Posted on 10/17/2005 9:43:00 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
The people supporting Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination, who started out looking defensive, have acquired symptoms of outright desperation. Rather than strain themselves with the impossible task of justifying the appointment, they are now on the attack. They claim the critics oppose Miss Miers just because she's a woman. In truth, Miss Miers' sex was one of her two attractions for the president -- the other being her canine worship of him. But the complaints about her weak credentials would be made even if she had testosterone coming out of her ears. Miss Miers, after all, is by any standard the least-qualified Supreme Court nominee since Harry Truman picked his poker buddies. Among conservative women, not known for their prejudice against Republican females, she has drawn reactions ranging from tepid support to withering contempt. Finding a reason to reject this nomination is about as hard as finding sand at the beach. What's tough is coming up with any rationale that would fool a fourth-grader. Yet a bizarre array of activists have joined in blaming Miss Miers' cold reception on old-fashioned male chauvinism. Early on, Ed Gillespie, former head of the Republican National Committee, said the opposition carried "a whiff of sexism." First Lady Laura Bush agreed "that's possible," while grousing "people are not looking at her accomplishments." Some liberals joined in, such as Eleanor Smeal, head of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who exclaimed: "Does she have the mental capacity? Give me a break. Would they say that about a man?" Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski professed to be "shocked at the sexism and double standard coming out of the far right."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Click on the link for a more "eye friendly" format
ping
Are we now believing what is printed in the washington times?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?
?!!??!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
!?!?!??!??!?!??!?!?!
it's a LIEberal rag, that's for sure!
Yeah, Steve Chapman's obviously a Buchananite. [/sarcasm]
Can we expect to see a "Steve Chapman jumps the shark" thread soon?
What's next? A commentary from the octogenarian Charley Reese?
Sorry. I didn't have to read more than the title. Problems with Miers have absolutely NADA to do with sexism.
post right after yours. Usual suspect.
Victim of sexism?
By Steve Chapman
October 17, 2005
The people supporting Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination, who started out looking defensive, have acquired symptoms of outright desperation.
Rather than strain themselves with the impossible task of justifying the appointment, they are now on the attack. They claim the critics oppose Miss Miers just because she's a woman.
In truth, Miss Miers' sex was one of her two attractions for the president -- the other being her canine worship of him. But the complaints about her weak credentials would be made even if she had testosterone coming out of her ears.
Miss Miers, after all, is by any standard the least-qualified Supreme Court nominee since Harry Truman picked his poker buddies. Among conservative women, not known for their prejudice against Republican females, she has drawn reactions ranging from tepid support to withering contempt.
Finding a reason to reject this nomination is about as hard as finding sand at the beach. What's tough is coming up with any rationale that would fool a fourth-grader. Yet a bizarre array of activists have joined in blaming Miss Miers' cold reception on old-fashioned male chauvinism.
Early on, Ed Gillespie, former head of the Republican National Committee, said the opposition carried "a whiff of sexism." First Lady Laura Bush agreed "that's possible," while grousing "people are not looking at her accomplishments."
Some liberals joined in, such as Eleanor Smeal, head of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who exclaimed: "Does she have the mental capacity? Give me a break. Would they say that about a man?" Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski professed to be "shocked at the sexism and double standard coming out of the far right."
Bush's first choice was a box of pet rocks. But Harriet sent much nicer Birthday cards.
Well, I observe the pro-Miers crowd has come to elevate the level of the debate some from its usual gutter level.
;-)
Ummm...yes.
Dang! And all this time I thought Janice Rogers Brown was a man... /sarc
Besides, who is this guy? I see a column occasionally from him, but he has to be a third or fourth stringer.
I disagree with this guy so I'll adopt tactics that are usually associated with liberals more than with conservatives, who are supposed to dwell at this site. Being the sexist I am, I will refer to the author as female genitalia, a distasteful sexist comment in itself. My next post will probably then accuse anyone who agrees with him of being an elitist.
Troubling. Yawn.
"Yeah, Steve Chapman's obviously a Buchananite. [/sarcasm]"
Along with David Frum. :<)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1504365/posts
"Besides, who is this guy? I see a column occasionally from him, but he has to be a third or fourth stringer."
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.