The Laura Bush We Don't Know

October 25, 2005 | Carey Roberts

[billbears]

No, it's the whole aspect of 'First Lady'. Never liked it. Same thing with the 'First Family'. And exactly who is this 'they' out to 'destroy' her? I don't vote for families, I vote for a candidate. If that candidate can't get their message out on their own without using their family, they're not doing their job.

But having the wife running off on speeches while the husband does the same thing..it's just too reminiscent of us having our own semi-royalty. They don't get receive the same salary, they don't occupy the office for life, but in action, one could very easily say it's not much different than British royal families running off in different directions on press junkets.

[ohioWfan]

I am very curious as to why you don't believe in First Amendment rights for the wife of the President.

What makes you think that there is anything sinister in Laura's actually saying what she thinks, or that there is a dark side to her answering questions asked of her with honesty?

What should she do when asked, "Do you think there is sexism in the negative response to Harriet Miers?" if she DOES think that it's a possibility (not a definite, but a possibility).

Should she lie? Or should she answer the question? And if you think she shouldn't say what she thinks, why does she not have that fundamental right as an American citizen?

[Trust but Verify]

I would like to see this poster banned due to the hit/run nature of every single one of his/her posts. Self promotion is not what this place is for.

[billbears]

Oh I believe in First Amendment rights for anyone and everyone. But she (or him in the eventuality a woman is ever elected President) was not elected to office. Neither do they hold an official government paid position. She shouldn't be out making policy speeches or appearances as some sort of 'get out the talking points for the leader' position. She's no different than you or I. I don't see the Today show knocking on random doors asking the opinion of citizens of the respective states and giving them 5-10 minutes of airtime. Do you?

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. This has to do with the pedestal we have put our politicians, most namely the President and his family on over the years. It's been going on for decades. As if I care what the First Lady's position is on anything. And in effect her positioning has limited the valid criticism of Meirs. Because to criticize Meirs now you may be considered sexist.

[Howlin]

due to the hit/run nature of every single one of his/her posts.

I thought the entire idea of FR was to defend your own words, FGS.

Evidently this poster doesn't believe what she's posting.

[ohioWfan]

I'm sorry, but I see an inconsistency in your position.

You say that she has the same rights as anyone, but you also say that she shouldn't be stating her opinions on certain things. Anyone who is asked to appear on TV, regardless of the reason why, must be given the right to honestly state an opinion, otherwise you are denying that person the right that everyone else has.

Many people are interviewed for their opinions far more than Laura Bush is, and you don't object to their stating their opinions, but you do object to her doing so.

Practically speaking, what is she supposed to do? She's married to the leader of the free world, for heaven's sake. Why you object to having people ask her her opinion is a mystery. And why you think she shouldn't have the right to answer the questions she's asked is even odder.

I've seen Ann and Franklin Graham asked their opinions repeatedly, and all they are are preacher's kids. Are they on a pedestal too, and royalty? Or are people just interested in what they think about things? What's the difference?

[CareyRoberts]

I'd like to reply to the many persons who reacted to my article on Laura Bush.

Some wondered why I don't respond to all questions -- I guess it's a matter of survival. I receive tons of e-mails in response to my articles. I read them all, but admit don't have time to answer each and every one.

Many expressed sharp exception to the article, although I was often unclear of the logical reason why. I try to provide URLs for the key points in all my articles, and invite readers to verify the references.

The point I was trying to make in the article is, the First Lady now has a significant impact on federal policy, both through her public statements and her high-profile initiatives in gender health and other areas.

So should Laura Bush escape scrutiny and accountability simply because she is the First Lady?

Carey Roberts

PS, I am not related to Cokie Roberts. (And even if I was, I would be loathe to admit it.)

[ohioWfan]

The First Lady should only be subjected to scrutiny that is truthful.

You loaded up your article with half truths and total fabrications.

If you want your opinions to be taken seriously..........which no serious person does........then get your facts straight.

This article is a piece of garbage.

[Jorge]

All THIS over the comment ...“I think that’s possible.” ???

Someone's got to much time on their hands.

[ohioWfan]

Look who showed up. The phantom author.

[ohioWfan]

The elusive MS Roberts has re-appeared...........just thought you'd like to know. :)

[MikefromOhio]

Well it depends...

if the scrutiny is well warranted that is one thing.

But your article was CHILDISH.

[ladyinred]

Now you are attacking Laura? Give me a break.

[BibChr]

Too busy with tons of email from her Public, as it turns out. Must be a trial.

[ohioWfan]

LOL! Probably signing hundreds of autographs as well.

We should be understanding of her plight......

[tiredoflaundry]

ahhhhhhhh the "hit & run " poster?

[pollyannaish]

Uhm, if it makes any difference, Carey is a him.

I think you did a fine job of refuting his assertions.

Thanks for the ping.

[Republican Wildcat]

Some wondered why I don't respond to all questions

Uh, what? This is the first and only time you have EVER responded.

[Republican Wildcat]

LOL!