Not in our name

Kaus is a democrat? all evidence speaks to the contrary. maybe his [ed] [id? libido?] is a democrat, but the pundit could hardly try harder to put votes in the republican column.

francis

You’re right, there’s nothing to be gained by slamming them, and much to lose. Of course, Drudge will be glad to have exclusive coverage of any juicy gossip that comes out about Jen ‘n’ Barb.

>So we shouldn’t talk about Jenna doing the
>football team at college, or the fact that they
>are a couple of drunken whores like their
>dumbass dad?

Exactly. GHWB didn’t lose because of Neil. Reagan won despite the direct opposition of at least one child. Chelsea helped Clinton, the girls helped Gore. Focusing attention on a man’s loving and beloved daughters, no matter how awful you think they are, will never hurt a man. It will win him kudos (if they are acting well or are portrayed positively) or sympathy (if they are acting badly or are slandered). Both will increase, or at worst, not affect, the number of votes in his column.

To the extent that the voters link attacks on the twins to Kerry (no matter how unfairly – people will link anything said by anyone who publically supports Kerry, just like people link stuff said by radical rightists to Bush) it will cost Kerry votes. Attacking someone’s children is NEVER a vote winner.

> And why, pray tell, does it matter that they’re
> good looking? Just wondering…

The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Also see Yeglasis “Why don’t the ladies love us”
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/week_2004_05_23.html#003444

If politics is a sport to men, then cheerleaders will be of use as they have been for thousands of years.

Cranky

As one who has a daughter, there’s nothing that infuriates me more than exactly that kind of attack. You are absolutely right. Bush’s daughters are not fair game. Leave them alone until one becomes Attorney General or some other administration post. As you say, not only is it the the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do.

Just to reenforce the other comments about Kaus. He is not a Democrat. When it comes to any actual position on policy or candidates, he ALWAYS takes the GOP line.

His Dad knows. He calls him “my fascist son.”

http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.45/aid.43049/column.htm

how ’bout if we just ignore them? is that close enough to the moral high ground?

I would comment on their actions or something they may say, not on their physical appearance or their relationship to the Bush family.

To those who are justifying attacking the Bush twins, either for stupid or substantive reasons: get a clue. Ted’s right here. Even if they do or say something worthy of censure attacking them will be spun and interpreted as an unfair assault on the President’s beloved children. This is parallel to Kerry’s use of Vietnam to deflect the criticism that he has repeatedly voted for less defense funding.

It might be morally and logically acceptable to attack them as campaign spokeswomen, but it is politically very stupid.

But go ahead. I’m voting for Bush, and I’d be delighted if you felt like pushing a few people into my column for the sake of upholding your rigid sense of ethics.

Deal with ’em on the terms in which they choose to present themselves in a publically politically light.

If they milk family connnections the same shabby, bad faith way their dad did – accuse, expose and demand an audit.

If they use their sex appeal to get out the frat vote, then…well actually there’s not much you can or should do there.

And I did hear tell from DC political player friends that Barbara in particular, but also Jenna to some extent, are not real happy with the right-wing Christian morality attitudes that dad trots out on the campaign trail- especially the anti-gay and pro-capital punishment riffs.

It’s those damed Unis, warping our youngsters’ minds.

I totally agree it is disadvantageous for Democrats to mention the Bush daughters in any way whatsover, no matter their public positions or scandalous behavior.

However, since both candidates have sets of daughters, in case of an electoral tie, I would like to make the earliest proposal of settling the dispute with a tag-team nude mud wrestling deathmatch.

There has been nothing I’ve seen about the Bush girls that’s made me think they are anything but pretty, fun-loving young ladies. That’s not something I would want to discourage. It was kind of fun to have Pattie and Ron Reagan around as examples of children that didn’t always go with daddies’ program but who could blame anyone for trying to help their father get elected even if he is a miserable failure. News about their drinking caused me to worry about whether they would turn out like their father but I have to say I wasn’t always prudent in the things and amounts I ingested as a youngster, either. To the Bush girls I say – You go girls (but I hope your father loses).

P O’Neill wrote:

“Just to reenforce the other comments about Kaus. He is not a Democrat. When it comes to any actual position on policy or candidates, he ALWAYS takes the GOP line.”

The last I heard, Kaus was pro-choice, wants a national health care system, and opposed the Bush tax cut. When did he change his mind?

Can we attack them for not being true to their own beliefs perhaps? See here:

First Daughter Barbara Bush may be devoted to her father, but not necessarily to his party.

Recently, a source asked the 21-year-old Barbara if she was a Republican. “She made a funny face and rolled her eyes,” reports our snitch. “She said, ‘I really wouldn’t label myself that.'”

