May 27, 2004

Not in our name

Posted by Ted

Left-of-center bloggers, could I have a quick word with you, before this becomes a problem?

(huddle)

Barbara and Jenna Bush are going to join their father’s campaign. There’s going to be a fair number of stories about them. They’re out of college, and many are going to consider attacks on them to be fair game. We shouldn’t.

When Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the “White House dog”… when John Derbyshire wrote his famous “I hate Chelsea Clinton” column… when Mickey Kaus attacked Kerry’s daughter for the dress she wore… those arguments were heavily quoted and promoted, not by conservatives, but by liberals. They make right wingers* look like cruel, petty people who attack the loved ones of their political opponents. I don’t want us to be like that. These attacks barely work in terms of preaching to the choir, and alienate and insult everyone else.

So it will be with the Bush daughters. There will never be a post or story about Bush’s daughters that loses votes for George W. Bush. The Bush daughters are good-looking young women who are doing nothing wrong by supporting their father, whom they love. They could hardly be more sympathetic if they fell down a well. We should leave them alone.

* “But Kaus is a Democrat!” Yes, he’s a Democrat who wrote a mean, inaccurate hit piece on the Democratic nominee’s daughter. Duly noted.

Posted on May 27, 2004 04:08 PM UTC
Comments

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

Posted by fdl · May 27, 2004 04:23 PM

On the other hand, if they lie, dissemble, fib, are unethical or do anything else that deserves comment you cannot let it pass. They are taking on the job of spokeswomen for the campaign, and they should be treated as such.

No stupid personal attacks, but if they use these jobs to spin and duck and dodge they can’t be given a free ride.

Posted by Poppy McCool · May 27, 2004 04:25 PM

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.

Posted by Charles V · May 27, 2004 04:37 PM

Kaus is a hardline Republican who pretends to be Democrat the same way Chris Mathews does. They both spend their time shilling RNC talking points. Mathews must know that the Gore invented internet meme was as fraudulent as Chalabai’s WMD, but he keeps repeating the claim.

Even if they were really Democrats that does not excuse blatantly unfair reporting of either side.

Kaus prints story after story on Kerry, I have yet to see one story where he admits Bush is an incompetent rube without a shred of credibility.

Posted by Phill · May 27, 2004 04:46 PM

>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.

Posted by rvman · May 27, 2004 04:50 PM

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

Posted by Scott Swank · May 27, 2004 04:50 PM

> 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

Posted by Cranky Observer · May 27, 2004 05:00 PM

They’re really not good-looking. They look like every other stupid, drunk, slightly-overweight sorority girl on my campus. I dunno - I guess I prefer a girl to have a little more substance (between the ears, not around the waist).

And don’t tell me Barb is “smart” because she went to yale. If my experience at Harvard was any indication, people who come from money and pick the right major (e.g. “humanities”) can be dumb as a bag of bricks and still finish with a B+ average.

Other than that, of course, Ted is right. Even if they lie, if they’re anything like their dad, they’re probably not smart enough to understand that what they’re being told to say isn’t factually correct.

Posted by Dave · May 27, 2004 05:01 PM

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.

Posted by Greg · May 27, 2004 05:13 PM

I agree with poppy, above. If they are pat of his campaign team, they are fair game. Silly personal attacks are ugly, weather their aimed at the president’s daughters or the president’s dog. But if the twins start shilling for Daddy, they’re in the spotlight and deserve whatever attention they get, for their poor career choices.

Posted by Keith · May 27, 2004 05:13 PM

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

Posted by P O'Neill · May 27, 2004 05:18 PM

We should really feel sorry for them; look at the parents. I will also bet they don’t spend more than 10-15 minutes in Crawford from now till November.

Posted by matt · May 27, 2004 05:51 PM

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

Posted by paul · May 27, 2004 05:54 PM

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

Yes! Absolutely!

