Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Weddings use political capital?

posted at 8:10 am on May 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Like so much about the Bush presidency, the wedding of daughter Jenna brings out a strange strain of media bias and bitterness. Take as an example this Associated Press report, which recounts the history of First Family weddings over the course of the last 200+ years, from John Adams’ adninistration to present day. According to Leanne Italie, George Bush would have had a hard time explaining a White House wedding:

Bush’s wedding in tiny Crawford, Texas, on the other hand, is expected to be low-key — out of the view of prying media eyes.

“This is going to be such a different kind of situation,” said Katherine Jellison, an associate professor of history at Ohio University who chronicles the American obsession with marital pomp in her recent book, It’s Our Day.

“Jenna’s father is not running for re-election,” she said. “The frivolity of a big White House wedding in the middle of an unpopular war would have used up what little political capital he has.”

Gee, did it do that for Lyndon Johnson? In 1966, the Vietnam War hadn’t hit the peak of its unpopularity, but political pressure in opposition had certainly hit the mainstream. That didn’t stop Luci Baines Johnson from having her wedding at the White House in an elaborate ceremony, complete with television coverage.

The idea that it takes “political capital” to stage a wedding for a child of the President is patently absurd. Who besides the most extreme lunatics would demand an end to someone’s wedding because their parent didn’t have political capital? Better yet, what credibility would Bush lose on policy after hosting a wedding reception for his daughter at the White House?

Jenna Bush more than likely decided that she didn’t want a big, splashy public wedding, especially after the treatment she and her sister have received from the media over the past few years. Why give reporters like Leanne Italie more grist for their mill? They opted for a quieter setting in Crawford for reasons that become clear after the silliness of this article.

Italie also manages to get in a dig at the Nixons, too:

Tricia Nixon was risque in a sleeveless gown at her Rose Garden wedding.

Risque? Hardly, as the Anchoress points out:

In 1971, this might have been fashion forward, very lovely and “different” (neither hippy-granny dress, nor blowsy meringue) but it was hardly “risque,” especially for a wedding held in a garden instead of a church.

This is what Italie considers “risque”:

If this is what Italie calls “risque”, just imagine how she would have reported the Jenna Bush nuptials.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I hear the father of the bride is going to be in an assless-chaps tuxedo. Talk about risque!

Nethicus on May 9, 2008 at 8:15 AM

George W. Bush’s daughters and wife seem intelligent. Makes you wonder, why in the world he always looks like a dummy?

Seriously.

He can’t say a complete sentence. Se stumble on his words. He can’t think clearly.

He reminds me of mentally retarded people I saw in the store the other say.

And that was your bush bashing for this Friday morning.

I’m sure now he told his secret service folks not to let me in his ranch for the wedding.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM

I’m sure we’ll hear that there might be heavy drinking parties, too, because, you know, those Bu$h girls have been in bars.

What asses the MSM be.

Mr. Bingley on May 9, 2008 at 8:18 AM

OMG! Jenna is so down to earth and a big White House wedding is not her style.

Most Americans don’t know that she has taught school in the inner city for 3 yrs. Why? Because it doesn’t fit the MSM narrative of the Bush daughers (who have done more volunteer work for UNICEF and the like than Chelsea ever thought of doing). Imagine if it had been a democrat’s daughter. The fawning and the articles!

Good for Jenna for doing things her way.

Rightwingsparkle on May 9, 2008 at 8:19 AM

I wish the happy couple many many years of happiness.

Mr. Bingley on May 9, 2008 at 8:20 AM

I hear the father of the bride is going to be in an assless-chaps tuxedo. Talk about risque!

Nethicus on May 9, 2008 at 8:15 AM

Nethicus — that is not really my type of humor but I cannot stop laughing over that one. Not nice, but priceless all the same.

BigD on May 9, 2008 at 8:21 AM

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM

Isn’t it a little early in the morning for such crassness, even for you?

DrMagnolias on May 9, 2008 at 8:21 AM

OMG, check out those elbows on Tricia.

Me thinks the media thinks too highly of itself. I veiw Jenna as just wanting a family wedding. Best of luck to the happy couple.

rbj on May 9, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM

Isn’t it a little early in the morning for such crassness, even for you?

DrMagnolias on May 9, 2008 at 8:21 AM

Nah, I like to get it off my chest early. I have other people to bash today. I can’t take it all at once.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:27 AM

Weddings are weddings.

It’s going to be Jenna’s day, not W’s.

God bless her for getting married.

madmonkphotog on May 9, 2008 at 8:29 AM

This is what Italie considers “risque”:

Scandalous! Get that uncovered meat in a wedding burka, post haste!

