Posted on 10/27/2005 4:55:27 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Are you a Republican or conservative? Want to get invited on a morning MSM show? No problem! Just be prepared to do one thing - criticize the Bush administration.
We've seen the pattern in recent weeks at the Today show. First there was Bill Kristol, fiercely attacking the Miers nomination. Yesterday, GOP congressman-turned-MSNBC-host Joe Scarborough upped the ante, accusing VP Cheny of a "lie."
And this morning brought an appearance by conservative uber-celebrity Ann Coulter.
The first hint that a warm reception was planned for Ann was the fact that Today chose Matt Lauer to interview her, rather than Katie Couric with whom Ann had famously clashed on air after having described Couric as an "affable Evan Braun."
What earned Ann her invite? Matt gave it away when he cited to Ann her recent comment "in which you compared the Bush White House with the Nixon White House." Bingo! Any conservative willing to invoke the Nixon White House in discussing W is welcome on Today!
Other interesting tidbits from the interview:
When Ann predicted that Republicans wouldn't respond to Plame-gate indictments by attacking Fitzgerald, Matt forcefully replied: "He's pretty hard to attack right now."
Shot back Ann: "Ken Starr was hard to attack! He was a Boy Scout."
Ann also predicted that indictments would make a Miers withdrawal more likely since "no one would notice."
Responding to Lauer's observation about W's myriad problems and sagging polls, Ann observed: "he's made one mistake - Harriet Miers. He just has to eliminate that mistake and everything will be fine."
Conclusion: if the price of making Ann Coulter a frequent MSM guest is a little criticism of the Bush administration, many would call it a bargain.
Finkelstein has degrees from Cornell, SUNY Buffalo and Harvard. He lives in Ithaca, NY where he hosts "Right Angle," a local political talk TV show. He is currently seeking a publisher for his anti-terrorism thriller, "Albergue Olimpico."
That was certainly the gist of Ann's criticism, though she never really explained what she meant by having compared the Bush WH to the Nixon WH.
Fair point. I imagine she won't admit that unless and until Roberts has been on the bench several years and made a number of important originalist rulings.
Perhaps Miers would seem to be no longer a mistake, given a little more time.
I'd call that a good argument, but ultimately not, IMHO, a persuasive one. No passage of time will improve Miers' embarrassingly bad past writings or her past advocacy of "self-determination" on abortion, etc.
There is simply a world of difference in quality and credentials between Roberts and Miers.
Yesterday on Neil Cavuto's show, Ann said that the president is off his game because Rove is the president's brain and with Rove under the microscope, the president isn't functioning well. (paraphrased)
The phrase "Rove is the president's brain" is a leftist mantra and Ann is sounding more and more like a Dumbocrat every day.
Nixon appointed Blackmun, signed the bill authorizing OSHA, and instituted price controls. I hope that's what she meant by the comparison. Bush is simply too willing to compromise with the left, just as was Nixon.
She's been using several leftist talking points lately. Comparing the President to Nixon, for example.
As far as I'm concerned, she's jumped into the gutter with Michael Moore.
That could be it, but unfortunately we never found out. Apparently Ann had made the Nixon/Bush WH comparison sometime earlier, and the comment was never really explored this morning.
It's sad because she's more clever than this but it's like she's written her best stuff and now can't be bothered to be a tad more subtle.
Being over-the-top is Ann's stock in trade, and occasionally she misses the mark.
But I don't think it's accurate to lump her with lefties in general and Moore in particular. Her criticism of W is not that he's too conservative but that he's not conservative enough.
Come on over here for a comprehensive description/discussion of Ann's appearance.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1510102/posts?page=26
She's softened her criticism, which was along the lines of "his judicial philosophy isn't clearly traditionalist," and admonishing the GOP for being wimpy advocates for conservatism.
So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. big deal. so has Larry Flynt's attorney.But unfortunately, other than that that, we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever. ...
As I've said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals' rights, and property rights, liberals wouldn't need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented "constitutional" rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It's always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy, and atheism and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.
During the "filibuster" fracas, one lonely voice in the woods admonished Republicans: "Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are `extreme.'" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight. ...
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of "stealth nominees" and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won't. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8175
John Roberts, Another Stealth Nominee | Jul 20, 2005
I think maybe we'll have to wait until we see how he rules on a few cases on the court and pens an opinion or two before anyone will know whether or not she was wrong about Judge Roberts.
GMTA - see #18!
Whoops!! I meant to say #22.
Very fitting! Here is the story she should tell.
****
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1508146/posts
Is Valerie Plame the new Deep Throat?
It doesn't matter what the basis of her gripe with the President is. By "in the gutter" I'm referring to the vile comments, such as referring to "when Bush was boozing it up" and saying that he "nominated the cleaning lady" and calling for his impeachment and of course her use of liberal talking points. I'm referring to her twisting the truth or just making it up as she goes along to back up her arguments rather than using backing them up with facts.
It's not her criticism; it's her tactics.
Ann's comments about the president drinking and her referral to Miers as a cleaning lady sound exactly like Michael Moore. She has absolutely trashed both of them lately and I can't imagine anything a leftist could write that would be more ugly.
Certainly agree with you there.
Please see #38.
Yeh you're right. She probably never ate a few bacon cheeseburgers at one sitting in her life.
;-)
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.