N2K, I’ve seen some pretty petty behavior from you, but this thread hits a new low. We know you despise the President, but to go after his daughter is contemptible.
Calling the President “Georgie Porgie” and his daughther “Little Miss Shot Glass” is childish and below the maturity I expect from you.
I am no fan of George W or his policies, and yes, the Election of 2000 still rankles, but like it or not, he is our president. If you wish to criticize his administration or his politics, have at it, but in the name of decency, leave his family alone!
Yeah! Shame on you for calling our illustrious, virtuous, never-erring and devastatingly intelligent president “Georgie Porgie”! Why, during Clinton’s administration, nobody ever stooped to calling him “Slick Willie” or spelling his last name with a K!
I’m with Goboy. Jenna Bush is a private citizen, and a 19 year old college kid, to boot. Should she have drank underage? No. Is it anybody’s business other than her and her family (and maybe assorted friends)? No.
Like Goboy, I’m not a Bush fan, and wasn’t happy about the election, but you know what? That doesn’t matter. Whoever you think “really” got elected, Jenna didn’t. If you want to criticize the President, he’s done, and will do enough himself worthy of criticism, without going after his family.
You are an intentional spreader of ignorance. You have no interest in fairness or justice as long as you can get your potshots in. You will say literally anything that you (stupidly) think advances your position about the president.
In the cited thread you materially misstate the facts concerning press coverage of Chelsea Clinton. It is my belief that you do so intentionally – that you are lying. If instead, you are merely stupid, please let me know and I will revise my remarks accordingly.
The facts are that after a few shocking inappropriate remarks about Chelsea’s physical appearance (some from Republican idiots like Rush, and most famously by the noted conservatives at Saturday Night Live ::rolleyes::, widespread revulsion at bringing an innocent daughter into presidential politics convinced the press and other to leave Chelsea alone. And they did. As they should have. And they should do the same for Jenna Bush.
Further, by titling your thread “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” you seem to be making an implication that the President influenced his daughter to drink. You know that Bush has been a teetotaler for decades. Again, you are being intentionally misleading to try to make some kind of point.
The fact that you would exploit a kid’s normal (if embarrassing to her) exploits to try to make a substance-free and incorrect “point” about the President is reprehensible in the extreme. Candidly, it makes me question whether citizenship should be granted simply by virtue of being born in this country. Because frankly, I’m embarrassed as shit that you are allowed to be a citizen of the same country as me. You are a liar, a coward and utterly without principles at all. Please leave the country and make room for someone who will contribute, you worthless dirtbag.
So because the Republicans acted like jerks, it’s OK for the Democrats to do the same? Tracer, I’ll reiterate it: I don’t like President Bush! But when I criticize him, I’ll do it with more substantive comments than 3rd grade playground namecalling.
And again, leave his family alone! It’s not their fault George W is famous, and they don’t need to have their every move scrutinized. Would you like every dumb thing you did in college splashed across the newspaper and broadcast on TV?
Right target, wrong issue. I give you a 7. (more later)
Needs, my friend, give it up and admit you were wrong. The OP and the thread title was clearly an attack on Miss Bush, rather than an indictment of the “conservative media”. The fact that you didn’t bring up the media issue until after you were under attack is a dead giveaway. Further, your assertions that the media weren’t covering this issue appropriately is undermined by the fact that your OP, in its entirety, consisted of a news article. Don’t pull a DITWD and pretend you weren’t talking about what you were talking about.
goboy, you are absolutely right that cheap shots at Ms. Bush are inappropriate. But taking offense at “Georgie Porgie”?!! That’s downright un-American. We have a long and storied history of nasty nicknames for our Presidents. My personal favorite was “His Accidency”, Tyler’s nickname after he became President upon the death of W.H. Harrison. I believe that was in 1849.
Sua
P.S. Just saw Fiver’s post. I think we can all agree that even if Jenna Bush is a public figure, it’s not by her own doing. While the legal definition is a little messy, I think in all fairness we should consider “public figures” as people who themselves court public attention, not those who are simply related to public figures.
SuaSponte, you are, of course, correct that there is a long and colorful history of nasty invective aimed at the President, my favorite being the rhyme about Grover Cleveland and the rumors he had an illegitimate son, “Ma, Ma, where’s my pa?” “Sitting in the White House, haw, haw, haw!”
I also like the nickname for John Adams, “His Rotundity.” If N2K had come up with something clever, I might not have minded so much, but “Georgie Porgie” is just so dimwitted an epithet.
SuaSponte, you are, of course, corect that there is a long and colorful history of nasty invective aimed at the President, my favorite being the rhyme about Grover Cleveland and the rumors he had an illegitmate son, “Ma, Ma, where’s my pa?” “Sitting in the White House, haw, haw, haw!”
I also like the nickname for John Adams, “His Rotundity.” If N2K had come up with something clever, I might not have minded so much, but “Georgie Porgie” is just so dimwitted an epithet.