James on May 9, 2008 at 8:30 AM

Screw what the media thinks, and let the happy couple have their day!
The leftwing media is so dang miserable!
Remember when they were just as criticial, back at Bush’s second inauguration? They were all indignant over having inaugural celebrations in the middle of wartime.
They are NEVER happy! Never content!
Miserable sods

ToddonCapeCod on May 9, 2008 at 8:32 AM

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Isn’t it a little early in the morning for such crassness, even for you?

DrMagnolias on May 9, 2008 at 8:21 AM

I found it a little unnecessary, but I guess it makes him feel good.

Regardless, the post is about the wedding of Laura Bush. She has never wanted the spotlight, so why start now? Besides that, DC is not home – Crawford is. It makes perfect sense that she would want the wedding in her hometown. This temper tantrum by the media is ridiculous.

fourstringfuror on May 9, 2008 at 8:38 AM

Ed,

John Adams’ adninistration

Are you calling John Adams a ninny? :)

Good post though.

shick on May 9, 2008 at 8:47 AM

He can’t say a complete sentence. Se stumble on his words. He can’t think clearly.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM

Thanks for the Friday morning laugh.

David in ATL on May 9, 2008 at 8:47 AM

Probability the next narrative on Bush Family’s wedding is that they are keeping it out of the White House because Bush’s Daughters are Stepford Wives: 100%

It’s a good thing I only really want to get involved in Catholic media, I think the brain drain from the secular media could kill me.

BKennedy on May 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM

Congratulations to the happy couple.

I know I wouldn’t want the AP at my wedding.

indythinker on May 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM

I hear the father of the bride is going to be in an assless-chaps tuxedo. Talk about risque!
Nethicus on May 9, 2008 at 8:15 AM

All chaps are assless, genius.

Akzed on May 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM

Bias? What mainstream media bias?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 9, 2008 at 8:57 AM

IndyL

I haven’t agreed with a lot of stuff Bush has done (Amnesty, spending), but he’s handled enormous pressure, not to mention sniping from the left and the likes of you, with enormous dignity and class. I wish he was a better speaker but that’s not the only measure of intelligence.

So go f*ck yourself.

BuzzCrutcher on May 9, 2008 at 8:59 AM

I don’t blame her a bit for marrying at home–I’d want to do that too were I the president’s daughter.

Many blessings to them for a long and happy life, filled with joy and children.

Bob's Kid on May 9, 2008 at 8:59 AM

George W. Bush’s daughters and wife seem intelligent. Makes you wonder, why in the world he always looks like a dummy?

Seriously.

He can’t say a complete sentence. Se stumble on his words. He can’t think clearly.

He reminds me of mentally retarded people I saw in the store the other say.

And that was your bush bashing for this Friday morning.

I’m sure now he told his secret service folks not to let me in his ranch for the wedding.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM

Good lord, what an a$$.

Onager on May 9, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Speaking of designers, I believe the designer of the Central Texas prairie is even more famous than the designer of the White House.

RBMN on May 9, 2008 at 9:01 AM

1.Tricia N’s dress is gorgeous. Italie should shy away from the fashion commentary.

Who in their right mind would opt for a wedding at a place where loser libs and reporters would just try to ruin the day?

What are these reporters going to do when the Bushes are gone and still not caring about them?

Dubn8tr on May 9, 2008 at 9:01 AM

BuzzCrutcher on May 9, 2008 at 8:59 AM

+1

a capella on May 9, 2008 at 9:04 AM

Ay caint sink of anisink too sey butt ay hop Boosh cen ricovar frm hiss mentil elness bifor infadin anozor coontri ant riwart anozor CIA dirictar fir hiss feyluyr.

Ay alzo hop Boosh doughtar haz smort childran.

Aftar Boosh, ay hop zer iz nomore Boosh.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:13 AM

All chaps are assless, genius.

Akzed on May 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM

Whatever that means. Must be a British thing.

JiangxiDad on May 9, 2008 at 9:18 AM

He can’t say a complete sentence. Se stumble on his words. He can’t think clearly.

He reminds me of mentally retarded people I saw in the store the other say.

Are you sure you didn’t mean ‘The people that see in class every day’?

BigWyo on May 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM

I SO would have had a gigantic, glamorous White House wedding if I were the president’s daughter! And then I would have done things deliberately to freak the media out, like wearing cowboy boots under my wedding dress or something.

That said, more power to Jenna for doing her day her way. But my way would have been shoving it in the media’s faces. LOL!

aero on May 9, 2008 at 9:25 AM

Chaps are assless, just like hats are sleeveless.

RBMN on May 9, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Whatever that means. Must be a British thing.

JiangxiDad on May 9, 2008 at 9:18 AM

Chaps with asses are called pants.

OK, fringed leather pants…but the point remains.

