« Teachers Union Spending Tomorrow's Dues Today | Main | Iraqi Constitution Deal Reached »

October 11, 2005

No, She Didn't

Hatched by Dafydd

UPDATE: Welcome, readers from InstaPundit, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Patterico's Pontifications, JunkYardBlog, California Conservative, UNCoRRELATED, and Media Lies!

UPDATE 11 October 2005 9:29 pm: Before delving into the minutiae of how many miliseconds elapsed between various phrases in Laura Bush's answer, let's all take a step back and look at the big picture. The charge from Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed is, boiled down, that Laura Bush is calling opponents of Miers "sexist." That is, that Mrs. Bush is a liberal.

This is errant nonsense. There is nothing whatsoever in her background that would make us think she is a liberal. In fact, she's likely more conservative than Bush. So please, folks, get a grip. The MSM deliberately misreported this in a way designed to split us further apart... and by golly, it worked! So let's sit down, take a stress pill, and talk this out....

~

This post is not about Harriet Miers; she is merely cosmic background radiation. Rather, I rise as a gentleman to defend the besmirched honor of the First Lady.

Despite the newest charge sweeping the blogosphere, Laura Bush did not call Miers opponents "sexist."

A partial transcript appeared in two Washington Post articles (two completely different articles posted one minute apart); the second article (from Reuters) used that micro-bite, which isn't even an accurate transcription, to drive the headline:

Laura Bush says sexism possible in Miers criticism
by Tabassum Zakaria
Reuters
Tuesday, October 11, 2005; 3:13 PM

COVINGTON, Louisiana (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.

"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature.

The other story used the same flawed transcription:

Asked by host Matt Lauer if sexism might be playing a role in the Miers controversy, she said, "It's possible. I think that's possible. . . . I think people are not looking at her accomplishments."

Alas, two stalwarts of the conservative blogosphere, Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed, relied upon that bad transcript from the epitome of the MSM to drive stories of their own attacking Mrs. Bush. Malkin was typically brief and cutting:

So, the First Lady pulled out the sexism card in her defense of Harriet Miers on NBC's Today Show.

Matt Lauer lapped it up.

Did the White House not inform Mrs. Bush that some of the most vocal criticism and questioning of the nomination comes from conservative women? Or does she buy into the Left's conservative-women-are-self-loathing-traitors-to-their-gender line, too?

I feel a pile-on coming. Not only against Laura Bush, but a dogpile on me for politely disagreeing with Michelle Malkin. But in reality, having just watched the video up on the Today Show's website (which must be viewed using Internet Explorer 6, evidently), I can say that Malkin's take on this is totally wrong and backwards in every respect.

In the first place, Malkin has the order backwards: it was Matt Lauer, not Laura Bush, who "pulled out the sexism card;" Laura Bush never used the term. Second, far from "lap[ing] them up," Lauer never even returned to the question. I listened to the entire segment, and I particularly played the relevant snippet over and over, trying to get every word even when Lauer, Bush, and Laura Bush were talking over each other. Here is my own transcription of that miniscule portion of the fourteen-minute segment; this part starts at 7:58 into the main segment, but you have to sit through a thirty-second commercial first:

Lauer: [to President Bush] You said she’s the most qualified candidate for the job. [points to Laura Bush] Would you agree with that?

Laura Bush: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Lauer: You had pushed for a woman to be the nominee --

Laura Bush: That’s right. And I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she’s broken the glass ceiling herself. She’s a roll model for young women around our country --

Lauer: Some are suggesting --

Laura Bush: Not only that, she is very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to, uh, wherever she goes. But certainly to the Supreme Court, she will be really excellent.

Lauer: Some are suggesting there’s a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge [sic] Miers.

Laura Bush: That’s possible. I think --

Lauer: How would you feel about that?

Laura Bush: That’s possible. I think she is so accomplished that... I know, I think that people are not looking at her accomplishments and 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, uh, woman managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm.

George Bush: My attitude, Matt, is that when people get to know here, they’ll see why I picked her.

