Posted on 12/03/2014 4:46:57 AM PST by Kaslin
It's an obvious rule: Never pick on a president's family.
Elizabeth Lauten, the formerly unknown "communications director" for two-term GOP congressman Stephen Fincher resigned after a national-media feeding frenzy over some stupid words about the president's daughters on her personal Facebook page.
No one came to her defense for this idiocy, and correctly so. Republican Party spokesman Sean Spicer decried her remarks, and then attacked the media for its hypocrisy, for launching into an obscure Republican staffer's social-media statements, something it has never done for Democrats. Again, he was absolutely correct.
Political decorum demands that presidential children should be left out of political commentary. The same courtesy should be shown toward presidential spouses -- unless the subject is their policy initiatives. You can evaluate or criticize Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign or Michelle Obama's school-lunch program. It is never, ever fair to attack their children, and anyone doing so deserves the Lauten treatment and fate.
Liberals would agree -- making them hypocrites. Wouldn't it be nice if the liberal media observed this notion for all presidents and presidential contenders and their families? But they have failed repeatedly to be consistent on this principle. They have refused, time and again, to denounce liberal partisans who have verbally assaulted children of Republicans. Usually they don't even cover it!
Take, for example, the radioactive crud that "comedians" have dropped on Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol. This is what Bill Maher had to say in 2011:
"In Bristol's new memoir 'Not Afraid of Life' -- working title, 'Whoops, There's a Dick in Me' -- Bristol claims that the night she lost her virginity she had accidentally gotten drunk on wine coolers that she didn't know contained alcohol and then blacked out and didn't remember a thing," Maher declared. "Oh, the Palins. I tell you, the s--t doesn't fall far from the bat."
Or consider the Washington Post-owned website Slate in 2012 holding a caption contest for a picture of presidential candidate Rick Santorum's daughters Elizabeth (age 21) and Sarah (age 14). Sadly, liberal commenters predictably started mocking how these conservative Catholic daughters -- yes, including the middle schooler -- were on contraceptives, or wearing chastity belts or touching themselves sexually.
Denouncement? Coverage? Please find them for us.
The media mocked the Bush twins in the middle of 2001 when they were cited for underage drinking in Austin at age 19. The New York tabloids loved it. It was headlined ''Double Trouble'' by the New York Daily News and ''Jenna and Tonic'' by the New York Post. The networks jumped all over it, insisting all along that this was the public's business because the twins had entered the police blotter, and because their father was a recovered alcoholic.
That might be defended as newsworthy (while the tone can be denounced as offensive) because they were young adults in public breaking the law.
But after the 2000 Democratic convention, 17-year-old Al Gore III was cited for driving 97 mph in a 55 mph zone and reckless driving. Network coverage? Zero.
What's the difference?
The national media love to argue that politics in Washington is "broken," that politicians don't cross the aisle to socialize and recognize each other's humanity and good intentions. But their willingness to stay silent when the children of Republicans are verbally eviscerated demonstrates they are every bit a part of the problem they describe.
his daughters got that “I’d rather be in my bedroom watching Nickelodeon” look.
No matter how stupid, incompetent, out-of-touch, idiotic a politician is, his family is stuck with him (her) and should not be criticized for being his family. Just think...they have to live with the dope!!
The oldest one always looks like MO.... enough attitude there to choke the whole stable.
The media lost any right to outrage over a remark about any Democrats kids, when they went after Trig Palin. They need to just shut up right now.
I’ve seen a lot of “we have to leave the daughters alone” stuff here on FR over the years. A lot of posts about the horrible Bush girls, some on Webb’s daughter, and now the two Obama girls. Yet, invariably someone pipes up about how they should be “off target” and “off the table”, etc. We shouldn’t be that way, and all that.
The arguments go like “well, they can’t help it if their father is so-and-so” -— “they’re innocent.”
Well, there has also been a great deal posted here about blacks’ and liberals’ great protestations over “white privilege” and how we might not be directly responsible, but we receive the benefits.....blah, blah, blah...... and therefore have to pay up somehow, either through ridicule or some other way.
I submit the two girls are beneficiaries of the same kind of gain that we white privilegers are. Round the clock protection, fabulous taxpayer funded exotic locations, the best of schools, the best of futures..... to me it’s no different - and they should be fair game for comment, in my opinion.
and they both also have that “God Dammit, I can’t believe I have to put up with this (Fill In The Blank) for another two &^%$!! years.”
The left and the media/entertainment complex is completely hypocritical. They have one standard for their favorite lefties, and another for normal people.
If the President puts them on display, why are they sacrosanct? They weren’t just tagging along, they were props.
He chose to be President while his children were young, he chose to put his parenting on display, people have a right to make observations - his children were immodest in dress and acted like brats.
Those kids are not stupid. The look on their faces says it all. They’re bored out of their skulls by the simple-minded lameness of the event. Worse than that, they’re being used to make their father look like something that he isn’t (empathetic, warm-hearted, compassionate, presidential), and they know it. If the staffer made a mistake, it was in not pointing this out.
There is a big difference between Nancy Reagans “Just say no” campaign and Michelle Obama’s school lunch program.
Nancy’s program was not a government top down initiative. Michelle’s program is.
Michele Obama is not an elected official she has no executive power what so ever. Her actions should be censored by the Congress.
Why the people of the United States put up with this crap I don’t know.
The problem here is a communications director for a DC pol made those swarmy remarks. It's not appropriate to post negative stuff about anyone's kids, politician or not. I thought the real story was her lacking the judgment to be communications director for anyone.
The pictures are from a WH function. They should've been posted with no comment except that this is Sasha and Malia at a traditional WH event. The photos speak for themselves.
Sarah Palin was President......shame I missed it. It would be great but that is not what the point is. We are talking children of Presidents.
It’s not just being bored. It’s contempt. That’s the look on their faces. Contempt is the defining characteristic of the whole Obama family. Contempt for this party, contempt for this father, contempt for the law, contempt for the entire country.
Exactly
No one can argue with that reasoning! Good on ya!
They’re old enough to know that dear ol’ Dad is a complete schmuck, and possibly a poofter, and that Mommy Dearest both dominates him and holds him in contempt.
I feel sorry for them.
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.
