Patterico's Pontifications

10/11/2005

No, She Didn’t — But She Didn’t Do What Dafydd ab Hugh Said, Either

Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 8:37 pm



Dafydd ab Hugh says:

Despite the newest charge sweeping the blogosphere, Laura Bush did not call Miers opponents “sexist.”

True enough. She said she thought it was “possible.”

If Dafydd had stopped there, I’d have no quarrel with his post. I also applaud him for noting that — contrary to the suggestions of some — Matt Lauer asked the question, and Laura Bush simply responded.

But Dafydd goes further than that, arguing that the news services have completely botched the transcription in a misleading way. And I don’t think they did.

Here is Dafydd’s own transcription of the relevant portion of the interview (starting at about 8:28 of the video at this link):

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

Laura Bush: That’s possible. I think —

Lauer: How would you feel about that?

Laura Bush: That’s possible. I think she is so accomplished that… I know, I think that people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things. She was the first, uh, woman managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm.

Based on this transcription, Dafydd argues:

What a difference a single interruption makes! In the deceptive version being pedaled by Reuters and the Post, they have Laura say sexism was possible and then repeat it for emphasis: “I think that’s possible.” This has the subtextual effect of making it appear certain that the First Lady was agreeing with Lauer’s question, that critics were motivated by sexism.

But in reality, Lauer asked the question and paused; Mrs. Bush started to answer and was cut off by Lauer, who finished asking the question… so the First Lady, being a trouper, simply re-commenced her same answer. She did not say “that’s possible… I think that’s possible;” she dismissed the charge with a curt “that’s possible,” then started a new sentence on a different topic.

That’s not how I hear it — at all. Contrary to Dafydd, I don’t hear a pause in the sentence: “I think that’s possible.” Here is my own transcription of the relevant portion of the exchange:

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

Laura Bush: That’s possible.

Lauer: How would you feel about that?

Laura Bush: [The beginning of this sentence runs together with the end of Lauer’s previous sentence:] I think that’s possible. I think she is so accomplished [etc.] …

Dafydd’s argument is based entirely on his hearing a break in the sentence: “I think that’s possible.” But I just don’t hear it. The sentence is unbroken.

Also, I think that even if Dafydd is right (and I don’t think he is), it’s a distinction without a difference, as one of Dafydd’s commenters notes.

However, I like Dafydd’s overarching point: don’t take anyone’s word for anything. That applies to the pundits Dafydd is criticizing, Dafydd himself — and me. Play the video yourself, look at our respective transcripts, and make up your own mind.

UPDATE: In his post, Dafydd says in an update [but see UPDATE x3 below]:

The charge from Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed (and now Patterico) is, boiled down, that Laura Bush is calling opponents of Miers “sexist.”

Go back and read the beginning of this post. I do not say that — in fact, I agree with Dafydd that she didn’t. She merely said it was “possible.” She didn’t dwell on it. Make of it what you will — I don’t think it amounts to much — but face the facts that are in front of you.

UPDATE x2: Welcome to Instapundit readers. You can find less silly topics discussed on my main page, here.

UPDATE x3: Responding to my first UPDATE, Dafydd has now removed the “and now Patterico” parenthetical from his post.

This was intended to be a corrective post about the media and media criticism, but since some are reading it as substantive commentary on Laura Bush, let me say this:

Let’s get some perspective. Placing to one side what I perceive as an error in Dafydd’s perception of what happened in the video, his larger point is valid. Lauer tried to put these words in Laura Bush’s mouth; she didn’t bring up sexism. She merely said it was “possible,” which of course it is — because anything’s possible. This is not something Miers opponents should get terribly upset over. Even if you reject Dafydd’s (in my view hairsplitting and unconvincing) interpretation of this video, Laura Bush’s comment was just not that big a deal. It really wasn’t.

Having said that, I think Miers opponents can and should object to the President’s decision to nominate Miers. Not only is she not the most qualified candidate, she’s not even the most qualified female candidate. We deserve better.

21 Responses to “No, She Didn’t — But She Didn’t Do What Dafydd ab Hugh Said, Either”

  1. I agree with you that the two versions of Ms. Bush’s quote from the interview are more or less “a distinction without a difference.”

