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

[AmericaUnited]

An excellent point! I keep scratching my head as to where all of the President's politcally savvy people were.

The only reason there are so many 'enraged' base types is because they are STUCK ON STUPID. This is a brilliant strategic pick, evidently WAY OVER THE HEAD OF KNEE-JERK, JOHHNY ONE-NOTE, NON-THINKERS!

[steveegg]

The last nominee is going to be the most daring because Bush will know that there is no need to hold any of his cards back.

Be VERY careful of what you wish for. With the trend to replace like with like, and John Paul Stevens the most likely to become the third vacancy, I can no longer state with confidence that the "daring" won't be daring conservatives to flee the Republican Party in droves.

[Rebelbase]

that too.

[veronica]

There is diversity in the views of the right. Whereas the liberals/lefties tend to march in lockstep (see DU, DailyKos, and ClownPosse.) Disagree with the "prevailing view" on any of those sites, on any subject, and the leftie kooks will have you for dinner. I prefer our way of doing things. We can agree to disagree and that is our strength.

[Black Tooth]

Ann Coulter is a "knee-jerk Bush hater", "sunshine patriot", and "DU troll" because she doesn't like the Miers pick.

You must be a troll.

((Sarcasm))

[BigSkyFreeper]

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

Why should she?

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.

So am I, but President Bush, you, nor I are going to get the "fight we've all longed for" with the current crop of spineless Republicans in the Senate.

I'd love to have a Janice Rogers Brown nominee too, but it won't happen. The problem lies in the Senate, not the White House.

I'm sick of those unappeasables like you who will flail harsh false criticism at the White House when you don't get the results you want.

Work your ass off all you want at the grassroots level, don't blame anyone else when you come up short.

[OldFriend]

Remembering that a certain most brilliant woman in the world lawyer who couldn't even pass the D.C. bar.

She did pass the Arkansas bar and the rest is history.

[safisoft]

Okay swami since you know so much

Do you work for the President? Maybe you were on his political staff that didn't see what a disaster this would be. It doesn't take a lot understand. Have you not read the boards these past two days?

Only a political neophyte could not see this coming, or understand the significance of it in terms of conservative support of the Republican Party. We have waited 40 years for this moment, to get this stinker.

[Remember_Salamis]

Sadly, I think the cronyism charge is true. This clinches the debate on whether Dubya is more like Reagan or More like his father.

[stevestras]

Coulter deserves such attacks, she makes them against others.

Typically, I enjoy her carville-like emotionalism for the cause. However, she is off-base on this one. I think Ann has looked at Harriet and seen herself in the mirror, 30 years down the line. She's petrified and lurching out from fear.

[mwl1]

I have respected your wisdom for years on this site and understand completely your logic.

My point is this: now is the time, before the 2006 elections, to get as conservative a nominee confirmed as possible, just as Reagan did with Scalia before the 1986 midterms.

There is no guarantee that we'll hold the Senate beginning in Jan 2007, and everyone on this site knows that the last nominee in 2007-08 will be more moderate, not more conservative.

The time is NOW to wage the battle for a proven conservative, while we have operational control of the Senate.

[OldFriend]

Ann could add 10 inches to the length of her skirts too so she doesn't flash Hannity every time she's on the show.

I do recall she was invited out by Geraldo at one point. Her demeanor is quite unladylike.

[Sioux-san]

If Miers goes on the SCOTUS, she will have lots of good company, but it won't be Scalia and Thomas she will be eating lunch with....move over Ruthie, another closet fem-lib is coming to the bench.

[subterfuge]

"Just don't stew in your juices when more than a dozen Republicans vote her down because she's "outside the mainstream".

This is exactly what I would like to see happen. THe RINOs get exposed for what they are. Just act like you won the election and run a stream of QUALIFIED Conservative candidates through until the dems and Rinos are exposed for what they are. Bush promised a Scalia/Thomas. Well where is that person?! No, we have to hope he found a stealth candidate who is Scalia-like, but (psst, nobody knows it but him).

[safisoft]

The only reason there are so many 'enraged' base types is because they are STUCK ON STUPID. This is a brilliant strategic pick

Keep telling yourself that. Dividing the base is something that only your opponent should try to do.

Maybe it will dawn on you when you are standing in line to vote in 2006 and 2008 why there aren't as many conservatives HAULING THE WATER for your candidates any more. Maybe then you will look back on this and wish that the President had not been so politically stupid.

[OldFriend]

I notice those constitutional geniuses on the Court now that just affirmed KELO.

Very impressive, NOT.

[Dat Mon]

Heres a couple thoughts and questions...

Bush said something to the effect that this woman was 'the best I could find' for the SCOTUS. Is she more qualified than Estrada, Brown, Nuttig? WHY???

What makes for a dream candidate for SCOTUS?

Has Bush articulated why she is the best? Has anyone on this forum articulated why she is the BEST QUALIFIED (best and brightest) candidate? What is it in her background or writings that indicates she is the best around. (Please don't talk simply about personal qualities as qualifiers for SCOTUS).

