Did Bush really say he had never talked with Miers about abortion?
Multiple news outlets have reported that during an October 4 press conference President Bush denied that he has ever spoken with Harriet Miers, whom he recently nominated to the Supreme Court, about abortion. In fact, Bush said no such thing; he may have started to say something to that effect, but he stopped himself in mid-sentence.
During the press conference, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell asked Bush, "Have you ever discussed with Harriet Miers abortion? Or have you gleaned from her comments her views on that subject?" What ensued was an exchange between Bush and O'Donnell in which he gave answers that dodged the specific questions she was asking, as she tried repeatedly to pin him down. By the end of the exchange, Bush seemed on the verge of saying that he had never spoken about the subject with Miers but stopped short -- prompting O'Donnell to later report that Bush had been "notably cautious" in his response.
From the October 4 White House press conference:
BUSH: I have no litmus test. It's also something I've consistently said: There is no litmus test. What matters to me is her judicial philosophy; what does she believe the role -- the proper role of the judiciary is, relative to the legislative and the executive branch. And she'll be asked all kinds of questions up there, but the most important thing for me is what kind of judge will she be? And so there's no litmus tests.
O'DONNELL: Sir, you've already said there was no litmus test --
BUSH: Correct. And I'll say it again: There is no litmus test.
O'DONNELL: But she is not someone you interviewed for the job that you didn't know. You've known her a long time. Have you never discussed abortion with her?
BUSH: In my interviews with any judge, I never ask their personal opinion on the subject of abortion.
O'DONNELL: In your friendship with her, you've never discussed abortion?
BUSH: Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her -- what I have done is understand the type of person she is and the type of judge she will be.
Bush's assertion that "In my interviews with any judge, I never ask their personal opinion on the subject of abortion" did not answer the question O'Donnell asked: "Have you never discussed abortion with her?" Although Bush did interview Miers, his answer would mean only that he never asked her about abortion in that interview; he has worked closely with her for years and would have had plenty of other opportunities to learn her beliefs on the subject. O'Donnell seemed aware that Bush has had many other opportunities to determine Miers's position on abortion, and asked the president whether in his friendship with Miers the subject had ever come up.
In the final portion of his answer, Bush seemed about to say that he has never discussed abortion with Miers, remarking, "Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her." But Bush stopped short of saying what some in the media have reported that he said -- that he never discussed the issue with her. Instead, he said only, "what I have done is understand the type of person she is and the type of judge she will be."
Press reports go beyond Bush's statement
Reporting on her exchange with Bush on the October 4 edition of NBC's Nightly News, O'Donnell noted that Bush's response to her question had been "notably cautious":
O'DONNELL: Fifty-five minutes in the Rose Garden, more than a dozen different subjects, with one woman at the center.
[CLIP] BUSH: I don't have to guess and speculate about Harriet.
O'DONNELL: But even in the president's own party, many say Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's views are unknown. So Mr. Bush used the "trust me" argument.
[CLIP] BUSH: I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now, she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today.
O'DONNELL: What is her philosophy on an issue like abortion?
[CLIP] BUSH: I have no litmus test.
O'DONNELL: With Miers, the president repeatedly stressed their years of close friendship. But when pressed, had they ever talked about abortion? He was notably cautious:
[CLIP] O'DONNELL: In your friendship with her, you've never discussed it?
BUSH: Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her.
But numerous other reporters apparently heard more than Bush actually said. For instance, The New York Times wrote on October 5, "The president also said he did not recall ever talking to Ms. Miers, whom he has known for more than a decade, about her personal views on abortion, and he reiterated that he was a 'pro-life president' who nonetheless had no litmus test on the issue for judicial candidates." The Associated Press reported on October 5 that Bush "insist[ed] that he doesn't recall ever talking to Miers about abortion," and The Washington Post's report actually appended the missing words to Bush's quote: "And just as [Justice Clarence] Thomas told the Senate [during his confirmation hearings] that he never voiced a position on Roe even privately, Bush said he never talked about the topic with Miers. 'Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her' to talk about abortion, he said."
