This is what 'advice and consent' means (Ann Coulter)

wnd.com ^ | October 5, 2005 | Ann Coulter

[AndyJackson]

Go take some Midol, Ann.

Ann is right on the money on this one.

[G.Mason]

"If you have questions genius, ask them instead of hiding behind obscure posts! The woman is NOT qualified for the job. Others are. They weren't chosen. Why? Cronyism!"

While you are still on a roll, who should the President have nominated and why?

[Wolfie]

Are you kidding me? We'll need to be strapped in NASCAR style for the coming cogntivie whiplash on everything from Border Control to States' Rights.

[johnny7]

Sen. George Allen ain't too happy about Meirs either... neither is Brownback or Santorum.

Bush is picking Meirs to avoid a fight... a fight that must be fought. Coulter's right on this as are many conservatives.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

At least we eat and drink, your hero, skin and bones coulter just vomits, in more ways than one.

BWHAHAHAHA!

I can't tell if that is envy...or if you're just, um...frustrated.

[wtc911]

She is pushing the release of her paperback....

=========================================

Well, that explains why she mentions it so often in this essay.

[alnick]

I have read posts where Freepers say they will vote for Hillary, that the conservative movement is dead, that Bush is capitulating to the democrats because he wants to be liked, etc. etc.

Drama queens.

[petitfour]

Or a Pat Buchanan.

[ladtx]

Otherwise she's comming off as an Elitist. I'll be damned if I accept the ideal that only graduates from certain "prestige" schools are worthy of high office.

I agree. Ronald Reagan graduated from Eureka College, hardly "Ivy League". I watched her on O'Reilly last night. Her elitist snobbery came through loud and clear.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

And this comment is perfectly acceptable?

"While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s"

First, there was the unwarranted attack on Roberts (which she now pretends she never did), and now comes this screed.

My comment is right on the money, pal.

[A.Hun]

There is no requirement in Constitutional law concerning SC nominations. If you wanted someone that checked the polls before they went to the bathroom, you should have voted Democrat, dipsht.

[MJY1288]

No, I hired a company to think it up :-)

[TSchmereL]

Not that I have any hope of altering your state of total denial, but I am going to start a list of Conservatives who agree with me:

Peggy Noonan, Thursday, October 6, 2005, The Miers Misstep-What was President Bush thinking?

Robert Novak, October 6, 2005, Bush's Unpleasant Surprise.

Ann Coulter, October 5, 2005, "pooch"

George Will, October 5, 2005, Can This Nomination Be Justified?

David Limbaugh, October 4, 2005, The Miers Pick: Disappointed, but Still Hopeful.

Pat Buchanan, October 4, 2005, Bush Recoils From Greatness.

Rush Limbaugh, October 4, 2005, "weakness"

Bill Kristol,

Bill Bennett,

Mike Savage,

Mark Levin,

Laura Ingraham,

more to come . . .

[tacticalogic]

the nominee is subjected to questions over every tittle except what matters most: original intent.

There's the missing piece.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Mark Levin does not have a hair on his backside for Supreme Court nominations, having helped to inflict Kennedy on us.

[MJY1288]

LOL, Mark Levin said the other night that he only spent 10 minutes vetting Anthony Kennedy, as if that was an excuse.

I didn't know Mark could speak Clintonese

[varon]

AC bump

[Rummyfan]

Over one thousand comments to Ann's column this week. Heck, I thought she would write about Ronnie Earle! It just goes to show the contentiousness of this nomination.

[Mr. K]

I can see Ann's point- Bush had not one but TWO opportunities to stick a REAL HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE on the bench,and he does not even have to worry about re-election.

I woulda sent up Bork and had a clone made of him for the 2nd job.