Women and Courage (The second 1993 Meirs speech)

Washington Post ^ | 1993 | Harriet Miers

[hocndoc]

You lose credibility when you knock Barbara Jordan - she was not "liberal," except in the old terminology. She bucked her own Party.

Considering the context of the speech, she was downright "right-wing" before the rest of us knew we were. What were you doing in 1993? I had been alarmed by the Branch Davidian travesty, but still believed the lies spread by the media in service of the Attorney General. I had no FR or even internet, yet, to help learn the stories behind the stories.

If you'll notice, she only gives quotes from other sources, including the WSJ, on Ginsberg - no praise from her.

There's also the matter of time and place - these speeches are from 1993, at a function in honor of the first woman mayor in Texas. Not many people were aware of how ugly the left could be, then.

[hocndoc]

Thanks for trying to moderate the division.

I still say, let the man do the job we hired him to do.

[hocndoc]

Are you saying that television did not allow access to Senate hearings?

[Jaysun]

You lose credibility when you knock Barbara Jordan - she was not "liberal," except in the old terminology. She bucked her own Party.

Considering the context of the speech, she was downright "right-wing" before the rest of us knew we were. What were you doing in 1993? I had been alarmed by the Branch Davidian travesty, but still believed the lies spread by the media in service of the Attorney General. I had no FR or even internet, yet, to help learn the stories behind the stories.

If you'll notice, she only gives quotes from other sources, including the WSJ, on Ginsberg - no praise from her.

There's also the matter of time and place - these speeches are from 1993, at a function in honor of the first woman mayor in Texas. Not many people were aware of how ugly the left could be, then.

Fair enough. I copied the speech to a Word document and deleted the references to Ruth Ginsburg, Barbara Jordan, and Barbra Streisand.

It still reads like feminist tripe to me.

[Wallace T.]

What Harriet Miers believed in 1993 may not reflect the positions that she holds today. However, her speech was not one that a conservative would give. As for Barbara Jordan being anything other than a liberal, a look at her Congressional record, courtesy of the American Conservative Union, should disabuse you of this notion:

1973: 17%
1974: 15%
1975: 3%
1976: 6%
1977: 14%
1978: 8%

(In comparison, during 1973, two Texas liberal Democrats, Jim Wright and Henry Gonzales, had ACU scores of 43% and 39%, respectively.)

There was a conservative movement well before the advent of the Internet, with its roots in the opposition to the New Deal in the 1930s. In 1993, Rush Limbaugh had already become extremely well known and was broadcast on over 500 stations. Other conservative talkers like Gordon Liddy and Oliver North had developed large nationwide radio audiences. American conservative activists who had been around in some cases as far back as the McCarthy era, like William Buckley, were active, as were their magazines like National Review. With regard to the Christian Right, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, James Kennedy, and others were well known spokesmen and loathed by the Left then as now. The Gingrich-led Republican capture of Congress in 1994, the first time the GOP had taken both houses of Congress since 1920, occurred at a time when the Internet was still largely geek territory.

What Harriet Miers believes today was not what she apparently believed in 1993. In any case, she was no conservative in 1993, based on the content of this speech.

[RobbyS]

Because you weren't there. Jordan was held in high esteem by her colleagues ib the Senate, because she was highly intelligent and great orator but mainly because she could more than hold her own in an all-male environment. As for the rest, well, Sheryl Swoops is still a damned good basketball player.

[Jaysun]

Because you weren't there. Jordan was held in high esteem by her colleagues ib the Senate, because she was highly intelligent and great orator but mainly because she could more than hold her own in an all-male environment. As for the rest, well, Sheryl Swoops is still a damned good basketball player.

Yes but my problem is that you choose to focus on a minor detail of what I said while ignoring the overall point. I'm wrong about Jordan? Fine. But does that negate the overall idea? That's the arguing style of liberals.

Regardless, it's a moot point now because she just displayed an astounding amount of integrity and she didn't make it to the Supreme Court - all at the same time.

[RobbyS]

And you miss MY point. The slap at Jordan was totally uncalled for, If you hadn't said that I would have ignored your post.

[Jaysun]

And you miss MY point. The slap at Jordan was totally uncalled for, If you hadn't said that I would have ignored your post.

I didn't miss your point. Have a good weekend.

[Nonstatist]

they take polls and then all too often their strands are the platform resulting from analysis of what the polls indicate the public they want to lead desires

What beautifully written prose!! Hey, I got a question.. How the Ef did she get through Law School?

[Nonstatist]

What Harriet Miers believes today was not what she apparently believed in 1993

And you're fairly certain of that because.... ? She works for the President? Her boyfriend in Texas said so?

[Wallace T.]

I should have said, "may not be". I would have given her the benefit of the doubt and waited for the hearings. However, the 1993 speech in question was one that a conservative would not have given.

[hocndoc]

I addressed the typos and poor transcription of the speeches.

Having a problem letting go? Ms. Miers did a courageous thing yesterday. She is no longer the nominee.

[Always Right]

Calling Miers a "cleaning lady" (Coulter), a "paper stapler" (Levin), "too dumb to tie her own shoelaces" and "a waste of a human being" (some cretinous FReepers) are instances of abuse, yes. I've seen others, too numerous to mention.

Certainly in 10,000 posts you can find a few examples, but you ignore the other 9,900 posts.

[Always Right]

And you're fairly certain of that because.... ? She works for the President? Her boyfriend in Texas said so?

In 1989 she was already supposed to be pro-life, so this 1993 speech makes no sense.

[Nonstatist]

Having a problem letting go?

Its not me that cant let go. There are "those" that still imply that she was railroaded or that the Christian Right was dnied a true representative or that she "deserved" to go to hearings, and they are clearly in heavily "disputed" territory.

We should all just agree that her dropping out now was the best thing that could happen since she was nominated, period, and lets all move on.