Laura Bush: They will. In the confirmation hearings alone, they’ll, they’ll see what she’s like.

What a difference a single interruption makes! In the deceptive version being pedaled by Reuters and the Post, they have Laura say sexism was possible and then repeat it for emphasis: "I think that's possible." This has the subtextual effect of making it appear certain that the First Lady was agreeing with Lauer's question, that critics were motivated by sexism.

But in reality, Lauer asked the question and paused; Mrs. Bush started to answer and was cut off by Lauer, who finished asking the question... so the First Lady, being a trouper, simply re-commenced her same answer. She did not say "that's possible... I think that's possible;" she dismissed the charge with a curt "that's possible," then started a new sentence on a different topic.

[This is the paragraph that some critics, especially Patterico, dispute most. I did not make my determination by timing pauses with a stopwatch; my analysis is based upon the structure of the response itself: she starts to answer, she is interrupted, and when she answers the second time, she quickly shifts away from the question Lauer asked to the (probably memorized) answer she wants to give, about Miers' accomplishments. She is not repeating for emphasis; she is repeating because the boor talked over her answer. -DaH.]

Listening to the audio, it is clear that she was not agreeing with or even emphasizing the point. In fact, she was brushing it off. She said the most non-commital thing it was possible to say: "that's possible." In fact, if anything, she underplayed it; I have absolutely heard criticism that is clearly sexist... I heard a caller on a recent Hugh Hewitt show say that he opposed Miers because every time we let a woman onto the Supreme Court, she rules just based on her feelings. But Laura Bush simply brushed off Lauer's suggestion and launched into a litany of Miers' accomplishments (which I am not here to argue).

(I just know that somebody is going to argue that she nodded her head as she spoke those words; but then, she actually both nods and shakes her head constantly and randomly throughout her segment. She's bobbing, not nodding. I think it's just nervousness, just like her uncomfortable, little laugh. I don't think she enjoys the spotlight at all.)

Captain's Quarters fell into the same MSM honey-trap that nabbed Michelle Malkin.

Instead [of answers], we get attacked for our supposed "sexism", which does more to marginalize conservatives than anything the Democrats have done over the past twenty years -- and it's so demonstrably false that one wonders if the President has decided to torch his party out of a fit of pique. After all, it wasn't our decision to treat the O'Connor seat as a quota fulfillment; that seems to have originated with the First Lady herself, a form of sexism all its own.

Again, Laura Bush did not call critics sexist. She did not even agree with Lauer that they were sexist. Close examination of the transcript -- or simply viewing the segment -- shows that she brushed off the question and instead simply gushed about what she saw as Miers' accomplishments.

Reuters then creatively massaged her words -- by breaking them up in a non-natural way -- to falsely make it appear as though she were lobbing the "sexist" bomb. And two of our most brilliant minds swallowed the bait, hook, line, and curve ball.

[As I noted to Patterico, consider the title of the Reuters story: "Laura Bush says sexism possible in Miers criticism." Did she say that? No, she did not. A more accurate title would have been "Laura Bush fails to kick Matt Lauer in groinal area for suggesting sexism behind Miers criticism." Maybe he deserved it, but that's not exactly the First Lady's job. Though it sure would have made for good television.... -DaH]

For the love of God, Montresor, you must remember that these people do not mean us well. Reuters and the Washington Post are beside themselves with glee at the internecine GOP warfare; it is they, not the White House, who are "pour[ing] more gasoline on the fire," as Captain Ed titled his post. We know the MSM lie and distort, particularly when transcribing oral statements that have a chance of fanning the flames.

