"What's wrong with being sexy?"
Yawn at this lazy charge.
ping (if you are already here, my apologies)
You can see the transcript for the interview here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051011.html
Dear God. What is the strategy here with a comment like that? Are they trying to piss us off?
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.
Is Laura Bush becoming dingbat material?
The Administration is imploding.
That said, I wouldn't have made that charge in public.
"What's wrong with being sexy?"
What, pray tell, was she to answer when asked, "Is it possible. . . .?" Would she have received less criticism for saying, "No, absolutely not!" Common sense tells us she would not have been criticized less, perhaps more. The fact is, many are looking for opportunity to criticize, and need no provocation.
As far as the Miers nomination goes, my post on another thread included the following comments about those who are inserting themselves into the nomination process, before the President's nominee proceeds to the next step in the Constitutionally-prescribed process.
They claim a genuine label of "conservatism," which, generally is understood to include a devotion to preserving the principles of the Constitution.
But, if we have a devotion to the Constitution, then we must recognize that it is the Constitution itself which prescribes the authority and process for nominations to the Court.
On the one hand, we claim this great dedication to it and to a highly-qualified new justice who will interpret and abide by its provisions. On the other hand, many of us ignore its prescribed prescription and process for selection of justices, preferring to pretend that the Constitution (which we may not understand) does not give citizens a role in assisting the Executive (President) in the actual naming of nominees to be considered by the Senate.
Federalist No. 76 explained very carefully for citizens the Framers' reasoning when it came to making the President the sole authority for appointing justices, with approval of the Senate. They understood human nature, and they understood politics, and they deliberately chose not to include us in the process. To the contrary, they explained very carefully why persons with special party interests should not be able to exert their pressures in the process.
It is the President who is putting his role in history on the line. Like America's Founders, his concern must be with how future generations will judge his decision--not how a fickle 'base' regards him now. Posterity will either judge of him that he furthered the cause of liberty with this nomination or that he did not.
If today's "conservatives" (whatever we may interpret that term to mean) truly want our Constitution to be honored and preserved, then we should be willing to live by its prescribed processes ourselves.
Else, we destroy our own credibility!
This is a definite slam to the conservatives out there who have questioned her nomination.
I think the Bushes are shocked and upset that they're not as worshipped as they thought.
Y'know, they both went to SMU, I wonder if they were friends?
I also wonder if it was LAURA who promoted her as the new Justice? If that's the case, I wonder if it's because Laura knows something about her Pro-Life views that we don't, seeing as (allegedly) Laura is pro-choice?
I hope we Conservative can get her nomination withdrawn...
Ed
Well, Laura Bush knows Harriet, but we don't. No sexism here, just worry.
The only sexism in this debacle is the insistence of some that O'Connor MUST be replaced by a woman. Sexism doesn't get any more blatant than that.
I'm sure everyone else has already said this ... but that is just SO DUMB. Mrs. Bush has such good hair and clothes, why can't she keep quiet about public policy?
What bothers me most about this statement by Laura Bush was that it was an intentional, dishonest libel against those who have been honest and forthright about their opposition to the Miers nomination.
It was disgraceful, and it showed Laura Bush's true character in an unfavorable light. Liberals do not hesitate to falsely accuse their opponents. Neither does Laura Bush.
Shameful.
Or it could be that people just don't like her because frogs are tadpoles before they are frogs.
I hope you see the logic here.
I could say that these are the reasons...but the real reason is because she is just not qualified and she does have skeletons in her closet...such as the scandal at the investment firm where when she was in charge, was under investigation for investment fraud which took money from the elderly and allowed the very wealthy to benefit from this scam.
Or it could be that she is not qualified.To be told by Bush that she is the best choice could be another reason why people are against her. I know she cannot possibly be the best choice when otheres who have more experience and a better track record are available.
But to say it is because she is a woman is just plain illogical and makes as much sense as the frogs or shrimp are the real reasons.