Laura Bush is a class act
Let’s go over the order of events that have unfolded between Teresa Heinz Kerry and Laura Bush:
1. Teresa tells USA Today newspaper: “I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good.”But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job, I mean, since she’s been grown up.”
2. Teresa offers a swift apology:
“I had forgotten that Mrs Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian, and there couldn’t be a more important job than teaching our children. As someone who has been both a full-time mom and full-time in workforce, I know we all have valuable experiences that shape who we are.
I appreciate and honour Mrs Bush’s service to the country as First Lady, and am sincerely sorry I had not remembered her important work in the past.”
3. Laura responds to the apology:
“She apologized but she didn’t even really need to apologize,” Mrs. Bush told reporters at a coffee shop before attending a rally in Lebanon for President Bush. “I know how tough it is and actually I know those trick questions.”
October 21st, 2004 at 8:41 pm
Laura Bush’s Response shows her grace and class. Laura Bush would have never made the mistake Heinz did accidental or not.
October 21st, 2004 at 8:46 pm
Well, I partially agree. I don’t think Laura Bush is incapable of making mistakes. Mistakes are just that–accidental. The very nature of a mistake makes it an accident.
October 21st, 2004 at 8:49 pm
I am sure Laura Bush has made mistakes, just not like the one Hienz made. You know, sticking her foot in her mouth.
October 21st, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Can we agree that they both probably do better than Mr. President?
October 21st, 2004 at 8:57 pm
Well, right. Mrs. Bush isn’t as outspoken as Mrs. Kerry…. or rather, she’s more careful about what she says.
October 21st, 2004 at 8:58 pm
#4. agreed.
APPLAUSE
October 21st, 2004 at 9:14 pm
Teresa Heinz Kerry has about as much grace, class and sophistication as Marge Schott.
Now Laura Bush……….there’s a lady!
Now, if only someone would introduce me to the lovely Barbara Bush (no…..not her…….W’s brunette daughter…….She’s YUMMY!)
October 21st, 2004 at 9:32 pm
yeah, she’s a fall down slobbenly drunk. class act!
October 21st, 2004 at 9:34 pm
(previous post in reference to bush’s daughter)
October 21st, 2004 at 9:51 pm
Wow!
She got caught drinking a beer, and now she’s an alcoholic????????
At least she knows when to keep her mouth shut…..and at least she doesn’t run around wearing see-through clothing like Kerry’s daughter does.
October 21st, 2004 at 10:23 pm
Teresa Heinz wouldnt be a better President, because she wasnt born in this country.
Amen Chris
October 21st, 2004 at 10:36 pm
Actually, she COULDN’T be a better president, because she wasn’t born in this country.
October 21st, 2004 at 11:47 pm
you cannot possibly say class and the Bush girls in the same sentence…perhaps if they ever grow up.
October 22nd, 2004 at 12:08 am
Whoa. LadyJane. I haven’t talked to you in ages. Thanks for dropping by.
October 22nd, 2004 at 8:13 am
We are saying that Laura Bush represents class. I wouldnt say the Bush or Kerry daughters represent class. I agree with Chris though, drinking beer is better than running around in a see-through dress.
October 22nd, 2004 at 9:49 am
This morning’s Drudge Report has photos of Mrs. Kerry holding MORE THAN ONE BEER in her possession.
Check it out while Drudge still has them up.
October 22nd, 2004 at 3:26 pm
my mistake: i got her confused with jenna bush.
and i didn’t say she was an alcoholic - try to not put words in my mouth. i said she was a fall down drunk, which is exactly what’s happening in this picture:
http://www.thefirsttwins.com/images/JennaBush.jpg
October 22nd, 2004 at 4:07 pm
Okay………there’s a difference between a drunk and an alcoholic……..whatever!
But go back and read my earlier post……. I was referring to BARBARA Bush, Jenna’s sister…….that’s why I referred to her as the BRUNETTE daughter…….not the BLONDE one.
Have any pictures of Barbara?
October 22nd, 2004 at 5:00 pm
yeah, and how about you go back and read my post where i said “my mistake,” meaning “oops, i got them mixed up,” which i realized when i looked up the picture i linked.
October 22nd, 2004 at 5:36 pm
When you say the following:
“my mistake: i got her confused with jenna bush.”
I assumed the “her” was Mrs. Kerry, i.e. you saw the pictures of Mrs. Kerry on the DRUDGE REPORT (I’d better be clear and not say “her”), and you meant to say “I got Mrs. Kerry confused with Jenna Bush…..”i.e. I thought you were being sarcastic about Mrs. Kerry.
