Well this is what I am having to put up with on my blog and I haven't even posted on the speech by Laura Bush!

Hey Sparkle, how does Laura Bush's joke about her husband trying to milk a male horse square with your party's family values? Republicans were pretty upset with Whoopi Goldberg a while back for using the word "Bush" in a naughty way, if I recall correctly. In fact, I seem to recall that the hypocritical far-right held up Whoopi's joke as an example of the left's purported depravity. The outrage was really quite something!

But if Laura Bush wants to make jokes about man-on-horse action, well, that's all in good fun.
Flex | 05.04.05 - 1:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anybody have a link to the whole Laura schtick? I've heard *about* it, but I haven't heard it.

Oops, that last sentence is his too, I just didn't italicize it.

Eh. Of course someone can easily go overboard in getting bothered by this, but count me as one of the people who would prefer that the first lady be above this sort of thing.

To paraphrase the gob-smackingly vile John Derbyshire: I love dirty jokes down at the pub, but if my minister tells them from the pulpit, I go looking for a different church.

Now, I'm sure some will say at this point that Laura Bush is the first lady, not a minister. Fine, but do you seriously think the first F'n lady of the country is not a role that deserves a certain elevated amount of decorum?

Do Not Disrespect Larry the Cable Guy.

The horse joke would have played fine here in Texas; no one would have cared. I think it's them city-folk that think it is so shocking. Not a big deal to me.

The whoopi thing was profanity-laced at an open fundraiser if i remeber right, and kerry came up and said they wanted to emulate the values of the people in that room or something. A little different from a White House press dinnerm, and its different when it's his wife making the jokes.

I agree with you about the horse joke 100% ACE.

I mean Cheesh, if you can't joke in public before the eyes and ears of the national media about your husband jerking off a horse, where can you joke about it?

Laura was quite funny. Here timing and comfort were excellent and surprising. The sniping is stupid.

i think what a lot of people are missing was that this was at a white house correspondents dinner- a republican pres & first lady poking fun at themselves with a bunch of washington insiders and liberal press in attendance was right on. this was just a second term administration showing it can let its hair down, not a state of the union address and no where did she use any profanity. in fact if i recall correctly she got a standing ovation from the crowd. lighten up people!

From reading it, it seemed Laura was calling Mr. Excitement a city slicker for not knowing a male horse from a female cow.
Went right over their gutter dwellin' heads.

Typical media stereotype of social conservatives: humorless a-holes.

Why do some of us always feel the need to live up to that low expectation?

ACE no matter how you may feel about the jokes, as MM said: Laura gave Liberal columists years worth of material to be used against George and the whole family.

This was really not very smart.

Aren't married people the ones who are supposed to be having sex?

See what I mean? Damn conservatives are already prying into our sex lives.

Just leave us alone, you vultures!

Iblis,

Very true. Reveals the huffing commenter at RWS' site as a jackass. It wasn't a masturbation joke. It was a too-stoopid-to-tell-a-horse-from-cow joke.

Now what we've got here is a theocratic government of horse cock worship!!

Here you go:

From the Washington Post:

Among the first lady's funniest lines at a recent Press dinner:

· "George always says he's delighted to come to these press dinners. Baloney. He's usually in bed by now. I'm not kidding. I said to him the other day, 'George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later.' I am married to the president of the United States, and here's our typical evening: Nine o'clock, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep, and I'm watching 'Desperate Housewives' -- with Lynne Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife."

· "But George and I are complete opposites -- I'm quiet, he's talkative, I'm introverted, he's extroverted. I can pronounce 'nuclear'. The amazing thing, however, is that George and I were just meant to be. I was the librarian who spent 12 hours a day in the library, yet somehow I met George."

· "So many mothers today are just not involved in their children's lives. Not a problem with Barbara Bush. People often wonder what my mother-in-law's really like. People think she's a sweet, grandmotherly, Aunt Bea type. She's actually more like, mmm, Don Corleone."

· "I saw my in-laws down at the ranch over Easter. We like it down there. George didn't know much about ranches when we bought the place. Andover and Yale don't have a real strong ranching program. But I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse."

· "Now, of course, he spends his days clearing brush, cutting trails, taking down trees, or, as the girls call it, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chainsaw -- which I think is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well."

Russ, Now we can come up with the press too fixated on sex jokes.

Drunken Virgins, compared to the shit the press normally uses, this crap is a massive step up for the Bushies.

from the mouths of these pathetic liberal journalists come all this? why dont they climb down from their soap box and quit pretending to be so holier then thou and stop trying to be so rediclous

I have been bitching about this sanctimonious shit all day. Malkin needs to get laid or something. She gives tight-assed a new meaning.

She has positioned herself as sort of this g-rated version of Ann Coulter but her vitriol is exactly the same and just as intolerant to outside opinion as Ann's.

The only thing I can say about Malkin is she is at least consistent in her stick up the ass rhetoric.

I stand by my statement she just wanted to write the words "Horse Masturbation" in her blog and column.

Ya know, sometimes life would be a lot easier if Christ had been into poop and fart jokes.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

It's just a stupid farm joke from a lady who grew up in West Texas. Some people need a sense of humor. As for people who think sex is against "family values", how do you think all those little Christian kids are made? Song of Solomon teaches that anything goes in the marriage bed. Dammit, I like sex, and I like sex jokes. Uptight, city-slickin' fools.

How do you know Christ wasn't into poop and fart jokes. It's hard to prove a negative.

Song of Solomon teaches that anything goes in the marriage bed.

I'll bet bringin' in Betsy for a manage oh three ain't part o' that tune.