James on May 9, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Ay caint sink of anisink too sey butt ay hop Boosh cen ricovar frm hiss mentil elness bifor infadin anozor coontri ant riwart anozor CIA dirictar fir hiss feyluyr.

Ay alzo hop Boosh doughtar haz smort childran.

Aftar Boosh, ay hop zer iz nomore Boosh.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:13 AM

Apparently the short bus needs the shocks and springs replaced.

David in ATL on May 9, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Se stumble on his words. He can’t think clearly.

He reminds me of mentally retarded people I saw in the store the other say.

And that was your bush bashing for this Friday morning.
Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM

Apparently not, as your 9:13 post makes clear.

Still: in one short post you managed three misspelled words (he, stumbles, and day) and one missed capitalization. And that was, let me see, one minute out of your day?

Now. Let cameras follow you around all day long recording everything you say, speaking all day long to hundreds or thousands of people and see if you don’t make maybe a couple of slip ups in the many thousands of words you speak or write per day. And add to that a hostile media eager to record your every mistake, just waiting to make you look mentally challenged.

Am surprised at you, Indy—or, come to think of it, perhaps not. You’ve seemed to speak before you think a few times lately. There are legitimate reasons to criticize President Bush. A very relatively few well-publicized verbal slipups mistakes are not among them, nor do they a retarded man make.

inviolet on May 9, 2008 at 9:27 AM

slipups mistakes = slipups or mistakes. See?!

inviolet on May 9, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Good lord, what an a$$.

Onager on May 9, 2008 at 9:00 AM

People like that have to demean others so that they feel better about themselves, you see.

rightside on May 9, 2008 at 9:31 AM

Aftar Boosh, ay hop zer iz nomore Boosh.

Arianna Huffington?

mymanpotsandpans on May 9, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Seriously.

He can’t say a complete sentence. Se stumble on his words. He can’t think clearly.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM

Seriously? Shirley you jest?

yakwill83 on May 9, 2008 at 9:33 AM

inviolet on May 9, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Times to trick people deliberately, times to actually have typos. Today was the first, considering the topic.

And it worked!

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Jenna Bush and her sister Barbara have conducted themselves with grace and class. The fact Jenna wants a low key wedding at home says alot about her down-to-earth character. She is a great kid.

Does anyone remember when Kerry lost in ‘04 how his spoiled horrible daughters responded? Fu-k you’s were the words of choice. I guarantee if he had been in the whitehouse one of his rotten daughters would have made sure to have a splashy whitehouse wedding with a divorce to follow as soon as daddy was out of office.

Winebabe on May 9, 2008 at 9:35 AM

Ay caint sink of anisink too sey butt ay hop Boosh cen ricovar frm hiss mentil elness bifor infadin anozor coontri ant riwart anozor CIA dirictar fir hiss feyluyr.

Ay alzo hop Boosh doughtar haz smort childran.

Aftar Boosh, ay hop zer iz nomore Boosh.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:13 AM

Apparently the short bus needs the shocks and springs replaced.

David in ATL on May 9, 2008 at 9:27 AM

Yoo haz too execute mai inglis, ay com fron za rebublic of Karkarzistan. Wee do nut speech inglis, wee spoc Karkazi.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Times to trick people deliberately, times to actually have typos. Today was the first, considering the topic.

And it worked!

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:34 AM

The first time? Or the first typo? Or did you mean, today was the former (as opposed to the latter)? VERY unclear sentence, Indy; guess your attempt at explanation has had the opposite of your intended effect. Am I teasing you, or not? Will let you decide whether it’s the former, or the latter. :)

inviolet on May 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Congratulations Bush family. Many years of happiness to them!

AbaddonsReign on May 9, 2008 at 9:40 AM

inviolet on May 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Now I’m scratching my bely button…. thinking….

That’s a tough one.

My toes are wiggling too…

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:44 AM

I found it… belly button has 2 LL !!!

Gotcha!

Now let me go milk my cow and feed the pigs.

I’m having snail soup for lunch today.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:46 AM

which recounts the history of First Family weddings over the course of the last 200+ years, from John Adams’ adninistration to present day.

administration*

Chakra Hammer on May 9, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Ed,

John Adams’ adninistration

Are you calling John Adams a ninny? :)

Good post though.

shick on May 9, 2008 at 8:47 AM

D’oh!

I just looked though the comments, you won.. >:D

Still not fixed though.. :}

Chakra Hammer on May 9, 2008 at 9:54 AM

through* the comments even.. :D

My engrish is da sucks..

Chakra Hammer on May 9, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Playing with yourself in public on Friday morning, Indy Conservative, will give you plenty of practice for Friday night.

mymanpotsandpans on May 9, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Associated (with terrorists) Press.

