Why are they complaining? They'd have complained extensively had it been a public wedding--'how can they have such extravagence when the country's in a gas crisis,' etc. I think the media was the main reason he chose to keep it private.

Bush, once again, shows that the right thing to do is to ignore the media and do what is right.

I absolutely applaud their decision to have a private family wedding.  This really confirms to me that their values and lives are solid and genuine and not for public titillation or consumption.  This was their day, not ours. 

I wish Jenna and Henry all the best and Godspeed.

And I pray for President and Mrs. Bush that their faith and their strength will be renewed and reinforced by this weekend of love and hope and by the Grace of God.

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"  - Shakespeare

I wish the new couple well and am glad that the President and his family had a wonderful celebration.   Why share this with a media that does nothing but undermine and insult this family at every opportunity.   If the Bush family had done otherwise, every idiotic protest group such as Code Oink would have been there to get in their few minutes of camera time...and the American media would have gladly given it to them.

I truly believe that the President sat Jenna and her now husband down and laid out what they should expect if they went for a WH wedding.  He likely explained that many of the press would have ripped into the looks of her, her bridesmaids, her father, her groom, her mother, and the entire format of the wedding.  They would have done so, not because they even believed what they were writing, but because they'll know that they'll sell more magazines that way.  Therefore, she decided that, no, no one is going to make a quick easy buck off trashing her wedding day.  So, they went for a pretty traditional (as best she could make it), quiet, down home type wedding.  I think it was a great call on her part.

They absolutely did the right thing. If they'd had it at the WH, I'm sure the media would be whining..how can he do this while young men and women are fighting in Iraq, etc. Or they'd be accusing him of trying to divert attention from all our problems.

I'm sick to death of the media thinking that they are the arbiters of what is supposed to be public and what's not.

I was checking dailykos for a story mentioned here. I didn't find it, but I did find this:

BREAKING: McCain Loses Bearings in Speech on Constitution; Campaign Covers Up Error

It involves McCain (talking about eminent domain) saying land may not be taken for public use, instead of land may only be taken for public use. Then they have a fit because in the transcript of the speech on his website, they have the correct wording.

And she claims the video was doctored to remove the erroneous statement. That may be, which, if true, was a stupid thing to do, IMO. It just makes it look like more than a simple error.

My point is the headline. Is "losing his bearings" going to be the recurring motif of the left's campaign against McCain? And his campaign has to keep covering up his "errors"?

Those of us who said before that McCain's age was a concern take no joy
in this. But here it is, coming on strong already. The leftwing
blogger says it's a legitimate issue.

Will Barack "I've been to 57 states" Obama renounce this kind of "negative personal attack"? (and if that's not a negative personal attack, then I don't know what is!) If he doesn't on his own, will anyone call on him to do so?

FYI- The Bushies are from the well-heeled, blue blood parts of elite society. It would look bad to their followers and true believers if they showed their true side.

Dubya feels your pain as he's sippin' Champagne!

He has nothing to worry about for the rest of his life...he will live within his own taxpayer supported bubble and never be exposed to any parts of lower class society that supported him. This is the perfect example of the type of person Dubya really is an elitist class wolf cloaked in a working class sheepskin. Show me some Carhartt, Dubya!

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

Stanley Crouch has an article today. In it, he scorns the idea that Obama is just an elitist. Instead, Crouch argues, Obama's education represents the highest form of non-elitism, since education is the key to social mobility. Indeed, Obama's detractors are evil, because they resent Obama's success:

"Education has always been viewed as suspect by everyone from slave owners to totalitarians. Wherever in the world you find them, they share one hostility: They hate books." 

Crouch isn't finished insulting anyone who doesn't adore Obama:

"And we should be ever suspicious of anyone or any group that scorns education, that pretends to believe that only the simple and the uncomplicated can express the national ethos." 

In his glorious summation, Crouch writes:

"That is absolutely ridiculous in a country from which so much technological and scientific innovation has come. Tell that to Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers or Bill Gates, none of whom were from the upper class." (bold mine)

Here's the problem ... Edison never attended college, and Gates dropped out. I believe the Wright Brothers never attended, either. Now it is true that all three were documented in their respect for learning, and Gates is certainly dedicated to the improvement in education (which implies that it needs improving). But the idea that an elite education is required for technological and scientific innovation is disproved by the very people Crouch cites.

No one distrusts Obama because he's educated. They distrust Obama because he comes from an elitist academic encironment that peddles self-supposed superiority along with the learning.