The way you wrote it wasn’t clear.
October 22nd, 2004 at 11:59 pm
UH…..
Well Laura Bush is a classy lady. she may be the only one of the whole bunch. at least all the young girls have the excuse of being young. Mrs. Heinz doesnt have that excuse.
October 25th, 2004 at 4:59 pm
Just a few misc. comments…
Since this topic is purely subjective, here’s my 2 cents:
1) I might have more respect for Laura Bush if she wasn’t such a stereotype. If your definition of class is being a Republican Stepford Wife who lives an archaic 50’s-era fantasy life where women never contradict their husbands, then I guess you’re right.
Personally, I’ll take a gutsy, independent woman like Ms. Heinz-Kerry anyday.
2) I don’t know to what degree this applies to how classy she is, but let’s not forget that Laura Bush killed someone in a drunk driving incident. Classy, maybe. Responsible, no.
3) And to clarify her credentials, Laura Bush should be considered a “media specialist”, not a Librarian. The title “Librarian” is conferred on those who have a master’s degree in Library Science, which she does not have.
(Nit-picky I know, but my mother-in-law the librarian blows a gasket every time she sees Laura Bush referred to as a librarian. Ain’t trivia grand?)
October 25th, 2004 at 9:17 pm
I didnt realize that you knew Laura Bush well enough to call her a Republican “Stepford” Wife. I dont think you know that family enough to know the influence she has on her family. That was speculation.
Hienz a gutsy, independent woman? Maybe she has almost a billion dollars, and believe she doesnt have to respect anyone or anything, especially since she isnt from this country. (Just Speculating)
We dont have to worry about the definition of librarian, just a day job. It really is a dead issue because Hienz admitted to be completely wrong.
October 25th, 2004 at 10:17 pm
and you know her/the family well enough to not be speculating about whether or not she is a “stepford” wife?
October 25th, 2004 at 11:51 pm
No I dont, but I thought that was the point I was making.
Everything President Bush has said seems to represent a woman who is a strong mother figure, and has a strong influence on him and the family.
I just wanted to point out that not all Republican wifes are the “stereotypical” Stepford wives who live in archaic 50s era fantasy.
October 26th, 2004 at 8:55 am
My frustration with Laura Bush and what she represents (or at least indirectly conveys via her public image) stems from the fact that the Republican party currently seems to be dominated by the extremists within their ranks.
The Republicans who currently occupy the high-ranking positions clearly subscribe to the “America was never better than it was in the fifties when white male Christians were in charge of everything and the women stayed home, took care of the kids, and kept their mouths shut” ethos.
Even though I’m a registered Democrat, I don’t automatically assume anyone who is a Republican is a bad person. It’s just terrifying to see an otherwise perfectly legitimate political party get hijacked by religious zealots, misogynists, and warmongers.
I realize that being the spouse of a high-profile politician involves playing a part in athe big production that is high-level politics. I just don’t understand why Laura Bush should be lauded as a classy woman for playing the role of meek, obedient housewife while others like Hillary Clinton and Theresa Heinz-Kerry routinely get criticized for stepping outside that role.
October 26th, 2004 at 10:28 am
I respect everyone’s right to find their own religious values. I also dont appologize for letting my faith play a role in political stance.
I am against abortion, not because the Bible tells me to, but because I personally think it is wrong to kill unborn babies. I against homosexuality because it is against the fundamentals of my religion. Do I vote on these issues? No.
Abortion will never become illegal in this country again. We all know that it true. The only thing that the President asked for was to outlaw partial birth abortion.
Homosexuality is still a small percentage, and the majority of this country thinks it is wrong anyway.
I vote republican because of the economic policies. I dont believe in raising taxes to redistribute the money to poeple who dont try to better themselves.
I also dont believe that the Republican Pary wants all women to stay home, and be submisive to their Husbands. I think this image is what the Democratic Party wants everyone to believe. I dont dislike Hilary and Teresa because they dont fit the “Republican Role”. I dislike Hilary because I have a read a handful of books that represent her as someone who will lie and cheat to get ahead no matter what. I dont like Teresa because I dont think she respects this country, and what it stands for. I also Think John Kerry will lie and cheat to get ahead, this has been proven. I also dont think that he respects this country and what it stands for.
October 26th, 2004 at 11:25 am
“It’s just terrifying to see an otherwise perfectly legitimate political party get hijacked by religious zealots, misogynists, and warmongers.”
