October 4, 2005

Shrimp, polenta and chocolate mousse.

That's what George Bush and Harriet Miers were eating for dinner when he asked her to be his new nominee. Want more facts?
"She kept a low profile here as she did up there" in Washington, said Bruce Buchanan, political science professor at the University of Texas in Austin. "People who look into her background find her to be self-effacing - no family, no private life to speak of."....

Bush first met with Miers about the position on Sept. 21, the same day that Ginsburg told an audience in New York that she didn't like the idea of being the only woman on the Supreme Court. First lady Laura Bush wanted to see a woman nominated, too. Bush and Miers met three more times after that.
Nice to think that he responded to Ginsburg. He listens to the women, don't you think?

8 comments:

Rob said...

I have heard criticism of elections of judges and prosecutors on the basis that it is "...too political." The appointment of Harriet Miers illustrates that the appointment process is more political than the election process. Evan Bayh once elevated his personal lawyer to the Indiana Supreme Court. It was ridiculous and offensive by the Democrat Evan Bayh, and it is ridiculous and offensive by the President. Can you imagine that we would have a less qualified and less well known person if we elected U.S. Supreme Court Justices?

This is not the Circuit Court Judge in Austin, or something. The most powerful man in the world, with the greatest ability to find qualified candidates in history, picks his personal lawyer. Sickening.

vbspurs said...

Nice to think that he responded to Ginsburg. He listens to the women, don't you think?

Was there ever any doubt about that?

This man, were it not for the inherently negative attitude to him by the WH Press Corps, would have long ago been hailed as woman-friendly, or at least, woman-receptive -- were it not for the letter of his Party.

Laura, Condi, Karen, Harriet...Barbara.

It all starts with the mum, doesn't it?

That's when you see women for what they are, for the strengths they bring to the table, and not just look at a woman as an object of sexual attraction, like many another President I could mention.

Cheers,
Victoria

stealthlawprof said...

The real question is not what they ate but what they drank -- Jonestown Kool-Aid, I presume.

Wade_Garrett said...

There's a lot going on here.

I wasn't around at the time, but I remember studying feminism in the 60's, and it seemed as if, at that time, a lot of women in the older generation, who didn't necessarily embrace the feminist-movement-with-a-capital-F, used to argue that women don't have to be so vocal in politics, because they've always had influence, inside the household and in their persuasive power over their husbands and sons. Am I reading that wrong?

I wonder which First Lady, in the final analysis, will be seen as the more effective one. Hillary was put in charge of some enormous projects, on some of the most controversial issues of the time, and came away having proven herself to be highly competent, but pissed off a lot of people, especially, it seems, women who embrace a more traditional view of gender roles? Laura never says anything controversial in public (the horse-milking joke doesn't count), but seems to get her way far more than Hillary ever did, because of her persuasive power over her husband. I'd be interested to know what the female readers of this blog think about this.

vbspurs said...

used to argue that women don't have to be so vocal in politics, because they've always had influence, inside the household and in their persuasive power over their husbands and sons. Am I reading that wrong?

Never underestimate the power of pillow talk.

It's not just a Doris Day/Rock Hudson vehicle.

It's a bedrock of influence -- then, now, in the future.

I wonder which First Lady, in the final analysis, will be seen as the more effective one.

Careful with that word.

Effective is a positive connotation.

At the end of the day, most Americans see Hillary Clinton in a negative light, and Laura Bush in a positive light -- thus are more likely to say Mrs. Bush is the more effective First Lady.

Who is the more intellectual First Lady?

Hillary Clinton even with LB's love of reading.

Who is the more influential First Lady?

Hillary Clinton, because of her deep involvement in her husband's administration (that two-fer deal one supposedly got). Even with LB's noted calming effect on her husband.

Who is the more competent First Lady?

Laura Bush. She's the archtypically perfect First Lady -- decorous, in the background, but steely.

She's the Republican Rosalyn Carter.

Cheers,
Victoria

miklos rosza said...

Laura reads and appreciates W.G. Sebald and Ian McEwan. I wouldn't knock her taste.

vbspurs said...

Laura reads and appreciates W.G. Sebald and Ian McEwan. I wouldn't knock her taste.

Heh, Miklos.

To anyone who knows me, inferring that I slammed Mrs. Bush would sound quite amusing. In my private circles, I am her number one fan.

But I still think Mrs. Clinton deserves due consideration for a more powerful intellect.

Let's put in more personal terms.

I have been an auto-didact all my life. I am an unusually well-read young lady (in 6 languages). I don't think I'm stupid.

But if someone were to compare a lawyer, like say Ann, to me, I'd have to give the lawyer advantage-intellect.

The variety of disciplines, and acumen needed for that profession just outstrips that of even a librarian.

All bets are off when I become a physician though. :)

Cheers,
Victoria

SippicanCottage said...
This comment has been removed by the author.