Posted on 10/11/2005 6:14:59 AM PDT by Sometimes A River
Yes, there is a way to answer it.
She could have said "No Matt, I don't believe that opposition to H Miers is necessarily borne out of sexism. Here's why I believe she is a good nominee: ______"
Laura Bush knew what she was doing. She knew this question was coming. I can promise you she prepared for this very question, and had her answer in mind before he asked it.
Politicians (or their spokespeople) don't say things they don't mean and they never say things by accident.
Gillespie was first with the charge, she is just sontinuing the same approach.
oh come on--- you know this is just one big rope-a-dope!!
LOL
with blunders like this, the discontent is growing
"She must be married to the guy who said "institutional racism" is partly responsible for the plight of New Orleans. "
*cringe*
Depends on the group. Among the general population, that's probably true. Amongst the legal community, however, where I know there are minds that are orders of magnitude more brilliant than my own, I am an intellectual lightweight.
It's all a matter of scale in the group. There are times where I may be one of the more intelligent guys in the room. In law school and in the legal community, I can hold my own, but there are certainly sharper minds than mine.
Is Miers a brilliant person? Almost certainly; you don't get to be the White House Counsel if you are a dummy. Is she a brilliant lawyer? Probably. Is she qualified to be one of the top nine lawyers in the country, however? That's the million dollar question.
Absolutely! Too many parents now pursuing two careers on two full plates with a "side order" of kids.
Every time my youngest has friends over (ages 10-12) I ask them, "Does your mom know you're here?" Nine times out of ten the answer is no. (I make them call home.) Why do parents have kids if neither parent can be bothered to stay by the nest and keep an eye on them?
Often it's a financial sacrifice, and sometimes a sacrifice of career ambitions and goals--- but the woman who makes that sacrifice for her children's sake, is the role model I hope my daughters emulate.
Maybe s/he's referring to the snarky, demeaning "cleaning lady" and coffee-fetcher type of remarks from Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Those aren't really things one would ever say about a man, imo.
I'm not saying their opposition to her is sexist - I don't think it is, because I think a different woman would be fine with them - but those remarks have a hint of sexism in them. And yes, women can be sexist.
"That possibility would be more credible if Gillespie didn't already make the charge. "
exactly. gillespie was quite defensive and irritated on laura ingraham's show. she grilled him quite good.
you'd think they'd learn their lesson from that--but nope.
laura really has been terrific on this issue...
Good point. I suppose it could also just be that she's not one they consider "elite", and if she's not "elite", then they can't imagine how she could be very intelligent.
Pretty flawed reasoning, but a lot of people are hung up on that, it seems.
You can see the transcript for the interview here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051011.html
From the interview:
Q A lot of criticism coming for your nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, from conservatives - people like Trent Lott and Pat Buchanan and George Will and Bill Kristol. Were you taken off-guard a little bit, caught by surprise by the amount of criticism you're getting for Judge Miers?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, I made a decision to put somebody on the Court who hadn't been a part of what they call the judicial monastery. In other words -- I listened, by the way, to people in the Senate who suggested, why don't you get somebody from the outside. And I figured that people are going to kind of question whether or not it made sense to bring somebody from outside the Court.
Can anyone tell me what Bush mean by "the judicial monastery?"
John Adams considered his nomination of Marshall as one of the best things he did for the new republic.
Dear God. What is the strategy here with a comment like that? Are they trying to piss us off?
I was looking for specific names from among the common 'taters. ;)
I see the administration is determined to lose respect, calling their supporters names because they can't fulfill the simplest request to prove Meirs is a strict Constructionist.
Wrong, Mrs. Bush. On all levels. I suggest that you, and those in the administration, re-consider your actions. They are not admirable in this matter.
Divide and conquer, unite and rule.
---Stunning, isn't it?---
Pathological. Like little kids throwing a hissy fit because they didn't get what they wanted for Christmas, except that these are adults. It's very disturbing.
We are all most concerned, particularly regarding Miss Miers lack of conservative credentials.
Perhaps it would best to keep in mind that two of Reagan's SC appointments have been more than disappointing and that a President who has built up a store of credibility (President Bush) deserves at least a modicum of trust when he emphasizes that one aspect in considering this nomination is her strength of character and that he is confident she isn't going to change her attitude toward the role of the judiciary and her deep and abiding respect for the Constitution being the guideposts of this land, not international law (see Sandra Day O'Connor's recent statements---she's a Reagan judge).
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.