In a situation like this, slight differences in wording, or even when someone draws breath after being interrupted, can completely change the meaning of a sentence. We in the 'sphere have a duty to measure six times before we leap. In this case, all it took was a click on a javascript link and the will power to sit through Matt Lauer's insufferable boorishness for a quarter of an hour.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 11, 2005, at the time of 5:41 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/100

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No, She Didn't:

» White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire (Updated) from Captain's Quarters
It's either feast or famine at the White House with the Harriet Miers nomination. Given the chance to lay out a positive, substantial case for her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration has remained largely silent. However, given... [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 6:18 PM

» MRS. BUSH & THE SEXISM CARD from Michelle Malkin
So, the First Lady pulled out the sexism card in her defense of Harriet Miers on NBC's Today Show. Matt Lauer lapped it up. Did the White House not inform Mrs. Bush that some of the most vocal criticism and... [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 6:52 PM

» BAD FAITH ARGUMENTS from JunkYardBlog
I've tried to remain neutral for the most part on the Miers nomination, all while professing dismay and disappointment that we wouldn't get the kind of stellar nominee the position deserves nor be a part of the ideological battle royale... [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 7:02 PM

» The Laura Bush “It’s Possible” Controversy from California Conservative
A huge deal has been made today over supposed ‘controversial’ comments First Lady Laura Bush made in response to a question Matt Lauer from the “Today” show asked her. Relevant part of the transcript: Lauer: Some are suggesti... [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 7:38 PM

» Getting it Wrong from UNCoRRELATED
Several blogs have been reporting that Laura Bush said opposition to Harriet Miers is sexist. Big Lizards (the intrepid Dafydd ab Hugh) raps their knuckles, and suggests that the MSM is deliberately misrepresenting her remarks in an effort to pour gaso... [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 8:46 PM

» Have conservatives lost their minds? from Media Lies
It would appear so. Many of them have fallen for the story of Laura Bush claiming that sexism is involved in the opposition to Miers. T... [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 9:06 PM

» No, She Didn’t — But She Didn’t Do What Dafydd ab Hugh Said, Either from Patterico's Pontifications
Dafydd ab Hugh says: Despite the newest charge sweeping the blogosphere, Laura Bush did not call Miers opponents “sexist.” True enough. She said she thought it was “possible.” If Dafydd had stopped there, I’d have no ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 11, 2005 9:14 PM

» Further Notes On "Sexism" from Captain's Quarters
Yes, I have read the transcript from Dafydd at Big Lizards of the Matt Lauer interview. Yes, I know that Matt Lauer is not the greatest interviewer nor a friend to conservatives -- which calls into question why the Bushes... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 3:46 AM

» The First Lady and Professor Althouse from All Things Beautiful
Much contoversy has been placed yesterday on Laura Bush's stepping into the front line of defence of Harriet Miers, her husband's nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy. Speaking during a rare joint interview together with the President, on the NBC's Toda... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 6:06 AM

» Did Conservatives Forget the First Rule Abou the MSM? from Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere
In the haste to find something, anything, to use against the Miers nomination, some conservatives apparently decided that a perfect place for unbiased information is....the MSM! The issue here was several MSM reports (AP, Reuters, Washington Post, eg) ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 6:10 AM

» The Miers Firing Squad from Flopping Aces
Many people have also been stating that the White House has been inept in advancing this nominee but I do not see any evidence that the confirmation is in doubt. Bush has made over a hundred nominations over his terms, and EVERY one of them has been ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 11:14 AM

» Conservatives Fall Prey to Media Trick from Donkey Stomp
The overreaction of conservatives to the First Lady's "that's possible" comment shows that many of us have fallen prey to the media tricks they often try to pull. [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 12:22 PM

» Are y’all a bunch of moonbats or something? from MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
OK, I’ve heard enough of the utterly stupid shrieking about Laura Bush and “sexism” regarding the Harriet Miers nomination. Did any of you actually see the clip? Or read the transcript? I’ll let Dayfdd handle that one from he... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 2:22 PM

» Harriet Miers is Unconstitutional from damnum absque injuria
Some readers may interpret last week’s broadsides against David Frum and George Will as a backhanded endorsement of Harriet Miers’s nomination, or at least as a representation that Miers opponents are the only ones engaging stooopid argume... [Read More]

Tracked on October 12, 2005 9:26 PM

» MPM From the MSM from Big Lizards
Misinformation per minute from the mainstream media, that is. AP has an incredible story up -- with the word "incredible" meant literally: it's hard to count the number of misstatements, malicious manglings, myopic maunderings, and just plain mental mi... [Read More]

Tracked on October 24, 2005 2:07 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

I fell for the news service stories too, about Laura Bush. I should've known better. Rush Limbaugh says, everytime he reads a New York Times story he says to himself, "hey, what if this is true?"

