WAG: Hitch’s “Strangers on a Train”?
I thought the point of your OP was like your other partisan OPs.
You’re a dishonest dittohead with an agenda to steal more votes for Bush than Diebold.
Fairly simple and straightforward, really.
Tell you what, Moto old top, I’ll cut you a deal.
I’ll promise right now never to mention the pet goat again if you promise never again to trot out the “liberals would be screaming if he’d run out of the room and frightened the children” bullshit that you trotted out yet again in the linked thread. As if the only two options were “sit on his ass” or “run screaming from the room.” No one I’m aware of on the anti-Bish side of the equation has suggested that panicking a roomful of children would have been a good thing. What they suggest is that, rather than sitting in the room for however long he sat, he could have said, calmly and quietly, “excuse me please, something has come up that I have to attend to” and walked (not run) out of the room.
So do we have an agreement?
My Pet President
out in the stores by October
and out of the White House by November. 
And, Moto, don’t worry. No one thinks Bush is clueful enough to have an opinion one way or another on the benefit or harm of DI. Oh, and could you give me a cite where anyone is complaining about the title of the story?
Yes or No:
Without giving Bush the benefit of hindsight, reading “My Pet Goat” was the best possible use of President Bush’s time and resources after he heard “America is Under Attack”?
Give an intellectually honest answer.
I think Mr. Moto’s point (in this particular thread) is that the title of the book is repeatedly being used to link Bush with pre-adolescent literature, in order to imply that that’s what he reads. For example, you’d never hear anyone say:“Oh my god, the president was reading ‘A Brief History of Time’ for 7 minutes while we were under attack!”.
There’s plenty of ammo that Bush provides for us all by himself. Why use stuff that’s unnecessarily over-the-top?
I find highly suspicious any implication that Bush reads anything at all apart from the speeches written for him.
To be correct, Bush was listening to the childen read “The Pet Goat”, after which he noted the importance of reading more than watching TV.
Moto, you brought up the topic of Bush’s inaction (a good half-hour, not seven minutes). Did you not expect it to blow up, given our liberal biases?
The reason I’ve mentioned “The Pet Goat” or “My Pet Goat” is that it adds an extra layer of absurdity to the situation. Was Bush in an important meeting, or giving a speech? No, he was reading a silly kids’ book while hijacked planes were flying through the air.
As a teacher I find it just a little interesting that President Bush wasn’t reading aloud to the students. That is what I would have expected a visiting President to do. (I used to be a teacher.)
When I was in elementary school, we were thrilled when a “very important person” came to our classroom to read aloud to us. In the first grade it was the principal (VIP is in the eye of the beholder) and I can still remember what he read to us 56 years later.
These kiddies were not pre-adolescent in the sense that that term is usually used. They were seven years old.
I must say that the title is unusually unimaginative as book titles go these days.
Why be concerned about the mention of the book title, Mr. Moto? That is the least thing that his campaign has to worry about and he is not likely to lose a state because of it. Besides, you can’t control the truth of the matter or how that truth is used to make fun of Bush.
You can always remind people that he wasn’t reading it to the children, the children were reading it and he was listening and trying to follow along.
If you want to be outraged about attacks against the Bush Administration, make it something of importance such as:
-
accusations that the Justice Department tried to interfere with the prosecution of terrorists in Michigan or
-
accusations that Bush will not call for the removal of TV ads attacking Kerry that he acknowledges are untrue
-
accusations that someone in the Bush White House committed a felony by leaking information about the identity of a CIA operative to Robert Novak
No. I want my president to be at least as interested as most everyone else was that morning. We have it on tape that he didn’t so much as say “Huh?” which would have at least given the indication of a smidgeon of curiousity.
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat
Good post Zoe. What’s the anecdotal word among teachers regarding Bush vs. Kerry in general?
We have a winner!!!
Thank the Lord he wasn’t reading Curious George.
I was online at the SD when I first heard!
If Bush had gotten up, excused himself, left the room and went to find out more information about the attacks immediately, you libruls would be accusing him of not doing enough to find out about what happened to the pet goat. Bush had the presence of mind to wait until he knew more about the goat before leaving. Why do you libruls hate President Bush so much?
My understanding is that the program The Pet Goat is part of requires that the teacher read the book and interact with students in exactly the mandated way. So Bush was probably not trained to read the book the way the program wanted.
That and he probably didn’t know all the words.
Yay me! What do I win? A goat?
jjimm:
I too became instantly enamored of the phrase “gormless prannock.” I must know what it means,and if you don’t tell,I won’t know where to look for it.
I’m not sure why,but it sounds like it might mean"dickless peacock." Is that anywhere close?
Please help me;I want to be able to tell people what I meant when I called them gormless prannocks.
Moto, you’re an idiot. In your infinite cleverness, you started that thread to bait Democrats, and now here you find yourself whining because not only did they summarily hand you your ass, they pointed out your joke didn’t make sense and wasn’t funny. Congrats, you’re a double loser now.