Posted on 10/12/2005 6:46:08 PM PDT by wagglebee
RUSH: Jim Dobson recorded his radio show for today and tomorrow yesterday; the transcripts for that show are out. Now as you know, one of the things that irked Senator Specter is that Dobson admitted that maybe Karl Rove told him some things he "shouldn't know" – everybody assumed – when he called him to give him a heads-up on the nomination of Harriet Miers, the US Supreme Court. Well, everybody ran and rushed to judgment on that and said, "A-ha! A-ha! Rove told Dobson that she's a definite vote against Roe vs. Wade," which of course if that were actually true, the senators on the judiciary committee would all want to know that, because judges and nominees can't take that position, and Specter even admits that. So this firestorm that started yesterday over this comment has now been quelled, I say, but maybe a new one has been started, because what Dobson says that Rove told him, that he shouldn't have told him was, that it had to be a woman. The first thing, the nominee had to be a woman, i.e., quota. Second thing was is, Rove told Dobson, that very few of the qualified female nominees accepted the nomination. They weren't interested in it. Now, if you just stop there you go, "Ooooh, okay. Well, that makes this somewhat more understandable," but you don't stop there. Mr. Snerdley, when I say to you, or any of you in this audience, when I say to you, "Okay, Karl Rove said that a lot of the other qualified women just didn't want it. They weren't interested in it because they don't like the nomination process. They don't want to subject their families to all this."
They don't want to subject themselves to it. It's an anal exam. It's a judicial and media anal exam. You don't want to subject your family, and that's what they're saying a lot of these qualified female nominees -- the names are Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones, and there are some others on the list, too, but not as many women as men." But since Dobson said that this -- that Rove told him the nominee had to be a woman -- that cuts the list down to about 80% of the people that we know who are on it. Then when you say, "Well, none of the others really wanted it," what does that say? Well, unfortunately, what it says is that (sigh.) This is so hard. There's only one conclusion. There's only one conclusion. If none of the others would accept it, it means that there were others asked prior to Harriet Miers, okay? Number one. Number two: if those others who were asked before Harriet Miers said no, it means that. (sigh) Well, put 2 and 2 together and you get 4. It means that Harriet was not first choice -- if this is true. Now, I've met Dr. Dobson on a number of occasions. I cannot say that I know him well, but I just cannot imagine that Dr. Dobson would come out on his show and lie. To associate the word "lying" with Dr. Dobson, you just can't do that. That's not something that I would ever associate. So you have to assume here that that's what he was told, and if he was told that, then essentially what he was told was, "Hey, this is the best we can get right now -- not the best we can get, but the best we can get right now." But it's not her fault and not Bush's fault because none of the others wanted this. (sigh)
Now the latest is that the White House has sent the attorney general out, Alberto Gonzales, to vouch for Harriet Miers. I, personally, just so you people know, I want to give you a heads-up here on another firestorm. This is two firestorms today. I personally have no brief against the attorney general, Mr. Gonzales, but there are many in the, shall I say the elitist and sexist conservative community (a-hem) who would oppose Gonzales more than they would oppose Harriet Miers, or just as much, and so if Gonzales is being sent out to assure everybody that Harriet Miers is fine, with some people on the right, some of these conservative scholars and legal beagles, that's only going to make matters worse, folks. Now, I can tell you what I expect to happen here. I expect -- and I'm sure it has already happened -- that some hawk-eyed journalists are going to be trying to reach these other female nominees who have been on everybody's list and ask them if they were approached and if they said, 'No, I'm not interested because I don't want to go before the nomination process." I don't know if these three women, four women or however many there are, would answer the questions that are posed by these hawkeyed journalists but you know that's probably happening now. (sigh) You see, I'm really struggling here, folks. Two days in a row here I'm struggling. Yesterday it was opponents of Harriet Miers could be sexists. Today it's this.
I told you this the day after -- the day after she was nominated -- before the left had glommed onto the fact that she was not popular with the right, and when the left thought that it was their job to destroy her. The first day, first or second day after her nomination, there was a reference in some paper -- and I forget what it was -- that she had a role in Bush getting a favorable deal, AWOL deal, whatever it was, with the Texas Air National Guard. Because it's an involvement over somebody she fired at the Texas Lottery Commission who claims to know that she was involved in the deal that everybody on the left thinks that Bush got, and this has come back to life now. There's a huge, big story on this, and some people are only seeing it for the first time. I saw it the first day or the second day. I mentioned it on this program. If we want, Koko can go back and get the transcript. It was last week or whenever it was, the first or second day after the Miers nomination, and before all of the anti-Harriet Miers opinion really ginned up to full voice, as I say, when the left thought that it was their job to destroy any nominee. They began to set the table, listing all the things wrong with her. That was one of the things, and now all of a sudden it's back, and it's back in a prominent way. I'll find it for you here in the stack at some point.
Harriet Miers was nominated on October 3rd. On October 4th I told you of one of the tactics that the left was going to use to try to destroy her nomination. Today it's back. This is from the Austin American Statesman, and it's circus time, folks, and now the left, I think, is getting in gear on this as well. See, they can't just sit by and watch this. Their own contributors, their activists are demanding that they do more than just sit by. You know, they want the firewater and the words and all that. From the Austin bureau of the Austin American Statesman, a story by Ken Herman. Bush's Guard Service May Affect Miers Nomination -- A former Texas Lottery official said he wants to talk to senators about the Supreme Court nominee's role in [allegedly] covering up his Bush's record." Here are the details. "A former Texas lottery official, who claimed that then-Gov. George W. Bush's desire to cover up his National Guard record helped steer decisions about a key lottery contract, said he wants to talk to senators about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' possible role in that effort. 'If I were to be subpoenaed to come to the thing, I would come,' said Lawrence Littwin, who filed a lawsuit after he was fired as the lottery's executive director in 1997. 'I would say the committee, I think, would be interested.' Littwin claimed in a federal lawsuit that lottery operator GTECH held sway over the Texas Lottery Commission because former GTECH lobbyist Ben Barnes was involved in helping get Bush into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. GTECH, which settled the suit in 1999 and paid Littwin $300,000 without admitting wrongdoing, said in court filings that Littwin's Guard-related claims were 'preposterous.'