Posted by Ted Barlow · May 27, 2004 06:09 PM

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

Posted by randy Paul · May 27, 2004 06:29 PM

I think the Bush girls should be off limits…with one exception. Iraq. It is entirely obvious that if they were boys there would be a tremendous clamouring for them to enlist. Nevertheless, it is not absurd to point out that they are perfectly capable of serving in some capacity and choose not to. Not only that, but Bush doesn’t seem to have asked them to serve.

Posted by space · May 27, 2004 06:30 PM

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.

Posted by Robert Lyman · May 27, 2004 06:48 PM

Not only that, but Bush doesn’t seem to have asked them to serve.

Then we should go after him for that, not after them. ‘Have you asked your daughters to serve their country in Iraq rather than their father in his election campaign?’ seems an utterly fair question to ask him. I’ll believe it when I hear it.

Posted by harry · May 27, 2004 06:50 PM

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.

Posted by Nabakov · May 27, 2004 06:50 PM

Chelsea was, what, thirteen when Rush made that comment about her? The Bush twins are grown women who are going to be actively campaigning for their dad. That’s a very different context.

I say this as someone who defended their right to privacy when they were in college and not campaigning for their dad.

Posted by Keith M Ellis · May 27, 2004 06:55 PM

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.

Posted by bob mcmanus · May 27, 2004 07:04 PM

I agree that no one should attack Bush’s daughters personally. But it is not true that they are doing nothing wrong in supporting Bush because they love him. Anyone who attempts to help elect Bush is doing something wrong. Being his daughter or loving him is no excuse. We do not have to endorse the actions of those we love.

Posted by Henry · May 27, 2004 07:12 PM

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).

Posted by LowLife · May 27, 2004 07:13 PM

I suppose it’s possible that Kaus registers as a Democrat to vote in some primary somewhere. But on the basis of his writing, he’s not much more of a Democrat than Zell Miller. Time to stop pretending that he’s a real Democrat — that is, someone who might conceivably support a Democratic candidate.

Posted by Theophylact · May 27, 2004 08:11 PM

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?

Posted by Nat Whilk · May 27, 2004 08:12 PM

We should extend the same gallantry to everyone I think. Scurrilous invective, even directed at the most obviously guilty, has no place. A sneering liberal, the mirror-symmetry of O’Reilly’s smug demonic mug, is failure.
Calling Bush a dunce isn’t much different from calling his daughters drunks.
And isn’t it kind of a gender thing?
Shouldn’t it be the same rules for how we treat Jeb Bush, as Jen?

Posted by Lance Boyle · May 27, 2004 08:19 PM

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.”

Posted by Dimmy Karras · May 27, 2004 08:21 PM

I’d just like to say that:

-You are absolutely right Ted. It’s wrong and stupid to go after the Bush daughters in any way.

-I had no idea there were so many politicaly stupid liberals on this site.

There’s a chilvarous instinct in most people that gets triggerred whenever someone criticizes a politicians young daughter. If you can’t see how this would hurt us , then kindly stay out of public view until after novemember. Or vote for Nader; that would be just as effective.

Posted by WillieStyle · May 27, 2004 08:22 PM

Williestyle’s got it exactly right.

Posted by fyreflye · May 27, 2004 08:42 PM

The Bush daughters are good-looking young women who are doing nothing wrong by supporting their father, whom they love.

Good looking? By British standards, you mean?

Look, they may support their father, but they don’t share his politics, and Jenna certainly doesn’t manifest his supposed values.

You shouldn’t make fun of them, there’s nothing wrong with them. There’s just a disconnect, like the one between bike crashes and rainfall, that makes the right’s myth-making harder (e.g., is avoiding Vietnam good or bad this election cycle? I’ve lost track). So, the AM Radio treatment is out, but the British press treatment is not (upside: we can call them “attractive”).

Posted by Extradite the Neocons · May 27, 2004 08:43 PM

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.

Posted by Extradite the Neocons · May 27, 2004 08:48 PM

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

I’m not sure what you mean. If Kerry said “I voted against X because it was pork” that would be a good argument. Instead, he says, in response to questions about his voting record “How dare you question my patriotism? I served in Vietnam.” This is a bad argument from a logical standpoint, but it may well be effective politically.

