Yeah, the Yale one. She and her pals gave the agents the slip by driving down I-95 from New Haven to New York at more than 100 mph. They were on their way to a World Wrestling Federation event at Madison Square Garden.
The speeding doesn’t bother me as much as the fact she was going to a WWF thing. I guess she’s getting as much out of the Ivy League education as her old man did.
I think this entire thread is just another excuse to bash a Clinton. All we have here is another case among thousands of a man in his 50’s getting a BJ from a consenting adult.
This has absolutely no impact in the real world, and I can’t see how a thread like this counts as a “Great Debate.”
Now that my liberal leanings have been exposed, I’ll surprise you and say that I think we should stay the hell out of her business. She probably should get a few days in jail, purely to scare her. She might be able to determine if she’s just a party girl, or if she has a real problem that she needs help dealing with. That said, I don’t blame the media for reporting it, those gates have been opened for a while now.
I have to agree with DSYoungEsq regarding the drinking/driving connection. When I was in Germany, the minimum drinking age was around 16, but the minimum driving age was 18, and it was also very expensive to get licensed. I think the theory was to let them get their “ya-yas” out before they were able to get behind the wheel. I’m guessing that most American teens wouldn’t want to give up the privelege of driving for two years, even if they could then legally drink at a younger age.
I’m going to have to go against the grain and say that I prefer Barbara. It’s always the quiet ones. 
DMC hit my view on this right on the head. Why the hell do I care? She did something stupid. Clinton did something stupid. Neither one affected the country in any way at all. So the president’s daughter isn’t the quickest kid on the block. Let her do what she wants, and get over it.
But Freedom, you do realize how hypocritical all that is after the Clinton thing, right?
Well we certainly don’t know what Bush thinks about underage drinking now because he won’t make a public statement but back in 1997 when he was governor of Texas…
http://www.tcada.state.tx.us/newview/aug1997/frontpage.html
Needs2know
Howza bout we allow 18-year-olds to drink beer or other low-alcohol alcoholic beverages, but keep the drinking age for Jack Daniels at 21? Isn’t that how they do it in Germany, or someplace?
I don’t agree.
Clinton’s “stupid” actions made him vulnerable to blackmail. We can never be certain whether or not any blackmail ever took place.
They also led to an impeachment drama that shut down the federal government for a considerable period of time.
Also the entire business left the country more tolerant of misbehavior by government officials. E.g., 30 or 40 years ago, Wilbur Mills resigned from Congress because there was a scandal when it was discovered that he had a girlfriend on the government payroll. I forgot his name, but about 15 years ago a western Senator resigned becasue he was hitting on women. Unfortunately those standards are probably gone for now.
The crimes and ethical failures of the Bushes continue to bring shame and embarrassment to our once-proud nation. When will our collective nightmare end?
And please: where is the Secret Service during all this? What has her protective detail been promised - or given - in order to turn a blind eye to her alcoholism-driven crimes? Don’t they care if she turns into an idle, worthless drunk for 20 years (like her dad did)? Or gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone (like her mom did)? I guess it will have to take something like that before something is done. What a damn shame.
One thing I DO know is that nothing will happen to her over this classless incident … maybe she’ll have to pay court costs, but it won’t come from her pocket.
GQ aside: After the whole “bailing out her boyfriend” thing that happened earlier, I was curious about this exact subject.
I recently had the opportunity to speak to a real, live retired secret service officer whose postings included protection of offspring of primary protectees (he didn’t disclose whether they were presidential, candidates, foreign dignitaries, etc.)
Generally speaking, they are in the protection business, not the law enforcement business. If a protectee wants to pass a fake ID, they’ll stand there (rolling their eyes, probably) while the protectee passes a fake ID. If the protectee wants to have a drink, s/he has a drink.
They do have limits as to what they personally are willing to witness. Drugs are one. If a protectee were to want to toke up, the agents would say something like, “Well, we’re not with you 24/7 – we don’t follow you into your dorm room, for example. So here’s what we’re telling you. Do it in front of us, and we will turn you in. But you’re not always in front of us. Hint.”
