CNN.com Accents Laura Bush's Praise For Obama, Downplays Praise For Cheney

Photo of Matthew Balan.
  • Bookmark and Share

CNN Donkey Graphic | NewsBusters.orgA CNN.com article on Monday emphasized how Laura Bush “praised the performance” of President Obama during a recent interview and “criticized Washington’s sharp political divide.” Mrs. Bush also complimented Dick Cheney for defending the Bush administration during the interview with correspondent Zain Verjee, but the article didn’t mention this until 15 paragraphs later.

The article, titled “Laura Bush praises Obama, bemoans excessive partisanship,” summarized Verjee’s interview with the former first lady. The lead paragraph highlighted Mrs. Bush’s positive words for Mr. Obama: “Former first lady Laura Bush praised the performance of her husband’s successor Monday, breaking with many Republicans in telling CNN that she thinks President Obama is doing a good job under tough circumstances.”

After mentioning Cheney in passing in listing the topics of discussion during the interview, the CNN.com article returned to emphasizing how the former resident of the White House parted ways with her husband’s political allies: “The typically reserved former first lady defended Obama’s decision to deliver a back-to-school speech to students, putting her at odds with many conservatives afraid that the president will use the opportunity to advance his political agenda.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Several paragraphs later, CNN.com highlighted how Mrs. Bush apparently “indicated that she didn’t think it was fair for Obama to be labeled a ‘socialist’ by critics and expressed her disappointment with the intensely polarized nature of contemporary American politics.” She didn’t give such a direct answer however:

VERJEE: Do you think that it’s fair that Obama is criticized as a socialist?

BUSH: I have no idea whether it’s fair. Do you think I thought it was fair when President Bush was criticized? Not really- so I guess not.

The article didn’t address Laura Bush’s praise for former Vice President Cheney until the 16th paragraph:

Though the former first lady criticized the excessive partisanship of Washington, she expressed gratitude for Cheney’s decision to vocally defend her husband’s performance.

Cheney has been outspoken in his defense of the Bush administration’s national security record, which has been sharply criticized on, among other things, questions relating to the detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects.

“I think that Vice President Cheney has every right to speak out, and I appreciate that he is defending” the administration, Bush said. “I think that is important. I think there is a place for that.”

Bush also said it doesn’t bother her husband that Cheney’s “out there being critical.”

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

wait..

So now all the sudden Laura Bush is a credible, reasonable person? A month ago she was the wicked witch of the west.

 

I would say this proves

I would say this proves that Laura Bush, after  all the badmouthing this President has done of her husband, still has class.

Something the MSM and many in the current administration know nothing about.

Is that in contrast to the

Is that in contrast to the classless former VP? 

XOXO - Ted

a little journalistic taxidermy

I saw that on the cover of CNN and it smelled like a gutted and re-stuffed story but I didn't have time to look at the entire audio.

___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  ~Thomas Jefferson

Kata.. The next time an

Kata.. The next time an anchor says something stupid, I am now going to say "Stuff it!" ;+}

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

frustrated

with all the class she showed in that interview they still had to give it the 'ol hack and slash job in the copy.  As she knew they would.

still, you gotta give the woman kudos. 

___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  ~Thomas Jefferson

I wish certain GOP people

I wish certain GOP people would stop believing that they can win the favor of the press by being nice...it's like apologizing to someone after they just punched you in the nose.

matt, I agree

That's why I say they act like  abused wives.... if I just make nicer meals, keep the house cleaner, the kids quieter, maybe he won't hit me....

mattm... So do I. When

mattm...

So do I.

When will they ever learn?

After all these years it is past exasperating.

'Go Green...Recycle Congress'

bt,The verbal restraint

bt,

The verbal restraint and graciousness of the Bushes (both sets) that is admirable socially has always hurt them (and the Republicans) politically. 

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

Chris, You bet it

Chris,

You bet it has!

I do not know how many times we were screaming for Pres. Bush to say something, to fight back at various times, especially after his reelection...instead he remained mum, or when he did engage, it was weak, actually pathetic.

'Go Green...Recycle Congress'

The Bushes have always

The Bushes have always lacked that political "killer" gene. It must have been bred out of them. They're just incapable of giving as good as they get. 

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

It's that "kinder and

It's that "kinder and gentler" thing; my dad always reminded me of that everytime GW played nice with the msm.

Chris...The Bushes incapable of giving as good as they get

Even when George the elder reveled in kicking Geraldine Ferraro's ass?

But, I agree.  I think they're just instinctively gracious and good-natured human beings.  Not so sure about Barbara. 

Jer

Unfortunately...

