Posted on 10/04/2005 10:39:32 AM PDT by 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.
Amen to that, though Ann did get Roberts wrong.
Nipsy Russell died the other day...
I'm sorry, did Roberts rule on something already and I missed it? Because, he did a stellar job of making the Democrats look like idiots, but frankly, we don't know where he stands on the issues, either. Coulter's beef is that he is relatively unknown compared to Luttig. That said, he has a much better chance at being what we hope for, but Miers is an awful pick. Look at the firestorm he created. He could have gone with Edith Jones and at least had a united party working to keep the liberal senate republicans on the same team and rammed it through.
How could his aids come up with: "Well, let's just nominate Harriet - the conservatives will take her because we say so."
Nice lady. Terrible choice.
This nomination has enhanced as well as exposed the rift that is taking place between various factions of the conservative "movement" (we don't really have a party) as well within the Republican party.
Too many people willing to back W without critical thinking, to many people telling one another to shut up and hold the line. When a pitbull like Ann C. is questioned for being fair weathered I have to think that the world has turned upside down.
I imagine there will be a poem on the headstone. :-P
"Personally, I'll reserve my comments until I watch the hearings. Fair enough?"
I agree with you 100%. I wasn't saying that I thought they were better. I was just saying chances of them all being filibustered was very high.
What kind of odds are you offering on that?
Apparently Ann does that for some folks.
I wholeheartedly agree. No guts in the Club that is the Senate. They've become wusses at the hands of PC.
I couldn't believe the vitriol against him in her column a few weeks ago.
She needs a vacation.
That's right. He's not afraid of an all-out fight with the Senate democrats in order to get an arch-conservative judge on the Supreme Court. Sure, he didn't do it with his last pick; and, no, he didn't do it with his current pick. But for his next pick, watch out Dems!!! George will be looking to kick some Liberal a$$! Trust me.
To refer to the candidate as the President's legal secretary demonstrates a lack of class. As much as I've enjoyed her writing, I am disappointed in Ann Coulter's comments as you describe them. I think this candidate's judicial qualifications are certainly sufficient, and I don't believe in that "best and brightest" nonsense. Was it Bill Buckley who said he'd rather be governed by the first 100 names in the telephone book than the faculty of Harvard University? Not to mention how sick I got of "Bill Clinton, Rhodes Scholar" or "John Kerry is Smarter than George Bush." If that's the standard, then let's give them all written tests and the seat goes to the high score. I think you have to meet a certain academic standard, period. Then you look to other qualifications. I think you hit the nail on the head in the sense that stirring up controversy is good for Ann Coulter's bottom line. Unless she knows a lot more about this pick than has been reported, I just don't think she has the basis to make these statements. There may have been picks that would have given conservatives greater reassurance right off the bat, but I just don't think we know enough yet to say this nomination is the unmitigated disaster so many are claiming. Of course, a column called "Wait and See" wouldn't get Ann Coulter much media time.
Soon enough you will hear these words posted by the Bush bots.
Doncha know that anyone that disagrees with the Republician line is suspect.
I despise SNOBS and Annie is displaying a side of herself that is not pretty. I've been reading Ann for years and have really been disappointed in her shrillness on this subject.
I beleive she did say in comparison.
Ann's big point has been that the Republicans have control of the house, senate, and presidency, it's their game to lose with regard to nominees, and Bush has been choosing folks that are a lot more middle of the Road than need be.
A democrat war on nominees would only further marginalize the democrats, it's worth the fight, to bring die hard conservative 'lets overturn roe v wade today' types to the court.
I dislike this 'stealthness', while in the end we can pray Roberts and Meirs turn out to be what George Bush promised there is NO REASON to do so.
It seems all explanations are too slick by half.
I'm sure he's kicking himself for not checking with her first.
Then thank the stars you aren't involved in the selection process. The supreme court is no place for toadies and benchwarmers.
Amen to that. I posted an article from the John Birch Society a few weeks back that was critical of the war in Iraq...a couple of responses slammed the JBS as a "bunch of liberals"...
Ahh yes...the "liberal" John Birch Society...these labels don't seem to mean much anymore
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.