What would happen if the tables were turned and a liberal writer made the same speculation about Bush's daughters?And FrontPage would be outraged that someone could say something so "hateful and intolerant."
Pull your head out of The Alpha Male's posterior long enough to Google up the reams of vile screeds on the Bush twins made by "liberal writers", Egregious.
Even you might need a shower after reading some of them.
Let's also reflect that "right-wing" Chelsea vilenesses didn't come until probably 3-4 years after Clinton took office. The Left was vomiting this crap about the Bush twins BEFORE the election, and their foaming, pinwheels-for-eyes hatred has only increased geometrically since.
And BTW - find an article on FrontPage saying something about the Bush twin hitpieces. ;-)
I also seem to remember a lot of glee on the left about how the Reagan children behaved, and how the left would try to say that it was due to the Reagans being dysfunctional parents. Also, Miss Chelsea is being groomed as part of a Clinton dynasty. From what I have read, she is a nasty little piece of work who has inherited her parents' worst qualities.
Pull your head out of The Alpha Male's posterior long enough to Google up the reams of vile screeds on the Bush twins made by "liberal writers", Egregious.
C'mon, amused, i've seen you 'round, you can do better than recycle dirtboy's lame comment! Leave Al out of this!
I took your advice, but went one step further. The first page of links on google for "bush twins" and "chelsea clinton" are not all that different. Speculation on love lives and articles about and photos of public drunkenness. There's also the
article in the National Review that John Derbyshire wrote about Chelsea Clinton. The telling line - "Brace yourself: I hate Chelsea Clinton." Not yet 21, not yet in political office, and he
hates her?
Let's also reflect that "right-wing" Chelsea vilenesses didn't come until probably 3-4 years after Clinton took office. The Left was vomiting this crap about the Bush twins BEFORE the election, and their foaming, pinwheels-for-eyes hatred has only increased geometrically since.
I guess the "right-wing" had the good grace to lay off Chelsea until she turned 18.
The fact is, the children of politicians shouldn't be a subject for political pundits unless the children are actively involved in politics, right? It's a blight on all media, biased one way or the other, that "info" like this gets so much coverage. It's a product of our sick celebrity culture, wanting to see the famous, and especially wanting to see the famous fall, drunkenly, outside of a club in London or a frat party in Texas.
But the subject does well to point out the hypocrisy in some political punditry, seen in the article, the type that says, "those (liberals/ conservatives, Republicans/ Democrats), they are dishonest and hateful, and without a grasp of the facts, whereas we (liberals/ conservatives; Republicans/ Democrats) are logical and would never stoop so low." This is the Ann Coulter/David Horowitz/Paul Krugman/Joe Conason school of punditry. This type of punditry is eaten up by the type of person invested enough in politics to write the potty-mouthed lettersm mentioned in this piece.