~nuff said.

locomotivebreath1901 on May 9, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Indy Conservative

We’d do well to ignore this one, I think.

Seeing his severe lack of mental capacity, and his utter inability to address the topic in a rational manner, I pledge to ignore Indy Conservative and his incoherent, hateful rants.

fourstringfuror on May 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM

BuzzCrutcher on May 9, 2008 at 8:59 AM

+1

a capella on May 9, 2008 at 9:04 AM

+2

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on May 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM

through* the comments even.. :D

My engrish is da sucks..

Chakra Hammer on May 9, 2008 at 9:58 AM

You better watch out. Indy might have a scathing rant for you, too.

fourstringfuror on May 9, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Here is the real problem: The MSM has been deemed “unimportant” by Jenna and her groom and it eats their ass up!! The can’t stand the thought of not being able to get Laura or maybe Barbara on film “drinking”. (Of course they would omit the fact that it was just a glass of champagne). The MSM are a bunch of S%!t hounds. Many blessings to the Bush family!

kcd on May 9, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Bush mangled the English language back in 1998, during his gubernatorial debate in El Paso against Texas Land Commissioner and Clinton friend/smooth talker Garry Mauro. Couldn’t get the words out of his mouth to defend his administration’s efforts during his first four-year term. Then won the election three weeks later by 49 percent (not with 49 percent, by 49 percent). So much for the influence of PBS debates on a Friday night during high school football season…

Bush never has been a good speaker and he never will be, which is why Reagan was light years better at communicating his policies, even when one or two of them were not exactly beloved by the conservative wing of the GOP. But if you’re going to buy into Molly Ivins argument (which the rest of the left ran with in 1999) that mangled syntax equals dumb, then you probably bought into the idea that because Reagan forgot a few people’s names while he was president, he was a moron, too.

jon1979 on May 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Ignore that infantile character, people. He’s showing what’s in his mind and heart, and it doesn’t look very good.

All the best to Jenna. And yes, she has every right in the world to tell the MSM to go to Hell!

newton on May 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM

I don’t have any ill will toward the Bush twins. On the other hand, I’m not inclined to believe the press was rough on them. They knew if they were gonna hit the bar scene in DC and be bad little girls with little in the way of consequences, someone was going to consider that “news.” And Daddy knew that while they were living the high life, other parents were sending their kids off to Iraq. That would have cost him a helluva lot more “political capital” during WWII, when even FDR’s son signed up just like other boys. (And no, girls, the Peace Corps is not the same thing.)

All the same, I wish only the best for the bride and groom on their special day tomorrow. I just hope neither of them (or any of us, for that matter), forgets those who “gave all” to make such a day possible.

Memorial Day is just around the corner…

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 10:22 AM

I guess it doesn’t matter what happens when a Dem is in office. His daughter can still be married where she wants to be.

Ed didn’t mention Lynda Byrd Johnson, who was actually married IN the White House in the East Room on December 9, 1967, and by then the Viet Nam protests had heated up.

Just go to the article and look at some of the pictures on pages 2 and 3.

Anti-Vietnam war protestors rallied to Washington on Saturday, October 21,1967, in the first national demonstration against the war. The Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam organized the protest to get national visibility for the anti-war movement. Nearby, military policemen stood at ten-foot intervals around the Pentagon. Within the circle of MP’s, 300 U.S. Deputy Marshals spent the day waiting. The Deputies were on hand to make any necessary arrests, a civilian power not normally bestowed on the military. Hidden inside the Pentagon and other government buildings were five to six thousand Army troops armed with rifles and bayonets.

No one knew what form the anti-war protest would take, whether peaceful or violent. The picnic mood at the Lincoln Memorial changed during the long day of speeches and demonstrations. At 5:40 p.m., a determined crowd of 35,000 headed for the Pentagon. A smaller segment at the front stormed forward, scaled the walls, and forced their way into the Pentagon. The Deputies and soldiers were taunted and assaulted with vegetables, rocks, and bottles. The troops inside the Pentagon rushed outside as the violence escalated. A full-scale riot erupted.

I had a friend who was there scaling the walls of the Pentagon.

INC on May 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Now let me go milk my cow and feed the pigs.

I’m having snail soup for lunch today.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Nothing wrong with milking my cows and feeding the pigs. Geez, what kind of Obama, elitism is going on around here. I better not mention the chickens, goats, turkeys, guineas, ducks, geese, or dog. I just might get called bitter or something.

thomashton on May 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM

Speaking clearly and thinking clearly are two different things. I have a friend who is one of the most intelligent people I know, but verbal aphasia prevents him from speaking well sometimes. But look out for his writing!

Longhorn Six on May 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM

And no, girls, the Peace Corps is not the same thing.

