Posted on 11/12/2004 7:25:25 AM PST by Imnotalib
President Hillary? We’re not even ready for a First Lady who deviates from the script—or, heaven forfend, has a little bit of a mouth on her.
Yet in the main, Heinz Kerry’s remarks were only shocking in contrast to the overprocessed and infantilizing blah-blah that characterize most political speech.
And whatever you think of Kerry’s candidacy, his wife is someone who has undeniably devoted her considerable energies and resources to making this world a better place, using her foundation to fund important research on women’s health, the environment and early-childhood development. As everyone knows, her first husband, Sen. John Heinz, was heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune, and she could have spent her life shoe shopping. That we might have found patriotic.
By the end of the campaign, her approval ratings were in the range normally reserved for the defrocked and the deposed. And why is that? Does America really hate women that much?
I think so, yes. Not all of the criticism was partisan, after all.
We found it odd that she made no attempt to hide the fact that she had a life before John Kerry. (What really grated was not that she thinks “it’s all about her”—but that she doesn’t think it’s all about him.) Then, too, for all of our purported yearning for authenticity, we balked at her refusal to feign complete absorption in whatever phony political moment was at hand.
Perhaps most unforgivably, she is unself-consciously sexy at 66 and not unaware of her power as a woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
The old lady brought every word of criticism upon herself. She's a conceited, rude and egotistical nutjob. She's not First Lady material. She's not even a lady.
This is her example of a "wonky policy discussion???
Someone is either delusional, or a very, very bad judge of character.
I can't honestly think America HATES Theresa... As a sitcom charachter or news anchor, commentator or other public figure, America would love her. It's just that we don't want her as First Lady... The problem is that her "unbridledness" lends her to be more entertaining but less trustworthy.
Nobody has doubted what she's done with her life and America is certainly not ungrateful for her charity. The fact is that she just doesn't exhibit the stoic, sound and ~ahem~ sober qualities required of a First Lady.
THK was just white trash.
Crazy, drugged, drunk, ill-mannered white trash with a whole lotta money and cameras following her around.
She was fun though. Maybe we can have reality TV show of her!
I think so, yes. Not all of the criticism was partisan, after all
What a CROCK. Whenever a Democrat or Liberal woman is criticized, its a sign that "we hate women". Go ahead though and criticize Condi, apparently she is neither female, nor Black.
In the meantime, us "women haters" LOVE Ms. Thatcher and would gladly (if she otherwise qualified) have her as POTUS.. Sheesh, what a bunch of cr*p...
The new logo here at FR:
"By the end of the campaign, her approval ratings were in the range normally reserved for the defrocked and the deposed."
This is the first I've of any approval rating on Ketchup Mouth-another story spiked by the MSM to protect the Kerry candidacy?
First off, please forgive me for posting such a long and winding road of an email, but I was suddenly struck that I had already written extensively about my feelings towards Tuhrayzuh. I'm going to post an email here that I wrote a week or so ago and sent to a CC discussion group I had going with a few relatives, one of which asked for comments. Comments? :)
>> Comments?
I'll make one. I keep hearing the talking heads bringing up how such a high percentage of people who voted for Bush say that they did it for moral reasons, and I hear lots of ruminating on that issue, but I have yet to hear a talking head discuss "morals" as if it could be referring to anything other than homosexual marriage and abortion. While those are two important and very highly visible aspects of what I consider to be a part of my "morality", there are other more subtle things that are flying unnoticed over the talking heads on TV which, particulary as a parent, are important to me as well.
A small example.... When Teresa Hines told that reporter to "shove it" she did so because in her words "you said something I didn't say". After looking at a video tape of that event she was clearly incorrect, she obviously "said it", and yet John Kerry's only take on it was that she speaks her mind and "isn't she great" (paraphrased). I for one don't believe that it's OK to act that way towards another person even if they work for the competition newspaper. That man deserves an apology, Teresa Hines and John Kerry KNOW that he deserves an apology, and yet the very idea of him ever getting one from her is so completely preposterous that it's as if we all consider it to be an inside joke that we don't even question. And believe me, if Laura Bush did the same thing I would be just as hard, or harder, on her! There's no excuse for a pompous attitude from the First Family, and every reason for grace and magnanimity.
