"Who wrote these remarks for Laura Bush?"
"Could it be.....SATAN!"
Posted on 05/12/2005 8:18:19 AM PDT by Sarah
Laura Bush’s Coming Out Party May 12th, 2005
Sometimes news stories share a common thread that’s invisible to most, one that’s invisible because it’s common to most. Last week there were a few such stories in the news, stories about events whose motivating spirits were kindred ones. One involves the latest developments in the case of Lynndie England, the infamous leash-girl who was found complicit in the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib. Another involves a second hapless lass, Pvt. Deanna Allen, who was discharged from the army for getting down and dirty during a combat activity. That is, scantily clad in the mud, wrestling a fellow soldierette in front of a throng of salivating comrades-in-arms.
The common thread certainly has nothing to do with the stories’ treatment in the media. Why, according to the brain-cell-compromised media sharks, Abu Ghraib is in league with the rape of Nanking in the annals of wartime atrocities. In contrast, the wrestling fiasco is shrugged off by many as just so much frivolity. Yes, boys will be boys, girls will be girls and, hell’s bells, mud will be mud. To the libertines in the media, the most significant common thread is that both these stories provide them with the kind of titillating copy that makes their pablum just a tad less insipid.
The thread of which I speak, however, is that these stories reflect the licentiousness and depravity that have come to so characterize our culture. After all, contrary to the shrill accusations of many journalists, Abu Ghraib was much like being forced to listen to Hillary Clinton’s nails-on-a-blackboard version of passionate public speaking: not at all torture, but quite definitely abusive. Speaking of the folly of first ladies, this brings me to the third news story: Laura Bush’s prurient comedy routine at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.
Among other things, the first lady called herself a “desperate housewife,” alluding to the popular TV show which has featured women who cheated on their husbands. She also said that her husband has learned a lot about ranching since the day he “tried to milk a horse . . . a male horse,” and quipped about going to Chippendales with Lynn Cheney.
I can see the rolling of eyes now. Okay, don’t misunderstand me, I don’t claim that Laura Bush’s words rise to the same level of egregiousness as the two young ladies’ deeds. No, there is definitely a hierarchy here, one that ranges from mere words uttered in jest to the degradation of willing participants to the degradation of unwilling ones. But make no mistake, it is a hierarchy whose elements are to be found in the same category. That is, that of sexual impropriety.
Now, I realize that my taking exception to the first lady’s remarks places me in a mocked minority. We’re prudes, you see; I’ve even heard that those in my camp have been dismissed as “lemon-sucking conservatives.” Yes, we need to get a life, evolve from our Neanderthal status and shed the shackles of Puritanism that, at some point in our repressed development, were slapped on our young minds. But I shoulder that ridicule with a smile and a grain of salt. For I know that it comes from the perspective of obsessed individuals who cannot understand, for the life of them, why these Church Lady types don’t share what they fail to recognize as their obsession.
Of course, they would say the same about us, that we are the obsessed ones. So, to lend this a little perspective I’m going to borrow [and update] an analogy from C.S. Lewis. Imagine a land wherein allusions to food permeated every aspect of society. There were music videos in which dancers wiggled steaks, chops and fried chicken in front of the audience. It was hard to find a comedy routine that didn’t contain gastronomic innuendo, and having characters in movies hungrily and animalistically wolf down scrumptious morsels had become an indispensable element of entertainment. Now, when analyzing this inordinate focus on food you would have to draw one of two conclusions: either there was a problem with starvation in the land, or, the citizenry was obsessed with eating.
Yes, Puritanism is one extreme and were we to embrace it, we could rightly be labeled as obsessed. But this fixation on sex is the other extreme and we are guilty of it, and this does make us obsessed. The flesh isn’t dirty, but neither is it a toy. And “If it’s funny, say it” is like saying, “If it feels good, do it.” Continually thinking about sex is like continually thinking about food: it is by definition “obsession.”
Of course, this is a difficult point to make because, you see, in an environment in which obsession carries the day the embrace of normalcy seems like obsession. Why, I even heard pundit Bill O’Reilly label people in my camp “extremists.” So, I would ask a couple of questions: would O’Reilly want to explain to his audience, in intricate detail, the meaning behind the “milking the male horse” joke? And, how many of us would be willing to explain same to our children? Enough said.
The fact of the matter is that all three of these events are emblematic of a gratuitously sexualized society, and one that has lost the concept of shame. Shame is the word, because there was a time when “Don’t shame the family” – delivered in a stern tone – was a ubiquitous admonition. It also had its corollaries, such as “Don’t shame the cause,” “Don’t shame the organization” and, most significantly here, “Don’t shame your country.”
Truth be known, if the last one had figured prominently in the minds of Lynndie England, Deanna Allen and, dare I say, Laura Bush, Al Jazeera and its ilk would have less political ammunition today. Moreover, if all those passé warnings had been borne in mind by the millions of us who have forgotten them, those who oppose us would have had less ammunition yesterday, too. Take note, Hollywood.
You see, every time we shame ourselves we vindicate some of the accusations of those bent on our destruction. The Muslim world accuses us of being decadent – the “Great Satan.” Well, it’s bad enough that we have a popular culture that generates noxious cultural effluent that disperses far and wide in the seas of the soul of man. It’s bad enough that we have a few military girls behaving badly, and a media that seizes upon their moral failings to sell papers and hurt political opponents. Now enters Laura Bush, Mrs. Family Values herself, auditioning for the position of poster-girl for libertine western morals. “The President’s wife says she goes to strip clubs”; “The President’s wife says she cheats on her husband,” the propagandists will say. Of course, they could simply tell the truth, which is that her comments were in jest. That would be damning enough.