We can never be certain whether or not he was abducted and replaced by a Chinese agent who had plastic surgery to look like him, either. If you’re going to fantasize, at least be able to point to something.
Was the larger irresponsibility on Clinton’s part for getting a blowjob, or on the part of those who shut down the government to get HIM?
Yep, these things used to be considered “youthful indiscretions”, even when they were 7-year-long affairs that broke up marriages. Just ask Henry Hyde. And add Bob Livingston, Newt Gingrich, and Helen Chenoweth while you’re at it.
Do you even know the meaning of the word “hypocrisy”, my friend? I think it’s in the same dictionary as “compassionate” and “conservative”.
I am astonished at any attempt to draw a parallel between Jenna Bush’s criminal actions and Bill Clinton’s criminal actions.
Jenna is not the president. Bill was.
The best parents can have disappointing children, and the worst parents exceptional children. Any inference made as to a man’s ability to lead the country that’s based on his family’s behavior in situations like this is useless.
The moment someone credibly alleges that the president sought to influence the outcome of these legal proceedings, I’ll agree that we have a presidential scandal. FOr the moment, we simply have a idiotic teenager, of which there are no dearth in this country.
Why is it that when this happens to someone else’s young son or daughter in Texas it’s George Bush’s “bidness”, his and the Texas Ledgislature but when it’s his child there is no public response from either parent. This was my point in the first thread on this subject. The hypocracy of George W. Bush and his supporters is astounding. He vows to tighten up on granting loans to youthful offenders but asks us to overlook his drunken wastral past. As governor he helps to institue legislation to punish youthful offenders more strenuously, but says nothing when his own child obviously shows a lack of respect for the very laws he’s helped to enact. Not only that he sends his mouthpiece to vaguely warn the media to mind their own “bidness” on this issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/up-srv/aponline/20010531/aponline134111_000.htm
Yes, I do find our new president and most of his party rethoric to be hypocritical, it’s policies Machiavellian and at times damned right barbaric. I could care less if the man is a dry drunk. So what, my father is too. But remember that when you tell us that you didn’t want us to know the breadth and depth of your drinking problem because you didn’t want the “girls” to be affected by the revelation, get real! I’ve lived with a drunk, so have my kids, believe me George the girls know.
Needs2know
In the paper this morning it said the friend she was riding with zipped through a toll booth with an EZ-Pass, while the Secret Service was left fumbling for change. They eventually caught up to her.
As for the OP, I think she thinks she can get away with it, just because Daddy’s the President.
And yeah, where is her Secret Service detail while this is going on? I know they are really there just to protect her from terrorists and kidnappers, but are they in any way responsible for her behavior? What if she tried to commit a crime like knocking over a convenience store? Would they even step in? Were they in the restaurant?
And where are Mom and Dad? In DC, I guess, but were the girls at home in Texas alone?
(I know they can be left home alone, but it would seem Jenna can’t be left home alone.)
Ahem. Chas, let me give a simple, real life example of the problems with alcohol laws and campuses.
I attended Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. from 1986-90. In 1986, the law in D.C. was that you had to be 18 to purchase beer and wine, and 21 to purchase hard alcohol. Georgetown’s alcohol policy reflected the law - beer and wine were fine, but hard alcohol was banned from campus (this wasn’t really enforced, but few drank hard alcohol - why should you, when beer and wine were legal?)
That year, the law was changed to make all alcohol legal only at age 21, with a grandfather clause. In response, Georgetown changed its rules the next school year - freshman dorms were dry, and restrictions were placed on upper classmen drinking (rather bizarre ones, I might add: a complex mathematical formula for amount of alcohol allowed at parties, and amount of “alternative beverages” that must be provided).
The result? In the 1986-1987 school year, the on-campus EMS service transported 7 students to the ER for alcohol poisoning. In 1987-1988, the number jumped to over 90. Why? freshman could no longer bring beer into their dorms, and it is a lot easier to smuggle in bottles of vodka than a keg. The moral of the story: college kids are going to drink; we should do what we can to make it safe.
