Posted on 07/25/2005 5:50:56 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Washington, DC – Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty complained today that an article in the Washington Post about the clothes worn by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ children was “unfair and disappointing.”
Mrs. Lafferty said in a letter sent to Post Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. that the Post has now set a new pecking order for “unfair journalism which ignores substance and slides right into chortling about form.”
“If you can’t come up with something disgusting about the actual nominee or his wife then rough-up the kids some and see what happens,” Mrs. Lafferty said today.
Post fashion writer Robin Givhan complained about “the nostalgic costuming of the children” at the President’s announcement
“Just when it looked like there was an opportunity for a substantive debate over Mr. Roberts qualification for the Supreme Court, the Post drags it down to ‘your mother dresses you funny’ school yard banter.
“Maybe the cynics over at the Post are not impressed with the President or the White House but a family about to see their father nominated by the President of the United States for America’s highest court will probably want to dress-up for the occasion. Most Americans would understand what the Post views as some sort of cynical ploy and deception.
“There are clothes you wear to the playground and clothes you wear to meet the President, Mrs. Roberts and her adorable children understand that which has apparently eluded the Post.
“Let’s raise the bar on this debate back to where it is the nominee who is given a vigorous public examination. And let’s leave the rest of the family alone.”
Exactly right!
However, please tell me if in 15 yrs. or so some princess offers a few dozen head of cattle and some chickens or something for young Mr. Roberts' affections, please, please, please tell me we can crack a couple jokes... :o)
My mother dressed my sister and I in our best duds to go to church, and these are probably their church clothes.
Both my mom and dad made it clear to my sister and me that we wore our best clothes to worship God. That was back in the depression, and our clothes probably were hardly stylish, but I've never forgotten the lesson. When we went to church, we wore the best clothes we had to worship the Lord. "Best clothes" may have been nothing more than overalls, but I was to wear my BEST overalls.
I still try to adhere to this principle. And so do my three daughters, now long gone from home.
I'll have to deliberate on that... LOL
"I thought the two children looked adorable!....but the Post's critic, Robin Givhan, used a buzz word - "NOSTALGIC" - by which she hoped to conjure up "reactionary," "old fashioned," "retrogressive" (as in "turn back the clock of social progress"), and maybe "repressive" or "oppressive" by association. Again I say, how tacky can a would-be journalist be?"
Phooey. Ah, the post is disappointed they weren't in flip-flops or hip-hop gear. Or maybe they were hoping to see tank tops in the East room???
My 8 year old son is very well-mannered and knows how to behave himself, in public, and at home.
At age 4, however, he was not mature enough to muster the skills necessary to be on his best behavior at all times. Also, you might want to take into account that the boy was probably exhausted by this point in the day. The more tired a child is, it seems the wilder they become. Why that is, I don't know. (:
I think you're assuming a lot about their family dynamics from one instance of an overly tired little boy just being, well, a little boy!
hehehe!! we have some time... :)
Adorable kids!!!
Leave kids alone.
WP can pound sand.
It was a throwback to the 60s, but who cares.
They were dressed up appropriately and looked nice.
The boy was adorable, and it was never caught on the cameras that actually went out to us live.
Does anyone have the exact quote from "Miz" Givhan? Although I am sure it was said in that sneering way New York liberals speak, I simply can't get too jacked about the word "nostalgic".
I think they looked cute and very reminiscent of how I dressed my kids a few years ago when I still "dressed them".
But still, I think Mrs. Lafferty has her panties in a wad over a nonissue. Hypersensitive much? She should save her outrage for something that really matters.
That dress is a bit tight and unflattering. And that color! An offensive shade of peach, if ever there was one! And what about those oafish pleats! Can you believe those skinny straps on a below the knee formal attire! How absolutely gauche!!
How many of the 4-year-olds that you have known through the years (including yourself) were guests at the White House for dinner and then were expected to stand still and quiet in a huge room with lots of lights, cameras, and action ... well-past their bedtime and, of course, too young to understand the significance of the event?
Years ago in our church we had a children's program on a Sunday evening. One adorable little boy, just a wee bit younger than Jack is, decided to really put on a performance. He was playing peek-a-boo between the columns of the Communion rail. This angelic-looking red-headed little boy had the whole church smiling BIG TIME. But I can assure you that as soon as his age group was through with their performance, his parents marched him out of the sanctuary and blistered his little bottom ... but out of the hearing of those remaining in the room. That is called good taste. It would have created far more havoc for them to have gone to the front, grabbed the little boy, and dragged him out screaming. But he did not go undisciplined ... and his parents were mortified at his behavior even though the rest of us thought it was totally precious.
What are you talking about? It's very traditional (and yes, nostalgic) for little boys to wear shorts even to formal occasions until about ten or so.
I love the casual watch with that ensemble, and the other unattractive jewelry. Jane Roberts in her pink suit looked better than Robin probably ever did on her best day.
You know what, I'm beginning to think that this is it in a nutshell. You dress your kids like the children that they are, and you get called on the carpet for it??? What is wrong with these people? I hate to go to extremes, but I'm thinking the leftists won't stop until the whole country is in the toilet with them.
Rush used to say that feminism was defined by NOW and groups that had the public eye. It didn't matter if you defined feminism in some other way. I'm starting to feel this way about leftists. I don't care anymore that my left leaning friends say, 'Oh, that's just some people.' No. It's the ones you leftists put in power, the ones who are leading the party, the ones who get the press coverage and you don't complain when they go over the edge. As far as I'm concerned, all leftists can be tarred with the same, decency-hating, brush.
And the dunce cap award goes to the Post for this lame weak article picking on kids. What easy targets they were huh. Guess pinko's would've been satisfied if the Roberts children were dressed scantily for kiddie porn and huffing glue out of a brown paper bag.
Lighten up. Little Jack isn't a SEAL. He's a four year old.
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.