Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 850am; anncoulter; busheeple; coulter; dubyacandonowrong; dubyahasbecomehisdad; gutlesspubs; harrietmiers; koa; miers; mikerosen; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880881-888 next last
To: txrangerette
He even made it a point to say she had donated to Gore (we know the truth of that, it was in '88 when he ran for Prez as a DLC-type, pro-life Dem, and it was her FIRM that donated)

The donation to Gore was brought up by a reporter, not by Reid. I saw the exchange when he was standing with Ms. Miers on Monday. As for the probabtive value of the donation, I think it's negligible - but not because I believe your assertion that the donation was "by the firm." Individual donors are required to disclose the name of their employer.

I also don't mistake Senator Reid's statements as supportive of her becoming a Supreme Court Justice. He said she was not on the "must filibuster" list, and went on to deliver a summary of her career, as well as noting that she is very personable, and that she promptly answers telephone messages. His "support" of the nomination has no substance, yet.

However, looks like his ploy is working with many, many who claim to be on our side.

Conservatives don't need any help from Reid to split. The vast majority of FR posts are superficial criticisms and comments, and don't reflect how any issue will be resolved on the merits. That is, I think the "split" perceived here is also superficial and/or fleeting. What matters is the votes on election day; and any influence active constituents (read "$$$$$" and votes) have with their Senators on the confirmation matter.

841 posted on 10/05/2005 5:19:15 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
"She admitted she was wrong on Roberts...AFTER he ran the gauntlet during the hearings"

Really? I didn't know that. No one really knows I suppose until votes are cast by the new SCJ.

842 posted on 10/05/2005 5:32:08 AM PDT by subterfuge (Obama, mo mama...er Osama-La bamba, uh, bama...banana rama...URP!---Ted Kennedy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004

Bump for later.


843 posted on 10/05/2005 5:35:43 AM PDT by jamaly (I evacuate early and often!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
As a legal expert, she has no particular expertise, as indicated by her largely undistinguished (and brief) legal career - this is opposed to groups such as the ACLJ and the Federalist Society, composed of actual practicing lawyers and legal scholars, who have offered their endorsement of this nomination.

I have presented clear evidence that she is much much more of a constitutional expert than Miers; if her persona puts you off so much and cannot see her opinions objectively, that's your problem.

844 posted on 10/05/2005 5:36:13 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
No, you've presented evidence that she started out as a promising young lawyer, and then ditched it all in favor of the NYT bestseller list.

I think we're just going to disagree on this, sorry.

845 posted on 10/05/2005 5:42:42 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 844 | View Replies]

To: general_re

Oh please...we need smart, knowledgeable people to articulate our side. Sheesh--what is your point other than you don't like her? Please...cap that emotion and be objective.


846 posted on 10/05/2005 5:47:30 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba

I was dissapointed in Ann's comments. Fine, you don't agree with the decision, have your say-- but she went too far. I thought I was listening to
Bill Maher for God's sake!

Let's have SOME distiction here between the left and the right.


847 posted on 10/05/2005 5:54:16 AM PDT by amutr22 (....not ANOTHER clinton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Articulate our side to whom? Coulter's schtick is purely preaching to the choir, intended for people who already agree with her. Or do you think stuff like that call to invade the entire Middle East and forcibly convert the entire population actually promotes conservatism to people not on our side? That people on the fence see that as a thoughtful, reasoned argument?

Nah. Ann would rather be clever than thoughtful, would rather throw bombs than actually build something, and I really think we can do better than Al Franken-style articulators if we need someone to fill that role.

848 posted on 10/05/2005 5:54:49 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: kidd

You are letting Harry Reid run your mind. Btw, Bush is not a dictator. RINOS, RINOS, RINOS. Ever hear of them? You failed to give Bush a grade on loosing his magic wand that he was issued as President to wave over all the other branches of gov and to correct all the wrongs of 50 yrs. I wish you had not voted for Bush. That would have been much more appropo.


849 posted on 10/05/2005 6:01:31 AM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Apparently he lost his veto pen as well.


850 posted on 10/05/2005 6:07:56 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: OESY
So far I haven't seen the force of personality and intellect to persuade others on the bench with her arguments, but I shall withhold judgment until I've seen more.

That's a valid point, but there's another issue that occurred to me as well. I am hopeful that if Ms. Meirs' beliefs are deeply rooted conservative ones with a basis in her faith, she is less likely to be moved toward the more liberal agenda by fellow Justices.

851 posted on 10/05/2005 6:08:51 AM PDT by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I didn't say we would be united if not for Harry Reid. But his specific ploy is working at the moment.

The evidence is in the constant quoting of Harry Reid's supposed support of Miers as absolute proof that Bush has betrayed us all. The further implication is that Bush is dumb. If not a Lefty himself, Bush would have to be dumber than a rock to get his pick from Harry Reid, and that is exactly what he he being accused of by many on the "right".

This is becoming la la land. Like the land of the Left. It has now infected many of us. Ad nauseum, ad nauseum, ad nauseum. It is everywhere. You can't look up without seeing it or listen without hearing it.


852 posted on 10/05/2005 6:10:36 AM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Domestic discretionary spending is in decline from what it went up every year under Clinton. The current budget actually cuts it from the first time in forever.