As for sexism, or racism, etc., as someone said once, the test is not how you treat Louie Armstrong. The test is how you treat Louie the garbage man.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN at October 11, 2005 6:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: MisterSnitch

Looks like Michelle Malkin lapped it up. Great post, well done.

The above hissed in response by: MisterSnitch at October 11, 2005 6:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: Ed Driscoll

Great catch. And this isn't the first time that the MSM cooked the books on a Laura Bush quote.

The above hissed in response by: Ed Driscoll at October 11, 2005 7:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

Sorry, dude. I read your setup and was prepared to do a post praising your skepticism and careful review of the record. Then I read your transcript and explanation and was less wowed than the setup had promised. Then I watched the video, and I just don't agree with your interpretation. Sorry.

I hear the relevant portion like this:

Lauer: Some are suggesting there’s a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge Miers.
Laura Bush: That’s possible.

Lauer: How would you feel about that?

Laura Bush: [The beginning of this sentence begins about the same time as the end of the word "about" and the beginning of the world "that" at the end of Lauer's previous sentence:] I think that’s possible. I think she is so accomplished that...

I don't hear any pause between "I think" and "that's possible" in the sentence: "I think that's possible." At all.

And whether she seems to be brushing off the suggestion, as opposed to agreeing with it, is a matter of opinion, I suppose. I disagree with Dafydd there as well.

But hey, the video is there for anyone to watch. I'd urge anyone to make up their own minds before lapping up the interpretation of anyone -- including that of Michelle *or* Dafydd.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico at October 11, 2005 7:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: Alamo Nation

Thanks for posting this, Dafydd. It was refreshing after watching 'fellow' conservatives trashing our First Lady pretty much all day today, from Free Republic to the Blogosphere. I'm glad there's far cooler heads than our Elite Conservative Punditocracy out here in the ether.

The above hissed in response by: Alamo Nation at October 11, 2005 7:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Chris Fotos

This is what one of my old editors used to call a distinction without a difference.

In your own transcript, Lauer asks if it's possible that there's a little sexism involved. Laura Bush doesn't say "no." She says it's possible. And she goes on and on about the glass ceiling and first woman this and first woman that. And you know, that's how liberals talk.

Honestly, I don't see any meaningful difference at all. I posted on this regarding the Post's report earlier today, and don't see any difference worth commenting about.

I'll add one thing for possibly confused readers who are checking the time/date stamps--I see the Post is taking old urls and pointing them to brand-new stories. The "Washington Post" as opposed to "Reuters" story linked above is now pointing to a story in the Wednesday edition. Obviously I could not have linked to that Tuesday morning.

The above hissed in response by: Chris Fotos at October 11, 2005 8:14 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

However, you're right to note that Lauer was the first to play the "sexism card."

The above hissed in response by: Patterico at October 11, 2005 8:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: mcg

Hmm, I just watched the video, and I have to say: sorry Dafydd, you're wrong on this one. She did indeed say "I think that's possible" in a single unbroken sentence. Certainly by no means is she saying "of course sexism is part of it," but it is clear she is giving assent to the possibility.

The above hissed in response by: mcg at October 11, 2005 8:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mark J

She said, without a doubt, "That's possible..." and then let Matt finish asking his question and then answered again, "I think that's possible."

Dafydd, you are right to say that she didn't play the card, and that Matt didn't "lap it up," and that even that she brushed it off. This is all true. She didn't repeat herself for emphasis, but for clarity, because when she answered the first time, Matt wasn't quite done asking the question. But what she clearly did do was to quickly move on to a new thought, after acknowledging (twice for clarity) that it was possible.

