Seems you inaccurately misrepresent what Laura Bush said also, thus your confusion. You are too close to the critics to see clearly that your inaccurate representation of what Laura thinks (an attack) is not validated by Laura in any way. You are simply inaccurate.

Attacking is a nice pattern of liberals. Gets you out of actually having to debate ideas.

Hi Bak. Not that he needs me to speak for him, but Stoo is a conservative. Logging off now. G’nite. –ST

Logic 101 teaches us that a double negative equals a positive — thus an inaccurate misrepresentation would equal an accurate representation. I concur completely! Laura Bush did not invalidate her critics, she invalidated her own position.

Mr. Wallis:

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

Laura Bush: That’s possible. I think –XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

That is from the transcript. I’d be leery of relying on your experts in the future.

With respect to your opening comment, I share your preference for women — in all matters romantic. In all else, I’d prefer the best qualified for whatever task is at hand, regardless of gender.

I have been asking people who have witnessed newsworthy events if the event as depicted was anything like they remember witnessing. Almost universally they say no.
Newspapers don’t even care if they are correct any more.

Logic 101. Laura did not invalidate today’s critics who are inaccurately misrepresenting what Laura Bush’s statement was.

If they are misrepresenting Laura Bush’s statement there is nothing that Laura Bush could say to invalidate the fact that they are making inaccurate misrepresentations of her statement other than state that those critics accurately are representing her statement.

Personally, this seems to be that much more damning to this nomination and the hurdles President Bush has to overcome with his base. I find it incredibly dissapointing that this admission bears credence through someone as close as Rove to President B…

If the first we’d heard from the first lady was the Lauer interview, then one might be able to see it as an innocent remark, or even as a defense of her husband and his choice. Sadly, this is not the case.

Which raises the question: What sort of people have time to blog on a Monday morning at 9? Retirees, free-lance writers and tenured professors. Once their minds were made up — instantly — no argument could change their opinion.

Malkin has been acting borderline-hysterical lately. Yesterday, she used the word ‘elitism’ four times in a post expressly designed to defend herself from the charge. We figured readers had had enough of Miers for a while, so we didn’t pursue it.