In case the whole point of this has not been clear, note that this is not just a grievance at that particular incident. There are multiple incidents in John and Teresa's political wake that would fit nicely into this discussion, and frankly, the "shove it" itself is not so much the issue that I'm bringing forward, but a tool for discussing a deeper and much more important underlying issue about honesty. This is me taking issue with a dishonest and elitist attitude..... where we all know that the very thought of Teresa apologizing for her mistreatment of that man is out of the question, and that even if she did apologize it would be done begrudgingly out of political expediency. Now that the political winds have stopped blowing there is no longer a "need" for her to apologize, and it has become clear that, with her, the "need" to apologize to that man would NOT arise from the classic struggle between right and wrong that all of us "Right Wing Conspirators" go through - or *morality*; rather, it arises from Teresa and John's belief that they can manufacture and maintain an image... a purse from a sow's ear, if you will, and that the very *need* for her to be a moral human being is a derivative of their requirement to maintain that image with other people and not from any need to maintain an image with whatever Deity they subscribe to. Ergo, they are amoral. They, each in turn, are their own Deity. In their universe, they themselves are the highest power, above you and I. My recommendation to the Kerrys is to go and read "Johnathan Livingston Seagull" two or three times in a row. They would be much happier spiritually afterwards.
Let it be known also that the absence of religious beliefs in a person is not necessarily a showstopper for me, because I know people who are atheists that I love and completely respect... who would pass my requirements for friendship and leadership. But those atheist friends of mine don't put on a show of religion as a hypocrite. One might ask how I determine if an athiest is worthy. I lieu of writing a book on the subject, let me just say for now that I know it when I see it, but won't attempt to relate a full account in this forum.
Now the thought of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy asking the pardon of that reporter for *their own* comments about how they supported Teresa in "speaking her mind" is just as implausible as Teresa's apology. And I take issue with THAT attitude of pompous superiority, which is so completely self evident that it has become even possible for the left to sweep it under the table in their own minds, because it need not be looked at to be discerned. Amorality is an overhanging pall upon the Democrat party. A "forest for the trees" kind of thing.
A little secret of mine that even my wife has never been told... *Hi Hon!* :) I take the measure of a man or woman based on what I think it would be like to be stranded with them on a life-raft or a deserted island, where I measure my perception of their willingness to share and cooperate, their skills and creativity in helping our group to be rescued, and weather or not they'd take it upon themselves to try and support the positive outlook of the group even when they themselves are feeling put upon. Are they givers or takers? Are they as good a follower as they are a leader? Are they WILLING to follow as well as lead? What about their loyalty to the group? Is their perception of right and wrong based on a power higher than themselves, or are they themselves the highest authority in their universe? The deserted island analogy to the real world is a particularly good one, I believe. Think of yourself in a large corporation where the boss hooks you up with two other employees that you have never met before, and assigns you a substantial project with a six month deadline. You are sitting in a conference room with those two employees. Are they George and Laura Bush or are they John Kerry and Teresa Hines Kerry?
God Bless and Semper Fidelis,
We might be ready for a mouthy first lady...if she were actually an American.
All anyone had to do was watch Ms. T the day her husband threw in the towel...Her anger was written all over her face and there wasn't a smile to be seen. She always was and always will be the center of attention, in her world. Thank goodness the election didn't make that our world also!!
No. Most unforgivable is the fact that her utter self-absorbtion came shining through each and every time she spoke.
Few people, if any, were even aware of whatever sexual charms she may have. Her power stems from massive wealth, not her womanhood.
Melinda= idiot
MSNBC=waste of time
Miss Ketchup...= two-fisted drunk.
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.