Laura Bush: Harriet Miers' Critics Sexist

NewsMax ^ | Tuesday, Oct 11, 2005 | Staff

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that some of the criticism of her husband's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, could be driven by sexism.

Asked by NBC "Today Show" host Matt Lauer if sexism was behind the attacks on Miers, Mrs. Bush said: "That's possible. I think that's possible."

"I think people are not looking at her accomplishments. They're not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance. And all the other things. She was the first woman managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by her law firm."

Mrs. Bush said her persoanl interaction with Miers left her very impressed.

"I know Harriet well." she told NBC. "I know how accomplished she is. I know how many times she has broken the glass ceiling. She's a role model for young women around our country. Not only that - she's very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to wherever she goes - and certainly to the Supreme Court.

[linkinpunk]

You may be right.

But if we had a Clarence Thomas kind of fight, Rush's ratings would go through the roof in this off-election year.

Plus, I have had several freepers tell me that the fight is as important as the nominee himself/herself. ("It's long overdue. It's time we got this out in the open.")

[SE Mom]

I find this headline to be misleading.

I'm surfing through FR and see this and think WTH???

She did NOT say it IS sexist..she said it's POSSIBLE.

[aft_lizard]

I do not think that is sexist, not in the least, but you also must look at it in the context of the conversation also. The conversation is about her qualifications, and to the lesser extent what Matt Lauer dragged out of her, about chauvinism. So what if she pointed out that she was the first woman to do this or that, it doesnt lessen the argument one iota. They werent lies, they werent exaggerations, they were point blank facts. If it was a male candidate they would be ointing out his qualifications, and by doing so they wouldnt be taking a male centric point of view. THe fact that you and so many here are so insulted by the facts of the matter is frankly astonishing, and it belittles you to take such a insignificant matter, and blow it up into some feminazi screed is very disheartening.

[t2buckeye]

She didnt say they were, she said it was possible, a little bit of difference there and a misleading title there


Yeah...I mean, I'm mad at Bush for this nomination, but Laura Bush did NOT say people opposed are sexist. THe fact that the MSM even asks the question shows a total disingenuousness since THEY know that conservatives would have loved it if Bush had picked several conservative women. They just HAVE to get SEXISM out there....despite the fact that conservatives have NO such qualms about women candidates

[TChad]

So, the MSM asks a leading question (when did you stop beating W, Mrs. Bush?), and we're surprised when she says "that's possible"????

I was surprised and disappointed. She could easily have distanced herself from the accusation, but did not. She could have said, "I don't think that her sex has anything to do with this controversy, because the same people who object to Harriet Miers have publicly supported other female nominees." Instead Mrs. Bush gives us a list of feminist "qualifications" to support Miers. First woman to do this, first woman to do that, breaks glass ceilings, blah blah blah. As if being the "first woman" to get a pilot's license would qualify someone to fly a 747.

After all, Ms. Miers will need a gut of steel to withstand the slings and arrows about her looks, her age, her bra size, her hair, makeup, etc.

The substantive opposition to Miers has absolutely nothing to do with her looks. Besides, surviving negative comments about one's appearance does not require a "gut of steel," it is just an uncomfortable part of daily life. For most people, perhaps including Miers, a quick glance in the mirror provides substantial evidence that the critics are probably right.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You forgot to mention the Independent Women's Forum.

THOSE DARN SEXISTS!!!

:-)

[DJ MacWoW]

Raising the "sexist" flag is as bad as the "racist" flag run up with regularity at any and all criticism.

Rhehnquist had never been a judge either. He had no experience. Why does it make a difference with Miers?

William H. Rehnquist Background

[dc-zoo]

...and that is validly attackable

Your words speak volumes. Attack Laura Bush, attack Miers, attack George Bush, attack anyone else who supports his nominee. Your tactics are irrational and idiotic and by the time Miers is confirmed perhaps, just perhaps you will come to your senses and realize you were stuck on stupid.

[EllaMinnow]

http://www.iwf.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=820

IWF Supports Nomination of Harriet Miers to the High Court


WASHINGTON, DC -- The Independent Women’s Forum supports the president’s nomination today of Harriet Miers to fill the seat vacated by retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

"Ms. Miers has had a long and distinguished career as one of the foremost lawyers in the country makes her a well qualified candidate. Members from both sides of the aisle have recognized her professional achievements and qualifications and recommended her to the President as a nominee," said IWF senior vice president Michelle Bernard.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You have to be kidding me.

[RobbyS]

You might look some of the criticism. I am thinking in particular Frum, whose tone is just insulting. He obviously despises Ms. Miers and lets his reads know it. Maybe its because he is a loudmouthed Yankee who has not had much experience with southern ladies. Or maybe it is because she had something to do with his leaving the White House. Whatever, his tone is such that he makes me want to punch him in the mouth.

[EllaMinnow]

You have to be kidding me.

No.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Add them to the list of people who have no clue.

-C. Boydon Gray

-Jay Seukolow

Among others.

You expected this from a water-carrier like Hugh Hewitt, but not from these folks.

What are they thinking?

[Texas Federalist]

Rhehnquist had never been a judge either. He had no experience. Why does it make a difference with Miers?

Obviously it's because she's a woman and women's brains are a third the size of men's. (You can't argue with that. That's science!)

[EllaMinnow]

I think you have me confused with someone else.

[DJ MacWoW]

Obviously it's because she's a woman and women's brains are a third the size of men's. (You can't argue with that. That's science!)

You mean women do better with less? ;)

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

JRB - UCLA;

Owen - Baylor;

Luttig - Washington and Lee;

Clement - Tulane.

The law school alma maters of four judges that would be more qualified than Harriet. All supported by Will, Krauthammer, Ingraham, Buchanan and Coulter.

You lose.

[cyncooper]

I thought Owen asked not to be nominated.

I suppose posing names that aren't possible has some point known only to those who proffer them...

[rob777]

THe fact that you and so many here are so insulted by the facts of the matter is frankly astonishing, and it belittles you to take such a insignificant matter, and blow it up into some feminazi screed is very disheartening.






No one is blowing it up into a feminazi screed, merely pointing out that more emphasis is being put on her accomplishing something as a woman than on the simple fact of the accomplishment. I see people first and foremost as individuals, not as men, women, black, white etc. Her accomplishment as an individual should stand on its own merit, regardless of her gender. It is her supporters who are bringing up the issue of gender, rather than merely sticking to the facts of the matter. I do not believe they are doing her any favors in this. While I am not enthusiastic about the choice, I have kept my opinions about her qualifications to myself because I simply do not know enough about her to reach an informed conclusion in this matter. That being said, the raising of gender as a qualification bothers me. I would not of commented on it solely as a result of reading this article if the issue was not already being raised as a reason to support her. If it can be demonstrated that she rose above explicit discrimination to accomplish what she did, that would be another story and would show a strength of character. Perhaps that is the case, but so far I have not heard of an argument that indicates so. Still, the accomplishments that I am more interested in are ones pointing to an excellent understanding of constitutional law and its application.

[Blackirish]

Just on Fox news....Whitehouse spokeswoman once again throwing down the sexist and elitist card. I live in red Chicago and have been backing W for years. Now because he makes a lousy choice I'm an elitist, sexist. He just lost my support.