Posted on 10/11/2005 5:52:44 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Edited on 10/11/2005 6:04:10 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
by Mark Finkelstein
October 11, 2005 - 08:43.
If you invite the chubby kid from down the block to the birthday party, is it fair to criticize him for eating cake?
There was something of that lack of hospitality to the Today show's interview of President and Laura Bush this morning
For weeks now, Today has been reveling in its contribution to the Katrina relief effort, notably in its collaboration with Habitat for Humanity. Two weeks ago, Today transformed Rockefeller Plaza into "Humanity Plaza," erecting Habitat homes for transport to the stricken area.
This morning, the action moved to Covington, Louisiana, where a home was being erected on site. And who was there, hammer at the ready to lend a hand, but President Bush himself, accompanied by Laura.
Yet almost no sooner had Matt Lauer begun the stand-up interview than he suggested W was engaging in a photo op. A bit ungracious, no?
In any case, there were two distinct Ws on display. In the first half, dealing with Katrina and its aftermath, W was literally nimble on his feet.
Lauer quoted "a prominent Democrat in Louisiana" who is demanding 'to see a plan on paper, your plan to rebuild this region." Asked Lauer: "do you have that kind of a plan?"
With body language that bespoke ease and confidence, W knocked the question out of the park:
"Matt, you see, I don't think Washington ought to dictate to New Orleans how to rebuild. I guess we have a different philosophy from the 'prominent Democrat' who you spoke to. My message is we will support the plan [local people] develop. The point is that it comes from the local folks. And I recognize there's an attitude in Washington that says we know better than the local people, but that's just not the attitude I have."
Bingo!
But when talk shifted to Miers, one could sense a shift in body language and mood.
Lauer cited a number of conservative critics of the nomination, then asked: "were you taken off-guard by the amount of criticism you're getting for Miers?"
In this person's opinion, W set up a straw man in defense, suggesting that the criticism was simply due to the fact that he had chosen someone from outside the "judicial monastery."
But surely W knows that the criticism goes far beyond that, to Miers' perceived lack of interest or knowledge in the constitutional issues of the day. Does the president believe for a moment that conservatives would have criticized him had he chosen a brilliant, conservative constitutional scholar who is not a lawyer, such as Prof. Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell?
The president then repeated his stock praise of Miers, which notably seemed to include an embellishment of her record. He spoke of her being consistently ranked as "one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States." In fact, in 1998 Miers was ranked by the National Law Journal among the top 50 "most infuential" lawyers, rather different from being ranked as a "top lawyer."
W then delved into feminism, referring to Miers as having broken "the glass ceiling" and "served as a great example." The president again raised the straw man, asserting that "just because she hasn't served on the bench" doesn't mean she can't be a great Supreme Court justice.
Lauer then alluded to conservatives feeling "let down" by W, and asked whether he truly felt Miers was "the most qualified" candidate for the job.
Laura responded to the question, again sounding the feminist theme: "I know how many times she's broken the glass celing herself. She's a role model for young women."
Added Mrs. Bush: "She's very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to wherever she goes." Not negligible qualities in a judge, but one senses these are the kinds of compliments paid when one is incapable of honestly asserting that someone has a great legal mind.
Matt sought to pour gasoline on the feminist fire, suggesting there might be "sexism" in the criticism of Miers. Concurred Laura: "that's possible. I think that's possible." And yet again Laura couched her response in feminist terms, arguing that people are overlooking that Miers was the first woman head of the Texas bar and the first woman to head a large Texas law firm.
W concluded by expressing his conviction that Miers would be confirmed and, with a slight stumble for words, argued that "she won't change. The person I know is not going to change her philosophy, and her philosophy is not to legislate from the bench."
While Lauer and Today might have been ungracious in first inviting W to their Habitat set, then criticizing him for coming, all in all the tenor of Matt's questioning was not hostile, and some defensiveness over Miers aside, W handled matters nimbly. <>
Finkelstein has degrees from Cornell University and Harvard Law School.He lives in Ithaca, NY where he hosts "Right Angle," a local political talk show. Finkelstein specializes in exposing liberal bias at NBC's Today Show.
Today Show/NewsBusters ping.