From the Democratic Party’s dictionary:
*Religious zealot–anyone who opposes abortion
* misogynist-anyone who opposes abortion
*warmonger-anyone who believes in conducting an offensive war against evil.
“The Republicans who currently occupy the high-ranking positions clearly subscribe to the “America was never better than it was in the fifties when white male Christians were in charge of everything and the women stayed home, took care of the kids, and kept their mouths shut” ethos.”
Dude, seriously, you’ve got some FUNNY ideas about Republicans.
But what, may I ask, do you have against Christians?
October 26th, 2004 at 11:26 am
Sorry…….I wrote the last post…….just forgot to post my name!
October 26th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
One other thing Craiger………why don’t you visit North Louisiana, where U.S. Congressman Rodney Alexander just switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican?
Alexander represented what the Democratic Party once was before the 1970s, but even he can no longer support their agenda (and I say “agenda,” not “fanatics”,”warmongers” and women-haters because I choose, unlike you, not to resort to labels).
Talk to Zell Miller, who will die a Democrat, but HATES what the party has turned into.
Kerry may win next week, God forbid, but he will do it without most of the South, except for Florida (and I’ve just done my part to keep this state for Bush).
And I’ll tell you something else to shatter your stereotype of what a Republican is:
A friend of mine sleeps around, uses drugs, and supports abortion (again, he sleeps around), but votes Republican because he knows the Democrats are wrong when it comes to self-defense, and that the misguided policies of the Clinton admininstration directly led to 9-11.
He’s also angry that Democrats use social programs (paid for by my taxes) as a political tool to gather votes, and he’s also angry that so many people in this country are on some sort of government assistance, courtesy of the Democrats, rather than using their own self-reliance to get ahead in life.
Self-reliance, by the way, is another “hateful” Republican value, something a Democrat would never talk about.
October 26th, 2004 at 12:49 pm
I looked up stories on the wreck Mrs. Bush had when she was 17. There was no alchol in her blood. It is on the police report that way.
It was a tragic accident, and a 17 year old boy lost his life. To suggest lies: “but let’s not forget that Laura Bush killed someone in a drunk driving incident. Classy, maybe. Responsible, no.” It is wrong to suggets lies this way.
October 26th, 2004 at 1:44 pm
Okay, I’ll try to respond to as many of the above recent posts as I can without rambling…
- I don’t know about the Democratic Party’s Dictionary (I must have misplaced my copy), but *I* don’t define a religious zealot as someone who simply opposes abortion. I define a religious zealot as someone who claims to be selected by a higher power to attain political office and then allows his or her faith to disproportionately inform their policy decision. Taliban, anyone?
-Again, a misogynist is not someone who opposes abortion. Misogyny takes many forms, and from what I’ve observed, the Democratic party seems willing to embrace the concept of gender equality much more than the Republican party.
-Warmongering: I consider an offensive war against evil to be entirely just and an act of self-defense when executed against the correct targets. I’ve said previously that I felt that acting swiftly against Afghanistan post 9-11 was entirely the right thing to do. I think invading Iraq was an entirely different exercise whose motivations ran the gamut from money to imperialism to vanity.
You ask what I have against Christians. I have nothing against the majority of Christians who express their faith privately and with respect to other religions. I DO have a big problem with the religious right and evangelicals whose agenda is to insinuate a specific belief system into the public arena. The government cannot sponsor or endorse a particular religion, and continued efforts to force Christianity into schools, government offices, etc., sends a message to everyone that the government implicitly endorses Christianity. Again, Taliban anyone?
As for your friend with the drugs, sleeping around, etc.: I’m talking generalities here. Obviously we can all come up with anecdotal examples to counter a prevailing viewpoint. I have a good friend who is everything the Bush administration claims is part of their base:- blue collar, veteran, family man, Christian,…and a Kerry supporter.
As for social programs, redistribution of wealth, self-reliance and so on: I believe that the greatest hallmark of a civilized society is it’s ability to take care of it’s citizens when the need arises. I hear Republicans constantly espousing a Darwinist, predatory social model wherein anyone who can’t take care of themselves is considered acceptable losses. “Don’t have health care? Screw him. Can’t afford to cover the rent? Tough break.� I’m not suggesting the government offer life-long bailouts to people who aren’t making an effort to better their situation. I’m just saying that not every single person who takes advantage of a social program is doing so because they have a lack of self-reliance, and I’m tired of Republicans trying to portray these people as worthless drains on the system.
And you want to talk about being angry over how tax dollars are used? I’m not real happy my tax money gets used to buy the latest million-dollar war toys while soldiers somehow don’t have enough body armor to go around.