So, we’re angry at Needs because he took a “potshot” at Jenna Bush?
Fine, she’s too easy a target, as is any family member of a political figure of the stature of her father.
But when you run for office, you have to expect that it’s going to be open season on your family, and that everything they say and do will be held up to intense scrutiny.
It’s not fair. But there it is. Should the media have just ignored Jenna’s little episode. I don’t think so. She’s an adult — is she not? And had to be aware that actions such as this would be publicized and ridiculed.
This is what is known as a teachable moment, just like the DUI arrest that led her father to sobriety. (Although Dubya had the benefit of anonymity at the time.) I truly hope she quickly follows her dad’s lead here.
Better yet, she should take a lesson from Chelsea, who survived eight years of such scrutiny and came out the only Clinton, next to Socks and Buddy, who was actually a sympathetic and even admirable figure.
But public figures shouldn’t necessarily get a free pass. The scrutiny they receive is the price they pay for their fame. Don’t feel too badly for Jenna; there’s a book deal in there somewhere.
Jon, there’s a difference between saying “Hey, look at that relatively-famous person screw up” and “Hey, look at that relatively-famous person screw up let’s all point and laugh this proves my point that Republicans are evil evil EVIL!!!”
It’s kind of like if your daughter were to fall down and scrape her knee while walking, your neighbors get the cops on you for abuse and negligence. A gross overreaction, and sheer rudeness besides.
I agree that Jenna’s little screwup doesn’t say anything about the Republican party, any more than Albert Gore III’s notorious heavy-foot means Democrats uniformly ignore posted speed limits.
I disagree that we should adopt a hands-off policy for the Bush twins, simply because they didn’t “choose” to be public figures. Like it or not, choose it or not, they’re in the spotlight, and they know it. So if/when they do the stupid things many people their age do, they’re going to suffer magnified consequences for them.
Chelsea was shielded for most of her father’s term by her minority. Jenna and Barbara don’t have that luxury.
On the one hand, common sense should dictate to the Bush girls that because their dad is holds a position of responsibility, they should not do anything to disgrace him. However, to say that they are fair game for ridicule and exposure because their dad is the President is not only asinine, but reprehensibly cruel
I think it’s particularly nice when famous people (who didn’t choose to be famous) get picked on for their looks. Anyone who does this should be ashamed of themselves. When I read a lot of the comments made about Chelsea Clinton, I thought: “This is just a girl, like me. That must feel like shit.”
Grow up, people. There are enough real issues out there without picking on people who did not choose to be in the public eye. Personal attacks are always wrong, especially about appearance.
I’m assuming you’re responding to my last post. If not, I apologize for the assumption.
I don’t know what you mean by “exposure.” Like it or not, choose it or not, Jenna and Barbara are public figures: they’re the First Daughters. This means, inescapably, that their actions will be subject to close media scrutiny. They should understand that if/when they make bad choices typical of people their age, they will not have the luxury of relative obscurity that their peers enjoy. That’s just how it is.
So when they make those bad choices, they know they’re making them as the daughters of the President of the United States. And, again, they’re adults, so presumably aware of the consequences of their actions.
Therefore, yes, their actions are fair game for ridicule and jokes by late-night comedians. If you’re going to argue otherwise, then I’m keen to know if you ever laughed at any of the “freeloader” jokes about Kato Kaelin, or if you’ve ever called a blow job a “Lewinsky.”
Neither Kato nor Monica was an innocent bystander dragged into the spotlight. They have both courted media attention and reveled in their notoriety. If you see Jenna Bush posing in Vanity Fair or making deals with Libya, a la Billy Carter, then you may bust on her at will.
In addition, there is no such office as First Daughter. I barely tolerate calling the president’s wife First Lady. We founded this country to get away from kings and aristocracy, and this monarchist desire to set up the families of our presidents as temporary royalty should revolt any good republican (as in believers in representative government, not the GOP, which is Republican–big R).
Fiver, you are putting the cart before the horse. The “spotlight” is media/public interest in the Bush twins; it is not some force beyond human knowledge or control. We, the public, control whether the Bush twins are in or not in the spotlight. It ain’t the media - SNL and Rush didn’t stop dissing Chelsea because they had a spiritual awakening. They stopped because people expressed outrage, and SNL and Rush rightly feared they would lose audience and/or sponsors.
The same applies here. If we make it clear that it is inappropriate to report on the normal phases of growing up of the Bush twins, the spotlight will go off.
When American politics becomes as nasty as it is, the sound detractor of this current President will drop the “turnabout is fair play” approach and focus on the opportunity to build up massive, overwhelming pressure based on the issues alone.
This administration can be thwarted, stalled, exposed, and perhaps forever exterminated simply because they are prosecuting an agenda that fails to match the sentiments of a majority of its electors*. Let’s stick to that.
*Electors meaning, of course, the voting populace, not the appointed patsies who have sent us back to the era of overdone red leather coats and single gloves.