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 ...
If she said that John EFFEN Skerry milked a male horse, I'd be laughing my ass off. He's stupid enough to do it.
I'm not butting in to your (as usual), interesting conversation, but, but, but....
I don't think John Ashcroft really lost his election. I think the usual democratic St. Louis voting hanky panky did him in. And if he'd chosen to fight the widow, I think he would have won.
If we keep this up we will be accused of being in Howlin's gang as well
As for Haley Barbour, he is presently Governor of Mississippi.
Wrong. Post 914 was directed TO ME:
Oh, wasn't I suppose to say anything, being a woman and all?
You're so busy attacking, you can't even keep track of what you've posted. I don't have a problem with someone else having a differing opinion. I do have a serious problem with people of such low character that they will attack the other poster's marriage or put words into their mouth. Those people aren't worth wasting any further time on, because they've shown just what they are made of.
Well, this is true; I remember them keeping the polls open but ONLY in the DNC districts, right?
And I am racking my brain, trying to remember what office Haley Barbour was elected to, other than governor.
{DOH!} Now I get it. :-)
Thank You!
Because it's like picking up a hot horseshoe; you only need to "pick it up" once to know what it's like.
As for me... been there, done that. Had a good time, but now I've seen it. There's only so much mystery under a man's pants, as it turns out... :~D
Barbour was once the Chairman of the GOP.
Don't worry; I won't post to you anymore, for fear of offending you with useless "women talk."
And please tell me you knew that. You've been here a long time -- I thought everybody knew.
Well, I wasn't away that the "real, true conservatives" put him there, were you?
Finally, an intelligence argument on this thread. Thank you.
A)There is the implication that the Founding Fathers (and some of our current pols) are somehow above the muck and mire of struggling with moral issues in their own lives just like the rest of us common folk. They weren't. They put their pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else.
B)The issue comes into play when the immutable laws of government -- if they are immutable -- intrude on private issues. Should government be the guardian of morality? And if so, how far should it go in regulating? We already regulate all manner of moral issues, so that line is somewhat fluid. That's why the debate is.
That's your line, not mine.
Ah, thank you so much for gracing us with your superiority and your insight into the minds of us low-functioning ones. Are you a shrink, mayhaps? Or do you just play one here?
No, I am not a shrink, just an observer of human behavior. I saw the Krauthammer interview as well. He pointed out that his medical training gave him no greater insight into the political scene, but he could recognize the symptoms of mental illness.
Your comments, and those of some others on this thread, indicate that you aparently were offended by the perceived sexual comments made by Laura Bush. I find those comments more instructive on how you the view the world than Laura Bush.
Your description of her calling the President Mr. Excitement as a "sarcastic, sexual innuendo" seems to indicate that you believe that Mrs. Bush is not being satisfied sexually and is lashing out against her husband. She is issuing a plantive call for help hence her description of herself as a "desparate housewife." Her desire to go to Chippendales, along with Lynne "Dollar Bill" Cheney (who must have sexual problems of her own), is a really a subconscious need for sexual satisfaction and excitement. The fact that two Supreme Court justices also attended Chippendales is indicative of Washington's elite women's failure to find sexual satisfaction at home and the need to experiment with kinky, voyeuristic sex in public places.
President Bush's sexual proclivities seem to tend towards beastiality. His "milking" of a male horse rather than a conventional cow, is shorthand for someone who seeks sexual release through animals. Laura seems to attribute this odd behavior to his sheltered citified upbringing and education at Andover and Yale.
I have to get the transcript of Laura's remarks to see what other hidden and not so hidden sexual comments were made, but is that the way you see it? A First Lady who talks like a whore and is sexually frustrated, and a President with a low libido who is into beastiality?
Ah, and so that justifies you and Eva disparaging my marriage. You must be really proud of that.
I am quite happy to debate your real issues on the matter but so far I can make out that it offended your wife's sensibilities - according to you.
Go find someone of similar low character to debate. I've offered you plenty of opportunities to take a higher road, and you've refused.
And Sir, if you are married, and you do not have 100% faith in your wife, please don't project your insecurities onto others in the future, you only make yourself seem petty.
Because life is too short to get caught up in the daily nuance.
Exactly. And try to understand that just because you post somethign, every post after that isn't directly associated with you.
Nice Post and I agree with your common sense.
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.