Texas records show that Barbara and her twin, Jenna, voted as Republicans in the 2000 presidential primary. But one source contends the good-time gals “don’t buy into the conservative movement. They don’t agree with their father’s position on environment and other issues.”

Williestyle’s got it exactly right.

This is parallel to Kerry’s use of Vietnam to deflect the criticism that he has repeatedly voted for less defense funding.

Wow, even Cheney can’t cite that to cover for his own preference for more cuts over the years!

Seriously, service and pork are different. Not every American is dumb enough to miss that.

Nat wrote:

>>
The last I heard, Kaus was pro-choice, wants a national health care system, and opposed the Bush tax cut. When did he change his mind?
>>

When the specifics of implementing any of his alleged positions were outlined, and/or when his alleged positions overlapped with those of politicians he personally dislikes.

On a day when the NYT says that there are people spending too much time in the blog world, and worrying I might be one, I’m not going to spend much time documenting this, but it’s pretty easy: just have Google do a site search of slate for kaus’s positions on abortion, taxes, and healthcare, and watch the qualifiers tumble out e.g.

[kausfiles] Abortion: I’m pro-choice, and I’d be worried that Bush appointees would overturn Roe v. Wade, except for two factors. 1) Roe isn’t really threatened since a 6-3 majority supports its basic holding, and 2) Roe was a bad decision and a worse opinion.

It’s a matter of public record that Mickey Kaus is registered at a “Hack” with the state of California.

P O’Neill wrote:

“do a site search of slate for kaus’s positions on abortion, taxes, and healthcare, and watch the qualifiers tumble out e.g.

[kausfiles] Abortion: I’m pro-choice, and I’d be worried that Bush appointees would overturn Roe v. Wade, except for two factors. 1) Roe isn’t really threatened since a 6-3 majority supports its basic holding, and 2) Roe was a bad decision and a worse opinion.”

Back when I subscribed to TNR (late 80s, early 90s), it seemed to me that the view that “Roe was a bad decision and a worse opinion” was pretty common among their writers, most of whom appeared to be pro-choice Democrats.

Having now read the thread, I’d like to say that in a realistic sense, comments about the Bush twins are not likely to be a factor in the election one way or another, and that people who want to make snarky remarks about the little drunken moron sluts should do so.

In the same way, people who want to make envious remarks about the classy, elegant Kerry girls should also do so. By doing this kind of thing, you don’t win converts, but you energize the base a little.

Lyman’s strategic advice to his enemies should be filed appropriately. Nabakov’s concerns are more realistic — perhaps a segment of the Maxim readership will say something like “I’d do her in a minute! Sure I’ll vote for her Dad.” However, that doesn’t have anything to do with whether we should make nasty remarks or not.

I agree with lance boyle that reverse sexism is bad and that we should be as nasty to the ladies as we are to their male counterparts.

I agree with the majority here that ad hominem attacks against politicians’ relatives are politically counterproductive as a general rule. But am I alone in believing that Democrats are foolish to let Republicans portray themselves as the “family values” party without a fight?

At any rate, this forum does come off as rather precious. It will be a hot, nasty political summer, and I’m far more worried about Kerry repeating the 2000 debacle — when GoreCo ineffectually countered BushRove’s lies and then botched the recount — than I am about whether Democrats are going to sanctify or smear the Bush gals.

Hmmmm … not sure about the party line on this one. We need to draw a line between dull political invective and good honest mockery of the sort which adds to the gaiety of nations. I personally think it’s hilarious that Bush’s daughters get drunk a lot and will probably continue to say so on those rare occasions the fact crosses my mind.

Anthony wrote:

After all the Bush=Hitler nonsense and use of the word regime instead of administration, you seriously think that you will be able to prevent this sort of attack? I doubt it.

Not bloody likely, but it is sort of amusing to watch them pretend that they even have a chance to claim any sort of high ground on any issue. Also rather pathetic to see them still drag up the “Limbaugh called Chelsea a dog” line (are they still trying to get mileage out of that?) while ignoring Larry Flynt putting a bounty on Jenna Bush.

Deadhead, brain-dead. Close enough.

Hang on a minute now. I didn’t say they weren’t cute; indeed, I expressed concern that Maxim readers might vote for GW just because the liked the idea of doing Jenna. Or maybe Barb, though that’s less likely.

There’s even a site I love Jenna Bush confirming my fear. The site owner, if not a parodist, seems to be a slightly-mentally-ill right-wing New Age wanker.

ilovejennabush.blogspot.com/

No, a university degree is not a mark of intellectual distinction, and no one left or right thinks it is. Key words: “dumbing down” and “grade inflation”.