Unfortunately, Laura Bush, and so many other repubs, have far more class than their democrat counterparts... So, they tend to say nice things even when they don't mean it.

Sorry, it's to the point now that if republicans or conservatives aren't willing to fight back, stand to their values, stop being "nice," then they should say nothing, rather than giving the MSM fodder for another "even 'they' love Obama" story.

You can have class, and still state the facts, express your values, expose the truth.

 

Stop Mischaracterizing Us!

"The ...former first lady defended Obama’s decision to deliver a ...speech to students, putting her at odds with many conservatives..." 

ONCE AGAIN, conservatives didn't object to Obama giving a generic "stay in school and work hard" speech to the students. What we objected to were the "support materials" from the Department of Education that asked the students to support Obama politically. This led to the objections over indoctrination. The media deliberately does this to marinalize us.

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

This is just

This is just infuriating!

NO ONE said the President shouldn't make a speech to school students!  Well, except the Democrats, who launched an invesitgation when President Bush did it......

But that's their story, and they're stickin' to it!

As Bill Kristol has pointed out, it is actually illegal for the Department of Education to hand down those teaching materials!  No mention of that, though.....the Democrats' "willing accomplices in the media" will report the story the way they want; which, coincidentally, is the Democrat version.

mb, I don't guess we

mb,

I don't guess we should hold our breaths waiting for Eric Holder to launch his investigation into the possibility that the DOE was acting illegally, huh? These investigations are reserved for the CIA or the military from the Bush Administration, 

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

Laura Bush? Obama doing a

Laura Bush?

Obama doing a good job under "trying times"?

Is she agreeing with this hijacking of our government?

Let Laura go back to sleep and put on Lynn Cheney. I would like to listen to someone who has a clue.

Don't badmouth Laura Bush

Don't badmouth Laura Bush because she's not a political animal.

She is just a classy lady who is not going to badmouth the President, period.  Lynn Cheney is not the wife of the former President, and is under no constraints of accustomed etiquette.

She will be used as a

She will be used as a example of how she express' GW's views and is in agreement of the administration.

There is no etiquette with communists. The only class these communists have is class warfare. GW better wake up real soon, with Holder breathing down his neck he may have some problems in the future.

She will be used as a

She will be used as a example of how she express' GW's views and is in agreement of the administration.

No she won't.  Everyone knows better.  She has never commented on policy except in the most general terms, and in a very polite way.

She already is being used

She already is being used to say, "people who disagree with the president are doing so not because of principles, but because it is personal and look here, some Republicans can see Obama is doing a good job."

Sorry, but we will have to

Sorry, but we will have to disagree.  Saying Obama is doing a good job just because you do not want to speak bad about him does not make you classy, that makes you a liar.  She could have said so many other things that did not badmouth him, but also, did not support his decision making.  I am tired of these RHINOs.  Have some principles, stand by them, that is class.

Not to take sides, just

Not to take sides, just going back in my memory also...

I have nothing but respect for Laura Bush...she is a classy lady...but don't put yourself out there when the conservatives in this country are fighting tooth and nail against O and his crew.

I remember well her not liking her husband using the terrible term 'Wanted: Dead or Alive'....just was a bit too much according to her...

I remember her statements on being pro-choice...(which is fine, it's her right)

I cannot remember the exact quotes etc when it came to how this war was going and her opinion of Rummy, but she wasn't happy with him.

I do think she is a political person behind the scenes...she is bound to be.

I understand the msm loving to use Laura for their agenda...but she's been around enough to know they will, let alone how they work.

'Go Green...Recycle Congress'

I think Laura Bush is

I think Laura Bush is right. Compared to some of the violent themes the nut jobs on the right are promoting, Cheney is a voice of reason amongst insanity. I commend her for coming out in the support of the President's speech advocating student responsibility and education. I think President Bush ( actually both President Bush's) should come out and disown this crazy upheival over a simple speech to students and the unpatriotic "Americans" like Savage who likened it to Hitler and the Hitler youth.  I think its getting time to shut up the wackier loons on the right, and not with a fairness doctrine, but with sedition charges.

Enough is enough. Anonymous left wing wackos held up Bush = Hitler signs in demonstrations, but when it becomes an organized network with high profile advocates trying to take down the President, I think its time to investigate if sedition applies. You tear down the office of President, and you weaken the country, and thats EXACTLY what is happening on the extreme right. 

"It is going be a totally positive speech. If that is what it is, it is
good to have the president of the United States saying to young people
across America stay in school and do your homework. It’s good for
America.” - Newt Gingrich

Okay, I'll bite

Just what in the world do you think Sedition is and how does the actions is the extreme right, or left for that matter, consititute "sedition? 