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Nope, Peace Corps is not the same thing. However, PC tours are 27 months long. That is longer by half again than a tour in the sand box. It’s not like PC volunteers go to Nova Scotia or anything. Often times they are in danger.

I’m just saying is all. I don’t think PC service is the same as a tour in Iraq (and I enjoyed mine to Taji in 2004-2005). However, one thing you’re missing–the girls are adults. Since when do we as conservatives take someone’s choice from them and tell them they should enter military service or anything else for that matter?

thomashton on May 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Thanks to IndyConservativeLiberal, Now I have to first look at the name before reading the comment. What a tool of the Bush Derangement Syndrome freakazoids.

kirkill on May 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM

I pledge to ignore Indy Conservative and his incoherent, hateful rants.

fourstringfuror on May 9, 2008 at 10:03 AM

I’m with you. True colors and all that.

Gilda on May 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM

On Saturday, President Bush’s daughter Jenna will do it her way: She’ll marry Henry Hager privately in a casual ceremony on the family ranch in Texas.

Good for Jenna, and if she doesn’t want to include the jerks from the media, that’s right, it’s her choice. Why the hell would she want to invite an entity who’ve been less than kind, less than fair even, to her and her family?
It is hilarious watching the media twist in the wind though, as someone mentioned above, they can’t stand it that the Bush’s couldn’t care less about them.

4shoes on May 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Does anyone remember when Kerry lost in ‘04 how his spoiled horrible daughters responded? Fu-k you’s were the words of choice. I guarantee if he had been in the whitehouse one of his rotten daughters would have made sure to have a splashy whitehouse wedding with a divorce to follow as soon as daddy was out of office.

If Kerry’s daughter got married in the Whitehouse, she would wear a white version of this: Link

And the Ms. Italies of the msm would declare it modern and stunning…

Blake on May 9, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Thanks for the Friday morning laugh.

David in ATL on May 9, 2008 at 8:47 AM

good catch…LOL

funky chicken on May 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Good for Jenna, and if she doesn’t want to include the jerks from the media, that’s right, it’s her choice. Why the hell would she want to invite an entity who’ve been less than kind, less than fair even, to her and her family?
It is hilarious watching the media twist in the wind though, as someone mentioned above, they can’t stand it that the Bush’s couldn’t care less about them.

4shoes on May 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Waaaaahhhhh! They had a party and didn’t invite us!

funky chicken on May 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM

I’m with you. True colors and all that.

Gilda on May 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM

That’s the problem with IndyConservative. He’s neither independent nor conservative. His hatred is straight out of the HuffPo/DKos playbook. Maybe he’s from Indianapolis.

fourstringfuror on May 9, 2008 at 12:24 PM

I’m glad she’s getting married at the ranch!

That’s where I’d have it too.

Domino on May 9, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Anyone think that perhaps her fiance’ didn’t want a White House wedding? Hopefully he had some say in it. I know that if I had a choice between a ranch and the White House that I would choose the ranch.

thomashton on May 9, 2008 at 12:32 PM

He can’t say a complete sentence. Se stumble on his words. He can’t think clearly.

He reminds me of mentally retarded people I saw in the store the other say.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM

I understand mentally retarded people having a difficult time with spelling and sentence structure. Tell me, did you enjoy riding on the short bus?

bopbottle on May 9, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Come on, AP – if this wedding had been at the White House it would have been completely overshadowed by the Code Pink/ANSWER asshats protesting outside, which YOU would have made the big story of the day. Why would any family allow their daughter’s wedding day to be ruined by such a spectacle?

rockmom on May 9, 2008 at 12:54 PM

It was her choice not to marry at the White House, she said it wasn’t her style, period.

Straight from the bride’s mouth one would think should be enough to quell all rumors and innuendo for heavens sake.

AprilOrit on May 9, 2008 at 1:14 PM

However, one thing you’re missing–the girls are adults.

Uh-huh. Here’s something I didn’t miss, something they used to say on the Home Front in the 1940s: “Don’t you know there’s a war going on?” I have a problem when a president is all gung-ho saying “Bring ‘em on,” when it’s other people’s kids who have to pay the price for his bravado. Yes, the PC can be dangerous, but most of the time you’re not getting shot at, or you wouldn’t be there. People go to Iraq generally expecting to be shot at.

If we’re going to talk about “political capital,” I think we need to learn from our history before we engage the enemy. The support our troops get here at home (including from HA readers) is admirable, but it doesn’t hold a candle to what our parents and grandparents saw during WWII.

What if that were the price of victory? Could we afford it? Would our President let his own kids off the hook?

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 1:22 PM

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 1:22 PM

The President’s daughters have exactly as much obligation to serve in the military as everyone’s kids do…zero. Only those who volunteer to serve have to.