Television and radio reports also mischaracterized Bush's remarks. For example, National Public Radio (NPR) White House correspondent Don Gonyea reported on the October 4 broadcast of All Things Considered that "the president says he doesn't know where Miers stands on abortion." On the October 5 edition of CNN's American Morning, national correspondent Bob Franken reported that "when pressed, the president said that even though he has known Harriet Miers a long time, he could not recall ever speaking to her about abortion."
Several other reporters besides O'Donnell provided a more accurate representation of what Bush said --and didn't say -- in the press conference. On the October 4 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, chief White House correspondent John Roberts preceded Bush's remark by reporting that "President Bush wasn't giving anything on what he knew from their personal relationship." Similarly, an October 5 report in the Los Angeles Times noted that Bush "sidestepped questions about whether he and Miers ever discussed her views on abortion":
He [Bush] also sidestepped questions about whether he and Miers ever discussed her views on abortion, saying instead that he had "no litmus test" for the nomination. "In my interviews with any judge, I never ask their personal opinion on the subject of abortion," Bush said.
Asked if the subject had come up in more informal conversation, he said, "Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her."
Although Bush did interview Miers, his answer would mean only that he never asked her about abortion in that interview; he has worked closely with her for years and would have had plenty of other opportunities to learn her beliefs on the subject.
-------------------------------------------
Talk about pure speculation..............you guys are reaching. Provide a link or some sort of proof that he talked to her about abortion, but quit guessing.
Dave,
I watched the video. Didn't you? I'll bet you had trouble telling when your kids were lying too.
Cheer up, Dave. MMFA is pointing out that Bush didn't lie for a change.
- Bush seemed on the verge of saying that he had never spoken about the subject with Miers - mmfa ================================================================
Remember this mmfa headline, "NYT's Bumiller purported to read Meir's mind"?
Looks like mind reading is OK as long as it's mmfa that does the reading. No wonder some have referred to it as a "creepy little site".
Where is MMFA reading minds? I don't see it. They are pointing out the difference between what happened and how the media is reporting it. Do you deny there is a difference there? If so, how?
The man said he never discussed it with her. Fair enough. Unless you guys can prove it otherwise, just step aside and remove it from the post. This is a non starter by MMFA.
he didn't really say he'd never discussed it with her. he used the curious phrase that he'd "never sat down with her", as in have a formal discussion. but the question was had it come up informally. his answer was a bit too crafted.
Who cares if Bush and Miers talked about abortion. Is this the only thing you lefties care about? You're obsessed!!! Abortion will always be legal so stop your fussing.
Not if Miers is confirmed.
"Not if Miers is confirmed."
by blueblood
**********************************
I'll probably be sorry I asked, but why do you think that?
The President has claimed he has no litmus test on abortion. He also would like us to believe he never talked about abortion ever with Miers, but did not say that explicitly.
This is just evidence to consider when the talking heads say that the President is a "straight shooter" or something to the effect that he doesn't care about his image or polls.
The Republican Party has put forth a very deceptive plan to seat a very conservative person to the Supreme Court in a way the Democrats would not mount any serious opposition to the nomination. I am not fooled one bit by the immediate outrage response from the Republican Party when Miers was nominated. I have never seen the Republicans automatically discount one of their own, especially with this partisan Congress and Senate. It looks like the plan is to disagree at first, then at the last minute, claim they have had a change of heart. They are hoping their initial disagreement will trigger a partisan support response from the Democrats. The plan will, if it works, will get Miers appointed in unanimous fashion.
by joseph_b26 - Thursday October 6, 2005 09:06:04 AM EST ------------------------------
joseph: It looks like the plan is to disagree at first, then at the last minute, claim they have had a change of heart. They are hoping their initial disagreement will trigger a partisan support response from the Democrats. The plan will, if it works, will get Miers appointed in unanimous fashion.
Response: I think a better "plan" would be to listen to what Meirs has to say at her confirmation hearing and then vote up or down according to her responses. Or is that being too cynical? Also, if 22 Dems voted against Roberts then I don't see how a "unanimous" confirmation is in the cards for anybody. The Dems split on Roberts 22-22, with the blue state Dems mostly voting no and the Red staters voting yes. I certainly don't see Meirs getting MORE support than Roberts got from Democrats, and she might get less support from Republicans.
