Translation: “Don’t tee off on Jenna and Barbara the way the right wing teed off on Chelsea when Clinton was President.”
Goes to show you that nips can’t hide the fact you’re ugly as hell. Wonder how Kerry feels having tits bigger than his daughter.
Of course, the two biggest boobs in the Bush family belong to Barbara the Elder, who had George W. and Jeb.
By the way, my apologies for slipping a joke post into this forum. To answer the original question- if they become public figures, then they lose the right to privacy. However, they should be subject to no more scrutiny than that would be given to anyone else in a similar position. Thus, if they are in the lower echelon of the campaign, then their private lives are no more our business than an anonymous person in an equivalent position. The fact that their last name is Bush shouldn’t expose them to more scrutiny.
“Mr. President, do you have any naked pictures of your daughters?”
“No, of course not.”
“Follow up question, Mr. President: Would you like to buy some?”
Seriously though, IMO digging up dirt on the families of policitians is low class. But that never stops the press from doing so.
The Press doesn’t dig up the dirt; the GOP simply hands it to them.
Why? If he proves incapable of raising his own kids, doesn’t that say something about his ability to run a nation? What makes that any different from his horrible business failures? Are those “personal” as well (along with his legal and military records, it seems)?
Not really. Clinton’s marriage was obviously a failure, and I don’t see how that affected his abilities as president in the least. I objected to having his personal life dragged through the mud; to not object when the same is done to a republican would be simple partisanship.
I’m not sure how much connection there is between private business experience and ability to be president (experience as a politician seems more important to me), but I’m sure one could make a case that it’s relevant. In all honesty, though - I don’t really care that much about military records. To tell the truth, had I been a draftable age during Vietnam, I would have looked for any way out of combat I could. I can hardly blame anyone else for doing the same.
I’m just not into all this moralizing. There are plenty of reasons for me to dislike Bush - I don’t like his policies, I don’t like his performance as president, and frankly, I just don’t think the guy is all that bright. Whether or not his daughters are having growing pains is WAY down on my list.
That’s disputable; after all, unlike a number of his prominent critics, Bill CLinton’s still married to his first wife.
As mentioned, Mr. Clinton is still married to his first wife. I don’t see how this qualifies as “obvious failure.” Maybe Mrs. Clinton views sexuality differently and does not define the sucess or failure of her marriage based on it. I don’t know, I won’t speak for her, but when she could have easily gained a significant political groundswell by rightfully being outraged and divorcing him, she chose to stand by him, and has stood by him to this day. I hardly call that “obvious failure,” though YMMV.
Other than leading him to lie bold faced and screw up his administration for several years, yea, it didn’t have any effect in the slightest. I’m one of those seemingly few people who was more outraged by his lying than by his actions.
Honesty and leadership capability are more important than making pretty speeches and getting out of lies to me, but to each his own.
Wow, are we ever getting off track. My point wasn’t to start a debate over whether Bill’s womanizing constitutes a failed marriage or not. A lot of people thought it did, but I don’t really care to argue about it. My point was that such personal matters are irrelevant to the job of being a president.
Huh? First you argued that his marriage wasn’t a failure, then you argued that it screwed up his administration.
Really? So I guess you were a staunch supporter of Starr’s witch hunt, then? I would have been happy if Clinton had told the truth, too, but I think a lot of people agree with me that whether or not he got a blowjob had fuck-all to do with how he was running the country. I think you are one of the few that thinks personal indiscretions have anything to do with ability to perform the job of being president, but no, I think the only people who were more outraged by his actions were those who were blinded by partisanship. I think the republicans who were busy trying to dig up dirt on Clinton are exactly the same ones who would throw a tantrum when the same thing is done to Bush. And vice versa.
I’m seeing a trend here where it’s O.K. to attack the other party’s guy for family problems and personal matters, but it’s a foul when the other side does it to you.
Nice strawman, there. Exactly where did I say anything about “making pretty speeches and getting out of lies”? And what does that have to do with what you quoted from me? And why did you chop my sentence in half and completely change the context? (hint: the part that starts with but…)
Pretty lame - I think you can do better than that.
