Posted on 05/02/2005 6:00:13 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
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.
CUT
Although Washington's movers and shakers laughed at Mrs. Bush's performance, some in the press woke up with a Sunday morning hangover and began to criticize her monologue as immodest at best and downright bawdy at worst.
"Laura Bush cracks risque jokes at the White House Correspondents' dinner," sniffed Agence France-Presse. CNN reporter Elaine Quijano, who attended the dinner, also apparently had her sensibilities scarred by some of the first lady's quips.
"In some respects, I think for some folks it was a little shocking because she kind of crossed the line a little bit in some people's minds," she said.
"It was very risque," the Nation's David Korn said yesterday on Fox News. "I was wondering what the social conservatives and James Dobson had to say about all these jokes that were laced with sexual innuendo. Not a very family-values-type speech. I'm not sure I want to explain a lot of those jokes to my 4-year-old."
Eyebrows were raised by the first lady's bit about the president's ranching skills, which Mrs. Bush said her husband lacked because the elite schools he attended, Andover and Yale, "don't have a real strong ranching program."
She then added: "He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse."
The crowd howled. The joke, a female Associated Press reporter said, "had women giggling in the bathroom."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I remember reading in the book that came out 5 or 6 years ago about John Addams, by David McCullough, that seemed a little bit risque! Nowadays, it would've been no more risque than what Laura said. (well, maybe a little bit more)Now men may've been able to get away with a little more than women could; especially in a semi-private discussion.
But even he never went as far as most men of today do! I can't remember exactly what he said. But there were a few mildly risque comments he made.
That is projection if I ever saw it. You're the one who is badmouthing my marriage from one anecdote from this morning. But I'm the one who is beneath you.
I hope you are soon feeling better we have missed you on the dose.
It is possible that the third President was the father of the children in question. If that were the case, he would stand condemned by his own "Bible," which did not excise the moral teachings of Scripture, but edited out the miracles, as you indicate.
I'm having a good day, aren't I?
I am woman, hear me roar!
I am constantly amazed at people who come on these threads, make controversial statements and then call "Foul" when we come along and contradict their postings.
I honestly believe they wish we just wouldn't comment at all!
Congratulations on your 20th Anniversary!
I would tell a child that it is a program for grownups aired at an hour when only adults should be watching.
Their sphincter muscle so tightly surrounds the needle they need a tractor to pull it out.
From my initial post on this thread:
What the First Lady said wasn't that risque by this month's standards - but we are never going to arrest this slide by moving into the salacious territory just abandonded by the liberals in their march to Gomorah -and then calling it virtuous because the liberals have already slithered past that point.
Your post illustrates what I'm saying - thanks.
Just hang on -- he'll be right around to "submit" an answer for you. :-)
Thanks I obviously hit a raw nerve the same as Ohio did as she has now left the thread he has turned his attention to me.
Ah, you cannot win JACK without us; get over it.
Look -- the Founding Fathers were really, really smart guys. But they were men. And as men they had flaws. They had big flaws and little flaws, some of which we know and some of which died with them.
Speaking strictly for myself, I prefer to admire their brilliance in the public arena rather than burdening them with moral perfection.
Would you want to carry such a burden? I think not.
Thanks. I have a new insult to inflict on my enemies...
I am going to have to look that up. I thought I read an article about the DNA that said Sally's children were not Thomas Jefferson's children but they were the children of one of Thomas Jefferson's male relatives and I think they had the name of the relative.
So you do have a hidden agenda. Sheesh, somehow that figured. LOL!
Exactly. Doing my family's geneaology, I remarked to my husband that I'm kind of surprised I didn't find a two=headed baby somewhere. :-)
Controversial? Because my opinion is different than yours, that's controversial?
and then call "Foul" when we come along and contradict their postings.
You haven't contradicted anything. You've stated your opinion, they've stated theirs.
I honestly believe they wish we just wouldn't comment at all!
No, I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I wish snugs and eva would debate my words instead of descending to casting judgement on my marriage because of one minor anecdote from this morning.
Is that too controversial?
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.