Update below (11:26): ThinkProgress responds.
(h/t Ace [1])
NonPartyPolitics has picked up on how the liberal ThinkProgress blog [2] smells something fishy in presidential daughter Jenna Bush's engagement to beau Henry Hager. Basically the lefty blog suggests that first lady Laura Bush lied to the press -- in 2005.
That's right, there's got to be something sinister and mendacious in Laura Bush's 2005 prediction that Jenna and Henry were "not serious." I mean, it's not like true love can blossom in a courtship in two years. Not for someone that close to President Bush!
Fortunately, even this lunacy was too much for the readers at TP. Here's an excerpt from NonParty Politics [3]:
Think Progress Smears Jenna Bush [4]
...and its readers overwhelmingly tell it to leave the story alone [5]!
There's moral decency out there, somewhere.
Two years is a long time for things to change. With all the important things that Bush Co. is lying about these days, why is TP wasting it’s time with this?
Comment by Andrew M — August 16, 2007 @ 7:51 pm [6]
I agree… this is trashy reporting… I expect better thing coming from thinkprogress. 2 YEARS IS PLENTY OF TIME FOR THINGS TO GET SERIOUS.Time for THINK PROGRESS to get SERIOUS about their reporting!
Comment by gldsndz — August 16, 2007 @ 7:56 pm [7]
Don’t we have more important things to have our hair on fire about?
Comment by Karen — August 16, 2007 @ 7:58 pm [8]
This is lame. I don’t care. Think Progress, focus on substantial things, please.
Comment by Jim — August 16, 2007 @ 7:58 pm [9]
This is lame and has no bearing on politics. I expect to hear about these types of “news” issues on Digg or Reddit.
Comment by Whocares — August 16, 2007 @ 7:59 pm [10]
I agree with the above comments. Who cares about this?
Comment by Eric the Political Hack — August 16, 2007 @ 8:02 pm [11]
Not to say some weren't harsh:
May happiness elude them…
…and tragedy befall them…
…at every turn…Comment by big papa — August 16, 2007 @ 7:58 pm [12]
Sigh.
Update: Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress just sent along an e-mail. He protests that we (and Ace, NonParty Politics) are misconstruing the tone of the blog post.:
Ken, I just read your post regarding our write-up of Laura Bush's 2005 comments on Jenna's fiance. You write, "Basically the lefty blog suggests that first lady Laura Bush lied to the press -- in 2005."
That's incorrect. Not everything we do is an attack on the Bushes. In this case, we thought it was an entertaining news item that was rather interesting -- that's all. It's something that Laura should chuckle at as well.
Our critics have ascribed motives to us that are simply wrong. We weren't playing "gotcha" or calling her a liar. We were pointing out, in joking fashion, that Laura never predicted this relationship going as far as it has.
What do you think?
Update II/Semi-related item (11:38): Speaking of lame attempts at humor, Time's Swampland blog took a brief swipe at Jenna Bush's "arranged marriage" with the headline for an August 17 news digest entitled "Daily Jumble: Jenna's Arranged Marriage-Free Edition." [13]