Similarly, if Bush’s daughters say or do something worthy of criticism, and they are duly criticized, that is in some cosmic sense right and just. But count on Bush’s campaign to run an ad saying “Kerry is smearing Bush’s family again…” Nonsensical? Yes. Effective? Probably.

Posted by Robert Lyman · May 27, 2004 08:54 PM

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.

Posted by P O'Neill · May 27, 2004 10:01 PM

They make right wingers* look like cruel, petty people who attack the loved ones of their political opponents. I don’t want us to be like that.

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.

Posted by Anthony · May 27, 2004 10:39 PM

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

Posted by Kaus Hackula · May 27, 2004 11:09 PM

O’Neil: that’s my thoughts on RvW, as well; I call myself pro-choice; and I was (well, until I let my membership lapse) a member of NARAL. But that’s not a very good litmus test—the nationalized health care test is a better one, ‘cause I doubt you’d find more than 10% of Republicans that would say they support that idea. Lots of pro-choice Repubs, though.

My problem with Kaus in the last few years, especially, is that he acts like a partisan Repub, not a Democrat. That is, it’s not the positions he takes, which have always been centrist, but that these days he’s far more concerned with criticizing Dems than Repubs. I wrote him off a while ago.

Posted by Keith M Ellis · May 27, 2004 11:10 PM

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.

Posted by Nat Whilk · May 27, 2004 11:50 PM

DAMN! I missed the fun. Not having read the comments, I’d just like to say that the thing about Chelsea was not her daughterness but her thirteennness, and that all four Kerry / Bush daughters (and all eight Kerry- / Bush- related boobs) are fair game.

And I think little brother Marvin has gotten off far too easily up till now, the son af a bitch. Little brother is what? 50 years old now? People should be flicking him some shit.

Posted by Zizka · May 28, 2004 12:58 AM

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.

Posted by Zizka · May 28, 2004 01:19 AM

Left-of-center bloggers, could I have a quick word with you, before this becomes a problem?

(huddle)

That was toooo cute.

Posted by Haven Perez · May 28, 2004 01:20 AM

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.

Posted by robbo · May 28, 2004 02:13 AM

Personal insults (calling them stupid, shallow, sexpots, etc.) should be avoided, certainly.

I don’t think it would be unfair, though, to say that their working in their father’s campaign makes them… what’s the word?…

…oh yeah, “enablers”.

Of course, that applies to everyone who works for Bush’s campaign….

Posted by Bruce A. · May 28, 2004 02:19 AM

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.

Posted by dsquared · May 28, 2004 07:14 AM

You can’t even get a party line on not suggesting there was a conspiracy theory on 911!

Posted by Anthony · May 28, 2004 10:21 AM
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.

Posted by Thorley Winston · May 28, 2004 02:51 PM

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. To him the thirteenness of Chelsea is irrelevant, 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.

The Republican goons don’t need a pretext. They were outraged by the Wellstone funeral. 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.

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.

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.

Posted by Zizka · May 28, 2004 04:33 PM

Deadhead, brain-dead. Close enough.

Posted by rvman · May 28, 2004 04:51 PM

What I find amusing is the disconnect between those who think it is just fine to attack “the little drunken moron sluts” and those who note that the girls political opinions do not align with those of their father.

They’re really not good-looking. They look like every other stupid, drunk, slightly-overweight sorority girl on my campus. I dunno - I guess I prefer a girl to have a little more substance (between the ears, not around the waist).

And don’t tell me Barb is “smart” because she went to yale. If my experience at Harvard was any indication, people who come from money and pick the right major (e.g. “humanities”) can be dumb as a bag of bricks and still finish with a B+ average.

So now suddenly a university degree isn’t a mark of intellectual achievement. Or is it only a distinction if the individual in question is a card carrying liberal? But wait:

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.”

