Here is the meat of your statement, which is the same as those generally supporting Roberts:
Roberts will prove to be a very good conservative justice in the mold of the man he replaced.
Why should we have had to wait for him to evidence that 'good conservative' nature on the SCOTUS? What was preventing the nomination of an already proven conservative jurist instead of a stealth nominee? Ann was making that point, and every comment you excise is to that effect or not a personal attack on Roberts at all.
Ann said "Bush decided to disappoint all the groups"--President Bush DID disappoint those Hispanics, women, and blacks with Roberts' nomination that had expected an affirmative action nominee. Are you disagreeing?
Ann called Roberts a "blank slate"--Roberts IS a judicial blank slate, albeit a skillful and articulate one, and the Chief Justice to boot. Are you demonstrating otherwise with the statement that he will prove himself? No, you're showing that she's right!
Ann compared Roberts credentials to those of "Larry Flynt's attorney"--this is a false summation; she said "We also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney." There is no 'comparison' in the sense that she is saying Roberts is scum, as you imply--she is making the point that having argued cases before the Supreme Court does not make Roberts conservative.
"Ann said, 'Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.'"--She has not been demonstrated wrong. As you admit, we are left with waiting for Roberts to 'prove' himself.
"Ann made an analogy of Roberts to Johnnie Cochran."--The same sort of inaccurate paraphrase as above. She did so in the context of refuting the contention that since Roberts argued against Roe means he also would rule against it, even in light of his dissociation from those cases--a dissociation she feels should be incredibly disappointing to conservatives in light of the subject matter (which is where the Cochran 'comparison' comes in). She said nothing about how Roberts is a scumball LIKE Cochran, which is what you imply.
"Ann said compared calling Roberts a conservative the equivalent of calling Souter a reliable conservative."--And? Show in the record where his federal rulings demonstrate otherwise! You're the one now saying he will 'prove' himself.
"Ann equated Roberts to a 'welfare queen'." Now you're just being silly. Not even close to what she actually did. Ann pointed out that the RNC was touting Roberts' work in Barry v. Little, which was argued by Roberts before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients. Her comments were not to liken ROBERTS to a welfare queen, but to ask why the RNC would consider work by Roberts FOR welfare queens demonstrated his conservative credentials--her quote was "now apparently Republicans want to pretend we're the party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism, too."
"Ann called Roberts nomination a 'Rorschach blot.'"--OMIGOD! A Rorschach blot!?!?! Just call her an elitist and sexist and get it over with, I'm with you now! /blistering sarc
Look, there was plenty of time to demonstrate Roberts' credentials prior to the nomination and the RNC couldn't do so, so it attacked and continues to attack any doubters personally. The same thing happened with Miers, though Roberts in contrast was extremely well-credentialed and personally magnetic enough in hearings to convince the public and conservatives to give him a chance. But we should not have had to be convinced, should not be rooked into giving him a chance--when, having provided the bulk of Bush's votes as the Republican activist core, he should be loyal to US. We should KNOW that a nominee is conservative and be as certain as can be about the rulings to come before appointing a man for life to a seat on the new Imperium, and that's the point Ann makes. Any other characterization of her comments is unfair and false.
As to the Freeper bet, it might have been me. I offered a bet but I thought nobody took me up on it, as I recall. I'll have to check.
It was an accurate summation. You conviently left out the 'credentials'. Ann did in fact compare credentials. And it is Ann who is making the association to Larry Flint's attorneys. I accurately summed up what Ann said. If there is any implication, it was from Ann.
I really don't care to refute every point, but I will say I am confident that Roberts will be a great conservative Supreme Court judge and Ann's assult on Roberts will be proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Roberts credentials at the time of his nominations were sufficent enough, IMHO. 30-years of work supporting almost exclusively conservative causes including time in the Reagan White House and time with Rehnquist convinved me. The couple of cases where Roberts was on the liberal side were cases where he was doing a favor for a collegue. These cases were unfairly used against Roberts when the circumstances behind them were revealed.
In the case of Miers, I agreed that she was not qualified and did not have enough conservative credentials to be nominated. I was very critical of Bush on that. Alito was a strong comeback.
As to the Freeper bet, it might have been me. I offered a bet but I thought nobody took me up on it, as I recall. I'll have to check.
No, it was with anti-guv. If I had seen your bet, I would have taken it up. I initiated and made the bet.