Generic questions - If family members take an ordinary role in their parent’s election/re-election bid for office, are they more than “ordinary” campaign workers in the sense the media should pay them no mind, unless they create news for themselves? Does the mere bloodline that a parent is running for office create a special circumstance that changes this?
If a family member takes an “active” role in their parents’ campaign, does this change things?
Or, perhaps, does the office in question create a presumption of “active” participation in a campaign? (This question is best answered with respect to a parent running for a local office such as dog catcher, school board rep, or even mayor, as opposed to a state-wide or federal office.)
Should a prior public image (their public problems with alcohol) erase any chance for being ordinary?
Finally, the blatant question - Are Barbara and Jenna “fair game” in the media if they participate in Daddy’s re-election bid, whatever positions in the campaign they may hold? Would they serve their father best by not participating at all?
I’d say they are fair game. I understand that presidents’ children did not choose their place and if they do not want to act as public figures they should not be forced to. But the world of politics is a public one and if they choose to join it volentarily they will have to deal with a public life.
If it’s a dull news day and the Bush twins are out making appearances for Dad, it’s legitimate to hit them with tough questions about the candidate (based on the history of past Presidential offspring, such appearance are generally confined to small media markets desperate for any source of news).
It is not legitimate to grill them about their personal lives, unless they create something new and newsworthy there. Or if they start talking about how a Kerry Presidency would impair the morals of our youth.
Yes, they’re fair game. If they’re working for the campaign then they’re making themselves public figures.
I would great encourage much harassing and hounding by the press and would strongly urge them not to shy away from acquiring naked pictures by any means necessary.
In a perfect world, yes, the act of working on his campaign makes them fair game. Once you officially are attatched, that’s that, you have a responsibility.
In this world, they have been fair game for four years now. Turns out that having embarassing family members can be quite a pain in the butt, especially for someone in public office. It is something you have to live with. In any event, they are his freaking kids. If he isn’t proud of them and the way in which they were raised, that’s another of his problems.
Given Bush’s past as an addict, it is likely that his daughters got their fair share of his addiction genes. That makes it a little tougher, but they have to be more careful. It isn’t like they haven’t had any practice at this - he WAS governor.
‘Fair’ and ‘Politics’ - ?? I can only think of one sentence where the words “politics” and “fair game” make sense when used together ------ “In politics, anyone and everything is “fair game” – if it gets you where you want to go.” Otherwise it’s sort of like looking for a rhyme for “orange.” Fruitless
Yes, anything related to their father’s campaign is fair game.
But their personal lives should be left alone. (Unless of course, it’s something like say, sleeping with members of the Senate to get them to vote for Dad’s tax cuts or something of that nature).
Fair game. They are legally adults, and now way beyond the 18 year old bar and college graduates. a lot of college grads paid their own way, went into deep debt, and are 100% on their own when they graduate.
If these two don’t want to be dragged into politics, then they need to get far away and ask for respect for their privacy. They decided to join battle and being American politics the other side will like it or not leverage any advantage that can be made from the situation.
We’re talking about whether the press much “show respect” to the Bush twins once they become an official part of W’s political machine. They are trading on their own credibility at that point. Anything they do in public is fair game. Anything they do that’s illegal is fair game. The press obviously should not violate any normal privacy laws but as long as they’re out in the agora anything goes…including (hopefully) nude sunbathing which may result in many high quality pictures taken with a telephoto lens.
Reeder said “Anyone who campaigns for any candidate is fair game.”
My attitude is that they deserve the same sort of privacy that any other private citizen does, and while they shouldn’t get special consideration, they shouldn’t be singled out, either. If they’re working for the Bush campaign, they should be treated the same by the press as any other campaign staffer on the level that they are.
My attitude is that the press should ask themselves, “Would this still be a story if their last name is “Smith”?”, and if not, don’t print it.
Obviously, if they’re interviewing for Vogue, no. I just find the scrutiny of the lives of the family of Presidents annoying. I know Chelsea got criticized to no end about her looks (IIRC, Limbaugh called her a dog), when the Bush girls got busted for underage drinking, it was all over the news, the whole Reagan family thing was a melodrama, and Carter got criticized for his brother, if you want a partial list. It’s horribly intrusive against people who have done nothing but been related to a national leader, and it’s unfair. (Personally, I don’t even think the President’s personal life is anyone’s business, but I’m probably in the minority there.
I just know that I wouldn’t like it if my life were scrutinized and my name put in gossip pages just because my father or brother was elected President.
Actually, it seems to me that the media has treated both of them with kid gloves for the past few years. Even their scrapes with alcohol and the law got far less attention than i expected, and what was published about the incidents generally came from outside sources. Journalists were very wary of asking about it around the White House, because Bush made it very clear that his family was off limits. A recent Washington Post article describes the White House position at the time:
And now that they are appearing in Vogue, and look set to join their father’s campaign, they should expect the same attention as any other high-profile figure.
They were fair game before they joined the campaign. Since they will apparently be campaigning a lot among young voters, I’m looking forward to some of their more savvy peers in age handing them some very pointed questions. Like, what do they think daddy’s tax cuts mean to people in their generation who aren’t heiresses, or do they plan to join the military and if not, why not?
Not that I actually expect a straight answer, or the media to cover it.
