Laura, asked about the opposition to Miers and if it was sexism, replied it was. GWB was later asked if he agreed. He did.
From the WP: "On NBC's "Today" show, Laura Bush joined President Bush in defending Miers as the "most qualified" person her husband could have appointed to the Supreme Court. She also said it's "possible" that questions about Miers's intellectual qualifications are sexist in nature, a charge other defenders of Miers have made publicly and in private conservations with conservatives opposed to the nomination...William Kristol, a conservative who runs the Weekly Standard and is a leading critic of Miers, said the first lady's suggestion of sexism yesterday is "obviously ridiculous" and indicative of a flailing White House strategy. "It is striking to me they are spending less time explaining the merits of Harriet Miers and more time . . . using liberal talking points to criticize the critics," he said. "I think it is going to backfire."
The racism charge is by memory. It would make a tough quote to do a search for, since the key words would pull up a lot of irrelevant sites.
On CFR: "Asked point-blank on ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000 whether he would veto McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan Bush said he would.
Here's part of the exchange from the show:
GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?
GOV. BUSH: I do.
WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?
BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would. The reason why is two — for one, I think it does respe — res — restrict free speech for individuals. As I understand how the bill was written, I — I - I think there's been two versions of it, but as I understand the first version restricted individuals and/or groups from being able to express their opinion"...Bush goes on to express his support for a corporate soft-money ban
see:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/650847/posts I have not been dishonest. I don't believe you are trying to be dishonest, but you certainly have a poor memory. Please check your facts before making accusations of others.