The problem with that approach is that we have to assume she won't lie at her confirmation hearings. Fat chance of that. What incentive does she have to be honest? The White House won't release her papers; if she tells the truth, it could cost her a lifetime appointment to a cushy dream job. She'll lie.
by nerzog - Thursday October 6, 2005 10:34:23 AM EST --------------------------
If she gets caught in a lie, I think that would finish her nomination so that would be her incentive to not do so IMO. I think we should listen to her answers with an open mind, and scrutinize her answers with due diligence. What truth would she tell that would hurt her, do you think?
Well, since she will be confirmed no matter what, I guess you have a point. However, if she admitted that she is just Bush's toady who is totally unqualified for the position and that she intends to vote in lockstep with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, it could be briefly embarrassing for the President, at least until the press moved on to another celebrity pregnancy or something. It would not, however, affect her chances for confirmation, since the Republicans will probably rubber stamp whoever Bush sends them.
I stand corrected; She'll lie to avoid embarrassing the most brilliant man she knows, not to secure her confirmation.
I think we're just seeing a conflict between the two sides of the Republican party. The side that is able to get the red-state voters fired up concentrates on social conservate issues. That's the G3 crowd (God, Gays and Guns) along with the pro-lifers, Terri Schiavo supporters and people who believe Democrat are Satan's minions.
The other side doesn't give a crap about any of that. The corporatist side is singleminded in creating a federal goverment that is of big business, for big business and by big business. This side provides the funding, the media, and the hired guns who churn out conservative talking points day after day. In return, this side expects tangible benefits in the forms of government contracts, tax breaks, deregulation, tort reform, elimination of worker rights, etc.
If you look at what the Republicans have done while in office, it's obvious that most of their efforts have benefited the Corporatist side. If they can easily throw a bone to the GGG crowd, they will, but their real work and arm-twisting is saved for pro-corporate legislation like the Medicare Rx plan, CAFTA, and bankruptcy reform.
If the fundies ever wake up and realize that all they're ever going to get is promises -- then yeah, I could see them getting pissed. If the theocrats are upset about Miers, I'd go with the hypothesis that she's Corporatist to the bone and that they've realized that they can't count on her to rock the boat on their pet religious issues.
Trust Me is about as real as the weapons of mass destruction. I feel so much better knowing that Pat Robertson has personally talked to the President and vice president about Ms Meirs, Scarey the world we live in now. Do you think that all religions are expressing their views at the same table as Robertson. Somehow I doubt it. When oh when will we become outraged at this so called caring conservative administration. Oh thats right were more interested in Tom & Katies pregnancy news.
"George Bush is the most brilliant man I've ever met."
"Harriet Miers is the most qualified person I could find."
These are two of the most obvious lies I've ever heard.
George assured us, "In my interviews with any judge, I never ask their personal opinion on the subject of abortion."
Of course, Miers is not a judge. All Bush has really said is that he didn't "sit down with her". It's a carefully parsed non-denial denial. Given his propensity for lying, I don't believe any of it.
It is naive to think that they didn't discuss it. Does it matter? Probably not.
The problems with this nomination is that Bush selected a "buddy", cronyism even after Brown, and that no one can know what these people think. How is it that you can conduct a job interview and not know a single thing about the applicant? I suggest that Democratic Senators abstain from the vote. They can't vote either way and still be doing their Constitutional duty.
Cheer up, Dave. MMFA is pointing out that Bush didn't lie for a change.
by Sagra -
----------------------------
They are actually pointing out that they have no idea whether Bush talked to her about abortion or not, and have no way of proving it, but are speculating that indeed he had. Usually, this is a well researched site, but this one leads me to believe that they are no better than O'Reilly.
Sorry, Dave, you're barking up the wrong tree. The MMFA report simply points out that media outlets are reporting that Bush denied talking to her about abortion. If you read his remarks, he really didn't deny it. He sort of danced around it, but left himself enough wiggle room so that he really can't be pinned down either way.