I think it is totally unfair to attack Jenna and Barbara Jameson… er, Bush, just because they are the President’s daughters.
I think it still may be necessary to do so.
My concern is the way the Republicans attack the personal lives and families of Democrats without restraint since the Clinton Administration. Look at Monicagate. Look at the things they said about Chelsea Clinton, who was not politically active at all, done from sheer meanness apparently. My concern is that they will continue down this road endlessly, perceiving the Democrats’ unwillingness to respond in kind as simple weakness.
Basically, it as if two people are fighting, and one will punch but will not kick, while the other punches and kicks. Guess which one stands a better chance of winning?
Other than Rush Limbaugh, who can hardly be said to represent the leadership and consensus of “the right wing,” I don’t remember any attacks or commentary directed at Miss Clinton. I may well have missed it - can you refresh my recollection?
- Rick
This piece of shocking news involving a Presidential offspring involved in the '04 campaign has been, amazingly, overlooked.
Chip Carter, son of the former President and enthusiastic Howard Dean volunteer, drives an SUV!!!.
How could this blatant hypocrisy have gone unreported? If I were to foam at the mouth rjung-style, I would have to conclude: DERN LIBERAL MEDIA!
Incidentally, one of my reportorial claims to fame is that I actually interviewed Chip Carter during his father’s re-election campaign. Turgid dullness does not begin to describe the experience.
Again, apart from the need to demonstrate a lack of class, there is zero to be gained from hounding the Bush twins. It can only backfire. Unless of course they are nabbed in a seedy part of town trying to exchange a van load of Bush campaign buttons for crack.
Anybody else remember when Carter claimed he was asking his eight year old daughter for foreign policy advice? And the right wing left her alone.
You might want to be careful about that. I can think of a certain politician currently running for high office who isn’t on his first marriage. But the guy he is running against is. 
Actually, if the twins are going to campaign for their father, hard questions are legitimate. If the Democrats are going to try the “nuts and sluts” approach as they did with Clinton, it may well backfire.
A related question - is Teresa Heinz fair game? Other major contributors to the Kerry campaign?
Regards,
Shodan
Are you seriously suggesting that there’s a reasonable comparison to be made between an eight year old girl who happens to be mentioned by her father in a debate, and a legal adult with a university degree who knowingly involves herself in a political campaign?
Of course, if the twins have inherited their father’s smarts, an eight year old girl might give them a run for their money.
Here’s a reference to a Newsmax story citing “Chelsea Clinton’s public drinking binges.”
Hope that helps.
First of all Amy Carter was thirteen in 1980, not eight.
Secondly, here is the entirety of the the quote which you’re referring to (from the Carter/Reagan debate, Oct. 1980)
It was an offhand remark in the course of a debate. It was not an example of an adult child insinuating herself into the public eye via a campaign. How is this bullshit cite even remotely analogous to the Bush twins?
The statement about Clinton’s marriage was not made in defense of BC’s character as a peson or aas a president, but simple as a rebuttal to an assertion that his marriage was a “failure.”
Frankly, marital succes or lack thereof has no bearing at all ona person’s a bility to be a leader. Reagan dumped his first wife to go knock up Nancy. Hitler married only once and remained with his wife until his death. 
When did Dems try a “nuts and sluts” approach with Clinton? That was the pubbies wasn’t it? I haven’t seen Dems going after the Bush twins either. Their criminal records cannot be blamed on liberals.
Of course. Who has said otherwise? It’s also legitimate that Laura Bush once killed a guy.
Can we get off this, please? I didn’t refer to it as a failure in order to slam Clinton. I said it to make the point that he was still an effective president in spite of the fact that he cheated on his wife. Whether cheating on your wife constitutes a failed marriage is just a semantic argument. The point is that such personal matters have no bearing on ability to govern. This whole “Clinton was more moral than Bush/ Bush is more moral than Clinton” pissing match is really getting annoying.
Thank you. Exactly my point.
Sure, but that was only because Rush Limbaugh and the Ruphert Murdoch smear machine weren’t up and running at the time. If they were, we would have had “NATION LED BY AMY CARTER” emblazoned as the cover story of Fox News that evening.