Oct 11 2005
I meant to address this earlier in the main post, but a post from Michelle Malking reminded me to discuss the sexism charge commented on by Laura Bush. What I really dislike about this rabid feeding frenzy is when a legitimate comment is made about SOME of the critics, and then all of the critics act is if it is all about them! Well, not to burst your bubble Michelle, but I truly doubt the Bush’s were talking about you.
Hopefully you just overrreacted – the other explanations are not very flattering to say the least. There have been those who claimed Harriet Miers was selected because she was a woman. That is sexist and Laura is right. There are some who claim she would never have been selected except she was a women crony to Bush – that is sexist as well and demeaning in two respects.
There are those who dismiss her experiences in breaking the glass ceilings she broke. It is cold hearted, and possibly sexist, to assume women always were considered equals in every field and what she went through was trivial. The analogy would be to claim Condi’s experiences with racism when she was growing up were of no real consequence.
That these statements have been made in various forms is not in doubt. So why the insults back at Laura Michelle?
“Or does she buy into the Left’s conservative-women-are-self-loathing-traitors-to-their-gender line, too”
The Anti-Miers crowd is running on emotion – anger, and is devoid of fact – but butressed by hypotheticals. No wonder they are losing this battle.
I was able to catch Rich Lowry from NRO (one of the many anti-Miers echo chambers on the net) on John Gibson’s show tonight on FOX. I had to laugh at his lame and weak attempt to belittle Miers. He had to state over and over again what I have been saying since the uproar from these fanatics began – they don’t know Miers and cannot make any firm predictions on her.
Lowry whimped out so bad I almost felt sorry for him. At the very end of all his waffling he tried to squeeze in he thought she would be worse the O’Connor. But this made him out to be the total zealot since, obviously and accorsing to himelf, he had no way of knowing!
Nothing firm, but his Vulcan mind reading powers were telling him she was a bad choice – and Bush was too stupid to see it.
When I had my fun with Redstate and challenged them on their fanatical positions, I realized they had nothing substantial either. All they really wanted was for the wole issue to go their way, or for it to go away. They are better at insulting fellow conservatives than making any reasonable case on why we should rise up and damage Bush over Miers.
For example, here is a Redstater admitting they lashed out at people they disagreed with, but of course they had an excuse – they were angry at Bush. It was not the first time -won’t be the last.
That’s what happens when you run on emotion, anger. You have no claim you are right outside your frustration. I have to keep adding these definitions so the anti-Miers extremists – the ones who want the party to rise up and defeat Bush over their fantasies – understand the terms are appropriate given this context.
a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.
These are important to remember because, while many appear to be getting all worked up, the loudest voices cave when challenged (Redstate) or put on the spot (Lowry on Foxnews). So one can guess this challenge Bush will not succeed. Rich Lowry’s own prediction on Fox says it all: It is highly likely Miers will be confirmed.
Some are beginning to realize the strangeness of this situation we find ourselves in – opposing the President over nothing. Giving Bush more trouble over Miers than Clinton got with Ginsburg.
Since sociology â€” the awful matter of class â€” has played a role in the Miers brouhaha, I might give you this judgeâ€™s credentials: He went to the very fanciest schools in the country (starting with prep school). He was a partner at just about the fanciest firm in the country. And he was a federal judge pretty early. In other words, he is at the top of the elite heap.
And he thinks Miers is superbly qualified â€” loves her background, loves what she has done. Loves what he thinks he knows about her character, and her work habits. Thinks she would be terrific on the Court.
People are beginning to come to their senses. First off, don’t call for an uprising against Bush unless you have the goods on Miers.
Interesting final note. I was mention in a hotline blogometer on Miers – Woohoo! Of course they focused on my spat with Redstate instead of all my posts on why Miers is a good choice. and of course I am painted as disrespectful for making my case but Redstate was simply ‘fisking’ me when they called me an ‘idiot’ and ‘moron’.
In case folks are interested some at Redstate did offer to let me back if I behaved. I said I would consider the option if the posted an apology for breaking the very rules they claimed I broke. Well, they were not interested. In the words of one of their very well known judicial pundits – it was a tough call whether my description of the anti-Miers call to damage Bush represented ‘extremism’ vs Thomas calling me an idiot.
Folks, if that is a tough call for them, why are you listening to them? Personally, I think every last one of us are able to make up our own minds and do not need talking heads or bloggers translate or tell us (you) what to think.
I have a lot more faith in Americans than some I guess.