Bush is smart not to veto massive bills that contain everything needed to run the government but also contain some pork. I am glad he has not listened to the stupids who yell VETO without bothering to look at the fact of where discretionary is going down WITHOUT giving the Dems their great desire of yelling, hey, Bush vetoed the American Gov. and shut it down. Remember Newt Gingrich and the shutdown?

But that is neither here nor there.

You are an insult thrower, you have no actual substance to what you are pushing. You think you are clever with your little baby report card as if it proved something. Your one liners are the greatest since sliced bread (NOT). There is no there, there.

Too bad you voted for Bush.

I hope you take it back a thousand times.

BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAA!


853 posted on 10/05/2005 6:21:10 AM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: unseen
GB said he would nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas during the election.

But how do we know for sure that he hasn't? I completely agree with the posters who have said, in different ways, that it would have been a lot easier on everybody's mind had the pick been someone who is a documented conservative. No question, we'd all be breathing easier now. That does not mean, however, that this nominee definitely is going to tend liberal if she is confirmed. You claim that the President did not keep his word with this appointment, based on your "gut" telling you we have "been had." Let's hope you are mistaken. Your gut feelings may be accurate, but we can't be sure. Just because we can't prove the positive (conservative viewpoint) for Ms. Meirs, doesn't necessarily prove the negative (liberal tendencies). There are some hopeful signs in her background as well. So while I too wish we'd seen a truly and obviously conservative pick, for many reasons, doesn't it make sense at least to withhold judgment a bit on this one? No one has to come up cheering this nomination, but the negativism, at this stage, seems premature to me.

854 posted on 10/05/2005 6:23:50 AM PDT by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper
I hope she is in the Scalia and Thomas mold. Maybe Dubya has fooled us all again.

If she turns out exactly as he has described and presented then he hasn't "fooled" you. You simply don't believe him.

855 posted on 10/05/2005 6:33:13 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Sorry, but I disagree.

The prescription medicine bill alone will eclipse anything that Bill Clinton enacted. In addition the following should have been vetoed:

The farm aid bill
The highway bill
Campaign finance reform

And yes, I remember the shutdown. I viewed it as a positive step. Democrats seem to yell about anything nowadays, so it really doesn't pay to mollify them. Let them scream.

And if I've issued any insults towards you, I apologize, but I don't recall insulting you.


856 posted on 10/05/2005 6:44:25 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
The evidence is in the constant quoting of Harry Reid's supposed support of Miers as absolute proof that Bush has betrayed us all.

You missed the part where I said the use of Reid's "support" as evidence of left-leaning my Ms. Miers is a superficial argument. It doesn't even withstand application of the facts - for one thing, Reid's "support" is "relief the nominee is not on the short 'must filibuster' list."

This is becoming la la land. Like the land of the Left. It has now infected many of us. Ad nauseum, ad nauseum, ad nauseum. It is everywhere. You can't look up without seeing it or listen without hearing it.

This is a chat room. Most of the chat is idle and superficial. In all the noise, there is some signal.

FR is a difficult tool to use, but rewarding if one takes the time to filter through the crap.

857 posted on 10/05/2005 6:52:44 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: GraceCoolidge

I understand your argument and indeed she may turn out to be in the mold of a Scalia and Thomas. On the other hand she may turn out to be more liberal than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. My point and the point of a lot of conservatives is why have we been put into this position?

Conservatives have backed this President to the hilt. Dubya should have selected a bonafide conservative with a proven track record. There are literally dozens of attractive, brilliant conservative jurists and others he could have chosen. But what purpose did it serve for Dubya to choose the only one on his short list that Senator Reid, Senator Schumer and other DemoRats said would not be automatically filibustered? It sure looks to me like the DemoRats threw down the gaunlet and Dubya caved! Or, it looks like Dubya feels that personal loyalty should be rewarded by offering a Supreme Court seat. I just think that loyalty to his principles, the constitution, the country and fellow conservatives should have come before paying off a loyal friend and servant -- especially when the composition of the Supreme Court is at stake. I just don't get Dubya on this one. I am truly disappointed and baffled.


858 posted on 10/05/2005 6:58:38 AM PDT by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
I didn't say we would be united if not for Harry Reid.

Understood, and I certainly didn't take your comment that way. I took it as Reid's stance being used as a wedge. I agree that Reid's stance is thrown out as support for the proposition that Ms. Miers is left-leaning. I dismiss that connection out of hand. It's a BS connection, and while it merits independent research, needn't be refuted by the serious student.

The other point I was making was that whether Reid liked her or not, some conservatives would express disappointment in the nomination. That expression, ON ITS OWN, is enough to create division. See Bush cheerleaders.

859 posted on 10/05/2005 6:58:41 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper
I still can not figure out why he did not nominate Janice Rogers Brown?

Simple - he's afraid of a fight.

That's why he hasn't vetoed a single bill. Not one.

W threatened to veto a spending bill over a certain dollar amount, but Congress sent him one anyway. What did he do? He buckled and signed it. W said McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional, but when it was passed and sent to his desk - guess what? He caved and signed it. For some reason, he's deathly afraid of a fight with Democrats in Congress.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I just can't understand how the President can fight so hard to do the right thing overseas, whatever the consquences, and be so afraid to do the right thing here at home.

860 posted on 10/05/2005 7:04:17 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880881-888 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson