Kinsley: Relative Values (The Bush Twins)

[kskiska]

The contrast between the president's rhetoric and the Bush family's lifestyle is nauseating

Michael Kinsley

It is not the fault of Jenna or Barbara Bush that their father has gotten us into a war he doesn't know how to get us out of. And, though you can blame parents for almost anything, George and Laura Bush are no longer responsible for the behaviour of twin daughters in their mid-20s. Presidents, like the rest of us, can't choose relatives. Remember Billy Carter?

(snip)

But from what has leaked out, it seems that Jenna and Barbara are party girls who like to drink and dance until the wee hours with aristocrats and frat boys. Jenna has moved to Argentina, where she works for Unicef. Barbara has been visiting. Her first night, partying in Buenos Aires, she lost her purse to a thief. So it would appear that George Bush's daughters are not Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton or Karenna Gore. So what? Are you surprised?

Nevertheless, there is a war on. It's a war that has killed 3,000 Americans, most about Jenna and Barbara's age or younger, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis of all ages. Bush can be quite eloquent in talking about the sacrifices of American soldiers and - he always adds - their families. In the Reagan style that has become almost mandatory, he uses anecdotes. He talks of Second Lieutenant Frederick Pokorney Jr: "His wife, Carolyne, received a folded flag. His two-year-old daughter, Taylor, knelt beside her mother at the casket to say a final goodbye." Of the US dead, he says: "They did not yearn to be heroes. They yearned to see mom and dad again and to hold their sweethearts and to watch their sons and daughters grow up. They wanted the daily miracle of freedom in America, yet they gave all that up and gave life itself for the sake of others."

No one thinks that the president should have to give up a child to prove that his family is as serious about freedom as these other families he praises. But it would be reassuring to see a little struggle here: some sign that the Bush family truly believes that American soldiers are dying for our freedom, and that it's worth it. Maybe they have had huge arguments. Maybe George and Laura wanted the girls to join the Red Cross or the Peace Corps, or something that would take them off the party circuit. And perhaps the girls said no. But I doubt this scenario; don't you?

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1964006,00.html

[neuvocat]

1. Do as I say, not as I do.

Its a family value that always fails of course.

[LibDemAlways]

2. I'm glad to see this commentary.

What I object to is that these young women (at 25, they are not "girls") are out partying and carousing on the hard earned dollars of people whose sons and daughters are serving this country in many different ways - in the military, in volunteer organizations, as teachers, etc. As long as the taxpayer is footing the bill, the chimp's offspring have a responsibliity to conduct themselves with at least a little decorum. No one is asking them to enter a convent, but, keeping their clothes on and staying out of trouble should be no-brainers - except, of course, that the entire Bush clan is brainless and clueless.

[qwlauren35]

8. They follow

in dad's footsteps. From what I've heard, nothing they are doing is any different from dad's youthful behavior.

And besides, they could never actually be more of an embarrassment than their father has already proved to be.

[jaysunb]

3. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Diane R]

4. A rousing recommendation. n/t

[bananas]

5. One more vote to put this on the greatest page

and I think the twins should do a USO tour.

[speedoo]

6. K&R... to praise the shining of light on hypocrisy. nt

[OneBlueSky]

7. contrast, if you will, Prince Harry and Prince William . . .

both of whom have chosen to serve in the military . . . Harry, in fact, went ballistic when they tried to keep him away from potential combat situations where his unit would be serving . . .

they may be "royalty," but at least they have some sense of responsibility to experience the kinds of dangerous situations in which their less well-off/well-connected countrymen and women often find themselves these days . . . the Bushie "girls" should take a hint . . .

[qwlauren35]

9. Different Legacies

The princes come from a legacy of personal responsibility, pride and service to their country.

The "princesses" come from a legacy of personal irresponsibility, arrogance and disservice to their country.

Both are running true to form.

[knitter4democracy]

10. I thought of them, too.

If the princes and even princesses of the royal families are expected to serve in the military or auxillary corps, why not the Bush twins? It's the least they could do.

[bianca2001]

11. DURING WWII

England's Queen Elizabeth and the young Princesses (Elizabeth and
Margaret Rose) could have gone to the safety of Canada, as had the
Dutch Royal Family.

No, they stayed right there, mingling with their subjects and helping
in any way they could. Young Elizabeth helped in the hospitals and
drove an ambulance, even.

In my opinion, royalty does not seem to fit in today's world, but if
one lives with it, at least one can look UP to most of them, in dire
times. Even Prince Charles has been dedicated, for decades, to better
organic farming in all of his considerable land-holdings.

[knitter4democracy]

12. She had a sense of duty.

Duty to her nation, duty to her people, duty to her title, whatever it was, she did the right thing in a horrible time. I hate to say it, but we'll never see that from the Bush family.

[Skittles]

13. my mum was a child in England during WWII

she remembers how the Queen Mum stayed put and says it was a huge comfort to the English people