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

Sedition is when it becomes

Sedition is when it becomes obvious you are not campaigning for policy but campaigning to overthrow the elected President of the United States by painting him as a criminal or a despot. The cultivated rage over this little education speech makes it apparent, the goal is not policy, but to topple the President.

The United States should not tolerate seditionists for any reason

ah

Would you be so kind as to stand up and point out the seditionists, sir.

___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  ~Thomas Jefferson

Wrong

Chapter 115, United States Code--look it up.

You use the phrase "overthrow" rather freely. Many, I among them, look forward the day when we can again vote against our President. We have the right to disagree with the president and to voice our disagreement. We have the right to question his policies, his ideology and even his ethics.  Most of all we have the right to publically voice our disagreements; including the opinion that we believe he is a criminal and/or a despot.

Gotta love that free speech! 

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

Well look at section 2383

 This is why they make courtrooms. If a network of people is attacking the President from before the inauguration, as being a dictator, it could very well be sedition. Thats why they have lawyers, judges and juries. To figure it out.

The United States should not tolerate seditionists for any reason

Hey, Bizarro Shawn!

Hey, Bizarro Shawn!

Did you forget it's a school night?

Should you be putting up 1's and 0's

Shouldn't you be writing in score's you absolute moron?

The United States should not tolerate seditionists for any reason

"Shouldn't you be writing in score's you absolute moron?"

"Shouldn't you be writing in score's you absolute moron?
"

That wasn't very nice 

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong

→ Shawn

Come on Shawn.  That volley was in-bounds.

I doubt Free was offended by it.

Van Jones is a Quitter - FS

Cool

I like witty come backs as much as anyone. Once upon a time in a galaxy far far away i had a issue with FS and his scorecard as well, but I figure I used more creativity that calling someone a moron. 

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong

→ Shawn

I guess I realized that when an opponent resorts to Jr. High taunts, the battle is won.

"Moron" is an epithet uttered most often by an opponent in hasty retreat.

(see also "out of valid argument")

The use of the term doesn't reflect on Free Stinker at all, but on nwahs, and his argument.

Van Jones is a Quitter - FS

CA

I have no problem with Nwahs, I just figure name calling is kind of juvenile no matter who it is coming from. 

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong

→ You're right shawn

Honestly, I see such terms thrown around so often, I, not so naturally, assumed you were referring to the jab about scorekeeping rather than the more egregious insult to mentally challenged people.

I'm OK with nwahs, too.  We just disagree on some things.

I doubt it would be much fun if I agreed with everybody here.  Of course I could be fishing.

Van Jones is a Quitter - FS

Lol CA

I admit I made a big deal about the score keeping a long time ago, which I have apologized for. I realize not everyone on NB will get along, but sometimes its better not to sweat the small stuff 

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong

Sounds like Bizarro Shawn

Sounds like Bizarro Shawn got caught at being up past curfew!

→ I'm missing something

Doesn't "sedition", as defined by US Code, include the words "by force"?

I could be wrong.  Please correct me if I am.

Van Jones is a Quitter - FS

Generally, yes

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any placesubject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire tooverthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of theUnited States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by forcethe authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay theexecution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to theauthority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title orimprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Section 2384: Seditious conspiracy 

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

that's a pretty liberal use

of the words "by force".  So, again I ask.  Who is the seditionist? 

___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  ~Thomas Jefferson

Heck if I know

NWAHS was trying to engage in hyperbole. I guess he wants to attach a new label to those who disagree with the actions of our government. 

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

→ kata

My point, and Paragrouper's reenforcement of it, was that nwahs used the term "sedition" in such a way as to hide the fact that "force" is a necessary component to its definition.

I hope that made sense.  Sometimes I get all run-on with my sentences.

Van Jones is a Quitter - FS

it does

and you are.  No worries, CA.  I was asking nwahs.

___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  ~Thomas Jefferson

→ Thanks Paragrouper

And I'd bet the threat of force would be a necessary element in any Sedition prosecution.

All else would fall under the umbrella of free speech.

Else, there would have been mass trials of those who sought to bring down Bill Clinton.

Van Jones is a Quitter - FS

That sounds

about right to me. 

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

If your purpose

 If your purpose is to bring down the President, because you don't like who won, you're a criminal as much as those who brought down the twin towers. Its just a matter of prosecuting you (editorial "you"). I have no doubt the first black President will instigate the first sedition trial in many years. No doubt. Free speech has nothing to do with criminal intent. If the intent is to bring down the elected President outside of legal action to remove the President, its a crime and it should be prosecuted. Millions of people elected him. Their choice should be protected from seditionists. This is a country of law. No one is going to waste time with a few delusional people waving "Bush=Hitler" signs at protests. But when networks start using their incredible range to broadcasts the same message, sedition investigations are in order.

