Laura Bush: Harriet Miers' Critics Sexist

NewsMax ^ | Tuesday, Oct 11, 2005 | Staff

[ohioWfan]

So basically it is what you don't 'like'........that is, applauding the accomplishments of a woman who broke all kinds of barriers........and not what is right or wrong.

As a woman who was raised in an era where equality was far from a reality, I don't have any problem in Laura's citing the extraordinary strength of Harriet Miers. It's no different than citing the extraordinary accomplishments of Condi Rice when recommending her for a position.

I would find it very surprising if you thought the same negative thoughts when a man's accomplishments were enumerated. The fact of the matter is, that Mier's leadership in an era when women just didn't do that kind of thing, are part of the picture of what kind of strength she'll show when she's on the bench........and she WILL be.

btw, Laura is pro-life. She has said that specifically, so unless you think she is a 'poised, pretty' liar, please correct that incorrect opinion.

[wardaddy]

you get sorta worked up don't you?

Laura Bush is indeed against overturning Roe V Wade.

Links for you:

http://womensissues.about.com/b/a/106502.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/laurabush.abortion.02/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901164_pf.html

You may defend George W all you want. I can disagree to my heart;s content. I've paid for that right as did my ancestors and your's. Nowhere is it written I should kiss his butt. I doubt he likes patronizing anyhow.

[ohioWfan]

I'm not even close to being worked up. I'm just amused that you think that the President should dictate what his wife says, and that you would use your marriage to 'improve' their marriage of mutual respect.

That says a lot about you on a number of levels........none of them good.

"Pretty and poised" women should be seen and not heard, eh?

btw, I had previously read all those articles. Laura answered "No" when asked four years ago if Roe should be overturned. She's not a hard line pro-lifer (like I am), but she believes that life begins at conception and says that she's pro-life.

Unless you are accusing her of lying, then she is not pro-abortion.

[ohioWfan]

Oh..........wrong thread about your marriage thing......

But the same about Laura. Unless you say outright that she's a liar, she's pro-life.

[JCEccles]

With Laura's approval or on her advice, Bush arbitrarily refused to consider men for this vacancy. Don't you think that's sexist, something you'd expect liberals, not conservatives, to do?

Why do you defend sexism?

[ohioWfan]

I have no idea if Bush 'arbitrarily refused to consider men for this vacancy'..........and neither do you.

Looking first for women, or even primarily at the possibilities, is not 'sexist.'

(Was Reagan sexist when he appointed O'Connor? Do you know how 'arbitrary' his decision was, too, or is it only Bush's mind that you are able to read, and therefore disapprove of his motives?)

[JCEccles]

So you refuse to believe that Bush arbitraility restricted this appointment to women? There is abundant evidence that he did so, including his (and Laura's) own statements.

If Reagan did something similar, I do not approve of it. Do you?

Do you have another question or are you bound and determined to defend this abominable, sexist quota pick, and mediocre mind?

[wardaddy]

You're certifiable dear.

You have a strong sense of projection here and frequently I've noted accuse folks of all matter of things here that they have rarely done and try to have them banned over your imagination. Or you bait someone to be mean to you so you can call in the AM.
Classic passive aggressiveness and so typical.
Find someone else to harangue. Your bait won't work with me.

[ohioWfan]

I'm determined to let Harriet Miers speak for herself before I judge her mind as being 'mediocre.'

And I do not presume to know what either Bush or Reagan did or did not 'restrict' when they made their respective choices.

But it's clear that you will continue to presume to know, even without adequate information.

It's your right to presume you have facts that you clearly cannot have, and you are clearly exercising it.

And I am exercising my right to call your bluff.

[ohioWfan]

Certifiable because?? Because I believe Laura Bush when she tells me what she believes??

And I do think you have me confused with someone else, because none of the things you accuse me of have ever happened......except perhaps in your imagination.

I'm debating the issue with you. If you feel threatened by it, I don't think the problem is mine.

onyx says you're one of the 'good guys' I'll trust her on this, though I'm not seeing much 'good' in you right now. I'd very much appreciate it if you'd stop making false accusations.

Thank you.

[onyx]

You have oWf confused with someone else.

She's a GOOD, sweet friend of mine.

A proud BushBot like me.

[wardaddy]

You're not a Bushbot on everything.

[ohioWfan]

Thank you, onyx. In my four and a half years here, I have never tried to get anyone banned, nor bait them with false accusations.

Thank you for clearing that up, dear friend.

I'm a 'Bushbot' for sure, but not a trouble maker. I just like the discussions to be factual, and when they go over into conjecture, and conclusions based on that conjecture, I challenge the one doing it.

[onyx]

That's true. I can always find fault with EVERYONE...lol.

[onyx]

Welcome "back." We've missed you and needed you. We Bots have been taking lots of heat, but we'll prevail and when Justice Miers votes with Scalia and hmas, her detractors can be grateful they didn't prevail. I just hope they don't do the GOP damage in '06. If the democrats gain majorities, the next justice will be Alberto Gonzales at best.

[ohioWfan]

Just for the record, I strongly disagree with the President on several issues.

And I LOVE your tagline. :)

[ohioWfan]

I wish that the purists would see that, onyx.

The wimps in the Senate set this whole thing up, and now the eat-their-own conservatives (without adequate information, I might add), are in a veritable frenzy.

If we lose anything in '06, it won't be George Bush's fault. It will be the fault of those who are tearing us apart.........both RINOS and Elitist conservatives.

I'm still in serious prayer about this, and will be until Harriet Miers is confirmed, and the truth about who she is is finally known.

(And thanks for the welcome back. Funny that I'm being accused of doing nasty things when I haven't even been around.......)

[wardaddy]

Thank You.

I saw it on the back of a Jeep on West End in Nashville last night and loved it.

The irony was that the occupants of the Jeep looked like Indians.....Hindus, not Mohicans

we all laughed our butts off

[ohioWfan]

LOL! I haven't seen too many Mohicans around lately........(I think Daniel Day Lewis was the last one).

[onyx]

I doubt that term 'purist' -- I see Keysters and Patsters and they're losers who live to complain.

We are the base. We vote and we do not threaten to stay home or vote third party. We don't reward democrats.