Replies

The main purpose of Laura Bush's bawdy remarks was to lessen the hostility between the Administration and the "permanent government" of the "prestige" media, the entertainment community, lobbyists, and Democrat and RINO politicians. No doubt the Administration's advisers knew that the tenor of her remarks would displease many social conservatives. However, the hard fact is that, lacking a solid conservative majority in Congress, the President must turn to the "Inside the Beltway" crowd to try to accomplish his goals for the second term.

Additionally, Bush does not need the Christian Right or other social conservatives since his reelection. Pat Robertson has been silent on the matter and nothing has been posted on the Focus on the Family or the American Family Association Web sites. World Net Daily was quiet as well. The only commentator who reacted negatively to the First Lady's speech with social conservative ties was Bill Bennett. The Christian Right groups may realize that open hostility would result in high visibility ridicule from the MSM and even the Administration reneging on their promises for conservative judges. In effect, they have been neutralized in this matter.

Wlady Pleszczynski and Michelle Malkin are courageous for not toeing the line, but it appears that the Bush Administration is playing Realpolitik. For the price of a few off-color jokes, the President has received praise from many MSM sources for the first time in several years. It also encourages those people in Republican ranks who wish to silence the voices of conservative Christians in the party. They are the heirs of the Rockefeller or "Me Too" Republicans of a generation ago (albeit more pro-free market than were the 1960s era moderate Republicans).

Harry Truman was correct when he said that if you want a friend in Washington, you should buy a dog.

It also encourages those people in Republican ranks who wish to silence the voices of conservative Christians in the party.

Hey, Wally! You best read these threads more closely.

The vast majority of "conservative Christians" had no problem with any of what Laura said.

That's why Dobson and Robertson and Bauer and even Pat Buchanan have chosen discretion.

Malkin's a granny, on her best day, so no surprise her nose is twisted out of joint.

You best enroll in the National Auxilary for the Godly Serious (NAGS, for short). They need your leadership.

I appreciate your analysis. But I have to think that if this is Realpolitik, it's misguided.

Using Laura to gain plaudits from the Left or the MSM is not going to do a thing to lessen their hostility toward GWB.

If anything, that performance will only encourage them to see GWB as stupid, boring, weak, inadequate, and capable of being pushed around --just the way they want to see him.

And that won't do a thing to enhance GWB's chances of seeing any of his second term priorities accomplished --getting Social Security reform passed, getting tort reform, getting a sound energy policy enacted, or getting John Bolton and conservative judges confirmed.

What an excellent commentary!

Of course, it was all about politics.

And it won't garner any increase in GW's popularity ratings.

I predict a negative effect.

Many people are just now reading the story, as it happened on the weekend, and many other news items pushed it out of the public consciousness. When it gets around in the Christian media, there will be a reaction.