Skip to comments.It's the Flight Suit
Posted on 05/12/2003 8:05:48 AM PDT by lethbridge_east
Heretofore, since at least FDR, most of our American Presidents have been typically staid, except for the notable exception of John F. Kennedy when he appeared formally and repeatedly sans hat. Henceforth the exposed male head was an overnight fad.
With a bad back and Addisons Disease, Kennedy nevertheless exuded physical vitality to us----he was young, fit, trim and daring (he would sail a boat bare-handed in the open ocean for a magazine photo-op)---furthermore, he exposed his bare head in all settings, even the most formal.
Long-established haberdasheries collapsed shortly after Kennedys inauguration because of the ensuing world-wide trend of hatless men.
Now, forty-two years later, U.S. President Bush flew to the homebound troops in a military jet plane and landed on the deck of a carrier. With his flight helmet tucked comfortably against his side Bush was televised for the worlds consumption swaggering across the deck of the worlds largest aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in a genital-enhancing, parachute-strapped, olive-drab, form-fitted flight suit.
Whooo baby! Hold on right there! they howled. For mediafems and reflexive Bush critics among the notable women in this profession---whose job it is to either report or comment (or both) on the news all who griped on the worlds stage of TV, etc. about the carrier landing, had at least their secondary focus on---The Flight Suit.
Ponder briefly what occurred. An adequate summary goes like this: Bush landed as a passenger on a carrier deck.
This dramatic scene carried by the big media was a version of the Society News Section-Controls-the-Headlines: It had that--- Bush wore a beautiful deep-blue sequined-gown as he stepped from the shiny-wet-black helicopter.---kind of flavor.
Well, something smells Freudian to me about (Robert Byrd not withstanding) women who get exercised when their perceptions unexpectedly titillate their psyches---they dont like it one bit. Bush was just too sexy for his clothes.
The refrain was unbearable to Anti-Bush Fems because it had Bush in ALL his glory. Alas, since he is virtually their sworn enemy, it just couldnt be true to them. Their escape from this cognitive dissonance was to at once deny their flashes of sexual interest and fly into a rage at the same time.
How do I know all this? Ive been reading what women have been writing about this very concern. To wit, Lisa Schiffren, in the 5/09/03 edition of the Wall Street Journal: Hey, Flyboy! Women voters agree: President Bush is a hottie!
Back on the West Side, among the liberals I live surrounded by, there was dissent. At my younger children's preschool, comments ranged from well he's cute, but not my type to I can't think of anything more revolting. Many of them still cite Bill Clinton and his allegedly penetrating intellect as more appealing.
Schiffren, after speaking with conservative ladies from the (New York) Citys East Side, came to an alternate conclusion:
The American media were fully aware of how stunning the president looked last week. And they chose to defuse it by referring endlessly to the "photo-oppiness" of the event. The man uses overwhelming military force to vanquish a truly evil foe, facing down balking former "allies," and he is not taken seriously as a foreign- policy president. He out top-guns the Hollywood version, and all the media can talk about is the impending campaign commercial.
Schiffrens East-siders spoke unabashedly about Bushs praiseworthiness and their libidos:
among the soccer moms I spend my days with. At my daughter's East Side school, my friend Emily, a mother of two and probably a liberal, examined the picture of the president in his fly-boy gear that I just happened to have in my purse. She looked carefully, grinned and said, "He's a hottie. No doubt about it. Really a hottie. Why haven't I noticed this before?
And then from the writers friend: "Hot? SO HOT!!!!! THAT UNIFORM!" In a more restrained way, my friend Maggie, a writer/mom, explained: "I think he is actually protecting me and my sons, and I find that attractive in a man."
It would seem from of all of these observations that, while some liberal women are painfully repressed, conservative women are enjoying liberation. Not too long ago it was thought to be the reverse.
I dont know what to make of Robert Byrd, except to conclude lazily that he experienced at least a brief rise to Bushs apparition when he protested almost vigorously: "I do question the motives of a deskbound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech."
Its hard on Kleagle Byrd as time slips away like sand in the hand and the memory of his donning the silky-white-hood Klu Klux Klan uniform of racial terror is to him a forgotten waywardness.
Psychopathology explains repressed liberal womens reactions to Bush-The-Sexy-Hero, as does long-standing class bigotry and partisan politics allow a clear understanding of Senator Byrd.
Jean Chretien, on the other hand, mystifies analysts. Neither pragmatic nor honestly idealistic, he stands with Chirac for no other apparent reason than transient reassurance that someone likes him.
France will drop Canada like a bad habit once the Maple Leaf is no longer one of Frances covers for sagging public relations. Everyone knows this, yet Chretien still salivates on Jacques shoe like a hungry and gracious dog.
The more I scrutinize Canada and its abrupt shift toward global socialism, the more I wonder
have they become so very unlike us when we have been always so close?
Excellent! Clintonism is being turned on its creators.
Ouch! Clintoon's going to have to put some ice on THAT one.....
intellect as more appealing
That sentence took a turn away from the direction I expected.
Wait till they get a load of the upcoming beach vacation with the family when he steps from the ocean in swim trunks.
Don't get too worked up, ladies, just conjecture. It whould provide an interesting contrast to distastful imagery of a certain lardbutt "romancing" his lardbutt wife on the beach just after the Monica story broke.
Unbelieveable photo of President Bush showing his legs off! Democrats and the leftist media are very upset! Robert Byrd and DNC head Maculiffe demand Bush wear long pants! "We heard a rumor Bush might take his shirt off this summer when clearing brush on the ranch! And allow the media to get a photo!" Exclaimed Maculiffe. "My goodness! We hear Bush is pretty ripped! That's not fair! We plan to run Hillary at the last minute. How could we counter Bush with six-pack abs? Run a photo of Hillary in a bikini? No way!" Macauliffe then vomited all over himself and several reporters.
A DNC spokesman later discounted Macauliffe remarks saying "He's hammered again. Heck, he's hammered all the time".
In related news Tom Daschle said he "was concerned" about "the news regarding the president". When asked "What news" Daschle responded "Any news, I'm concerned about any news".
Yep, that's all there is to it. Consider the last photo you posted. The one with Bush wearing headphone gear and the goggles. That would look goofy on anyone else. But not on cool hand George.
That's the difference between President Bush and Clinton. We've not seen President Bush exploit his family for cheap political gains.
On the other hand, X-42 would've arranged to have those photos take and published, then would have complained fiercely that his family's private life had been violated.
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.