October 26th, 2004 at 2:47 pm
The government social programs are not being used in the way you describe. I wouldn’t be against the programs if someone you need a helping hand dipped in and got it. That is not what we have going on in this country. Our social programs promote a situation where the poeple must rely on the government for everything. Communist anyone?
A zealot: (n) a fanatical Partisan. (Webster)
A christian can be a zealot. An atheist can be a zealot. Republicans and Democrats can be zealots. To label just Christians with that word is wrong.
What is the difference between a christian promoting their beliefs, and an atheist doing the same thing.
October 26th, 2004 at 3:53 pm
your webster’s definition is for ‘zealot’. Craiger’s was “religious zealot”.
I guess what can be inferred from Webster’s is “A religiously fanatical Partisan”.
October 26th, 2004 at 4:58 pm
If praying for wisdom and guidance in the course of doing one’s job makes one a religious zealot, then I suppose I’m one as well.
I don’t know about you, but I think everything happens for a reason, even who the president is, and if believing that makes one a religious zealot, then count me in.
“the Democratic party seems willing to embrace the concept of gender equality much more than the Republican party.”
What the hell are you talking about? Can you even provide a specific example of this?
“I think invading Iraq was an entirely different exercise whose motivations ran the gamut from money to imperialism to vanity.”
I have mixed feelings about Iraq–but the fact remains, weapons of mass destruction or no, the country was a state sponsor of terrorism, as is Iran (and Libya was before our Iraq invasion scared them into FINALLY complying with the U.N. mandates…..funny how a show of brute force actually results in compliance with the rules).
Iraq had to be dealt with eventually!
I cannot believe you’re comparing Christianity to the Taliban!!!!!
The last I checked, most Christians carry their message across through peaceful means.
Since when did Christians and G.W.’s administration force people to start complying with a Christian lifestyle at gunpoint?
So, you have a problem with the religious right insinuating a specific belief system into the public arena?
Do you have a problem with homosexuals telling me I’m supposed to accept gay marriage?
And that small children in school should read books called “Heather Has Two Mommies?”
Whether you like it or not, most established religions have been a positive force for many people throughout history, and to say that people shouldn’t express it in public suggests your own discomfort with America’s Judeo Christian heritage, and, perhaps, your belief that the Constitution protects freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.
Have Christians crossed the line with the whole prayer in school thing?
Sure…….although I don’t think it’s a coincidence that public schools started falling apart exactly when the Supreme Court took prayer out. .
I’m not totally opposed to government helping those in need….but when people become DEPENDENT on these programs, and when so many people believe that the government is their sugardaddy, I have a serious problem.
Being a sugardaddy is not what government is supposed to be about……..like Ronald Reagon said, it’s about helping people learn to help themselves…….that’s the greatest form of compassion there is.
How else can you explain so many single mothers on government assistance…….why should they need a man if the government is there for them?
I’ve read NON-PARTISAN, sociological studies by academic researchers proving that our welfare system locks people in a cycle of dependency, and makes their lives worse by giving them no incentive to better themselves……..and lo and behold, here comes a Democratic candidate for (fill in your own blank) essentially buying votes by promisng more government benefits, but they have to vote for (fill in the blank), because the opponent will take them away.
Don’t you see how screwed up this is?
October 27th, 2004 at 9:45 am
“Don’t you see how screwed up this is?”
Chris, I obviously disagree with most of your views, and you clearly disagree with mine. It’s unlikely that anything I put forth here will be considered legitimate or credible by you.
That being said, my discomfort with the conservative/Republican agenda (yes, I know they’re not *exactly* the same thing, but again, we’re talking generalizations here), essentially stems from three things that appear to be cornerstones of the right:
1) Placing commerce above people (business interests will always trump individual interests)
2) Hostility toward minorities (incuding homosexuals)
3) Disproportionate influence from the Christian right
If you feel this is untrue, you’re perfectly entitled to believe it. I’m just calling it like I see it.
October 27th, 2004 at 10:41 am
Craiger, dont get me wrong, I respect your opinion.
1) I agree that Republicans put business first, but this is because we believe if business thrives so do the individuals. This is the fundamental difference between the Left and the Right.
2) I dont know where democrats get that Republicans are hostile toward Minorities. I agree that the Religion sector of the party is against Homosexuality, but so is 80% of the population. I would love examples of how Republicans have shown hostility toward women or African Americans. Abortion doesnt count toward “Hostility” because Republicans dont hate women, we hate the act of Abortion.
