Posted on 05/02/2005 12:37:28 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Who knew? First lady Laura Bush took over the podium from her husband at Saturday night's annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner and knocked 'em dead, keeping Washington's most powerful politicos in stitches as she worked the ballroom like a seasoned stand-up comic. "George always says he's delighted to come to these press dinners. Baloney. He's usually in bed by now," Mrs. Bush said. "I'm not kidding. I said to him the other day, 'George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Remember, no one can digest Corn.
ROFL! (Did you write the First Lady's routine?)
Heh!
Indeed. And if a Democrat First Lady had done exactly the same routine, FR would have been covered up with charges of "degenerate" and "pottymouth." Brent Bozell would have been all over Fox News practically shaking with righteous indignation.
I don't know about you, but in all my experience, the mental images conjured up by George Bush trying to milk a stallion and Laura Bush identifying herself with a TV program about housewives who act like whores definitely meets the risque threshold. Granted, the author engages in hyperbole on the point about explaining the humor to his toddler, but let's not go overboard ourselves in the opposite direction.
All in good fun, yes, but much of the content of her bit showed questionable judgment.
Cept that Van de Huevel gal.....She is actually 'harder to digest.'
I wonder if Korn had the same complaints about the F-bomb fests hosted by Franken, Chris Rock, and the like.
Oh, that's different. It's okay when it's a liberal.
Remember the "Reading is Fundamental" ad campaign? I used to describe it as the "Just Read" ad campaign, which was its thust. If you think about it, you'll realize that the slogan is idiotic. It takes about a month to learn how to read. After that, what matters is what you read. Time invested in reading the Summa Theologica is immeasurably better than time spent reading any modern novel.
But librarians, by training, are taught to treat books indifferently, which means acting like there is no intrinsic difference between various books and ideas. Eventually this behavior is internalized. Judging by the personalities of librarians that I've encountered, this leads to a general indifference to content and philosophy. This intellectual vice of indifferentism directly affects the will.
Therefore, I don't find Laura's indifference to abortion surprising. It's entirely fitting. Why? Some people praise her for keeping her support for abortion quiet. But this is worse than advocating abortion. If you believe in something, you should be willing to defend it. She doesn't even have the courage of her terrible convictions. She's blase about children being converted to hamburger. So it's not surprising that she's indifferent to sexual innuendo.
Revelation 3:15-16I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.
Is what I'm saying true? That's the most important question.
I can't comment on the truth of your statement regarding Laura Bush being an "obtuse librarian". That is an opinion. As for her support for abortion, I can't see where that is an issue in the context of this situation. In an interview with the Washington Times in Aug. 2004 she stated that she agreed with her husband on the abortion and declared that she is "Pro-Life". Maby you should rejoice in her epiphany.
If it's real. I suspect that she still believes abortion should be legal, which is the crux of the issue. Hilary has declared a goal of zero abortions too.
August 19, 2004That phrase raises a red flag for me. If life begins at conception, why should abortion be "rare," rather than illegal? When is it OK to murder a child?Laura Bush Pro-Life?
Laura Bush seems to be playing the political game as well. In a recent interview with the Washington Times, the First Lady stated that she believes that life begins at conception and that she supports her husband's view on abortion. When they asked her if she was pro-life, she answered "Yes" and further stated that abortion should be rare.
She appears to have changed her position. In 2000 Laura Bush indicated that she was pro-choice, and in 2001 she told the Today Show that she did not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. She went on to say that we should work to limit the number of abortions by teaching responsibility and conducting abstinence classes.
Why do we have to engage in Kremlinology to decipher her position?
She said that to Barbara Walters right before the 2000 election too, and then told Katie Couric right after the election that she didn't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Laura's the kind of "pro-lifer" that NARAL loves.
Geeeeeez. She tells a few jokes and she is leader of the children-hamburger-factory.
Your post makes no sense in relation to the subject of the thread.
I turned in... in the middle of her routine the other night. Do you know of a link to a transcript of the whole thing?
Your 4-year-old should be in bed, Korn!
Your 4-year-old should be in bed, Korn!
Laura also said last year she's against embryonic stem cell research although her father died of Alzheimer's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.