That’s kind of the point of an ALL-volunteer force.

James on May 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM

I hear the father of the bride is going to be in an assless-chaps tuxedo. Talk about risque!

Nethicus

HAhaha!!

leftnomore on May 9, 2008 at 1:34 PM

I have a problem when a president is all gung-ho saying “Bring ‘em on,” when it’s other people’s kids who have to pay the price for his bravado.

So then, unless a President actually has a child who is of military age and actively serving in the military, the President should never act to defend the U.S. or show “bravado” in the face of a terrorist attack? Damn, I guess we better not elect anyone President who doesn’t have kids in the military, huh? I guess that pretty much leaves us with “President” McCain as the only option?

Pretty stringent standards you have there, do you live by them yourself or are you just a hypocrite? Are you content to just sit back and take pot-shots at how the President behaves, or are you willing to set an example and run for President yourself so you can lead by example and actually show us all how a President should behave?

Yeah, I thought so.

Oh, and the constant comparison of the conflicts we are currently engaged in with WWII are really not apropos. If we were going to do things like we did back then, we would need to institute a draft, start rationing, engage in civil defense drills, etc. Now, if the rest of the country isn’t required to behave as if they were in the middle of WWII, then why should we expect/require the President to do so?

Sheesh

Fatal on May 9, 2008 at 1:55 PM

I’m having snail soup for lunch today.

Indy Conservative on May 9, 2008 at 9:46 AM

With, or without, toast with aioli?

Those of you who claimed to ignore Indy, won’t be able to help yourselves.

inviolet on May 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Beat me to it inviolet. I’d already copied Indy’s creative criticism…then you forced me to abandon the ‘good cause’. We’re all guilty of transposing letters, leaving some out, adding the wrong ones. Invariably, when attempting to criticize others’ spelling, we make mistakes ourselves. Hardly ever fails, and brings Mark Twain to mind.

Indy, you’re a pill, but few understand you. Not a bad thing. Makes life very interesting.

The couple, may they be happy, and may they show the media way more fingers.

Entelechy on May 9, 2008 at 1:56 PM

…and may they show the media way more fingers.

Entelechy on May 9, 2008 at 1:56 PM

One at a time, please.

James on May 9, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Oh, and the constant comparison of the conflicts we are currently engaged in with WWII are really not apropos. If we were going to do things like we did back then, we would need to institute a draft, start rationing, engage in civil defense drills, etc.

I don’t want that any more than you do. But I keep hearing a lot of talk about the nation’s resolve to win this conflict and end terrorism, as long as the job falls to someone else. The comparison is indeed apropos, if you’re going to ask yourselves as a nation what you are willing to sacrifice for security in the nation and peace in the world.

Are you content to just sit back and take pot-shots at how the President behaves, or are you willing to set an example and run for President yourself so you can lead by example and actually show us all how a President should behave?

Yeah, but I can’t even be a write-in candidate while I’m still working for the Feds.

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Bush Derangement Syndrome in the leftard world naturally includes the good Comrades of the MSM.
.
The MSM have taught us to not expect decency from them in covering public matters involving Pres. Bush. This also now includes private matters, specifically using his daughter’s upcoming private wedding as a Bush-bash opportunity.

DavePa on May 9, 2008 at 2:34 PM

The one good thing about holding the wedding at the ranch will be the lack of idiot reporters and other libtards.

The folks who live around Crawford have guns, know how to use them and have had enough of the cockroaches from the fever swamps of the “reality-based community”. Those folks will only call 911 to have the cops come and pick up the blood soaked garbage that is left of some moonbat.

Texas has the “castle law” which is known here as the “he needed killin’” law. Some moonbat gets loose on someones property and starts the typical moonbat shite and he/she/it will get their head blown off and all the grand jury will do about it is to tell the property owner to “have a nice day”.

Nahanni on May 9, 2008 at 2:53 PM

But I keep hearing a lot of talk about the nation’s resolve to win this conflict and end terrorism, as long as the job falls to someone else. The comparison is indeed apropos, if you’re going to ask yourselves as a nation what you are willing to sacrifice for security in the nation and peace in the world.

Its difficult to understand what you are even saying here, but if your position is that nobody can oppose terrorism unless they themselves are willing to take up arms and put their lives on the line, you are just being silly.

I am committed to doing everything I can to stop terrorists and protect this nation. Does the fact that I already served in the military and am past the age at which they would accept me back (I tried, they refused) mean that I no longer have the right to oppose terrorism or voice my opinion in calling for military action? Am I willing to “sacrifice” yes. Was President Buch willing to sacrifice? Take a look at the polls, take a look at the media, take a look at what he has been put through and then tell me he doesn’t have the moral authority to keep us on the course of opposing terrorism. As I said – sheesh!!

