Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Right Note (Miers re-packaged)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 08:30 AM
Original message
The Right Note (Miers re-packaged)
she's got a new WRAPPER! NEW IMPROVED PACKAGING!


The Right Note
With even Laura off-key on Miers, Bush plans to change the message—again
Posted Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118316,00.html


Get ready for a whole new Harriet. After a disastrous two weeks, White House officials say they hope to relaunch the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court by moving from what they call a "biographical phase" to an "accomplishment phase." In other words, stop debating her religion and personality and start focusing on her resume as a pioneering female lawyer of the Southwest. "We got a little wrapped around the axle," an exhausted White House official said. "As the focus becomes less on who she's not and more on who she is, that's a better place to be."

---snip---
A White House that once appeared impervious to external stimuli suddenly seemed snakebit. Correspondence released in Texas included a number of gushing cards and letters from Miers to Bush—including a 1997 birthday card in which Miers sounded like a breathless teen in a fan letter, declaring, "You are the best Governor ever—deserving of great respect!" Every effort to right the situation only made it worse. Even Laura Bush—the President's safety valve in times of trouble—irked grouchy conservatives with a mild comment on NBC's Today show. Standing beside her hammering husband on a Habitat for Humanity lot in soggy Louisiana, she said it was "possible" that there was some sexism in the criticism of Miers. "It was insulting to the people who are trying to be the most helpful," said a discouraged conservative operative who has been going to the gym more instead of pulling all-nighters for Miers.

The day after his wife's stumble, the President took his turn, playing up his nominee's evangelical Christianity as part of her qualifications for the court. But then the message changed again.

Press secretary Scott McClellan briefly dropped his sunny volubility and accused reporters of obsessing about the "side issues of religion," as if the White House hadn't been pushing Miers' faith.

-----------







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. There Is Sexism In Criticism Of Miers
But that doesn't mean she's a qualified candidate. There are valid criticisms about her, but some have been taking the sexist tact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
willing dwarf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Quite right, and there's sexism in choice of Miers
You see it, I'm sure. I see it, but I want to hear it said. Choosing Miers-- when so many other strong, women of power who are not looking googly eyes at Bush--was itself a blatantly sexist act.

The women the right would give us as our token heroines are a pathetic group of sychophants. I'm surprised he didn't honor Phyllis Schlafly with the nomination!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dem Agog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. As a woman, I disagree...
I don't believe Miers critics are stooping to sexism. Miers talks, acts and behaves like an immature little schoolgirl. People criticizing her for that are criticizing her for a perfectly valid reason. Just because she acts like a little Chatty Cathy twelve year old and is all "OHMIGOD!" doesn't make it "sexist" to point out that such behavior is inappropriate and use that behavior to point out why she should never be put on the supreme court.

The criticism is completely valid. It's a criticism of her behavior, which happens to be the behavior of an immature young little ignorant girl.

If we had a guy who acted like a drunken fratboy, and we criticized him for that, it would not be sexist either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErisFiveFingers Donating Member (354 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Immature little...
...schoolgirl? Or schoolboy?

Chatty Cathy, or chatty Christopher?

Maybe the goals of the criticisms aren't sexist, but the stereotypes employed to voice those criticisms often seem like they could be. Perhaps that's a symptom of the sexism inherent in society, perpetuating certain gender stereotypes.

I'm just fine with Miers being described as a starry-eyed sycophant and immature suck-up, attributes which have no gender boundaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yeah, but... the maid?
She is an accomplished lawyer, she did work at some powerful law firms. She was elected to the Dallas City Council, and she did manage to become the head of the Texas Bar. I don't think you get there by being a complete ignoramus. So to have this accomplished woman degraded by calling her a maid, well I don't think they would do that to a man. Nobody said Bush was appointing the janitor when Gonzales went to the FBI. I think it's been a bit over the top. We should have been focusing on her lack of credentials all along instead of engaging in tactics that have been little more than junior high back-biting sessions. You know the routine, twelve year old girls say things about each other like "Chatty Cathy" and "OHMIGOD".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I don't think there's sexism
No one's saying "why don't you get a man for the job?"...

We're saying "Who is this person and how the heck can you put them on the Supreme Court when they've never been a judge in their life and never even stepped foot in the Supreme Court to argue a case?"

It's purely qualifications. The fact that she seems to be a George Bush suckup isn't helping her case any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Sexism isn't limited to that
I hope you don't think sexism is only about whether or not a man gets a job. That's the least of it, the degradation of women to keep them out of the man's arena is far more insidious.

I don't have a problem with criticizing her on her lack of credentials, in fact I said that. That's what we should have been focusing on all along. But the "OHMIGOD" "Chatty Cathy" stuff has nothing to do with her qualifications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. Good toons, Radfringe...
The first one, with the little figures below "Harriet and George, sittin' inna tree..." captures the shallowness of Harriet Miers. Her qualifications seem nonexistent to me. The fact that Bush is pushing her so hard seems to be a rather sad indication of how petty the man is, unable to concede that her nomination was a mistake, and that cloying adoration of him is not one of the qualities either the left or the right look for in a Supreme Court Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC