Naturally, the AP is in sympathy for the poor folks of Crawford who had the misfortune of becoming Bush's hometown. So, now a man can't even buy a house without it being the most evil thing any one has ever done, eh?
For years, folks took for granted the pleasures of small-town life: unlocked doors, little traffic and a tranquility interrupted only by high school football games or passing train horns.
Then came George W. Bush.
Yes, "then came George W. Bush," as if he were the harbinger of doom. My guess is that one could easily find a similar situation in just about any town that any president of the modern age hailed from while he sat in the White House. Who could not realize that such a town would have its bout with protesters, an occasional invasion of media types, the boom of having a famous resident while he is famous and the bust when he leaves office and fades into history, and the mixed emotions of residents, some of whom are sure not to support the president in question.
In essence, this is a big "so what?"
I also have to point out how amusing it is when the media inflates the standing of the people whom they want to give good publicity because they are attacking the president. Catch this...
Documentary filmmaker David Modigliani's Crawford tells what happened to the community and its 700 residents after then-governor Bush bought a 1,600-acre ranch early in his presidential campaign in 1999.
They call this fellow getting his 15 minutes of fame a "documentary filmmaker." But a few paragraphs later they add, "his first feature-length film," to the mix. So, this guy has one film under his belt. That’s it. Just one. Even IMBD doesn't show any past films completed or even any other projects in the planning stages, for that matter.
The guy is NOT a "documentary filmmaker" with only ONE film made. He might have made what is being claimed as a documentary film, but as it stands right now he is a hobbyist, not a "filmmaker." Does the 50-year-old guy who attended a car racing fantasy camp suddenly become a "race car driver"? Is the woman who watches the Food Channel qualified to be called a "chef"?
Of course, the AP is all sorrowful that one of the film's subjects feels as though she doesn't belong in Crawford because she suffers from BDS. She's "progressive" see and she hates Bush.
High school teacher Misti Turbeville, whose progressive views increasingly make her feel like an outsider here, theorizes that the ranch purchase was a public-relations ploy. In one scene, her students discuss why Bush would choose Crawford: to give him a heroic cowboy image or because small-town folks are viewed as having good morals, they say.
I see. So, Bush had to have bought his property because he is scheming? He couldn't have just liked the property? After all, he has to live somewhere. Why not Crawford?
But, let's face the facts here. It isn't Bush who caused Crawford, Texas to get as much heartburn as it has gotten over the last 6 years. It is the anti-war movement in general and the doltish Cindy "Mother" Sheehan in particular. To the AP, though, the mess Cindy Sheehan brought to Crawford was merely an "also" to the story.
Sheehan also sparked counterprotests by Bush supporters, including locals who not only vehemently opposed her message but were tired of the traffic and noise. The documentary shows resident Ricky Smith riding through town on a horse with "Cindy go home" written on its hindquarters.
It's easy to see that the real mess that was brought upon the small town of Crawford was when the virulent anti-war groups invaded the area. Bush certainly brought notoriety to the town, but the anti-war goons brought the mess.
In any case, its just one more opportunity for the AP to push the idea that George W. Bush is a bad guy. One wonders what trouble the town of Hope, Arkansas has seen as a result of Bill Clinton’s residence? And we already know the trouble Little Rock has seen because of the Clinton Library and the scandals, financial improprieties and political troubles that resulted from its founding there.
So where are the stories and faux documentaries about the mess the Clintons have made of those two boroughs? We all know that we won’t see such stories because the MSM doesn't pathologically hate Bill Clinton, of course.