What amuses is me is how much fuss is being made over the possibility that people might be opposing Miers because of sexism, when both Bushes spent a good portion of that interview talking about the glass ceiling and how she's one of the top 50 "woman lawyers," and how she was the first elected woman to be elected to do X and the first woman to do Y and the first woman to do Z (Laura mentioned three things that she was the first woman to do). They seem to be the only people who really care that she's a woman.

The above hissed in response by: Mark J at October 11, 2005 9:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: Michael Babbitt

So what if it's possible that there is some sexism? I imagine there is some sexism creeping in, perhaps miniscule, but it definitely not a major theme of Laura Bush's view as she stated -- or else she probably would have said, "Definitely, I think its due to sexism." But her quote does not embrace the idea introduced by Lauer and I think that for conservatives to assert she was dumping out this idea as part of some White House strategy is silly and shows how twisted some have become in this debate. LIGHTEN UP, for G_d's sake!

The above hissed in response by: Michael Babbitt at October 11, 2005 9:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: mcg

Just read your second update, and now I think we are at least close to agreeing. I agree that Laura Bush was not calling Miers' opponents sexist. That she said it was "possible" that sexism was involved in some way is, of course, not a broad or definitive indictment. Those who have jumped on Laura Bush on this are, unfortunately, dragging her into the mess that Ed Gillespie made.

The above hissed in response by: mcg at October 11, 2005 10:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

Dafydd says in an update:

The charge from Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed (and now Patterico) is, boiled down, that Laura Bush is calling opponents of Miers "sexist." That is, that Mrs. Bush is a liberal.

That's the charge from Patterico? Here is the very beginning of my post:

Dafydd ab Hugh says:
Despite the newest charge sweeping the blogosphere, Laura Bush did not call Miers opponents “sexist.”

True enough. She said she thought it was “possible.”

So: I write a post in which I explicitly agree that Laura Bush did not call Miers opponents "sexist" -- and you then say that I claim she did.

Your description of my post is as inaccurate as your transcript of the video.

Laura Bush agreed with a suggestion from Matt Lauer that it was "possible" Miers critics were sexist. She didn't dwell on it. Make of it what you will -- I don't think it amounts to much -- but face the facts that are in front of you.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico at October 11, 2005 10:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

All right. I snipped out the whole parenthetical mention of you. Be happy!

The year's at the spring,
And day’s at the morn;
Morning’s at seven;
The hill-side’s dew-pearl’d;
The lark’s on the wing;
The snail’s on the thorn;
God’s in His heaven—
All’s right with the world!

-- Robert Browning, Pippa's Song

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 12, 2005 12:06 AM

The following hissed in response by: steve talbert

>>>>I can say that Malkin's take on this is totally wrong and backwards in every respect

I see you have been reading her blog. It would be poetic justic if now that a person with 'philapino' background might be a spy, that she has to go live in a shack in the desert without electricity and a blog for the next 3 years.

History never repeats itself, but it does rhyme.

The above hissed in response by: steve talbert at October 12, 2005 12:14 AM

The following hissed in response by: Ed Poinsett

What BS. She was being polite and offered a less than perfect answer to Lauer's leading question. She was manipulated and I'm really disappointed in the pubbies response. We sound like the Kos Kids!

The above hissed in response by: Ed Poinsett at October 12, 2005 2:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: Aitch748

The disappointed conservative crowd is beginning to act like a mob, if they're jumping ugly on Laura Bush over this little detail. I'm sorry, but even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that "it's possible that some of Miers's critics are sexist" was an actual talking point that Laura Bush thought it important to get out there, that's not exactly over the line, because, as has been noted, **some** of the criticism directed against Miers certainly could be interpreted as sexist. Bringing up the fact that some **other** critics have proposed nominationg Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen instead of Harriet Miers does not refute the charge. The rhetorical lynch mob might as well scream at me too, because I too think that it is **possible** that **some** among them might be motivated by sexism, based on some of the things I've seen posted on various forums about Miers.

The above hissed in response by: Aitch748 at October 12, 2005 3:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: boris

that's possible ... I think ... that's possible ... I think she is so accomplished ...

