Laura Bush says sexism possible in Miers criticism

Reuters ^ | Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:46 AM ET | By Tabassum Zakaria

[Sometimes A River]

COVINGTON, Louisiana (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.

"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer were a role model to young women.

...

Mrs. Bush, who had publicly supported the nomination of a woman to the high court, noted that Miers had been president of the Texas Bar Association.

"I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling herself. She is a role model for young women around our country," she said.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

My wife decided to stay home, raise our kids and be a homemaker. I'd say that she is role model for the young women of America. But I guess I'm a sexist.

[Always Right]

We've got one side trashing anybody who questions them while they won't wait to hear the answers from this woman

True, but do you really expect 'answers' or just a bunch of legalized responses with no discernible meaning. The hearings have become a joke.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Actually it was a WH spokesman whoe raised the allegations of elitism and sexism.

[safisoft]

I'm beginning to think there must be some other hidden agenda with these arguments being steered in the wrong direction.

Think about what you just said. You are absolutely correct. That is the point that some of us are making regarding Laura Bush's comments.

Instead of OWNING up to the fact that they have ticked off a significant number of their OWN supporters, in a way that they KNEW we always had doubts about, they resort to CALLING US NAMES.

[Always Right]

Please! All Laura Bush said is that it is "possible" that some criticism could be sexist.

I suppose is possible a few of Harriet defenders are pedophiles, isn't it? Does that arguement advance the debate, or just make most people she is trying to pursuade pissed off?

[TommyDale]

"L Bush's implications were clear...oppose Miers, you're a sexist."

I guess you can read into that any way you want to. I read it as it is POSSIBLE that there MAY be some sexism. Not "oppose Miers, you're a sexist." That's a long reach there. Sorry, this dog don't hunt.

[Labyrinthos]

I don't recall any outrage when Byron White and William Rehnquist were nominated to the Supreme Court, even though neither of them had judicial experience, both had spent most of their legal careers in general practice law firms, and both were appointed because of their political connections as opposed to their legal scholarship.

[Rutles4Ever]

Yes, there's a need for a fight. The Democrats have been eating our lunch while we have the ever-elusive power of Congress. Surrendering to their tactics by avoiding a donnybrook validates their tactics. We will never have the best on the bench if that's the case. The stealth nominee will be the norm.

[Republican Wildcat]

Yes - Gillespie, I think. The sexism part was plain stupid.

[BufordP]

...Nominate a strict constructionist, cut back on spending and protect the borders.

You made me laugh, JVB!

[adam_az]

"Yes, because I want to kill some of the lies your ilk have been posting."

I see. Disagreeing about someones qualifications means they are LYING?

I have to say, the behavior of her most ardent supporters is far worse than that of her doubters.

[Republican Party Reptile]

not just any reptile mind you ... specifically one with no prior judicial exp but with some passing interest in law and have posted on a conservative forum ... plus I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I mean, other than not knowing the President personally, I've done some of the same things Miers has - ran mid-size corporate entities, particiapted in local politics and local branches of professional organizations. Hey, I even toyed with the idea of going to Law School once, actually did pretty good on my LSAT too.

So tell me how am I not qualified for the SC by your standard?

[Always Right]

Even two out of three of those would be nice.

[adam_az]

"So now they trash Laura Bush. :^("

So now Laura Bush is beyond criticism when she says something stupid?

[bmwcyle]

George and Laura need to stop reading the Washington Post, read the FreeRepublic, and Freep Code Pink on Fridays.

[BufordP]

Heck, JVB's recommendations would make for a good Republican Presidential candidate too! We can dream can't we?

[Sometimes A River]

And I guess it's "possible" that that guy walking down the street is a wife beater...and he couldn't take issue with me saying that because I never directly charged him.

See my point?

[ATCNavyRetiree]

Y'all need to stop beating up our own...let the Rats do that!

[TommyDale]

"Instead of OWNING up to the fact that they have ticked off a significant number of their OWN supporters, in a way that they KNEW we always had doubts about, they resort to CALLING US NAMES."

I don't know if I am opposed or in favor of Miers. I am torn right now. But even if I do choose to oppose her after I get some actual facts (what a concept!) I do not think Laura Bush has called me a sexist!

[rom]

You would think, being in political circles that there are TONS of better ways of answering such a charged question such as that.

What if the interviewer had asked, "Do you think that it's possible that homophobia plays a part?" (this is actually less far out than the sexism charge, some Freepers were even asking if she was a lesbian(!) after reading her bio). What would you do if she said "it's possible". You'd be OUTRAGED.

The proper answer could be "Oh, I'm not sure about that". I mean c'mon -- she has to have some rebuttals to the REAL reason people are questioning this woman (something, that I have taken a wait and see attitude towards). I am somewhat disappointed in her nomination.

But frankly, I expected better of the First Lady -- but hearing about her quest to get a woman on the bench, and now that she's Pro Roe v. Wade, I'm not so sure about her anymore. Her classiness rating went down a smidgen with me after this.

I'm also sick of the Coulter's and Malkin's of the world. What the heck is wrong with them? Are they trying to beat each other in "shrillness"? I have a hard time reading Coulter's columns. They're so full of rage and hatred that her arguments are just drowned out by her writing. They should switch ideologies if they want to be the voice of anger (that goes for that loon Savage as well).