Kansas people waking up!!! He is a smirking elitist, Great LTE

[greenbriar]

Not worth respect

President of the United States is a title, just like captain or den mother or judge. It entitles the holder to common courtesy and the benefit of the doubt, but respect is something that must be earned.

Had not George Bush's father ridden Ronald Reagan's coattails into the White House, there would have been no second President Bush. His candidacy would have been ignored, his nomination impossible and his election unthinkable.

He is a smirking elitist, a grasping opportunist, an unabashed shirker and a proven incompetent. I see nothing in him to merit a shred of respect.

ALAN HURLBUT
Wichita

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/12605153.htm

[ComerPerro]

1. Some of us are already wide awake. But its nice to see that

[atommom]

2. It's about time they started waking up. The rest of us are getting

hoarse!

[DavidDvorkin]

3. I'm surey plenty of Kansans have been awake all along

And Alan Hurlbut may well have been one of the awake ones. There's no reason to assume he was a Bush supporter who's suddenly seen the light.

[greenbriar]

4. oh I didn't mean that... I live in Kansas and believe me I have been vocal

BUT>>>


the letters to the editor are becoming more ANTI-bush !!!

this was the best one TODAY


the fact that the local bush endorsee paper has printed them is a miracle

[hfojvt]

5. a little heavy on the name-calling

but it reminds me of something I am thinking about for John Roberts.

Are there no competent conservatives? The American public is perhaps more conservative than me, and so it will vote for coservative candidates, but it still amazes me that somehow George W. Bush was the best that conservatives could find to represent them. He is a man with a proven record of incompetence, and now his administration will be known for four things - its inability to protect America on Sep. 11, its inability to find Osama, the disastrous Iraq war, and its apathy and inaction with regard to Katrina.
However, if confirmed, the nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice to the Supreme Court may over-shadow all four of those, and may be just as disastrous. Bush, and perhaps the public, want conservatives on the court, but it astounds me that Roberts is the best that conservatives have to offer. Are there no other conservatives with more experience who are more deserving of a nomination to the highest judicial office in America?
Compare Roberts record to the nine people who were on the court before Rehnquist died. First, look at Roberts experience. He has four years as Deputy Solicitor General and two years as District Court Judge. His proposed predecessor, William Rehnquist had no judicial experience prior to being placed on the Supreme Court, but he was a WWII vet, and I salute that service, and he was on the Supreme Court for 14 years before he was appointed Chief Justice. Rehnquist also had two master's degrees in addition to his law degree. Roberts seems barely qualified to be his clerk, much less his replacement.
I think it would be far more fitting to make Sandra Day O'Connor chief justice for her time remaining on the court. Even if it is only for a few months until a replacement is found for her, I think she is far more deserving of the honor than Roberts. First of all, she has 24 years of experience on the Supreme Court. Secondly, conservatives like George Will complained at the time of her nomination that a woman was chosen instead of the most qualified person, but she had far more experience than Roberts at the time of her nomination. She had four years experience as a Superior Court Judge and served six years in the State Senate.
Justice Souter has 15 years on the Supreme Court, and was a Rhodes Scholar, and was a judge for 12 years and Attorney General for New Hampshire for 10 years prior to being appointed to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia has 19 years on the Supreme Court and was a law Professor for nine years and an appeals court judge for four years. Justice Kennedy has 17 years on the Supreme Court and was a Professor of Constitutional Law for 23 years! Justice Stevens has been on the Supreme Court for 30 years, had five years as an Appeals Court Judge and is a WWII vet. Justice Thomas had very little experience prior to being appointed to the court. He was an appeals court judge for 1 year and was Attorney General for Missouri for three years. He has been on the Supreme Court for 14 years, but his track record there for preserving liberties and upholding American values has not been good. I was indifferent to his nomination, but he serves as an example of what can happen if you choose someone with poor qualifications and very little experience.
Clinton's liberal appointees will not have a chance here, but their qualifications should shame any conservative with any self respect. Justice Ginsberg, another one conservatives might claim was chosen because she is a woman and not because of her qualifications, was a law Professor for 11 years and an appeals court judge for 13 years, and has now been on the Supreme court for 12 years. Justice Breyer was a law Professor for 27 years and an appeals court judge for 14 years. John Roberts is barely qualified to carry their brief cases, much less be their "boss".
John Roberts nomination for Chief Justice does not even deserve consideration. There have got to be more qualified conservatives out there. Conservatives need to do better. America deserves better. If Republicans are not going to do right by their country and reject this nomination, then Democrats have no choice but to filibuster it. The American people, even Republicans, should support it. I challenge all Republicans - is this the best you have to offer?