Regardless of one's interpretation of the audio, the first "I think" is at least as likely a false start of the "she is so accomplished" sentence. Therefore there is reasonable doubt that her response was anything more than polite brushoff.

People upset over this should take a chill pill.

The above hissed in response by: boris at October 12, 2005 5:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: stackja1945

I feel that the whole Harriet Miers negativity, needs to stop, just start the Senate hearings, ask her a few questions, get the answers, then vote.
I would think that everyone wants a justice for all, be they unborn, single, married, young, old, healthy, or unhealthy, so that all live to the best possible life, neither ended too soon nor extended too long by artificial means.

The above hissed in response by: stackja1945 at October 12, 2005 5:41 AM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

neither ended too soon nor extended too long by artificial means.

Aye, there's the rub. Sorry, I don't want the nanny state keeping me alive as a catatonic vegetable or denying me my transhuman health and longevity.
Note to luddites: the Singularity is coming. You'd bettah watch out.

Malkin and Captain Ed should have used Bayes in their analysis, crying sexism would have been completely out of character for Laura Bush. Never ignore a-priori data.
Patterico and Dafyyd make far more convincing arguments.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi at October 12, 2005 5:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: RonC

Dafydd - I agree - it was a curt brush-off. And I agree with you on defending a first lady that I have seen as one of the nicest we have ever had.

What I can't agree with is the pick for the seat, but worse than that, what I can not agree with is supposedly republican voters acting worst than the clowns on DU and KOS. It's a damned shame.

Yeah, I'll agree it's a damned shame too that we didn't have a better nominee - but at this point, I think hell will freeze over before we get another one. What candidate would want to subject themselves to the predations of both the radical left and the radical right.

Yeah... too many are acting waaaay to radical - including many of those I thought had some common sense and decency.

8^(

The above hissed in response by: RonC at October 12, 2005 6:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: surfhut

Thank you, Big Liz. Nice to see there are some gentlemen left.

The above hissed in response by: surfhut at October 12, 2005 7:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: big dirigible

Looks like I missed the Basic Indoctrination class. How does a possible acknowledgment that sexism just might possibly exist, and might even occasionally pervert American political debate, imply that someone is a "liberal"? Incessant droning about sexism as the root of all evil might make one sound like a particularly odious type of liberal, fer sure, but the acknowledgement that it might be a factor hardly establishes "liberal" bona fides, any more than the realization that disease exists makes one a Typhoid Mary wannabe.

Speaking for myself, I dread another female Supreme Court confirmation, because I detest those speeches when the confirmed candidate drones on and on about what a decisive influence her mother was. I have yet to fully recover from Ruth G.'s performance.

The above hissed in response by: big dirigible at October 12, 2005 8:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: Alamo Nation

Frum fell for it in a MASSIVE way at NRO. How does one fall for it so easily? Because one wants it to be true.

The above hissed in response by: Alamo Nation at October 12, 2005 8:14 AM

The following hissed in response by: AmericanInfidel

This seems like an unnecessary argument. Instead of trying to decide how her voice was inflecting on certain vowels and whether her eyebrows were raised when she answered, why isn't anybody bringing up the point that she could have and should have just said, "No Matt, I don't think there is any sexism involved at all". That sounds a lot more like an answer I would expect from a conservative republican.

The fact is that this adminstration, through it's actions and policies, has placed many of us in a position of distrust concerning the true direction of the party.

If Democrats are grinning gleefully at our reluctance to step into place and begin marching lockstep behind our president, then so be it. Maybe losing an election is what this party needs to shake up it's very comfortable, big spending office holders. Personally, I'd rather a Democrat spit in my face than have another Republican stab me in the back.

The above hissed in response by: AmericanInfidel at October 12, 2005 8:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: boris

Maybe losing an election is what this party needs to ...

... get another president Clinton.

Nobody stabbed you in the back. You tripped on your lower lip.

