I think Ann was way off on her criticism. Why is that? Well because for a change Joe Farah more or less mirrors what she said.
no the real reason is that I think this nomination and the person nominated will end up being INFINITELY more conservative than O'Connor was. IF he was the one replacing Rehnquist I would say no, but he isn't.
You DO want to get your candidates, preferably the easy ones confirmed as quickly and without the political capital as soon as possible. Save the ammo for when Rehnquist retires around XMAS time.....
I guess I read a different column from the one others seem to have read.
In the column I read, Coulter just pointed out that nothing much was known about Roberts. That he had no clear track record, or any record of public utterances or writings to indicate that he was a conservative (constuctionsist, etc.)
She noted that many (actually every) time a Republican I has picked someone they thought would be conservative--but who had no clear record, they had turned out more liberal than had been hoped. (Warren, Souter, for starters.)
I don't see where she is wrong about that. Maybe Bush will be lucky and break the pattern. But what was wrong with pointing it out? What was wrong with suggesting that maybe he should have picked a surefire conservative?
That's what he promised when he was campaigning--both times.
you make good points. I thought Ann's points were a bit strange. One possibility is the WH encouraged her to speak out like she did. Maybe they did. Maybe they didnt. But it would be excellent strategy to have the nominee criticized by some conservatives.
Mike, my feelings mirror yours. President Bush can't win for losing sometimes. I am happy with his choice.
My take is that Rehnquist will be replaced by Roberts...and we'll have another young "Rehnqist" as Chief of the Supremes for another 30 years.