As to “peace in the world”, that I don’t really care so much about because I don’t believe there will ever be perfect peace in this world. So, what would I give to attain that? Not a plug nickel.

Fatal on May 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Nahanni on May 9, 2008 at 2:53 PM

I last visited Texas more than thirty years ago. Nice to know some things are still sacred there.

God bless Texas!

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I guess for Italie showing your ankles is risque too, which would explain why so many of her type wear the Birkenstock w/ socks combo.

foxforce91 on May 9, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Its difficult to understand what you are even saying here, but if your position is that nobody can oppose terrorism unless they themselves are willing to take up arms and put their lives on the line, you are just being silly.

I know it’s difficult. While there are some very sharp and well-read people in this forum, you don’t usually hear departures from the usual neo-con party line here. It takes getting used to. And no, that’s not what I mean at all. What I mean, is exactly what I’m saying, not what you think I might be inferring.

I had parents who grew up during World War II. As a child, they told me what it was like to be on “the home front,” and the sacrifices that were made. We truly were “the sleeping giant” that was awakened at Pearl Harbor. My maternal grandfather, and some of my uncles, got farm deferments because their production was needed at home. My late ex-father-in-law got an industry deferment, as a foreman at a steel mill. Everybody gave their all, even stateside.

Do I mean to put only our President in the dock? That would be too easy. I’m putting all of us as a nation in the dock. The most I would call upon him to do, is to set an example. We need that from a leader. Are we prepared to do what our parents and grandparents did back then? I look around at our standard of living, at what we are loathe to give up, and I don’t think we are. I submit that as long as we cannot answer “yes” to that question, our troops will not get the support they so richly deserve. (And for the record, yes, I think they richly deserve it.)

And if we are not prepared to keep the peace in the world (not worth a plug nickel, you say), why are we around the world fighting terrorism, the victory over which would achieve precisely that?

Now, I have no control over what you want to read into that. But at least start with what I actually say. Maybe you’re right. Maybe we shouldn’t have to ration gasoline, butter, and rubber tires. Maybe we should continue to have a new model year for our cars. In fact, maybe we should continue the prosperity of peacetime while waging war elsewhere.

But just tell me this: how did that work out for the Romans?

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 4:05 PM

I think Tricia’s dress was gorgeous and I’m sure Jenna’s will be as well. I’m sure it will be a gracious affair.

Catie96706 on May 9, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Are we prepared to do what our parents and grandparents did back then? I look around at our standard of living, at what we are loathe to give up, and I don’t think we are. I submit that as long as we cannot answer “yes” to that question, our troops will not get the support they so richly deserve. (And for the record, yes, I think they richly deserve it.)

I already stated that I was ready to sacrifice for our troops and I am betting most of the folks that post here are as well. Right now, there hasn’t been communicated any need to do so, but that apparently upsets you for some reason. If you feel some personal need, not only to sneer at our standard of living (which is merely reflective of our superiority as a nation), but to personally “sacrifice” in order to feel you are “supporting” the troops, I could direct you to some of the web sites where I routinely make contributions? Now, if a need arises for the entire country to make sacrifices, I believe the majority of Americans would rise to the occasion just as we’ve done before. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

And if we are not prepared to keep the peace in the world (not worth a plug nickel, you say), why are we around the world fighting terrorism, the victory over which would achieve precisely that?

Why are we fighting terrorism? Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember the Cole, our embassies, the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, etc, etc, etc? Sheesh, we are fighting because we were ATTACKED!! Over and over again.

It sure isn’t to keep some kind of mythical “peace” in the world and its exceedingly naive to believe that a “victory” over terrorism would somehow result in world peace. If we really wanted to impose “peace” on the world, we would have to take out North Korea, most of the Middle East, probably China and Russia, all militant muslims, various thugs and dictators, groups of communists, leftist guerilla groups, right-wing death squads, etc. Not going to happen and you know it (I hope).

I know it’s difficult. While there are some very sharp and well-read people in this forum, you don’t usually hear departures from the usual neo-con party line here. It takes getting used to. And no, that’s not what I mean at all. What I mean, is exactly what I’m saying, not what you think I might be inferring.

Ahh, there we have it! Us enlightened people are much more opened minded and capable of understanding others than you insular, inbred, conservative types. Although your personal inability to effectively communicate your opinions puts the lie to that. We could get into a pissing contest about how intelligent we are, how well educated, how experienced, etc., but this is the innernut and you’d just lie to stay competitive.

P.S. My parents grew up during WWII too, so what? Heck, my parents suffered more deprivation raising myself and my siblings than they did during WWII. Lots and lots of us had parents who grew up during WWII or actually fought in that war, its called the “Baby Boom”, so your experiences in that realm aren’t exactly unique.