The United States should not tolerate seditionists for any reason

Our purpose is clear

Our purpose is clear:

It is unpatriotic not to oppose [the president] to the exact extent that by inefficiently or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.  --Teddy Roosevelt

 

You are dismissed.

→ Not so nwahs

If people are tried by the Obama Administration for Sedition, without the threat of force having been soundly determined, I'll be thoroughly surprised.

We could Constitutionally, in this blog, discuss the methods by which we intend to "peacefully" remove the CIC from office, and there would be nothing illegal about it.

You have so dilluted and defanged the term "sedition" that it means, in your lexicon "talking bad about the President".

I really don't understand why you are suddenly in favor of stifling American debate.

Van Jones is a Quitter - FS

A Country of Laws

Very good rant Shawn. You are so right and so wrong all at the same time. If (can I say it louder) IF a person violates the law then they would be criminals. However, you can't seem to pinpoint the law that we (editorial "me") are violating by public dissent to the policies of our government. Thats because our speech (free in this here country) is protected by the consitution. That protection extends to those (Fox, I guess) networks that produce media that you don't agree with.

For many years all of us have been subjected to opinions that we disagree with--sometimes strongly disagree--but that is was makes our country so great. You like your new word, sedition, move to China. They are all over sedition. 

You should really lay off the drama dude. 

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

Public dissent

Public dissent and contending the President is a criminal threatening the citizens of the United States is not the same. Public dissent is an asset of the United States, where people can voice their opposition to policy and President. Contending the President is a criminal acting against the US and its citizens (when he is charged with no crime) over the air waves, could be sedition. It could be definite proof of incitement to rebel against constitutional authority. I don't think its cut in stone either way. I think it would make an interesting trial.

The United States should not tolerate seditionists for any reason

keep spinning that wheel

Contending the President is a criminal acting against the US and its citizens (when he is charged with no crime) over the air waves, could be sedition.

As has been said here a dozen times already, sedition has nothing to do with that. Our founding fathers were very clear in their defense of free expression. So until you find proof of Fox News using force to attack Obama, you are out of gas.

And Cool is right. Your argument is not far from applying sedition to anyone who might accuse the president of lying or cheating.

 I think it would make an interesting trial.

Translation: I'm drooling to see Obama shut conservies up. Even though I am a conservie myself. I promise.

No this is pretty specific

You have people accusing the President of being a criminal, waging war against the United States and its citizens.

Note this case:

Laura Berg, a nurse at a United States Department of Veterans Affairs-run hospital in New Mexico
was investigated for sedition in September 2005 after writing a letter
to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders
of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed
unwarranted by the the director of Veteran Affairs, local human
resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI
investigation. Ms Berg was represented by the
ACLU. Charges were dropped in 2006 

The United States should not tolerate seditionists for any reason

I note

that the case was dropped because the allegations were stupid.

What's your point? 

___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  ~Thomas Jefferson

Now, come on

Shawn, the horse is dead--stop beating it already.

Could be sedition? Could be definite proof of incitement to rebel against to rebel against the constitutional authority? Lotta big words--no substance.

By your interpretation of the law, we should be able to send the FBI out to slap the cuffs on Van Jones. Hell, the NWAHS Sedition Act of 2009 would fill the state of Arizona with offenders.

Nite Nite...let me know if you have any luck slapping that horse back to life.

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

No it has substance. A

No it has substance. A person was investigated for sedition in 2005 for a letter to the editor. The charges were eventually dropped, but lets face it, some talk show hosts accusing Obama of being a criminal have a bigger audience than a letter to the editor.You can pussy foot around it all you want, but you can't legally have a network of people trying to topple the President because they don't like who won.Thats illegal, and they just need the evidence to prove its going on.

The United States should not tolerate seditionists for any reason

nwahs

Said person also wrote in her article that we should work "FORCEFULLY" to remove the administration. See my link below. 

Apples to oranges. 

"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest

Do I stink or something?

nwahs, I'd really like to know why you didn't give us the whole story on Laura Berg. C'mon, take it like a man. 

"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest

You've GOT to be kidding me.

nwahs, this is the most idiotic post I've seen from you to date, and that is saying something.