Jay Sekulow likes her...a plus...Mark Levin doesn't...a minus. Many conservative pundits seem to be quite disappointed or guardedly optimistic at best...I'm not keeping score. As far as peer support...it appears mixed at best among known conservatives.

Is she as qualified as John Roberts, who sailed through confirmation? Roberts was seen as a solid CONSERVATIVE. How did he get through without a filibuster?

Do we have any other known solid conservative jurists as qualified (or close to) as Roberts who could also sail through confirmation as Roberts did? Many say we do...are they wrong? Why didn't Bush nominate one of those people?

Advocating for a business client in commercial contractual litigation, and deciding personal liberty and law matters based on the Constitution are IMO entirely different matters...and unrelated to each other. What do I know..I'm not a lawyer.

If she is intelligent...she could learn the craft...from the best teachers on the planet. Its possible that Miers may turn out...after a years of apprenticeship under a chosen mentor...to be a good justice "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas". Age then also becomes a factor in determining how many years she could be effective once she learned her new craft. How much longer will Scalia and Thomas be around to guide their new pupil?

We simply don't know,and cant know what type of judge she WILL become....she has no experience ruling on legal matters, and there are sparse writings to gage her mental process. I read some of her recent statements on the Constitution...they sounded good...but talk is often cheap.

If we eliminate the case that she is clearly the best, brightest, and most qualified candidate around out of some known excellent candidates, (because Bush says she is...or we trust that she is) we are left with two options as to how things stand politically in the Republican party and /or the Senate at present..take your pick...or pick both.

OPTION 1....We cant get a solid KNOWN conservative (besides Roberts)confirmed to anything at this time. If so..why not? I have been troubled ever since that 'magical deal' was cut by the 'gang of 14'. The nuclear option was taken off the table...many apparently DO NOT WANT A PUBLIC FIGHT ON CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES...ON ANY ISSUE OF SUBSTANCE.

The reason..the leadership wouldn't want the CONSERVATIVE base to come to the realization that there is no consensus in the pub party for a true conservative agenda (besides tax cuts) ....due to the blocking actions of the infamous voting block of RINO senators. Maybe theres more RINOS around than we are aware of. The best we could hope for is a bipartisan consensus stalemate.

We gage conservative results in known ways...one is the growth and size of government. Is a conservative agenda moving forward with the present Congress?

Nominating a candidate like Estrada or Brown....and fighting for her would have exposed the status quo in the party and the Senate..not good for fundraising efforts. So Bush tries to sneak a good candidate in under the radar.

Is it pragmatic...perhaps. Can you advance an agenda merely on stealth? I don't think you can.

I consider myself a 'conservative optimist'. I believe that conservative principles, stated logically, and with a degree of passion...convince people, and advance an agenda. A good fight and debate is a good venue to air ideas...thats what we supposedly do on this site. We can do the same thing nationally...and should at some point, in order to move forward.

A conservative agenda sells if you have an effective salesman. This is why Rush is successful at what he does. If Bush and the pub leadership were to pick someone like Estrada (my preference) or Brown, and actually fight and stand on principle...they WOULD PREVAIL with the American people.

OPTION 2....The fact that Bush and other pub leaders in the Senate seem reluctant to fight hard on principle indicates that they are either weak, worn out...or perhaps not fully committed to advancing a conservative agenda. The goal in avoiding conflict would be to provide political cover for RINO or weak pols and avoid exposing the status quo.. denying the conservative base ammo to go out and defeat those pols who are RINOS during the next primary cycle.

In the extreme case scenario...Miers could be a stealth liberal...although there doesn't seem to be anything solid revealed up till now that suggests that. I'm assuming the political gift to the dems was done for pragmatic reasons...that might not be the case. We may get some idea from the confirmation hearings...not just from what is said...but like the Sherlock Holmes dog that didnt bark...from what is NOT said.

Those are two options as I see it. Maybe there are others as well. Take your pick....but don't (attempt) to shoot the messenger.

[andyk]

So, she missed out on a four-year brainwashing session followed by another three-year brainwashing session? That's a negative?

LOL, that's a huge positive in my book.

[Dane]

Do you work for the President? Maybe you were on his political staff that didn't see what a disaster this would be. It doesn't take a lot understand. Have you not read the boards these past two days?

No I do not work in the White House, or RNC, etc.etc.

Yes I have read the boards for the last two days, and your me, myself, and I, opinion(and those of your small but vocal contingent of comrades) means diddly, IMO.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Bush promised a Scalia/Thomas.

Right, and it cannot be stressed enough that Thomas got vilified and slimed by the Conservatives about as much as he got vilified and slimed by the Liberals and Democrats. It also cannot be stressed enough that Judges like JRB got vetted by the same nominee that you "have no clue" about.

You're going to have to find something else to crow about. This "clueless" schtick is getting old, fast.