The misinformation is not necessarily from Bush, but those who are putting words in his mouth.
Although Bush did interview Miers, his answer would mean only that he never asked her about abortion in that interview; he has worked closely with her for years and would have had plenty of other opportunities to learn her beliefs on the subject.
--------------------------------
This is not a statement from "other media outlets", this is a cut and paste sentence from MMFA. They are inferring that GW may have talked to her about her viewpoints on abortion upon which they have no proof, and as I pointed out, they are merely guessing.
"he has worked closely with her for years and would have had plenty of other opportunities to learn her beliefs on the subject."
Which part of that statement is false?
The bottom line is that he didn't really deny asking her about it. A little deductive reasoning easily leads to the conclusion that her views on abortion are well known to him and people like James Dobson, who would not so openly support her otherwise.
I know it's your mission to discredit MMFA, but you don't have a case here.
I find it very interesting that Bush supposedly has absolutely NO IDEA what stance Miers has after being examined for the nomination:
O'DONNELL: In your friendship with her, you've never discussed abortion?
BUSH: Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her -- what I have done is understand the type of person she is and the type of judge she will be.
My interpretation is that Bush tried to stop himself from lying. In that obvious pause he was about to add "and talked about abortion" or something to that effect. He ended up lying anyway because there is no way anyone will believe that he has never sat down with her.
Meanwhile people like Dobson and Cheney are giving their base assurances that they know her personally as well and they like the political positions she has. BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK TOO MUCH ABOUT THEM!
[link to mediamatters.org]
[link to mediamatters.org]
She was meant to be a stealth anti-abortion candidate plain and simple. Their plans were foiled because other Republican groups suprisingly questioned Bush's choice because she is not openly anti-abortion. Thus resulting in Cheney and Dobson's statements where they tried to let their base have a peek at the cat in the bag but not let it out.
Why does it matter wether she is for or against abortion. 50 percent of this country is against it. Just because she doesn't believe or does believe in abortion doesn't mean she is going to judge poorly in judicial matters once appointed to the Supreme Court.
The big deal here is if she is for abortion all the liberals will jump and praise and if she is against abortion then liberals automattically mark her as unfit to be on the supreme court. The sad thing is none the nominees personal beliefs should matter. What matters is if they will be no-biased in their interpretation of the law, that is all that matters. Whether she believes in abortion, gun control, or the like doesn't matter. What she ate for brkfst doesn't matter either.
Good god people, look at whether she is qualified not about how she believes. Per the constitution, no job in the government can limit a person because of ones beliefs but whether or not they are QUALIFIED for the job.
Get it right folks.
Anyone who is for overturning Roe-Wade is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Unfit by reason of stupidity. Sending this matter to the individual states is stupid, and too stupid to serve, on two counts.....1.) The idea that Ms. South Dakota can have access to this reproductive option and Ms. North Dakota cannot is absurd on it's face. Then you just force Ms. North Dakota to drive down the highway a bit to see the doctor for this reason...2.) 50 state legislatures fighting it out over this issue is very stupid, again allowing such is much too stupid to serve. Real and pressing issues will be set aside while the state representatives battle it out over abortion, with the most extreme elements of the pro-life and pro-choice gangs breathing down their necks.....And then after all 50 state battles are settled, then women from illegal states, simply drive to a legal one. And not only that, as the state legislatures change party hands in this or that election, then the new party in power re-legalizes abortion or vice-versa. And as the Governorship changes hands, possible vetos of any legislation that is passed, if the executive seat is of the opposing party to the legislature.
We need to say this without reservation or qualification. Overturning Roe is sheer and abundant stupidity. And anyone for that is an extremist. A stupid extremist. And we certainly don't need to find out in what other cases they might roll the clock backwards.
Frankly, The Roe decision may well have been the wisest decision ever rendered by a court of human beings. There's no need to tamper with it, particularly tampered with by people trying to get to heaven.
