Entirely Predictable
This op/ed in The New York Times reaches new heights in hypocrisy. Here's how it begins:
When President Bush first nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, many people who were worried about her positions on hot-button issues cloaked that concern with talk about her credentials. But as time went on, it became increasingly clear that ideology aside, the qualification question looms large.
Notably, The New York Times voiced few concerns about Ms. Miers' qualifications, until it became clear that she is a dedicated pro-lifer. And now, the Times is concerned. So who, exactly, is it that is "worried about her positions on hot-button issues and cloak[ing] that concern with talk about her credentials"?
When President Bush first nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, many people who were worried about her positions on hot-button issues cloaked that concern with talk about her credentials. But as time went on, it became increasingly clear that ideology aside, the qualification question looms large.
Notably, The New York Times voiced few concerns about Ms. Miers' qualifications, until it became clear that she is a dedicated pro-lifer. And now, the Times is concerned. So who, exactly, is it that is "worried about her positions on hot-button issues and cloak[ing] that concern with talk about her credentials"?
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:14 AM
5 Comments:
The York - The Times of, wait -
The "New York Times"? Remind me what that is again?
It sounds vaguely familiar, like something from my college days . . . .
Ahh, yes! It's the one that pretends to report the news for the readers that pretend to feel its influence.
It's also the paper that Katie Couric reads.
In her blog, Carol asks, So who, exactly, is it that is "worried about her positions on hot-button issues and cloak[ing] that concern with talk about her credentials"? She then notes that this concern reaches new heights in hypocrisy.
There is a very good article here written by someone named Carol Platt Liebau. Ms. Liebau writes, Although some Miers opponents have based their objections on the nominee's alleged “underqualification" or on “cronyism” concerns, at the heart of their hostility are misgivings about Ms. Miers’ ideology and judicial philosophy.
Carol, you really should read some fo the stuff written by Carol.
Harriet Miers lack of qualifications is a legitimate issue and has been questioned by the media since she was first nominated. Conversely, this same "liberal" media who according to your standards would be much more opposed to a more unquestionably conservative justice like the just-appointed John Roberts has NEVER questioned his qualifications because it was never an issue. I think the media has been entirely fair in comparing the qualified John Roberts with the unqualified Harriet Miers aside and apart from their respective and undoubtedly conservative judicial philosophies. Nice try Carol but I think you're coming up empty on this particular line of attack against the New York Times.
By the way Carol. Can't help but notice you've gone with the banner ads. The one I'm looking at now say's "fight the Bush Agenda, take back congress in 2006". Now I'm sure even you can appreciate the less-than-subtle ironic humor in that! Perhaps its a karmic reminder that we all need to laugh once in a while :)
Draino - Didn't see that ad, but I would have clicked it. A few (fractional?) pennies from their purse to Carol's.
Post a Comment
<< Home