BTW, you are incorrect, or at least incomplete, in saying that there is a culture of binge drinking on college campuses. Correctly, there is a culture of binge drinking among teenagers in America. I probably went to wilder parties in high school than in college, and I can tell you that my friends who choose not to go to college partied just as hard as my matriculating comrades. Finally, I see no evidence that a “culture of drinking” replaces a “culture of education”. Georgetown in my day was definitely a “party school” - as was the U.Va., N.Y.U., U.Wisc., Stanford, Colgate, Williams, and several other colleges with excellent academic reputations.
There is also a point to be made from the POV of legal philosophy. The worst thing society can do is promulgate laws that are roundly ignored. Enacting such laws, be they no drinking until 21 or no going faster than 65, act only to create a culture of disrespect for the law in general, even those laws which do make sense and should be respected.
Finally, onto the Bush kids. When the first Bush Beer eruption occurred, I argued vociferously that the press shouldn’t touch the issue - li’l Bush did not ask to be a public figure. All I can say is that she is making it mighty difficult to stick to that principled position.
V.
I’m afraid I don’t follow the connections you are trying to make.
As a parent, he has no particular responsibility to share his parenting philosophies with the country. His daughter is a legal adult in any event; she cannot be sent to bed without supper. You have, in fact, no business to demand that he explain his responses as a parent to you. If he sought to evade the law, of course, then you would have evry right to demand explanations, or impeachment. But there is no requirement for the President to publicly react to a misdemeanor violation of state law by one of his family members.
You also seem to be suggesting that the President’s own behavior in the past makes him unqualified to propose or enforce legislation in the same area as that misbehavior.
This is, at least, a credible argument.
I don’t agree with it, however. In certain circumstances, I would argue that a recovering alcoholic has more insight into the problems of alcoholism, and to laws surrounding it, than does someone who never had a problem.
Few, if any, U.S. Presidents have been saints. They enforce the law not by virtue of their previous saintliness, but by the collective faith of the people in the constitutional process. If every would-be governor, president, or legislator is required to have lived a guilt-free life before they can govern or legislate, I don’t believe our current system is tenable.
But that’s not the end of it. Obviously, there’s a difference between an offense that occured in the distant past, and one that occurs during the pendency of a term in office. A Congressman that says, “As a teen I once tried coke, I know how terrible it is, and I believe we should ban it,” courts charges of hypocrisy, yes. But a Congressman that does a few lines before morning session loses all credibility.
Between those two extremes lies a wide area. It’s certainly legitimate to make the argument that in W’s case, his reforms came too late, and his excesses were too great for him to have credibility. I don’t agree with that, but certainly respect the point of view.
To argue a per se rule that eliminates any youthful offender from ever serving in office, however, is madness.
Point of order. According to this, the White House has only asked that questions for instance about “gee, what did papa ** say** to daughter when he called?” be relegated to the private arena, they acknowledge that a police report involving the Presidential family is fair game. quoting the White House Press Secretary
I think Jenna should come stay with me.
I will … minister … to her.
Keep 'er on bread and water while you’ve got her, okay? She really needs to lose the Freshman Fifteen.
Note: Do not read the above as a heinous sexist comment, like Scylla calling Chelsea butt-ugly, or something like that. I’m just concerned about the poor thing’s health. (Does anyone know if that brewski she was trying to order was a Lite, BTW?)
I’m no fan of Dubya, but I do think that drawing out Jenna’s most recent incident is making a mountain out of a molehill. She’s a teenager, teens do stupid things, it’s the nature of the beast. Though the fact that this is her second high-profile “incident” in a handful of months says a lot about her (lack of) judgement, IMO.
And say what you will about the Clintons, but Chelsea never did anything this … “interesting”.
There’s a reason why that sentence begins with ‘I’ve heard that’ - I’m making no claims for the claim’s truth, not attempting to pass rumors as facts. The person I heard it from is an acquaintance of hers and goes to UT with her, but I admit he could be lying.
Who told you I was a child molester?