3) “Disproportionate influence from the Christian right” What is wrong with allowing a voter’s christian belief be apart of their political stance.
I know neither of us will change our minds, but I just have fun discussing it. And just maybe someone will see the light and come to the fold.
October 27th, 2004 at 11:22 am
Craiger……..I’m still waiting for specific examples from you of how Republicans are hostile to the concept of gender equality, as well as minorities.
If opposing quotas and affirmative action constitutes “hostility” to you, then you must be a very sensitive man.
If opposing homosexual marriage constitutes “hostility” to you, then Bill Clinton and John Kerry must be equally hostile, seeing as how they oppose it as well.
I’m not hostile to gays……..but they are nice to laugh at every so often.
October 27th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
OK guys, I can see where you’re coming from, and as I’ve stated a few times earlier, I’m talking about general observations and impressions here.
From where I’m sitting, Republican policies usually seem to be detrimental to nonwhites and homosexuals to one degree or another. It’s just that it seems that they’re the ones who ultimately end up on the short end of things.
On religion- I get nervous when I see a specific faith (i.e. Christianity) being continually held up as a potential de facto national religion. This country is comprised of people who follow many different belief systems, and I feel it’s extremely important to avoid any policies that make clear movements toward a state-sponsored religion.
Chris- I do consider myself a sensitive guy. I don’t consider that a bad thing. I try to be as tolerant as I can and allow myself to see things from other perspectives as much as possible. I do get angry, and I feel passionately about my convictions, but I don’t apologize for that. If being sensitive equals weakness in your eyes, then I can’t really do much about that.
Joey- I think it’s fun to discuss this stuff too. It’s why I visit this site and sometimes jump in here to comment. I appreciate your views (the same as I do everyone else’s), and was glad to see your opinions even just in this thread alone were not what my preconceptions led me to believe.
I enjoy a spirited discussion as much as the next guy, and I wish I had more time to read up on the pros & cons of all this stuff. I wish I had the time to find links, cite articles, etc. to support my views with specific examples. The reality is that I flat out don’t have the hours to devote to being the political junkie I might otherwise be. I own & operate my own business, and I can only do so much research. If I was able to spend the time gathering more info, believe me, I’d do it…but I’m trying to make a living.
I consider myself a “liberal Democrat”, and that isn’t likely to change in the near future. I know for a lot of people that label is seen as one step removed from Hitler himself, but what can I do? My views are my views, and I’m not going to alter them because they may be unpopular with a segment of society.
So I guess it’s time to start talking about Howard Stern then? It looks like the more recent posts don’t have many comments…
October 27th, 2004 at 7:50 pm
Craiger, what part of the country are you from?
October 28th, 2004 at 8:56 am
Pennsylvania
October 28th, 2004 at 9:11 am
I was just curious …………you don’t sound like a Southerner.
October 28th, 2004 at 9:41 am
Well, since the Mason-Dixon line runs along PA’s southern border, I’m close…but technically not a Southerner.
So what does a Southerner sound like (or not sound like in my case)?
October 28th, 2004 at 10:41 am
Someone who isn’t as liberal as you
Having been raised in the Bible Belt South, I currently live in South Florida, which is still the South, but nothing more than a refuge for misplaced New Yorkers.
I’ve learned there’s a Southern way of thinking……..and a Northern way.
And you, my friend, reflect the Northern way.
October 28th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m trying to get past the idea that things can be that easily categorized (i.e. Northern & Southern). I’ve never thought of myself as having a particularly “Northern ” sensibility (whatever that is).
For example, everyone knows the classic stereotype of a Southerner is some uneducated, racist, toothless hillbilly with a pickup truck and gun collection. My mother-in-law lived in central Florida for many years, and during my many visits, I have to admit I encountered a lot of people that didn’t do much to abolish this stereotype.
HOWEVER, as tempting as it may be to subscribe to those stereotypes, I know better. Obviously, not everyone from the South is some dumb redneck, just as not everyone from the north is a rich, liberal, intellectual snob (or whatever Northerners are percieved as elsewhere is the country).
I think that’s what being expressed so starkly these past few months with all the election chaos. Pundits, analysts, campaign operatives and everyone else trying to fit the electorate into neatly labeled categories are going nuts because traditonal roles & virewpoints don’t seem to apply the way they once did.
It’s going to be a wild next few days…
November 16th, 2004 at 1:37 pm
I think her being the first lady goes to show the careful choices our president had made vrs the choice that Kerry made in marrying ol Heinz. Money may help but it doesn’t mask that you inevidably just can’t keep your mouth shut about stuff you have no clue about.