    But I disagree about the meaning and significance of what she said, in either instance. It depends on what the meaning of “possible” is.

    neo-neocon (c1d090)

  2. Good lord! Now we’re going to split the hairs we’ve already split? And to what purpose?

    Step awaaayyy from the keyboard….take a deeeeeeppppp breath…….

    antimedia (6f7384)

  3. Good lord! Now we’re going to split the hairs we’ve already split? And to what purpose?

    I’m not sure. Dafydd seems to think the difference between his transcription and Reuters’s is significant. I’m not so sure . . . but if it is, then I think Reuters got it right.

    So I guess the answer is: accuracy.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  4. She clearly did not say “sexist,” and she did not originate the topic. It looks like a knee-jerk reaction to whatever is in the eyes of the beholder. This is all about you and other commenters, very little about Laura Bush.

    Major Combs (9c65e8)

  5. She clearly did not say “sexist,” and she did not originate the topic.

    I didn’t say she did. In fact, I gave an accurate transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  6. Malkin In The Middle

    And of course, Patterico comes to Malkins defense. After a while, it ain’t about Miers, it is about who gets the last word in.

    Don Surber (f7ace7)

  7. Taking the pause AND Lauer’s additional question between “possibles” out does make all the difference in the way pundits can forcefeed meaning into it. Saying it twice in a row (which she did not do) makes it seem as if she is repeating the word for emphasis. What she is actually doing is trying to get on to her next point. By the way – was she supposed to say it was NOT possible? That no one anywhere had sexism affect their thinking? That there is no sexism in the world?

    Mr. SNicth (12ed9a)

  8. She didn’t bring it up, but she let Lauer lead her down a road I’m betting she wishes she hadn’t traveled.

    I swear, the way people defending this nomination have behaved, from Gillespie calling people sexist and elitist, to Hewitt’s snarky insults, Bush’s incoherent ‘she knows what kind of justice I am looking for’ as if that somehow means she will actually be as if that means anything at all, and now Laura participating in this smear, I really feel like the republican’s normal conservatives supporters have been spit on.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  9. The fact that she didn’t bring it up is significant — and I’m assuming here that Mrs. Bush didn’t have advance notice of the question. I’m inclined to give her a pass on this one, but her following the “sure, it’s possible” with the administration’s talking points — Miers’ was the first woman . . . . blah blah blah — might support Patterico’s take on this one. Of course it would have been better if she had said, “well, probably not” and then described the accomplishments of Miers without the “first woman to [you fill in the blank]” nonsense that makes this appointment look like the President compromised the qualifications just so he could nominate a woman (even though there were a number of other women on the short list whose nomination would never have raised that issue). But I’m assuming that the talking points are the White House’s and not Mrs. Bush’s, and being a loyal trooper, she stuck to the story. I don’t expect her to be quick enough on her feet to parry Lauer’s question. No one really thinks that the criticism of the pick is motivated by sexism, so we should just let this one go. But we should not give the White House a pass on nominating someone whose available record of relevant information is so sparse that we have to reach down to “She was the first woman . . .” That’s the real problem here, not the criticism and not Laura Bush’s unscripted goof on an easy question made difficult by the situation.

    TNugent (58efde)

  10. The right answer was, “No, of course not, Matt. The White House understands that this is not a well-known nominee, and I’m here to introduce the American people to her. She was the first woman to head the TBA, she got an A- in calculus,” etc., etc.

    If Laura Bush can’t duck the utterly predictable slanders from the leftists at the Today Show, she shouldn’t be sent there. And the White House could easily have corrected her gently if there was any actual misunderstanding.

    Sadly, though, I believe that Laura Bush agrees that it’s possible that conservative sexism is to blame for the unhappiness.

    Agricola (62c122)

  11. Agricola, the slander didn’t come from the leftists on the today show — it came from the White House. I’m assuming that Laura Bush isn’t writing the talking points and I don’t really expect her to be quick enough on her feet to duck Lauer’s question, which was pretty much lifted from stuff that had already come out of the White House. The fact that the WH sent her out there is another indication that the nomination is weak — is anyone on the fence going to be persuaded by the fact that Mrs. Bush supports the nominee? The sexism smear is a crap-missile that exploded on lift-off. Anyone who gets too close to the launch site is going to get splattered at least a little bit. It’s too bad Mrs. Bush got in the way. The best thing we critics can do is stand clear. Running toward it to try to shoot down the pieces is not a good strategy. The fact that other women were at or near the top of the critics’ lists speaks for itself.