The above hissed in response by: boris at October 12, 2005 9:41 AM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

Karmi,

I have never used humans as fish bait, so I don't know if it is possible. I have used worms, live and plastic; and I can tell you that fish love to eat worms. Fetus = baby, Latin -> English.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles at October 12, 2005 6:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Sorry, Karmi, I'm afraid your "fishbait" must be sunk, due to revulsion.

I understand your point, but there is such a thing as being too provacative.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 12, 2005 7:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

'CD',

Good point...humans try to communicate in *MANY* different Dualistic languages...English (several versions), Latin, German, Arabic, etc.

i've had 13 Wives, numerous 'live-ins', and my share of 'one-niters'. After the first 10 Wives, i tried communicating with 'Da Wives more. Big mistake...

Mother Nature is 'Da Communicator here on Planet Earth, and Civilized humans don't understand a word that 'She' says, said, or is saying.

Everybody's talkin' at me. I don't hear a word they're sayin', Only the echoes of my mind.

People stoppin' starin'
I can't see the faces,
Only the shadows of their eyes.

I'm goin' where the sun keeps shinin'
Thru the pourin' rain,
Goin' where the weather suits my clothes.

Bankin' off the northeast wind,
Sailin' on a summer breeze,
Skippin' over the ocean like a stone.

Everybody's talkin' at me.
I don't hear a word they're sayin',
Only the echoes of my mind.

And I won't let you leave my love behind.

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at October 12, 2005 7:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Dafydd ab Hugh,

Sorry if it offends you.

Divorce is "revulsion" to me...abortion is "revulsion" to me...Kids becoming parents is "revulsion" to me...etc.

Yes, i am probably too provacative (since you put is so gently), but suspect that such comes natural to an Alpha Male...

Thanks for Your more than kind input...

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at October 12, 2005 7:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

BTW, Fred Neil wrote the lyrics to "Everybody's Talkin'". Fred is dead...was a great human.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at October 12, 2005 7:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: douglas

Hmmm, having your comments mangled and frankensteined by the media... funny enough I just got my first personal lesson in that- if you bother to read TIME (I got a 'gift' subscription), I had a letter posted in the current (17 Oct) edition. What I wrote was 'edited', and in my opinion, no longer reflects what I wrote- yet there it is in the magazine with my name on it. I can't stand those chumps and the brass they have, reworking what people say like that.

The above hissed in response by: douglas at October 13, 2005 12:35 AM

The following hissed in response by: Robert Stevens

Hey Dafydd. Maybe we can use Franklin Jones as fishbait.

The above hissed in response by: Robert Stevens at October 13, 2005 1:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: RedTory

I can't believe you've spent so much time and effort over this rather trivial matter. That said, I have to agree with the transcription provided by Ed Driscoll above. I watched the video again and that seems more accurate than your version. Now, having said that, it's clear to me that when she responded to Lauer's question, Laura Bush wasn't claiming that the criticisms of Miers were sexist per se, merely allowing for the possibility that this might be a factor. However, the effect was largely the same. This is much like the charge of "elitism" that has been thrown at critics of Miers' nomination.

The above hissed in response by: RedTory at October 13, 2005 9:56 AM

The following hissed in response by: RedTory

Correction: The transcription by Patterico.

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the layout of your comments. I took the name from the top, rather than below the comment.

The above hissed in response by: RedTory at October 13, 2005 10:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Red Tory:

Would it help if I had the name at both top and bottom, with the top one saying something like "the following comment is by RedTory," and the bottom one saying "the previous comment was by RedTory?" That way, each comment would be sort of "boxed in" by the same name at top and bottom.

Would that make it clearer? I really want to avoid putting borders around the comments, as that strikes me as unaesthetic.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 13, 2005 1:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: RedTory

Having a prefatory notation ("the following hissed in response by [name]") in addition to the one that appears below the comment seems a bit redundant to me. I think you could drop the prefatory one and avoid confusion. Not that it's a big deal.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be a dick. Just made a mistake and selected the wrong name. I haven't been here enough times to be familiar with how your comments are displayed. Now I know. That is, unless you change it. ;-)

The above hissed in response by: RedTory at October 13, 2005 5:55 PM