If your purpose is to bring down the President, because you don't like
who won, you're a criminal as much as those who brought down the twin
towers-
That some wish to have some questions answered, is not intent to "bring down the President". They just want to be sure the current occupant is there legally. To equate them, or others that call the 0 bad names, or simply think that he is a POS who is in way over his head, with terrorists that behead, bomb, gas, and blow up anybody that doesn't agree with them makes this, and every future argument moot. If this is your mindset, then any small amount of credibility you may have had here is gone.

No one is going to waste time with a few delusional people waving
"Bush=Hitler" signs at protests. But when networks start using their
incredible range to broadcasts the same message, sedition
investigations are in order.-
Of course you realize that noone was broadcasting the bush=hitler signs, but, are you saying that if they had, Bush would have been correct to initiate sedition trials against these people? I have a hard time believing that you would think it appropriate in that case. 

You see, nwahs, we can discuss "bringing down the president", by legal means, all day and all not night, and not have broken one law. Time for some homework for you. Sedition

 

"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest

So you're

So you're giving me a dictionary reference to a legal matter that hasn't been tested since the 50's?

I'm not saying it would stick, but in light of this case, does it merit an investigation?

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Sedition

"Laura Berg, a nurse at a United States Department of Veterans Affairs-run hospital in New Mexico
was investigated for sedition in September 2005 after writing a letter
to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders
of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed
unwarranted by the the director of Veteran Affairs, local human
resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI
investigation. Ms Berg was represented by the
ACLU. Charges were dropped in 2006
"

 

People with big microphones (much bigger than a letter to the editor of a newspaper)  are accusing Obama of being a criminal in the likes of Hitler. I think they should be investigated for sedition.

The United States should not tolerate seditionists for any reason

nwahs

I'm not saying it would stick, but in light of this case, does it merit an investigation?

Um, no. 

"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest

Ding Ding

and the charges were dropped. Why?

Because "accusing National Leaders of criminal negligence" is not a crime.

It's a wonder that George Bush didn't toss a few (hundred) reporters into the clink during his tenure--it would have made his life much easier. Maybe he should have had you for Attorney General.

/sarc off  

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

Actually, Paragrouper

Laura Berg did say: 

"We need to wake up and get real here, and act forcefully to remove a
government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and
vicious deceit."

Perilously close to sedition, but no, she didn't need to be investigated, and thus the charges were dropped. 

Also, apparently, it was was a lower level worker or two that decided to launch this. 

"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest

awww

nwahs is losing his temper. How cute.

So your new plan is to stretch the definition of sedition until you can use it to accuse Fox News of a crime? Nice.

Tell us again what kind of a conservative you supposedly are?

 

I'm guessing the phoney

I'm guessing the phoney kind.

Just sayin' . . .

→ nwahs

I didn't figure you for a litigation junky.

Fess up.  You have an ACLU card, don't you?

Van Jones is a Quitter - FS

I don't think he's a card carrying member

of the ACLU, but I bet he's watched a season or two of law and order. 

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

→ Law & Order

Raising the Bar takes Bleedin' Heart Liberalism to a new low.

Van Jones is a Quitter - FS

Lol RO... If he does...he

Lol RO...

If he does...he wasn't one of those in the ACLU that went to bat for Rush...you can bet the farm on that. 

'Go Green...Recycle Congress'

Now for your next assignment

you need to look up the legal definition of rebellion or insurrection, for you are grasping at straws.

You may not like what other Americans have to say, but you should defend their right to say it. 

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

~When the Constitution of the United States

Is flagrantly and openly violated, all American citizens have the right and the duty to toss the lawbreakers out of office.

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection,
safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit,
honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men;
therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and
indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or
totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and
happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

 

 

Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today

...and the duty

That part should be underlined. 

"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden

~NB

Doesn't give the option, but perhaps I should have bolded it.

The Founding Fathers would scorn the American people for going quietly into socialism's dark night.

 

Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today

Of course Adams wrote those

Of course Adams wrote those particular words before the United States even existed.  Sound principles nonetheless.

Jer

~Sound principles

Which contain the very spirit that birthed this country. When you read the letters and speeches from that era our politicians look like wishy-washy frauds by comparison. All of them.

 

Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today

Spirit of '76, babe.

Spirit of '76, babe.

Jer

Laura Bush is a classy lady

Glad none one on the right is calling her names because she has nice words for our President. 

"I swear sometimes the self-appointed moral police are as obnoxious and demanding of big government interference as "environmentalist" gun control advocates, labor unions and trial lawyers"~fitzfong

lady

Laura Bush defines the "lady" in First Lady. Classy and gracious all the way. Unlike the current occupant of the position.

May she enjoy her retirement with President Bush. They've earned it.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.