Ann Coulter just took apart SCOTUS nominee on the Mike Rosen show (My report)

Ann Coulter's appearance on the Mike Rosen show, 850am KOA ^ | This morning, Mon. Oct. 4th | Report from Mike Rosen show

[ajolympian2004]

Ann Coulter just took apart President Bush's SCOTUS nominee on the air during her appearance on the Mike Rosen show here in Denver on 850am KOA. She called for listeners to write their senators to oppose the nomination. Wish you could have heard it!

Ann said - "Totally unqualified", called Judge Roberts "a 'dream' candidate in light of this nomination", mentioned "cronyism" over and over. Much more that I'm trying to digest. I called the station to see if they saved the audio, but no luck on that. Mike Rosen was just about speechless as Ann went on and on about why this was a lousy choice.

I agree with Ann. Huge mistake and missed opportunity.

Ann's choice, Janice Rodgers-Brown. Not enough intestinal fortitude in the White House to go with that choice.

Can't wait for Ann's column on this nomination later this week.

[safisoft]

You do know that a President's base isn't me, myself, and I.

I do know that his "base" has shrunk precipitously in the last 36 hours, and his political advisors know it too. Which is why he was first up this morning to shore it up. He failed when he said that Miers was the MOST QUALIFIED. She was not. She is the MOST CONNECTED.

[sinkspur]

But if he says "Roe is settled law", and you agree that he believes the right to privacy exists in the constitution, then Coulter was right.

No. That does not follow. As Orrin Hatch said, Roberts said nothing about he might rule on Roe.

And Roberts did not say "Roe is settled law" in his SC hearing; he said that in his Appeals Court hearing. Surely you know why he did that.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Frankly, given Ms. Miers purported loyalty to the President, she should have refused the appointment, knowing that his base would be enraged, and that she was too old.

I'm as mad as her as I am at him.

That is the most vacuous statement I've read thus far.

[Dane]

I do know that his "base" has shrunk precipitously in the last 36 hours, and his political advisors know it too.

Okay swami since you know so much, give me a stock tip to make me a million dollars tommorrow.

[mwl1]

I respectfully disagree with part of your premise. Heading into the 2006 elections, we could easily flip the votes of Nelson of Nebraska, Robert Byrd of W Virginia, Nelson of Florida, and probably Miss Mary of Louisiana as well.

I would like to see the RATS vote against a black woman in red states with a large black population.

I agree that we might lose a few RINOs, but we could flip some RATS.

The Administration is being lazy.

[bkepley]

Wait there is a difference? They sure seem like the same party anymore

Go to a public Democratic party event. You'll know what I mean.

[RightWhale]

she must have something to say

It's more the delivery than the content.

[malakhi]

BTW, I didn't realize Levin is living with the shame of not vetting Kennedy properly and blaming it on "lies". Not very impressive for Mark.

And we're supposed to trust his judgment of Miers?

[subterfuge]

"I didn't work my ass off in 2000, 2002, and 2004 for this."

Thank YOU For that!

Same here. I didn't FReep John Kerry twice, face down union thugs and put MY ass on the line for this either. This pick will split the Republican party.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If you want to look for a lack of spine, you only have to look at the Senate. Our side is filled with spineless idiots who will do anything to undermine this President, all for the sake of face time in the media. Then the knotheads here on FR will come out and blame Bush for all of it. You want him to run Janice Rogers Brown again? Fine. Just don't stew in your juices when more than a dozen Republicans vote her down because she's "outside the mainstream". I'm sick of the false criticism. SICK OF IT. Savvy?

[malakhi]

Ann is just concerned ... with the constitution book sales, publicity, and chat show appearances.

There, fixed it.

[Dane]

It's awful funny that folks fall prostrate on the ground before Coulter normally, but when she doesn't toe the President's line, she's suddenly "underfed" and "crazy" and a "sunshine patriot." Just look at the comments on this thread already

Too bad honest criticism is not welcome by some folks.

Especially to the "Ann Coulter is the next Virgin Mary" fans.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I didn't work my ass off in 2000, 2002, and 2004 for this.

Sounds to me like you didn't work hard enough, or you'd find some bright spot to glom onto. Hey, that's your fault, not everyone elses.

[harrowup]

...if you think someone who is skin and bones in a land of plenty is not anorexic...

She is the epitome of the social x-ray made infamous in Bonfire of the Vanities, attitude and all.

I think my grandmother would have suggested she stop talking so much and eat.

She will always be a second rate bimbo with a foul mouth and bad posture.

[mwl1]

Label my opinion any way you like, but many conservative commentators have made the same point: Miers should have recused herself from consideration.

A political party should stand for something. I am much more concerned about the future of the country than placating the left or the newsmedia.

I know all the arguments in favor of Ms. Miers appointment: we get the results without the controversy. The problem is that is that this approach does nothing to educate the American people or advance the conservative cause for decades to come.

I am disappointed, and find the Administration's approach shameful.

[Nevermore]

I also don't know what Bush heard back from the GOP Senators when these names were brought up. Bush can nominate, but he needs the Senators support

I agree, 100%. It's easy to find fault, to be disappointed with this choice and suggest that it "shoulda" been Brown or Owens or Jones - but if your own team is telling you "Don't try it," you have to be practical (a dirty word to arch-conservatives, I know) and work with 'em. The sad truth is that the Republican party is not all that conservative, as a whole, regardless how the Luney Left howls.
It's easier to be confrontational regarding legislation, which undergoes many adjustements and permutations, anyway. But your SCOTUS nominees are either "up" or "down". That's it.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I respectfully disagree with part of your premise. Heading into the 2006 elections, we could easily flip the votes of Nelson of Nebraska, Robert Byrd of W Virginia, Nelson of Florida, and probably Miss Mary of Louisiana as well.

That doesn't solve your "here and now" predicament that you seem mired down in.

[Miss Marple]

I will grant you that you MIGHT flip Mary Landrieu, although she might go out with a bang, voting against Miers. After all, she is almost guaranteed to lose her next election since the New Orleans base she counted on has been scattered to the four winds. She might choose to demonstrate her loyalty, hoping for a plum job in an '08 Rat administration or a high-paying job with a Rat-backing corporation. The idea that Byrd would vote for a black woman is pretty shaky as well. He would simply go off on some rant about the history of the Senate, blah, blah, and then vote no. Nelson, maybe.

BUT, you see what you're doing, don't you? You are counting on democrats to get a conservative justice passed. Do you really think that if it were Owens, they wouldn't all stand together? Evan Bayh, my senator and a supposed moderate, voted against Roberts. The state is outraged, but he doesn't care; what's important to him is getting a slot on the 08 ticket. I don't think he will vote for anyone Bush nominates.

Really, you are supposing a best-case scenario. That isn't how the Senate works, in my opinion, particularly on a vote such as you envision.

[subterfuge]

I focus on Ann's appearance because it's the only way to show displeasure with her in this forum without being eaten alive by the usual suspects in here. Secondly, if she had some body fat, maybe she wouldn't be so harpie-like.

I understand completely. You have nothing sustantive to say and you like to resort to ad hominem attacks. That's great.