>>Matt sought to pour gasoline on the feminist fire, suggesting there might be "sexism" in the criticism of Miers. Concurred Laura: "that's possible. I think that's possible."<<
My respect for Laura just took a major hit.
Much as it pains me to say so, I was disappointed in Laura's performance, which drew almost exclusively on feminist themes in defending the Miers appointment.
If that's all it took for your respect to take a "major hit" you couldn't have had much to begin with.
How is it "possible" if those same Conservatives opposing Miers almost simultaneously voice their approval of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and other conservative female federal judges?
I support Harriet, but I can't see why the White House is sinking to these desperate levels to gain favor for their nominee.
Not to be contrary, but did Janet Reno break "the glass ceiling"?
***
Let's just wait for the hearings. After all Arlen Sphincter told George Stuffingenvelopes on Sunday that he's going to get to the truth of what Dobson and Rove know. ;-)
Then we'll ask dear Arlen to confirm that Jack Ruby was just trying to spare Jackie Kennedy the pain of a trial by shooting Oswald.
;-)
Hooray President Bush!
Well, at least she's still better than Ter-ay-zah. :-\
Was Matt Lauer wearing men's clothes today, or was he dressed up like a teen pop idol again?
Thanks for posting the interesting information on Marshall, of which I was unaware.
However, as mentioned in the article here, the criticism from conservatives disappointed by the Miers nomination has nothing to do with her lack of judicial experience. It goes to the absence of anything in her record suggesting she is well-informed or concerned about the major constitutional issues of the day, whereas W had a deep bench of brilliant conservative scholars and jurists that he chose to overlook.
Matt & W were similarly, and I'd say appropriately, dressed for the circumstances, in Dockers type pants, with Matt sporting a blue business shirt without a tie and the President in a blue polo shirt.
"My respect for Laura just took a major hit."
So you are saying that none of the criticizm directed at Miers could possibly be sexist in nature? It's not even possible?
Hooray President Bush!
I must respectfully disagree. The thrust of conservative criticism of Miers is directed not to her lack of judicial experience but to her lack of a record of knowledge or concern regarding the great constitutional issues of the day.
well, J. Reno certainly broke the "mirrorred ceiling".
This report is accurate with: , "Lauer cited a number of conservative critics of the nomination, then asked: "were you taken off-guard by the amount of criticism you're getting for Miers?""
But in the MSNBC replay, it's isn't Lauer who asked the question, "were you taken off-guard". It's a White House reporter back on the White House lawn who unequivacably (sp) told viewers, "the president was taken off guard". But what's a little misinformation on MSNBC?
In other words, if Miers were not a woman and not a friend of the Bushes, she would not have been nominated. What a thing to admit on national TV!
I cringed when I heard Laura acknowledge sexism as a possible reason for conservatives to question the Miers pick. I was hoping Bush would step in to downplay that statement, but he didn't. This should not even be a question of sexism. Isn't it obvious that conservatives would have jumped at he chance to have a Janice Rogers Brown on the court? However, the sexism charge is a way for the media to gloss over the real reasons behind the consternation by many on the right...shifting focus from the interpretation of the Constitution...and it was disheartening to see Laura buy into that reasoning.
I did enjoy Bush saying "You're quoting a lot of Democrats today, aren't you Matt?"
That is very interesting. Thanks for alerting us to the discrepancy between the actual interview by Matt and the way MSNBC spun it.
Although W never specifically responded to Matt's question as to whether he was caught off guard, the thrust of his answer [that the criticism came because he chose someone without judicial experience] was to the effect he was NOT surprised.
I've always thought of John Marshall as the man who over-extended the court's reach and made it too powerful. I need to refresh my own memory as to why I feel this way.
That was a good one, wasn't it, as well as the sarcasm in W's voice when he referred to the 'prominent Democrat' Matt had cited who was demanding W produce his plan to rebuild New Orleans.
John Marshall was a Federalist.
Agreed. There are any number of women nominees who would have been cheered by conservatives. And who has been condemned as the worst kind of Republican appointment? David Souter, who, at least nominally, is a man.
Look, just because one doesn't have a record doesn't mean they aren't qualified. David Souter had a record, and so did Anthony Kennedy...ones that looked "conservative" on their face. Bush I and Reagan both picked these "conservative" jurists, and both have become a JOKE.
I submit this demand for a "record" is not as important as some think.
