Rush Limbaugh says the affirmative action brief still keeps promoting race preference and its bad

Rush Limbaugh ^ | 1/17/2003 | Rush Limbaugh Showi

[TLBSHOW]

Rush Limbaugh says the affirmative action brief is not what the speech said.

Does not even start to put a nail in the coffin of affirmative action and instead keeps promoting race preference. Does not know why Bush keeps doing this? He is not happy and spent the first hafe hour on it and first call had to do with this subject.

[TLBSHOW]

While I love President Bush I don't have to agree with everything he does and says. When I don't agree 100% I am then called a hater!

So I guess Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are haters too? What a joke.

,,,,,,,,

And in his remarks Wednesday on the University of Michigan case now before the Supreme Court, Bush voiced continuing support for the Clinton-Gore-Reno fantasy that government-engineered racial diversity can and should be achieved "without using quotas" or other unconstitutional means. As examples of model programs, Bush cited public university admissions plans in his home state of Texas and his brother Jeb's state of Florida.

As I've noted before, W.'s "10 percent" and Jeb's "20 percent" plans are the same old, tired racial-preference policies disguised under the slipcover of "compassionate conservatism." Jeb's "Talented 20" program, for example, guarantees state university admission to the top 20 percent of students in every Florida high school senior class.

Michelle Malkin

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/

[PhiKapMom]

So true! The change is going to come very slowly. It took a lot of courage for the President to order this brief be filed on behalf of the Government but that isn't enough for some people. Now we can truthfully say that the President is being hit from the left and right -- seems if both sides are mad, he must be doing the right thing!

[DSH]

"Ensuring that public institutions, especially educational institutions, are open and accessible to a broad and diverse array of individuals, including individuals of all races and ethnicities, is an important and entirely legitimate government objective. Measures that ensure diversity, accessibility and opportunity are important components of government's responsibility to its citizens."

* * * *

"No segment of society should be denied an opportunity to obtain access to government services and public institutions. Nowhere is the importance of such openess more acute than in the context of higher education. A university degree opens the doors to the finest jobs and top professional schools, and professional degree, in turn, makes it possible to practice law, medicine and other professions. If undergraduate and graduate institutions are not open to all individuals and broadly inclusive to our diverse national community, then the top jobs, graduate schools and the professions will be closed to some."

"Nothing in the Constitution requires public universities and governments to close their eyes to this reality or tolerate artificial obstacles to educational opportunity. Public universities have substantial latitude to tackle such problems and ensure that universities and other public institutions are open to all that student bodies are experientially diverse and broadly representative of the public. Schools may identify and discard facially neutral criteria that, in practice, tend to skew admissions in a manner that detracts from educational diversity."

[hchutch]

What was it David Frum has said? Something about "conservative elites constantly sniffing the air for signs of a sellout" or something like that? They're not the ones who have to get the votes to win an election. They're just behind some damn keyboard. They're not the ones confronting the real situations.

Putting out a press release or hiding behind some keyboard and doing a syndicated column is far different from actually having to run the country, and it's about time to call some of the folks who David Frum is talking about (we have a general idea of who they are - the ones who sniff around, claiming a sellout at every turn) out, and tell them to put up or shut up.

[G.Mason]

"Bush didn't have to file a brief at all. Rush is NOT a legal expert. I stand with the President on this."

Nor, apparently are the Republican judicial nominee's.

[bvw]

"put up or shut up"

Trust but verify.

[hchutch]

Michelle Malkin is full of it in her characterizations one the One Florida policy and of the policy in Texas.

The 10% and 20% things that were set up by George W. and Jeb are based on MERIT - how one did in their high schools. NIETHER program uses race as a criteria.

It's easy for her to pntificate in a syndicated column or in some book or on Fox News - she's not the one who faces the voters. George W. is the one who's out on the front lines, and has the task of putting foot to left-wing butt.

[hchutch]

See post 27.

[Right Wing Professor]

As I've noted before, W.'s "10 percent" and Jeb's "20 percent" plans are the same old, tired racial-preference policies disguised under the slipcover of "compassionate conservatism." Jeb's "Talented 20" program, for example, guarantees state university admission to the top 20 percent of students in every Florida high school senior class.

Michelle Malkin

These are crappy policies, won't achieve racial quotas in many other states, reinforce housing segregation, and drag down standards. They are, however, race-neutral and IMHO therefore are not unconstitutional. The battle we're fighting here is to prevent schools from using race as an explicit parameter in deciding who to admit. The two briefs are squarely on our side in that battle. The trite nonsense about 'diversity' is irrelevant, and I'm confident that Antonin Scalia will have his usual cruel fun with it.

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you 100%!

[hchutch]

I admit the policies are not perfect, but at the same time, I am not convinced that they are flawed. They set a standard - it is race-neutral, and quite frankly, Michelle Malkin's characterization is inaccurate.

[Miss Marple]

I agree. A good example of diversity based on merit is the President's own cabinet. I am sick of these folks who act like they have all the answers, when they NEVER have run for office.

Malkin is disingenuous and Rush is deliberately obtuse about this. One would think they are stupid, but they are not. I wonder why they act like this?

[rintense]

Reminds me of when Rush was completely off on that enironmental policy... I'm sure you remember THOSE glorious few days.

[Right Wing Professor]

I admit the policies are not perfect, but at the same time, I am not convinced that they are flawed.

They penalize smart kids who happen to live in school districts with a lot of other smart kids, and reward kids who live in school districts with a lot of dumb kids. A minority kid who wants to go to college will be far better off living in a minority area, where the competition is weaker. And people will figure out how to work the system; e.g. take a lot of courses for 3 years in a very good school district, and then enroll in a lousy one for a lazy senior year where you take weak courses to get into the top 10%. In a state like Nebraska, where there are very few 'majority minority' schools, they'll fail to deliver the requisite quotas. And they'll cause a lot of underqualified studetns to be admitted, of all races, lowering standards still further.

I agree though, they're not unconstitutional. And they're so bad they won't last long.

[krodriguesdc]

where are all the color blind repubs so eager to skewer LOTT because they want to win favor with minority voters - you have gotten what you asked for :)

[Miss Marple]

Apparently some people have difficulty with the concept of incrementalism, long-term strategy, and following a leader.

Yes, I remember that lovely period of the environmental flapdoodle. The other thing I would like to know is why disagreements in policy provoke RANTS from our supposed allies. It inflames those who are not able to get detailed information, and is counter-productive.

[krodriguesdc]

I think many are in denial about this brief - especially the so called color blind repubs...

[Miss Marple]

I am quite happy with the brief. This is about the Michigan case, and broader issues can't be dragged into this case, from my limited understanding of the rules of the Supreme Court.

[Digger]

seems if both sides are mad, he must be doing the right thing!

Seems to me he's roadkill -down the middle - got nothing accomplish by this move but upseting all. But when it comes to the oil, NAFTA, grants to the corps, illegal immigration this president stands up decisive on one side. When it comes to abortion, affirmative action, cutting spending, sending the felon -Klintoons - to justice - Where is your decisiveness,GW?? Where!!

[hchutch]

Re-thinking Rush's comments, I am not so sure he is out of bounds. He seems to have limited his comments to apparent discrepancies between the speech and the brief, although I'm not sure the discrepancies are as great as they seem.

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, appears to have mischaracterized the "Talented 20" in Florida and the "Top Ten" policy in Texas, set up by Jeb Bush and George W. Bush respectively. That is WAY out of bounds.