“Who cares about what such miscreants have to say,” counter some? Do we discount the message because of the messenger, ask I? Nay, thinking all your enemies’ criticisms false is as foolish as thinking all your friends’ compliments true. It would be like believing your own press clippings.
Moreover, might doesn’t make right, not really. Rather, right makes might. Vice allures but virtue endures. With every display of vice we further relinquish the moral high ground, a strategic position from which spiritual battles are won and hearts changed.
And the spiritual battle really is the crux of the matter, the one in foreign lands and the one raging in the homeland. This is because we can vanquish our foes militarily and preserve ourselves – for a time. But if we want this preservation to be more than transitory, we’re going to have to win a spiritual war abroad. If we want to ensure that our civilization is worth preserving, we’re going to have to win the spiritual war at home.
So, should the Lynndie Englands and Deanna Allens of the world have known better? Maybe, but that’s a lot to ask from young people who have grown up under the influence of “Pop Tarts” like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. It’s a lot to ask when they’re weaned on the recessive-gene-brainchildren of popular culture terrorists. It’s especially a lot to ask when the first lady, the wife of their Commander-in-Chief, doesn’t know better. And Laura Bush certainly should. For that matter, we all should.
Selwyn Duke
Just had to ping you all, I really liked this article
Anyone got a pic of the mud wrestler?
Anyone got a pic of the mud wrestler?
I believe there were two wrestlers.
If Laura Bush was anybody else (not famous), it probably wouldn't have mattered. But this performance was not classy, considering who she is.
Said by somebody who loves Laura Bush.
It’s dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t for the Bush’s and that is more than a shame; once again it is the MSM and the talking heads making much ado about nothing.
I understand where the writer is coming from. Little by little we chip away at our morals until we have none.
However, I still love Laura Bush and know that she is a good and moral lady. Did she make a mistake? In some people eyes she did, in others she didn't.
But no one should deny that America has lost its moral compass, however, I think we see more and more people speaking up and talking about regaining that high ground.
I hope you are not trashed and bashed for your opinion.
Have a great day!
Drop it, already. (Repeating prior post)
Firstly, I find it difficult to fault Laura Bush, in the following sense. I doubt, in the ultimate, her skit was of her volition. I have to believe this was an Administration decision. The jokes were written for her. The Administration decided that it would be “hip” to amuse the “cool” crowd.
I remember another such dinner, where freshman Spence Abraham, spent nearly his entire monologue “roasting” the alleged sexual misconduct of former Sen. Proxmire.
Gingrich followed Abraham. When Newt took the podium, he stared down Abraham with a look of incredulity, and though I don’t recall his words exactly, he reproached Abraham for his comments against a fellow Pub.
At end point, the skit has caused a scism amongst ourselves- this is obviously non-productive and only serves to help our enemies. Instead of faulting Laura Bush, the Pubs hopefully have just learned a lesson. As currently constituted, the cold blooded liberal sharks in the media are never going to be our friends, nor the idealoques in Hollywood and their coherts. These socialists are underdeserving of a laugh at our expense. In the future, our "roasting" jokes should be directed at them, and if they don’t laugh, all the better.
That said, IF Laura Bush made a mistake here, it would be her FIRST mistake as First Lady. We owe her the benefit of the doubt, and should get off her case. For those offended, I’m certain both GWB and Mrs. Bush have gotten the message. With due respect, I think we should drop it. To belabor this issue, only gives satisfaction to the socialists.
Man, are we still milking this horse?
Son, the first lady was joking that when the president first went to a farm, he couldn't tell the difference between a male horse and a cow. It didn't really happen, it's just a silly old joke that people have been telling since farming was invented.
Enough said.
The fact of the matter is that all three of these events are emblematic of a gratuitously sexualized society, and one that has lost the concept of shame.
Bingo.
The jokes were scripted not off the cuff remarks of what SHE thinks, the jokes were written by someone else. It doesn't rise to the disgust of Ketchup lady telling kids to run naked or something.
A predictable reaction to this very predictable article.
Guys, give it up, already. The same people who are going on...and on...and on...and ON about this comedy routine are the ones who scream against Political Correctness and making racial or blonde jokes as being "Just jokes!"
I know you all think that unless one behaves like a vacuum-headed schoolboy/girl, with a passive smile and no off-color words passing the lips at all times, that one is contributing to the abortion rate or whatever, but here's a word of advice: Blowing off the Abu Grahbe (sp) crimes--I too think they were made too much of, but they're criminal acts--in an article defending one's puritanical silliness re:Mrs. Bush--makes one look like a moral moron.
They were JOKES. Not all humor has to be specifically tailored to YOUR particular moral compass. And if it isn't it doesn't make the person "wrong".
I knew Mrs. Bush would get this crap slung at her ever since that night--seemingly ages ago--when she made these jokes. Why? because they were funny, as opposed to the "Aw, isn't she cute?" unfunny PC junk we'd all have wanted her to say, which would be instantly forgotten. I'd hoped Republicans were less prissy than this, but I guess making a couple of off-color jokes is worse than torturing prisoners. Welcome to Bizarro Republic.
We disagree.
Laura Bush's act was a disgrace to herself, her family, and the White House. We can only hope she does not repeat it.
I don't know if you saw it but a week or so ago someone posted a thread called "The last thread" on Laura Bush's standup routine. Lots of dead horse pics showed up on that ill-named thread.
"Who wrote these remarks for Laura Bush?"
"Could it be.....SATAN!"
Is it so hard to skip over a thread you don't like? Apparently for some people. I see stuff posted on FR everday that I think is a waste of time (like the American Idol crap)but I just move on, I don't say anything.
This is a NEW article....if you don't want to hear about it, move on.
And have a great day!
hmmmmmmmmmm.
i don't know if i have the energy for this today, sarah.
we'll see...
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.