Was a "record" on writing about the constitutional issues of the day a regular requirement for SCOTUS justices in the past?? Or is this demand for a "record" a modern-day insistence on the part of conservatives and liberals alike?
The President is authorized by the Constitution to appoint these judges, and the Senate advises and consents--nothing (as far as I know) in the historical record or the Constitution says anything about REQUIRING the nominee to have a record on writing about the Constitution.
Look, I'm not saying it is BAD to have a record--but it isn't necessarily an indicator of future behavior. Souter and Kennedy prove that in spades.
If that's all it took for your respect to take a "major hit" you couldn't have had much to begin with.
I was thinking the same thing. Laura Bush is nothing but class. Why would she not stand up for her husband and his pick. She knows Miers like W does. Yet, the naysayers are so ticked with the President it takes nothing for them to sway with the wind.
Also, enjoyed it when President Bush said "...depends on who's asking the questions".
Bravo, Mr. President!
So, you're the one making all these topsy-turvy poll numbers for the president and the economy? Do you speculate on oil prices, too?
I don't think Matt and the liberal press gang understands that a conservative can disapprove of the Miers pick and yet still back Bush and republicans. Through their prism, the MSM sees this as an opportunity for Dems to regain power, and conveniently forget their view that we're in lockstep with the party. Yes, since they're a little upset they're all voting for Hillary! Maybe they'll start watching "Commander In Chief!"
In addition, I made a special effort to watch the interview, and I think you were seeing body language that wasn't there. I thought the President seemed just as confident with the Mier questions, and restrained his natural inclination to say that the pundits are a bunch of kibitzers who don't know who they are talking about. I would have been far less kind.
I am waiting for the hearings. Either she is a lightweight or she will do a good job.
I must applaud you on an excellent post. You cited chapter and verse to substantiate the notion that sexism is possibly in play.
Also, ever since I've begun doing the NewsBusters posts, I've been videotaping Today. So I was able to go back and watch the interview again, and frankly there probably is something to your comment about body language. However, as a matter of substance, I would say W's handling of Katrina surpassed his responses on Miers. But again, that possibly also reflects my disappointment at her nomination.
In any case, as you suggest, the hearings should be fascinating, as Miers is sure to be subjected to a pop quiz on constitutional law. If you take Specter's remark about Miers needing a "crash course," and her sherpa Sen. Coats saying that top intellectual credentials shouldn't be necessary for the job, I think it's fair to imagine she could be in for a bumpy ride.
.............. sounds funny...... but.... I'm so confused.
;-)
????
Disturbing image floating around of Reno in room with mirrored ceiling!
Reminds me of the old joke about those honeymoon hotels with a government label on the ceiling mirrors: "WARNING: objects are smaller than they appear in the mirror!" ;-)
ROFL!
Did you happen to catch Matt Lauer refer to President Bush as Mr. Clinton, just as he led into the Meirs segment?
I missed that! I know he did refer to the nominee as "Justice Miers," then observe that perhaps he was getting a bit ahead of himself!
I was thinking that on another thread; luckily, someone saved me the trouble. See this post.
I was ROTFLMAO when I heard him say that. Matt and Katie are pretty good at quoting Democrats, since they serve as mouthpieces for the DNC.
Right. Whenever I hear of someone suggesting a possibility, my opinion of the person ratchets down several notches.
There is nothing that you can point to that says she is not informed or concerned about the "constitutional issues of the day " (whatever the hell that means).
She is not a constitutional lawyer, which, BTW, is just fine, as far as someone like Antonin Scalia is concerned. So, naturally, she's not going to be babbling about the Constitution at every turn.
Wait for the hearings. We'll all get to decide then.
A really good piece. Thank you so very much for the fair and extended desrciption and commentary.
Darn, you beat me to it!!!
Marbury v. Madison
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.
Since she was picked BECAUSE she's a woman, isn't that still sexism?
Indeed..
Yes, kind of a double-edged sword there isn't it? Reasons to support her: she's a woman who "broke barriers." Reason not to support her: she's a woman. Either way, a sexist thought pattern.
Men were completely out of the running, not qualified since they didn't break any barriers due to not being women.
How can an intellectual conservative seriously base their nomination for Supreme Court on gender, as opposed to picking the best person for the job??
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.