.
What a good question, nerdgirl. I posted a similar response to this poser.....I mean, "poster".
Its Ann, not Anne!
Good point. It's PRESIDENT Bush for me, too. :)
I'm about as far from a feminist as you can get. But do you really think a woman in 1970 had the same chance as a guy to get a Supreme Court clerkship? And the law school that someone attends may be a product of finances as much as ability. I went to UVa. instead of Mich. simply because it was cheaper.
It's so easy to slip and say just, "Bush", since we hear that so much so I don't ever mean to insult someone who accidentally says that. Some refer to him as, "Bush", to be insulting, but that normally isn't the case on FR. But I try so very hard to always refer to him as President Bush. It's respect for the office of President of the United States. :)
Heh. I would if I didn't have to work tomorrow.
Now, why don't you step back, put all this cutesy speculation about a "stealth candidate" aside, and ask yourself why movement conservatives--the people Bush rode into office TWICE--don't deserve a sure thing? Just once?
Liberals get them all the time. When Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Bryer did liberals ever have any doubt that they were getting exactly what they wanted? Why don't we deserve the same?
Instead we are treated to the worst kind of psychic trauma--the feeling that, despite our best intentions to the contrary, the same old crap is happening once again. Memories of Earl Warren (Ike), Harry Blackumn (Nixon), John Paul Stevens (Ford), and David Souter (GHW Bush).
Maybe you don't mind squandering the best opportunity in almost twenty years to reverse 60+ years of judicial supremacy in the Washington equivalent of a long-shot bet in a Vegas casino, but I do.
If you don't drink, you should probably start...soon.
None of those other alternatives were confirmable. This is not guesswork on his part. This is just a handful of phone calls to the RINOs asking them what they'd support. People who are crying out that he could have picked one of those hardline conservatives just don't want to think about this.
Having a bunch of nominees rejected one after another would weaken his presidency and ability to control the agenda. If he loses the ability to control the agenda, then we get nothing. Nothing at all. As things are now we get at least something.
He nominated the rightwardmost candidate who is confirmable. Both of those criteria are equally important.
I think perhaps you are confusing those of us in the MIDDLE OF THE ROOM with those in the "corner". One can have an open mind and think things through without being branded a corner-hugger. LOL
I made my point earlier, but I'll repeat it since you asked:
"You're criticizing Bush for appearing impure, looking bad, and cronyism, aka the ugly side of politics. I'm thinking that such criticism is a bit odd coming from a state well-known for its massive and incomparable appetite for pork (every other structure is the "Ted Stevens Memorial..."), which, beyond being in theory incompatible with conservatism, appears impure, looks bad, and is the ugly side of politics."
Don't forget Bennett and a few others. Speak out, and your the enemy!
I didn't mention any names, let alone yours...if the shoe doesn't fit you, don't wear it.
Geez, you're not kidding. i haven't posted much lately because of the Bush bashing and I'm not able to respond quickly to a lot of the cr*p posted here.
Latent trolls and newbie sign-ups are everywhere, as well as knee-jerk long-timers. Those types are not going to scare me away though.
I trust President Bush's judgement and will wait until the hearings to decide how this nomination plays out.
From what I've seen on many threads (and actually READ, unlike the knee-jerkers) she sounds like a great stealth candidate.
I'm no poker player, but I appreciate the skills of our Prez. :)
I am not saying that Miers is a "stealth candidate", I simply feel that our President and Ms. Miers deserves more than a slam-fest within hours of ever hearing her name.
Why can't we have exactly what we want? Gosh, I wish we could, maybe we can....and maybe that person IS Ms. Miers. It's far too soon to tell.
The only "psychic trauma" I see is by those FReepers who don't have the commonsense God gave a turnip. They want to scream the "sky is falling" when they don't know diddly-squat. Sure, we have bad memories, but that doesn't mean we're in a nightmare now.
I hope and pray that folks will calm down and at the very least, learn more before jumping to the gun. :)
So you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, but refuse when asked to identify anything that I said which might be incorrect. Which suggests that I indeed was correct.
The issues I touched on were somewhat tangential to the thread, but relevant in revealing the inconsistency of a critic complaining that Bush is not being a good conservative with his nomination while ignoring the issue of excessive pork/welfare, which is very anti-conservative. Doesn't necessarily negate her criticisms, but provides some perspective from which to assess it.
lmao.....spooky........
Now loosen your turban, okay?
p.s. I had an arm.....note I said HAD.
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.