"A Bush appointee, Miers served as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission when it was mired in controversy. President Bush cited that record Monday in announcing his nomination of his longtime friend and adviser to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Littwin was hired in 1997 to replace Nora Linares, who had been fired after it was revealed that her boyfriend was working as a consultant for GTECH, the Rhode Island-based firm that has run the Texas Lottery since it began in 1992. Littwin was fired after five months on the job. He said he was let go because of the aggressive approach that he advocated in scrutinizing GTECH's performance, including investigating whether the company made illegal contributions to public officials. Littwin sued the company, seeking $2.6 million and claiming that it had arranged his firing. The lawsuit cited GTECH lobbyist Ben Barnes' claims that as Texas House speaker he had helped get Bush into the Guard. Littwin's suit said GTECH had been given preferential treatment by the commission, which controlled the contract. Under pressure from the lottery commission, GTECH had severed ties with Barnes before Littwin was hired as executive director. GTECH paid Barnes and partner Ricky Knox $23 million to end their consulting contract." So this guy Litwin, was the to go testify. He's begging for a subpoena. He wants to go testify, and he wants to point out that Miers got rid of him because he had the goods on Bush and this Texas Air National Guard story. So there it is. It has come back to life after being in one lone little newspaper report on October 4th.
I really think calling those who oppose Miers "sexists" was uncalled for.
I am opposed to Miers, but agree with you. The confirmation process is getting out of hand. I would take a small wager that HM will withdraw in the next few days.
I frankly don't understand this National Guard/Texas Lottery business. Is Rush saying that it's real, or simply that the Dems plan to use it to smear Miers and Bush?
I've read the transcript posted here, and I just can't figure out exactly what he means by bringing this up. I dismissed it earlier, when the liberal media raised it, because it just sounded too bogus to be real.
Rush is a sexist traitor....(sarcasm)
Lauer: [to President Bush] You said she’s the most qualified candidate for the job. [points to Laura Bush] Would you agree with that?
Laura Bush: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Lauer: You had pushed for a woman to be the nominee --
Laura Bush: That’s right. And I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she’s broken the glass ceiling herself. She’s a roll model for young women around our country --
Lauer: Some are suggesting --
Laura Bush: Not only that, she is very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to, uh, wherever she goes. But certainly to the Supreme Court, she will be really excellent.
Lauer: Some are suggesting there’s a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge [sic] Miers.
Laura Bush: That’s possible. I think --
Lauer: How would you feel about that?
Laura Bush: That’s possible. I think she is so accomplished that... I know, I think that people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things. She was the first, uh, woman managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm.
George Bush: My attitude, Matt, is that when people get to know here, they’ll see why I picked her.
Laura Bush: They will. In the confirmation hearings alone, they’ll, they’ll see what she’s like.
What a difference a single interruption makes! In the deceptive version being pedaled by Reuters and the Post, they have Laura say sexism was possible and then repeat it for emphasis: "I think that's possible." This has the subtextual effect of making it appear certain that the First Lady was agreeing with Lauer's question, that critics were motivated by sexism.
But in reality, Lauer asked the question and paused; Mrs. Bush started to answer and was cut off by Lauer, who finished asking the question... so the First Lady, being a trouper, simply re-commenced her same answer. She did not say "that's possible... I think that's possible;" she dismissed the charge with a curt "that's possible," then started a new sentence on a different topic.
I doubt it.
George W is a stubborn some beach....a trait i admire in him.
If she bails, it'll be her doing.
What a cluster**** this is.
didn't have to be like this
I just hope we dont lose Rush to the dems. He's pretty upset.
ping
The "confirmation" process has not yet started. It takes place entirely in the US Senate.
We need to solve this problem of sexism. Lets set up the court this way: 4 males, 4 females and one other (half and half if you prefer). Problem solved.
Bush just laughs at the scurrying in the media and talk shows. He would not have nominated her if he didn't have a pretty good idea that she will survive the hubbub. I remember quite a few depondent Roberts threads here as well.
I suppose you're right but if he retires I only hope mark Levin takes his place at the golden microphone.
The fact that the White House hasn't either directly or through "leaks" countered these claims makes me somewhat suspicious. I think if they had evidence to disprove it, they would have done it by now.
Roberts was nothing like this. This is totally out of control. (And I support Miers.)
I think the Bush WH had the "sexist" talking points before the Hiers nomination was even known. Even the dem talk shows are saying that they were talking points originally meant for the dem opposition to Hiers.
1. GTECH controlled the Texas Lottery Commission because it had hired Ben Barnes.
2. The Texas Lottery Commission forced GTECH to fire Ben Barnes. To do so, GTECH had to pay Barnes a $23 million termination fee under its contract with him.
Am I the only person who sees the inherent lack of logic in these two statements?
It's hilarious, IMO. I don't know if I support her or not, she was not my #1 choice, that's for sure. FR is most fun when everyone has their panties in a wad.
This is over what? Rush keeps playing Roberts quotes and Roberts was a stealth candidate who never expressed an opinion in his life. Why is the movement being torn apart over Miers if she gets up there and says the same thing?
I'm not writing this as a blind Bush supporter, I disagree with Bush on plenty. I think a fight from the right over this woman is lunacy. I'm not a blind Rush supporter, either. He's being an idiot on this one.
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.