So by your methodology then, you are saying about 50 percent of the United Stated population are stupid because they are against abortion. Do you realize that you are not the center of the universe and that there is a reason why our ancestors fought for our states rights.
It should be up to the states to decide, that is the whole premise of our country.
So by your methodology then, you are saying about 50 percent of the United Stated population are stupid because they are against abortion. Do you realize that you are not the center of the universe and that there is a reason why our ancestors fought for our states rights. It should be up to the states to decide, that is the whole premise of our country.-by apache25
***
Gee I think you may need to educate some of those conservative "states rights" republicans about that premise.
Ok, so if we play your game and they leave it up to the states to decide on the abortion issue; do you suppose the administration will leave the states alone to make their own laws or do you think it is much more likely they will pull the same stunt they are pulling in Oregon and decide when they don’t agree with the states law they will go back to SCOTUS and try to have the states laws overturned. And then we come full circle once again.
50%? More like 35%.
False read below.
According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.
I also guaranteed not much has changed in those departments in the last 4 years.
Sorry Charlie, I don't listen to conservatives who quote poll numbers. You guys spent the entirety of Clinton's 8 years preaching that polls are bogus, and can be made to give any answer desired. Try again.
1: I am not a conservative. So I disagree with a person on abortion I am deemed conservative. Quite funny how you can make an accusation about someone on one viewpoint.
2: How else do you want to measure the fact that more people are against a 16 yearold getting her cherry popped and getting pregnant and instead of putting up with the responsibility or putting it up for adoption, she should just kill the baby.
This is boring. Regardless of whether Roe is ever overturned or not, there will always be many states who will remain in the 21st century and that will maintain abortion rights for any women from anywhere who wishes to make that choice. The entire debate is ridiculous......In fact it's so ridiculous, that if the matter is ever returned to the states, you can count on this scenario happening for sure----The politicians of some hick, rural, red state in the backrooms making the decision---Look guys we KNOW there will be thousands of women from our state who will want abortions for various reasons. We can make it illegal here, and play the moral high ground, but there will be some nearby state where they can go for it....RIDICULOUS
kenkong, is that you?
"I also guaranteed not much has changed in those departments in the last 4 years."
Did you know that in the time you took to type that sentence, you could use Google to find out where you went wrong?
First off, I challenge your 50% against figure...There may be 50% personally against abortion. All of them are not the stupid extremists. The stupid extremists are the ones that want their personal opposition translated into law for everyone else too.....And needless to say almost the totality of conservative opposition to abortion rights is a sham. Let their 16 year old daughter come home pregnant by Tyrone of the high school basketball team, and the tune will change VERY quickly.
That may be the case but that 16 year old made a mistake and there for should put up with the responsibility or put the kid up for adoption.
You do know there is adoption, another life giving alternate.
That whooshing sound was the point.
She thinks Bush is the "most brilliant man she's ever met". That's all I need to know about her judgement.
"Whether she believes in abortion, gun control, or the like doesn't matter."
If we were dealing with honorable people, you would have a point. She is a Bush loyalist, and by all accounts, extremely religious. People with those two characteristics demonstrated during the Terri Schiavo debacle that they have no respect for the Judicial branch of government. The idea that she might subjugate her judicial "sense of duty" to her Religious and Political ideology is entirely credible. Scalia has done it, and so has Thomas. I suspect that Roberts will, as well.
If forced to choose, will she side with God and the Bible or the Constitution? It's a question worth asking.
People with those two characteristics demonstrated during the Terri Schiavo debacle that they have no respect for the Judicial branch of government. The idea that she might subjugate her judicial "sense of duty" to her Religious and Political ideology is entirely credible. Scalia has done it, and so has Thomas. I suspect that Roberts will, as well. -by nerzog
***
Just one note about the Schiavo thingy. The judges in that case actually did respect the law and their role. It was the legislative and executive branch that got it all backwards. In fact the much maligned judge who actually decided the case, please forgive me his name escapes me at the moment, was a conservative and religious man…and he did not let that effect his decision…even when his church wanted to give him the boot for his decision. And SCOTUS refused to hear it if I’m not mistaken so there is hope that they are not always willing to abandon all reason in favor of their personal held beliefs.
