NY Times falsely reported that Miers contributed to "abortion rights" group
In an October 4 article headlined "Miers Was Leader in Effort Within Bar to Rescind Support for Abortion," New York Times Washington bureau staff writer Robin Toner reported that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers "gave $150 to an abortion rights group's dinner in Texas in 1989." In fact, Miers's $150 contribution went to Texans United for Life -- an organization that opposed abortion.
An October 4 Washington Post article reported that a conservative publicist highlighted the donation in an October 3 press release:
Publicist Keith Appell issued a statement saying: "According to Kyleen Wright at Texans for Life, Harriet Miers gave $150 to the organization -- then known as Texans United for Life -- in 1989. Miers was a bronze patron for their annual dinner in which Henry Hyde was the keynote speaker." Hyde, a congressman from Illinois, is a leading opponent of legalized abortion.
The Times itself, in a separate October 4 article by David D. Kirkpatrick, reported that the contribution was made to an anti-abortion rights group:
Later in the afternoon, a conservative publicist circulated a statement saying that Ms. Miers had once contributed $150 at a dinner for Representative Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois, organized by abortion opponents.
Other news outlets that reported her 1989 contribution to Texans for Life include the Chicago Tribune, The Seattle Times, and Bloomberg.
The propaganda blitz has begun. The GOP will try very hard to portray this woman as a harmless little old lady who has no ideology. Don't buy it. If James Dobson likes her, she must be a reactionary religious throwback who thinks Bush is the "most brilliant man she's ever met" (GAG). If a Bush Administration case ever comes before the Supreme Court, do you think she or Roberts could possibly vote against Bush? According to Rush Limbaugh, she's a long time member of an evangelical church. Think she'll vote to uphold Roe v. Wade? Gay rights? How do you think she'll vote on the Evolution v. Creationism debate? I see no mystery here.
"Think she'll vote to uphold Roe v. Wade?" --Probably not. But even if she does, it'll just allow the states to decide for themselves.
"Gay rights?" --It seems the only right gays lack is marriage. (the visiting-in-hospital example, which will no doubt be used with typical unliberal viciousness here, is not individual but rather tied with gay marriage: if they were married, they would be able to visit in the hospital. So it's not a "separate right".)
"How do you think she'll vote on the Evolution v. Creationism debate? I see no mystery here." --Somehow I doubt our children will be taught only Creationism in their schools. The point is that will they be taught side by side.
"The point is that will they be taught side by side."
Why should they be? Would you teach Astronomy and Astrology side by side?
I never said they should be taught side by side. I simply pointed out that that is (probably) Miers's position. I think this is why you think I'm conservative; you read into my statements of fact as personal opinion. It isn't.
Then, is it your position that teaching them side by side is even an acceptable compromise? If not, the point of your posting that statement escapes me.
Again, I never said it was "acceptable." You must have imagined that again. Like you do my political biases.
Then, what's your point?
We were discussing Miers' opinion. I stated what I thought her goal was with regards to evolution vs. Creationism. In my opinion, I thought she would try to argue for a "side by side" kind of deal. By saying Miers would argue for a side by side kind of deal, I was not in any way endorsing a side by side kind of deal with regards to the teaching of evolution and Creationism.
KingKong, marriage is just the door to over 1000 legal benefits that are conferred onto married couples. So, in effect, gay couples are not entitled to the same rights as hetero couples in over 1000 dimensions. Also, gays have no workplace discrimination protection in 36 states, meaning they can be fired just for being gay.
At this morning's news conference, Duhhbya was cornered by a very well-framed question about Miers and her views on abortion.
The questioner asked if, since he'd known Miers for several years and had many opportunities to speak privately with her, he knew her position on abortion.
Duhhbya's wiggling attempt to avoid an answer (he began with "I have no litmus test...") would've made any hula dancer proud.