Posted on 10/11/2005 8:00:17 AM PDT by 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.
I am still undecided on this nomination, but I know that Laura and Barbara Bush are not prolife.
Does anyone see the difference?
Only the difference between "possible" and "certain." A person making the attack is known as a critic, so the question remaining is, "What is the motivation for the criticism?"
I guess another way to parse the difference would be "all" critics v. "some."
Sexist, elitist conservatives ... Unite!
No the WH is not attacking you guys, geez. Name one example please. And using this as an example will not count. For one Laura is responding to a question. And two her response is such as to not be an attack. And yes its possible SOME people are going to be sexist. I have yet to hear an elitist attack come from the WH, please point that out, with sources for my reading pleasure.
You're not helping, Mrs. Bush...
I expected more from Laura Bush than unsupportable charges of sexism or racism when she doesn't get what she wants. She sounds like Ted Kennedy. The Bush's are really showing their true colors this term.
She was pointing out her accomplishments ,as a woman, the fact that you find insult in that is very telling.
There is certainly some sexist element to SOME of the attacks against Miers. Just yesterday I encountered posters right here who claimed that because she's never married but has had a long-term friendship/romance with Hecht that she is a slut, which makes her unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
That's extreme, but there've been people who have downplayed her "first woman to" accomplishments by suggesting those are the ONLY reasons she's been considered for the Court, which has never been suggested by the President.
Then there's the people who refer to the "dried up old maid" when opposing the nomination.
Oh, and then there's Coulter, who referred to her as "the cleaning lady."
Without seeing anything specific, I see no problem with Laura's statement.
My daughter is 16. She is thinking of entering a field that is dominated with men. I would like her to know that all options are open for her.
And Harriet Meirs is a good role model, especially if we can get her confirmed.
So Laura Bush didn't respond to Matt Lauer's comment(question?) with a comment of her own: "That's possible. I think that's possible."?
Of course there's no law against it. No one has suggested there is. It is, however, a stupid attitude to take.
Just in case you didnt notice she did not say every conservative who doesnt support her, as you have asserted by saying "So according to her, any conservative who opposes her husband's crony apointment is now a sexist or worse.", thats pretty dang libelous, thank goodness she is in the public realm and is therefore open to such attacks.
So smart people tend to rise to prominence in political journalism? I never would have guessed.
Incedentally, all of these people would have been overjoyed at a Janice Rodgers Brown (University of CA - Sacramento / UCLA) or Batchelder (University of Akron Law School) appointment. Your charges of elitism are so Ted Kennedy like. But I understand why you resort to red herring arguments. Because there is nothing substantive you can say to defend this nomination. Even Dan Coats seems legitimately stumped.
Agree.
This is a distinction without a difference.
I have enormous respect for Mrs. Bush, but she's just wrong here, no matter how one chooses to parse her statement.
Parallel to my first thought...possible? Almost anything is "possible".
This reflects on NewsMax as a "news" source, methinks.
Talk about speaking before thinking. You whiners haven't even given Miers a chance to have her hearing. Instead you've been trashing her non-stop for a week. And to think we used to call the looney left "shameless".
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.