by lostlogic - Thursday October 6, 2005 03:21:34 PM EST
Excellent post and I think you're right on the money. And yes the Supreme Court did refuse to review it. I would only add that to question the judicial branch is not the same as disrespecting them. Also, if one is to err, can we all agree that it is most understandable to question ANYONE and err, when the question is life and death? In another post here, someone stated as a matter of fact that Scalia and Thomas had subjugated their duty; "The idea that she might subjugate her judicial "sense of duty" to her Religious and Political ideology is entirely credible. Scalia has done it, and so has Thomas I suspect that Roberts will, as well." That is that writers opinion and he is questioning two judges, if not disrespecting them. Why can John Q. Public question and be critical of a judge(s), and our elected Representatives cannot? I would doubt that the writer of that accusation can supply any proof of his allegation in the form of concrete legal reasoning, not Howard Deanish babble.
by carramba - Thursday October 6, 2005 03:34:58 PM EST
***
The difference: the Republicans didn’t just question or disagree with the decision the judicial branch made (over and over again). They went and passed unconstitutional legislation (over and over again) and issued absurd subpoenas to have the judicial branch and their decisions made obsolete.
Exactly. I wasn't talking about the judges themselves, but the Religious Right pundits who were all over the news lambasting those judges. If anyone considers their behavior "respectful", I guess we have different definitions.
"I would doubt that the writer of that accusation can supply any proof of his allegation in the form of concrete legal reasoning, not Howard Deanish babble."
Just read any of Scalia's writings or speeches about Separation of Church and State.
"Just one note about the Schiavo thingy. The judges in that case actually did respect the law and their role. It was the legislative and executive branch that got it all backwards. In fact the much maligned judge who actually decided the case, please forgive me his name escapes me at the moment, was a conservative and religious man…and he did not let that effect his decision…even when his church wanted to give him the boot for his decision. And SCOTUS refused to hear it if I’m not mistaken so there is hope that they are not always willing to abandon all reason in favor of their personal held beliefs."
--------------------------------------------------------
It was Judge Grier BTW. (I may have misspelled it, I am in a hurry -- maybe Greer?.)
That is a good point and I believe there are good judges on both sides of the political divide that are capable of observing precedent and the Constitution well. However, it has been noted before that the Supreme Court has the power to overturn/revisit precedent that the lower courts like Judge Grier's do not have. The analogy is not solid in that sense.
Still per the constitution it doesn't matter how she believes, it is whether she is qualified. Trying to guess what she may or may not due when in there is rediculous. You have no idea what she is going to do. You preach of following the constitution yet you do not want to follow it when determining a Justice of the Supreme Court.
I will say it again, per the CONSTITUTION, a person will be given a yes or no for a government job on qualifications not personal beliefs.
You can not have it both ways folks. You either want the constitution 100% or not at all. You can not just take parts of it and want that part upheld but not uphold other parts of it.
She has that right to keep her personal beliefs per the constitution to herself and I think she should.
Fair enough. However, anyone who thinks she is the "most qualified" person available has a tenuous grip on reality. This appointment reeks of cronyism and CYA on the part of the Bush administration.
Now see that is a valid argument.
I agree with you, I do not think she is fully qualified for the job.
- Where is MMFA reading minds? I don't see it. - openmind ================================================================
Bush seemed on the verge of saying that he had never spoken about the subject with Miers - mmfa
Pretty simple.
"Bush seemed on the verge of saying that he had never spoken about the subject with Miers" --rocketman
-------------------------------------------------------
They said "seemed".
Main Entry: seem
Pronunciation: 'sEm
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English semen, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse s[oe]ma to honor, s[oe]mr fitting, samr same -- more at SAME
1 : to appear to the observation or understanding
2 : to give the impression of being
--------------------------------------------------
Not so simple. Seemed means it was based on observation. "Reading minds" is not based on observation. It is based on going inside someone's head and knowing their thoughts.
Keep trying. Or is that all you got?