Posted on 10/13/2005 7:25:49 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
I saw the transcript. Laura Bush is only human, Matt Lauer backed her into a corner with a 'trick question,' IMO.
You are incorrect as to the statement of fact, and if you were the nominee you would now have to go home and spank yourself (according to the rules of this battle).
The WH has NOT said that everybody who opposes her nomination are elitist or sexist. They have said that SOME of the opposition is based on elitism (wrong law school, for example, and don't try to deny that people didn't make that argument) and sexist (I read stories about her sexual preference ON THIS BOARD, so don't deny that either -- and against her lack of being married, and her "untoward" devotion to the president).
But that is clearly not all of the opposition. Most opposition is based on a probably incorrect fear that Miers will not be a strict constitutionalist justice, that she will not vote with Scalia and Thomas.
Oddly, when Thomas the "lightweight" went on the court, the complaint for years was that we had just given Scalia a second vote. (that was a complaint from the left, we on the right were quite happy to do so).
If Miers turns out to be a lightweight who votes with Scalia all the time, it won't be the worst thing in the world. And after 10 years of it, I imagine a bright lawyer like herself will have picked up enough to be some help to the cause
"Well, sexism is real, it is not some absurd point, and anybody who would answer "NO" to the question of whether some of the opposition to miers is sexist would be lying"
No one I've heard had any objection to Janice Brown or Prescilla Owens, so you are the big fat liar.
The sentence structure in the articles (which is admittedly like reading tea leaves on so vacuous a candidate), bespeaks an overly bright college freshaman, no more. Her answer for inequality in the legal system (Spend more money), is juvenile. If you want to defend a lightweight Bush sychophant for Supreme Court, that is your perogative, but count me out.
Good. Do it!
That people support some women doesn't mean that they aren't using sexist arguments against another woman.
Maybe there are people here who can't make the distinction between "being a sexist" and "making a sexist argument".
When the president says she broke through the glass ceiling, that could be a sexist statement. However, if there was a glass ceiling, her ability to overcome it would give insight into her character. Which way was it used? That's up to the beholder.
Conversely, some say she only advanced in her career because she was a woman, that if she was a man her career would be completely undistinguished. That is sexist in one of two ways -- either the person is saying that her advancement was because she was a woman; or they are saying that she is great for a woman, but men would beat her silly.
That could be a sexist argument, or it could be an accurate way of evaluating her qualifications.
Heck, even saying that we don't need women on the court could be sexist. And not everybody who opposes Miers had JRB on their list, or Owens. Some people complained about women in general being more likely to lean left. Not many, but a few.
How many prominent people arguing based on sexist arguments does it take before saying "some of the arguments are possibly sexist" is considered appropriate? I say we have exceeded that threshold.
But frankly, what is the point? "Bush called us sexist, so we should vote against Miers?" What kind of argument is that?
I detest much of what the anti-Miers pundits have been writing and saying about her, but at least they have enough integrity and courage to put their own names and faces and voices to their opinions. These guys are just cowards.
Besides that he's probably a fine fellow!
Don't get your panties in a bunch Chuck, everyone is entitled to sexest opinions. It was a free country.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. JULIAN: . . . . .
Q. Ms. Miers, are you a member of any predominantly minority organizations, such as the NAACP, Black Chamber of Commerce, Urban League or any other predominantly minority organizations?
A. Women minorities?
Q. Well, maybe predominantly racial and ethnic minorities?
A. No.
Q. . . . . In your capacity as an at-large member do you think being involved in such organizations might assist you in having a perspective that – bring a perspective to your job that you don’t have?
A. I attend meetings designed to give me that input. However, I have tried to avoid memberships in organization s that were politically charged with one viewpoint or the other. For example, I wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society any more than – I just feel like it’s better to not be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you. I did join the Progressive Voters League here in Dallas during the campaign as part of the campaign.
Q. Are you active in the PVL now, do you intend to be?
A. No, I am not.
Q. Do you think the NAACP and Black Chamber of Commerce are in the category of organizations you were talking about?
A. No, I don’t. . . . .
Transcript of Trial, Roy Williams et al. v. City of Dallas, No. CA-3-88-152-R, pages V-46 to V-47 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 1989).
END
Go ahead, I don't care. Just don't say that Laura Bush is a toady liberal liar for suggesting it might be happening in response to a pushy question from a leftist.
Is that too much to ask?
We all are getting AWFULLY sensitive here for a bunch of conservatives. "Mommy Mommy, she called me a sexist, make her stop, it hurts, it hurts"
That is also false. The essence of supporters' views is "We trust the President and will wait for the Hearings rather than jump to wild conclusions and smear the nominee with vicious and unfair attacks."
Why aren't the Antis willing to let the process work as the Founders designed it?
A>Right. He just served under Nixon and Reagan, and gave the keynote speech at the 1992 GOP convention.
He also ran against GW Bush as the candidate of the political party of H Ross Perot who brought us Billy Clinton twice in the 90s.
Of course he did. She dismissed the loaded question with a "perhaps" which is a far cry from the LIES Rush and others have been trying to spread.
...During the budget process everyone tries to protect their turf and fiedoms in the interest of job security. If you, the budget decision maker intend to make substantial changes, you better come prepared with documentation if you plan to stay within budget.WOW! She was so much more eloquent than I! I am [yawn] indeed impressed!Given that, there will be a tendency to add to the budget in order to placate all the division managers. Budget busted but everyone's happy...
Every person who backs her acts like he knows she agrees with him personally, with him, and only him. And that's every person. It's unlikely all those people agree with each other. We might be dealing with someone who's high on manipulative skills and short on strong beliefs. Or not, but this needs a look.
Sounds to me that the Federalist insiders have their panties in a wad because one of 'their' members or players didn't get the nod.
Let Bush be Bush.
Dobson did not say that. Just plain did not. You are either misinformed or a liar.
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.