So are you taking the position that they are stupid, though they share your beliefs?

The girls may not be incredible supermodel hotties, but they aren’t unattractive. I’d bet none of you would kick them out of bed for eating crackers. And to hold a couple of overzealous youthful party moments against them the way many of you seem to is just pathetic. They couldn’t possibly have matured during the last couple of years?

Never mind. You reveal yourselves for what you are. Both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Posted by JAM · May 28, 2004 08:08 PM

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.

Posted by Zizka · May 28, 2004 09:08 PM

Thorley,
I see, so Rush:GOP::Flynt:Dems?
Not quite. Not by a mile.
When the GOP took over Congress in Jan. 95, they invited Limbaugh to address the freshman representatives. (He told them to beware of Cokie Roberts.) Have the Dems ever deliberately associated themselves with Larry Flynt? Has he addressed their party conclaves at their invitation? I’m confident we can get some smart-ass in here to make some sarcastic remark about how the Dems are all deviant pornographers, etc. etc., but I think you know that my point stands. Now, then, has Limbaugh ever apologized for that remark? Perhaps he has, I can’t say for sure - but I rather doubt it.

Posted by the Navigator · May 28, 2004 09:37 PM

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. ;)

Posted by Thorley Winston · May 28, 2004 09:48 PM

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.

Posted by Ted Barlow · May 28, 2004 09:51 PM

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.

Posted by Zizka · May 28, 2004 11:22 PM

“Left-of-center bloggers, could I have a quick word with you, before this becomes a problem?”

Left-of-center does not necessarily mean pro-Kerry anti-Bush.

Posted by Maddy · May 28, 2004 11:42 PM

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.

Posted by Thorley Winston · May 29, 2004 02:39 AM

On the other hand, if anything in this world can be offensive, it is a damn Republican deigning to give Democrats advice on matters of restraint in discourse.

Hell should freeze utterly before you give a flying f*** what Repubs think about what you say about them.

Posted by bob mcmanus · May 29, 2004 04:37 AM

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.

Posted by Zizka · May 29, 2004 07:26 AM

“When Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as the “White House dog”…”

No, didnt happen this way.

Transcript from lexis-nexis (Rush was doing a segment on In/Out lists)

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.
RUSH LIMBAUGH
SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)
November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show’s era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them—one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of—of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has—he’s got—it’s very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.’ Could—could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at—see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That’s not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That’s—that’s the kid. We’re trying to…

_________________________

Yes, it was a mistake, and yes, he profusely apologized.

Posted by nobody · June 4, 2004 05:21 AM
Followups

→ This seems to me about right..
Excerpt: A simple point, perhaps, but a good one to make before this election becomes any uglier.Read more at ...the clown's afraid too.
→ In someone’s name.
Excerpt: Ted Barlow has an eminently sensible post on how relatives of political candidates should be treated (and, as is par for the course, attracts a bevy of moonbats in the comments who disagree). However, being a single male, I reserve...Read more at Signifying Nothing
→ The Bush twins.
Excerpt: I'm with Ted here. I see nothing good, politically or morally, coming out of an attack on Jenna and Barbara...Read more at Off the Kuff
→ Inconceivable, or Some People Write What I Think.
Excerpt: It must be mind control or ESP or something, because I've come across some blog posts I could have written. If I had the time and talent, that is. I know he's "the dean" of political pundits, but Geitner's title...Read more at Funmurphys: the Blog
→ Heading this off at the pass?.
Excerpt: Ted Barlow has a straightforward suggestion about how to make personal attacks against the Bush daughters, now that they've joined the Bush campaign: don't. He thinks that it's not nice (Ted always was a big softie) and not smart politicsRead more at Obsidian Wings
→ Heading this off at the pass?.
Excerpt: Ted Barlow has a straightforward suggestion about how to make personal attacks against the Bush daughters, now that they're joining the Bush campaign: don't. He thinks that it's not nice (Ted always was a big softie) and not smart politicsRead more at Obsidian Wings

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.