Posted on 10/11/2005 6:14:59 AM PDT by 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.
Name some.
Could someone point me to a post, an oped, a website, anything that supports the contention of opposition to Miers because she's a women?
I am going to set aside the Miers nomination for a moment, because to be honest that is NOT what this is about. At the moment, our team has whipped istelf into a frenzy, so blinded by disappointment that we can't see how the other side is openly and gleefully using us to futher their own goals.
The one thing I know for certain about Laura Bush is that she is an introvert who NEVER wanted to be in the public eye. She KNOWS that she is very weak when it comes to playing hardball politics. She has been very clear about that, but because she loves her husband and is duty bound to her position, she sucks it up and tries to do what's right. And she has proved that she has a pretty good grasp of her own liabilities and assets. Good for her.
If you take a look at her statements over time, you realize that almost every single one of them is in response to a direct question that is intended to trap her. Her answers usually fall into the socially correct "that's an interesting way to look at it" category. She always makes polite conversation, trying desperately to stay out of the fray and not make waves. In this case "perhaps" is a way of acknowledging another's perspective, while dismissing it to a certain extent. It is a very common polite conversation technique which many of us employ every day.
The problem is, the press are a bunch of sharks. They think the President and First Lady are dolts and hicks. They think WE are dolts and hicks. They take great delight in using polite responses to attack them. It happens over and over again. The press bounces up and down with glee as they "outwit" their "foe."
The press is using the Bushes to deride the value and intelligence of every American. Uncle Walter, just last week talked about how stupid the American public is. Nearly all journalists, including many not unsympathetic to our cause, believe the same. They have no respect for their own audience.
The press, and the left are wallowing in joy at the meltdown on the right. They will throw any fuel on that fire to make it last longer, for the hatred of the Bushes to reach a white hot level on the right. It's not because they can see the reasons so many are upset, because quite frankly they do not see the difference between the the two. In their minds, the President is a raving lunatic conservative, as are the anti-Miers crowd.
You and I, of course, understand the entire concept of "degrees" of conservatism. But we must look at it from the presses point of view. They continually see everything in black and white, left and right...all the while confusing "nuance" as rich, deep and important thought, rather than what it is—lack of a moral compass.
There is only one reason the press is listening to us right now: WE ARE HELPING THEM PROVE THAT THEY WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG. The President and his wife are stupid. They are inept. The Iraq war is a failure, the budget's a failure, President Bush took a perfectly prosperous Bill Clinton nation and turned it into a smoking crater. The administration has done nothing right, he is a big business, cronyistic, corrupt, daddy's boy.
They can not grasp that we may only be upset about the deficit part, or the borders part, or the Miers part. It's all or nothing. And the way we are acting is read as they have been right all along and this administration is a complete and utter failure. "After all...even his supporters agree with us." Tokyo Rose anyone?
I am just saying, that if we are not careful and ratchet down the hysteria and pettiness, we are going to cede the entire bailiwick. There is part of me that believes that is what some on the right want, a way to teach everybody a lesson. Well, that lesson is going to be as effective as suicide, because it's the same thing.
I will go on record with this warning: IF WE CEDE THIS FIGHT TO THE LEFTIST PRESS...we will never be this far in a rightward direction again in our lifetimes and before you know it, we will be members of the world court and Hillary will be our leader. Mark my words. This is not just a game.
The President is as conservative as we get at this moment—Have we all forgotten how close we were to getting either a President Gore or a President Kerry? This is not because we are not conservative enough any more than it was because the left wasn't left enough. It is because a large portion of the population is scared to death of far right conservatives because: THEY LISTEN TO THE PRESS DEMAGOGE US DAY IN AND DAY OUT. Fortunately, they are just as frightened and disgusted by the far left. That is a fact. Deal with it.
Does that mean we never disagree with the President? No. Does that mean we just give up on the budget? Heck no. Does that mean we all fall in line behind Harriet Miers? NO, not if you don't feel she was a good choice.
What it DOES mean is that we don't sit around and make petty political points on the backs of our teammates. It means we disagree respectfully without using our enemies lines of attack. We stick to the issues and reduce the hysterics. We agree to disagree when no one is moving from a position. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don't KILL our own, self appointed leader to prove how smart we are...how much better we are...how pure we are. We simply disagree and get the heck on with the process. It is not the end of the world. Honestly, it isn't. We need to keep moving forward.
Attacking the First Lady on a less than diplomatic comment...is only handing the press, and worse the left. a warehouse of ammunition.
And that is even more tone deaf then the comment itself.
/End Rant
I don't think you read what she said or didn't say. "could" does NOT equal "are" or "is". She did not say what you are positing she has.
If someone, say, posits that you "could" be a nazi -- does this mean you are one, have been one, might be one? What do you think the word "could" means?
I am looking forward to hearing/reading what the Dems do or say on the matter of Harriet Miers. Very much. :)
She said it was "possible".
Laura would be smart if shutted the f up...
Actualy, I did read the article. What Laura Bush did was agree to a loaded suggestion. Such an answer "could," "appears to," etc. allow politicians to make their point while maintaining their air of deniability.
We dolts may not be as clever as GW Bush, Laura Bush, or EVEN Harriet Miers. However, we can recognize an insulting suggestion when we see one. Laura Bush could have answered that question with a "No...of course not. These are the same people who support Edith Clemens and Janice Brown. She chose not to.....therein lies the problem.
I think this is probably just her media training talking. The slickmeisters tell you that whenever you are asked a provocative question, say that you suppose it could be one possibility. That way you commit yourself to nothing. It's not like she could say, oh, no, I realize those criticisms are entirely accurate.
Yes, I can imagine we would not have heard about how "Harry" makes a good cup of coffee and that's about all "he's" accomplished.
Ditto.. (Eddie Murphy LAUGH)...
First the jokes about her husband giving a horse a hand-job at the Correspondents' Dinner. Now this P.C. garbage to insult the base. Laura Bush is skating on thin ice.
Amen!
First the jokes about her husband giving a horse a hand-job at the Correspondents' Dinner. Now this P.C. garbage to insult the base. Laura Bush is skating on thin ice.
Good point. I wonder if we would of heard about "what a nice, church going man" he was.
But this is a tough and should be avoided, imo, because it cuts both ways.
Whata buncha crap! If Miers was so brilliant, she would have written legal opinions somewhere over a 30 year career.
She has none (at least none that have been reported).
Calling Miers "mediocre" is being charitable.
>> CFR...
...piling on Bill Bennett, schmoozing the Clintons, fence-straddling on Schiavo...
I've shut my eyes to a lot of things, for two reasons: the Bush Doctrine, and the promise of the Supreme Court nominations.
He got a pass on Roberts, on the admittedly shaky presumption that a man so intelligent almost HAS to be a conservative and an originalist.
But Harriet Miers---no. The very arguments presented in her defense are damning in their faintness and superficiality.
I expected a disappointment, because I know the President is no conservative and need no longer sell himself as one. But after a week of consideration I have to say that this nomination is a shock and a grievous insult to the voters who re-elected him.
Sure has. Makes me feel real good to know that Laura and the Dynamo from Dundalk think alike!
That possibility would be more credible if Gillespie didn't already make the charge.
When it comes down to it, politicians (and I'm including LB in this because she spoke on a political matter) don't say things "by accident."
Making the "sexist" charge is one of their defenses of Miers.
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.