I am not confident that the twins share my beliefs about anything. Under the right circumstances, I too am strongly in favor of drunkenness, but that doesn’t mean that I feel a bond with every other drunk on the face of the earth.

As the updated saying goes, with your moral and intellectual solvency plus $2.85 you can buy a tall double latte. I’ll limp along without them.

I find this whole thread ludicrous, though I’ve enjoyed contributing to the stupidity. Nothing that anyone here does or doesn’t do relating to the Bush twins will have any effect whatever either on the twins or on the election.

Zizka frothed out:

Note that this attempt to claim the even-higher ground by pushing polemical “age of consent” eight years higher has made it easy for our friend thorley to counterattack.

“Age of consent”? Oh that’s right, I forgot that about the same time Limbaugh made his “family dog” joke (which he later apologized for), SNL was running sketches about a lesbian love affair between Chelsea Clinton and Madonna. I suppose that would be an example of left going after a president’s child that might actually relate to the “age of consent.”

To him the thirteenness of Chelsea is irrelevant

It’s also not a word.

and anything liberals do is always wrong anyway, and there should of course be a strict statute of limitations on conservative (but not liberal) offenses.

No but I do think it’s silly to continue to harp on something so insignificant that happened over eight years ago.

The Republican goons don’t need a pretext.

Somebody’s bucking for a job as an ad writer for MoveOn.org.

They were outraged by the Wellstone funeral.

No, I got over it when their little political rally blew up in their face on election day. My father, who was planning on voting for Wellstone for a third time, was with me the day his plane crashed and was outraged when my reaction was “how will the DFL exploit this for sympathy to keep the seat.” He called me the evening of the rally/memorial service and agreed that my prediction was right. No one (on the Right) s really “outraged” about it anymore since it was such an obvious and clumsy ploy on their part and it backfired, big time.

They will continue be outraged by something or another from here on out. They are outraged by events that didn’t take place and by deliberate misquotations. For them, outrage is fun, and it works.

Nice projection.

The idea that a concordat on civility within the genteel cohort of the left blogosphere is going to be a practical factor in the election is laughable. The idea that “We should be better then them” in order to get the Miss Congeniality loser award offends me, frankly.

Oh I don’t think that whether the blogosphere is more or less civil is going to make a scintilla of difference in this general election (although it does provide a useful alternative to the gate keeping of the mainstream media) as most people don’t read blogs (yet). By all means get angry, thump your chests, and make whatever cheap nasty remarks you want. It’s worked so far.

The election will neither be won nor lost on this issue. It’s a null. Fun-loving little rich rightwing bitches have their differences with the Taliban wing of the Republican party, but a small amount of experience with the twenty-some party circuit teaches you that they really don’t have problems with eliminationism, preemptive nuclear war against ragheads, or other forms of right-wing nastiness. Ann Coulter is a Deadhead, you know.

It’s starting to become clear that Zizka is really just upset because he never got over being turned down by one of the women he now professes to hate.

Good for her. ;)

Ted, the Democratic Party is an extraordinarily big tent. There are going to be lots of people under that tent whom you don’t like, doing things you don’t like, sometimes even related to the campaign. I don’t see any urgency here (besides the fact that I’m just a much more malicious person than you.)

If the abuse of the Bush girls is a factor in the election, it will be because the Republican publicity machine has decided to publicize it the way they did the Wellstone memorial. I doubt extremely that this will happen, because Bush’s campaign doesn’t want the core constituency to know much about the actual Bush family lifestyle.

Ted Barlowe wrote:

My cold-hearted calculus for the “leave them alone position: is this, Zizka:

– No one is going to be more likely to vote against Bush because of a left-wing takedown of one of his daughters.

– Some people might be more likely to vote for Bush, out of disgust for what is perceived, accurately or not, as the cruelty and pettiness of his opponents.

– If I’m right, there’s nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by attacking them.

My soft, fuzzy-headed argument is that attacks on family members of politicians bug the shit out of me. I find them embarassing and impossible to defend, and I’d rather not be associated with them.

Quite correct on all points.

Thorley, did you just write that to embarrass Ted? Your advice on Democratic political strategy is highly suspect.

If you or any other Republican/ conservative would put the same energy into policing your own side’s creepiness, I guess I’d take Ted’s attempts more seriously. Republican operatives (plausibly-deniable surrogates) even slimed Republican Sen. McCain’s family during the 2000 primaries, and I do expect Kerry’s family to get hit soon enough.

I just think that the whole issue of civility in American politics is a lost cause and has been for more than a decade, except (so far) in the limited but extremely important sense that civility consists of not using violence and threats of violence. There might be some point when calls for civility might make sense, but the issue mostly seems to get raised when Democrats start matching the Republicans.