Fatal on May 9, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Now, if a need arises for the entire country to make sacrifices, I believe the majority of Americans would rise to the occasion just as we’ve done before. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Vietnam.

Why are we fighting terrorism? Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember the Cole, our embassies, the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, etc, etc, etc? Sheesh, we are fighting because we were ATTACKED!! Over and over again.

Hey, you’re the one who doesn’t give a “plug nickel” about world peace, remember?

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM

Just leave them alone and let them get married without politicising it I say. Who cares where, who when and why. Maybe people should mind their own business. Especially leftwing news media “”journalists”". Granted they are telling the news what they are doing and I would say the same thing about the Klinton daughter, however I would be surprized if she would ever ’subject’ herself to the constraints of MARRIAGE since It’s such a CONSERVATIVE idea to get married these days.

Lets report some NEWS.

tx2654 on May 9, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Hey, you’re the one who doesn’t give a “plug nickel” about world peace, remember?

Actually, what I said was that I didn’t believe world peace was possible, therefore I wasn’t willing to “sacrifice” a plug nickel to attain it. And you think I have reading/comprehension problems?

On the other hand, if you attack my country, I think you should get your ass handed to you on a platter.

Oh, and I lay Vietnam at the feet of the media and the Dems in Congress who cut off funding and lost the country AFTER we won the freaking war. Just like what the Dems are trying to do in Iraq today.

Fatal on May 9, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Oh, and I lay Vietnam at the feet of the media and the Dems in Congress who cut off funding…

So do I. I remember that. I also remember the country buying the bill of goods. But we elected a Democratic majority in 2006, didn’t we? And we let the media tell us not to pay attention to certain candidates, don’t we? (No, not you personally.)

And yes, let’s concede that you’re right about the world peace thing for the moment. The fact is, we are not the only nation threatened by the terrorism of Islamic extremists. But don’t you believe we shoulder a disproportionate burden of trying to defeat it? Isn’t it time we started getting tough with “allied” nations who don’t support us?

And that whole ass on a platter thing, we agree on that too, okay?

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 6:17 PM

May the happy couple enjoy a lifetime of happiness, just as I suspect her parents have had. Having to endure the spotlight, wanted or unwanted, should guarantee them a steadfast resolve to keep their lives private if they so choose. Besides, a wedding in Texas this time of year, is to be envied. Too bad the bluebonnets are about gone. We’ll miss seeing a huge grand affair in D.C., with the resultant snarky comments…I think it’s delicious they deprived the media of that luxury. God bless Texas/Texans!

24K lady on May 9, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Tricia Nixon’s dress is lovely and I think it’s timeless. I think a bride could wear it today even though she was married over 35 years ago.

Oh, and I love the way the Anchoress described other gowns of the day as “blowsy meringue”. What an apt description and word picture that brings up.

INC on May 9, 2008 at 6:37 PM

24K lady on May 9, 2008 at 6:36 PM

What she said.

manwithblackhat on May 9, 2008 at 8:26 PM

Jenna Bush more than likely decided that she didn’t want a big, splashy public wedding, especially after the treatment she and her sister have received from the media over the past few years.

Jenna deserves her “happiest day” uncorrupted by the MSM and hostile numb-skull sheeple. She, in particular, has taken the brunt of their political spite for 8 years, not just three or so. From the onset, she learned the hard way, “It’s not fair! at UT/Austin. This gregarious girl, all grown up now, deserves to be treated with the respect due to the lady she has become. With her wedding at the family ranch, there will be no bad memories in the pictures.

Shame on Leno for dissing Jenna last night, while cross network Letterman pronounces to his audience and to Paris Hilton that Paris deserves his protection as a “real lady”! Anyone can take over Leno’s “Jay Walking” and “Headlines” schtick when his contract expires.

maverick muse on May 9, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Fatal on May 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM

maybe we should say that if a leftard supports abortions, they should abort their babies. After all, you cant support abortions unless you have had an abortion.

Sounds fair to me.

WoosterOh on May 9, 2008 at 9:41 PM

With her wedding at the family ranch, there will be no bad memories in the pictures.

maverick muse on May 9, 2008 at 8:51 PM

That’s a REALLY important point. A wedding should be a special and memorable time of joy with family and friends. I hope their wedding is wonderful.

INC on May 9, 2008 at 9:58 PM

The MSM just can’t understand why a Texas girl would want to get married in Texas. Clueless bastards!

conservnut on May 10, 2008 at 12:33 AM

IndyConservative at 8:17AM

Duh, you can be a
–jet fighter pilot,
–successful CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation,
–popular governor of a huge state, & a
–half-way decent President
& still be stupid, right?

jgapinoy on May 10, 2008 at 12:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.