    TNugent (58efde)

  12. This issue is getting ridiculous. It puts me off of the blogosphere. I’m not spending as much time reading conservative blogs, since activities like the parsing of Laura Bush’s statement seem pointless and self-defeating. What is happening to the rational right wing? It is becoming irrational over this issue.

    Margaret Aten (d5b20a)

  13. Agricola:

    The right answer was, “No, of course not, Matt.

    No it wasn’t. Did didn’t ask if Miers’s opponents are sexist, or even if Laura Bush believed that they were. He asked if it was possible. Of course it’s possible.

    Xrlq (428dfd)

  14. Xrlq,

    I mean the right answer in terms of the way one frames the debate when asked about the politics of the issue, not “what would Aristotle say?”

    “Is it possible that a subconscious aversion toward black people explains your husband’s slow reaction to hurricane Katrina?”

    A. “Well, logically speaking, it’s not completely impossible…”

    B. “No, that’s a ridiculous accusation.”

    Agricola (62c122)

  15. Fiddle Sticks:

    Laura Bush isn’t calling names or pointing fingers. True, she prefers a female nominee, but let’s keep the focus on Harriet Miers, her lack of experience, and other relevant shortcomings.

    Opposition to Miers is growing fast and is already fairly widespread, and some critics may be motivated, if only a teeny tiny bit, by some PC version of one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins. It’s possible. However, when there is so much about the nominee to criticize, why would anyone want to undermine the validity of their position by such irrelevancies?

    Laura Bush didn’t call any names, or point any fingers. She’s a fine woman, and a First Lady we can all be proud of. So, let’s move on to the business at hand, and not let MSM or the inflated egos of blog gods, drag us into a manufactured and useless debate.

    BTW, the Rebel Alliance is winning the fight. I expect Miers to withdraw soon. Likely, within the next several days. Peace and Prosperity Be Upon the Land, and Remember to Keep the Faith.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  16. As a liberal, what I’m about to say is against my best interest, so listen.

    Patterico has the right idea about this. Almost anything is possible. It was a weak statement made to a leading question. So don’t go nuclear over this one.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  17. But we should not give the White House a pass on nominating someone whose available record of relevant information is so sparse that we have to reach down to “She was the first woman . . .” That’s the real problem here, not the criticism and not Laura Bush’s unscripted goof on an easy question made difficult by the situation.

    Agreed.

    Patterico (fb7897)

  18. “…I think that people are not looking at her accomplishments…” What could that possibly mean other than people are prejudging because they are sexist? It wasn’t an “anything is possible” answer. Stop kidding yourselves.

    And Hugh Hewitt doesn’t even think Bush’s crap stinks. He’s a sycophant with very little objectivity, if any.

    Jonesy (b45fd4)

  19. Harriet Miers is Unconstitutional

    Some readers may interpret last week’s broadsides against David Frum and George Will as a backhanded endorsement of Harriet Miers’s nomination, or at least as a representation that Miers opponents are the only ones engaging stooopid argume…

    damnum absque injuria (38c04c)

  20. Adding to the irony, I finally got a chance to watch the Laura Ingraham segment on yesterday’s Hannity and Colmes show to which Michelle Malkin had linked favorably. In it, Ingraham used the very same word – “possible” – to describe the (admittedly remote, which was her point) possibility that Harriet Miers may turn out to be better than Scalia.

    Xrlq (428dfd)

  21. That kind of reminds me of the definition of reasonable doubt, which we criminal lawyers have heard so many times we have it memorized:

    Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

    I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Miers will not be as good as Scalia. But it is *possible* that Harriet Miers will be better than Scalia. It’s also *possible* that the moon has a layer of green cheese about 3 miles under the top layer of rock.

    I consider it much more likely — yet still, on the whole, unlikely — that she will *vote* as reliably as Scalia.

    Patterico (4e4b70)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0800 secs.