Posted on 10/11/2005 5:52:44 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Edited on 10/11/2005 6:04:10 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
by Mark Finkelstein
October 11, 2005 - 08:43.
If you invite the chubby kid from down the block to the birthday party, is it fair to criticize him for eating cake?
There was something of that lack of hospitality to the Today show's interview of President and Laura Bush this morning
For weeks now, Today has been reveling in its contribution to the Katrina relief effort, notably in its collaboration with Habitat for Humanity. Two weeks ago, Today transformed Rockefeller Plaza into "Humanity Plaza," erecting Habitat homes for transport to the stricken area.
This morning, the action moved to Covington, Louisiana, where a home was being erected on site. And who was there, hammer at the ready to lend a hand, but President Bush himself, accompanied by Laura.
Yet almost no sooner had Matt Lauer begun the stand-up interview than he suggested W was engaging in a photo op. A bit ungracious, no?
In any case, there were two distinct Ws on display. In the first half, dealing with Katrina and its aftermath, W was literally nimble on his feet.
Lauer quoted "a prominent Democrat in Louisiana" who is demanding 'to see a plan on paper, your plan to rebuild this region." Asked Lauer: "do you have that kind of a plan?"
With body language that bespoke ease and confidence, W knocked the question out of the park:
"Matt, you see, I don't think Washington ought to dictate to New Orleans how to rebuild. I guess we have a different philosophy from the 'prominent Democrat' who you spoke to. My message is we will support the plan [local people] develop. The point is that it comes from the local folks. And I recognize there's an attitude in Washington that says we know better than the local people, but that's just not the attitude I have."
Bingo!
But when talk shifted to Miers, one could sense a shift in body language and mood.
Lauer cited a number of conservative critics of the nomination, then asked: "were you taken off-guard by the amount of criticism you're getting for Miers?"
In this person's opinion, W set up a straw man in defense, suggesting that the criticism was simply due to the fact that he had chosen someone from outside the "judicial monastery."
But surely W knows that the criticism goes far beyond that, to Miers' perceived lack of interest or knowledge in the constitutional issues of the day. Does the president believe for a moment that conservatives would have criticized him had he chosen a brilliant, conservative constitutional scholar who is not a lawyer, such as Prof. Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell?
The president then repeated his stock praise of Miers, which notably seemed to include an embellishment of her record. He spoke of her being consistently ranked as "one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States." In fact, in 1998 Miers was ranked by the National Law Journal among the top 50 "most infuential" lawyers, rather different from being ranked as a "top lawyer."
W then delved into feminism, referring to Miers as having broken "the glass ceiling" and "served as a great example." The president again raised the straw man, asserting that "just because she hasn't served on the bench" doesn't mean she can't be a great Supreme Court justice.
Lauer then alluded to conservatives feeling "let down" by W, and asked whether he truly felt Miers was "the most qualified" candidate for the job.
Laura responded to the question, again sounding the feminist theme: "I know how many times she's broken the glass celing herself. She's a role model for young women."
Added Mrs. Bush: "She's very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to wherever she goes." Not negligible qualities in a judge, but one senses these are the kinds of compliments paid when one is incapable of honestly asserting that someone has a great legal mind.
Matt sought to pour gasoline on the feminist fire, suggesting there might be "sexism" in the criticism of Miers. Concurred Laura: "that's possible. I think that's possible." And yet again Laura couched her response in feminist terms, arguing that people are overlooking that Miers was the first woman head of the Texas bar and the first woman to head a large Texas law firm.
W concluded by expressing his conviction that Miers would be confirmed and, with a slight stumble for words, argued that "she won't change. The person I know is not going to change her philosophy, and her philosophy is not to legislate from the bench."
While Lauer and Today might have been ungracious in first inviting W to their Habitat set, then criticizing him for coming, all in all the tenor of Matt's questioning was not hostile, and some defensiveness over Miers aside, W handled matters nimbly. <>
Finkelstein has degrees from Cornell University and Harvard Law School.He lives in Ithaca, NY where he hosts "Right Angle," a local political talk show. Finkelstein specializes in exposing liberal bias at NBC's Today Show.
I was ROTFLMAO when I heard him say that. Matt and Katie are pretty good at quoting Democrats, since they serve as mouthpieces for the DNC.
Right. Whenever I hear of someone suggesting a possibility, my opinion of the person ratchets down several notches.
There is nothing that you can point to that says she is not informed or concerned about the "constitutional issues of the day " (whatever the hell that means).
She is not a constitutional lawyer, which, BTW, is just fine, as far as someone like Antonin Scalia is concerned. So, naturally, she's not going to be babbling about the Constitution at every turn.
Wait for the hearings. We'll all get to decide then.
A really good piece. Thank you so very much for the fair and extended desrciption and commentary.
Darn, you beat me to it!!!
Marbury v. Madison
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.
Since she was picked BECAUSE she's a woman, isn't that still sexism?
Indeed..
Yes, kind of a double-edged sword there isn't it? Reasons to support her: she's a woman who "broke barriers." Reason not to support her: she's a woman. Either way, a sexist thought pattern.
Men were completely out of the running, not qualified since they didn't break any barriers due to not being women.
How can an intellectual conservative seriously base their nomination for Supreme Court on gender, as opposed to picking the best person for the job??
Exactly. We've gotten to the point where the consideration for who the best 'person' is for the job isn't really even considered anymore. White males need not apply.
I see your point, but maybe she's thinking of the "cleaning lady"/coffee-fetcher remarks coming out of the conservative punditry. Those aren't things you'd typically say about a man.
What Laura Bush engaged in was a cheap, dishonest, below-the-belt smear of the people who have been forthright and honest about why they oppose this nomination.
The wife of the President knows full well that many opponents would favor the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown (and therefore are not sexist), as do each of the FReepers I am addressing.
But that did not keep Laura Bush from engaging in the cheap, dishonorable and dishonest charge of "sexism" against those who opposed the nomination. She knows full well that is a lie.
I have long said that even if someone disagrees with me, I can respect them, so long as they don't misrepresent my position. I still believe that. The First Lady deliberately and dishonestly smeared those who disagree with the nomination.
Therefore, my respect for her took a nosedive.
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.