Ya know, sometimes life would be a lot easier if Christ had been into poop and fart jokes.

Good thing I wasn't sipping my coffe when I read that, you funner f'er.

Yeah, this seems like the right place to post this:

Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers.

I agree that this is mostly much ado about nothing, but the horse joke made me a little uncomfortable, coming from the First Lady.

Russell, it would have been a too-stupid-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-horse-and-a-cow if she had stopped here:

But I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse.

It became a horse-dick joke when she added, What's worse, it was a male horse."

on her blog malkin's list of things she finds funny makes her sound like a friggin party, i can tell you that.....can't wait for her follow up to knocking "south park conservatives"

The ducks are preparing for the upcoming zombie wars

Look, his first miracle was to help get a bunch of people drunk. So I don't think a carpenter/diety would mind some fart and poop jokes. Hell, if God didn't want us to laugh at 'em he wouldn't have made 'em funny.

Jen,

Hey now. Michelle is a friend. Please watch it. She's also agreed to do me a great favor on May tenth.

What Jamie said.

And screw the people who can't take an f'n joke. Like a hammer.

brak,

come on, she's one of the good guys. We can disagree without being disagreeable-- especially as it concerns important allies.

Oh no. More bird talk. Mallards are known for screwing anything that holds still long enough. They'll even drown other ducks by gang-raping them in the water.

Oh, give me a break. Laura Bush is only using the same mildly-blue "country humor" that's been around Jesusland for...well, just about forever.

If anynone watches King Of The Hill, there's a scene where Hank's dad takes him to see a cow getting mated to a bull to teach him the facts of life. "That's also how he taught me about paying taxes," Hank says. That's classic country humor, and I heard that exact same joke when I was a kid.

Country humor is sly, understated, often mildly bawdy, but never overtly nasty. Most of these MSM t ypes have never spent time harvesting corn, branding cattle, or any of the other country rituals where such jokes make the rounds. In fact, most of these MSM types have never been more than a couple of hundred miles beyond either coastline.

Laura Bush is a lovely, warm, and down-to-earth lady. And I stress lady. I will pick a fight with anyone who says otherwise, be he Red or Blue. Anyone who disses Laura Bush in front of me is going to get his teeth FedExed out of his mouth courtesy of my fist.

Sorry, I usually like Malkin. When she gets on the pop culture stuff I just get on her case a bit. Felt the same way when she got up in arms about Kid Rock. But hey, she has small kids, so I understand to a point.

I have to admit that I was the one who sent the negative e-mail that Malkin posted. The beginning was a little harsh and probably not that witty but I was mad so sue me.

Correct me if I wrong, but don't ranchers masterbate livestock all the time. This is not really that sexual.

Monty is right about the country humor. If you have a cow-calf ranch, then a huge percentage of the success of your business rides on how well your animals copulate and lactate. So naturally a lot of attention gets focused on bovine undercarriage. You have to be able to joke about it.

Of all the days to potentially be featured on CNN...

Michelle does what she does well. That was not my point. I'll watch out on the tenth for her g-rated non-equine favor for you. Its all about favors. Maybe some crazy blog money too.

Honestly I cannot imagine how she manages to get through reading some of your posts, what with her delicate sensitivities and all. All that cursing and your failure to "Self-censor" like a good conservative.

I guess we should all strive to be more like Jesus and or Michelle. I do think I am a failure at this though.

I lack the self-censor gene. Obviously.

Monty,

Dead on.

A couple of weeks back I was at the (soon to be) in-laws's house. When I broke out in hives after petting their cat, my father-in-law, who is originally from West Virginia, went upstairs to search for medication.

He returned empty-handed and said, "Well I found some stuff with Cortizone in it, but it's for something else....."

It took me a minute, but once I realized what he was talking about, I laughed my ass off.

Have to agree with Jen here, Ace. Michelle puts out good columns from time to time, but she has always suffered from a pronounced lack of humor in her writing, and she takes herself entirely too seriously. Jen's absolutely right when she characterizes her as "a G-rated Ann Coulter" - which, I would argue, misses the point of having Ann around in the first place.

Michelle's voice is undeveloped and she compensates for it by writing in a perpetual state of outrage. It gets tiresome, and pretending it doesn't does no one any favors - especially her.

This sounds like an intervention - "Ace, you must come to grips with Michelle's lack of yuckery. You must."

I think Ace has an oedipal fixation with Michelle: she's the ultimate blogger-mom he never had, but she's hot too.

I think the fact that Michelle can enjoy and occasionally link to Ace and Goldstein shows she has a pretty good sense of humor. She might disagree with them on the bounds of propriety-- just as she might with any other issue--but I hardly think that means she has some kind of pole up her hindquarters.

Look, it's possible to both enjoy off-color humor now and then, but also to have some ideas about when and with whom it's appropriate and when it's not. Just like sex.

Ooh, I'm so naughty!

Check out Kathleen Parker's reaction to the First Lady's jokes - she's on point, unlike all the OMGHOWCOULDSHESAYSUCHTHINGS hysterical hissyfits.

SD-

I never said Michelle doesn't have a sense of humor. I said her writing lacks a sense of humor.

If she can appreciate Ace, good for her. She should try to learn something from him.

Megan--

Not every columnist has to be Jonah Goldberg. Charles Krauthammer has written exactly one funny column--curiously, about Dick cheney dropping an effenheimer on Pat Leahy--but I still read him pretty often.

You want to see some real fundamental twiggery, go to worldmagblog.com and scroll down to their Laura Bush thread. i tried to make the "lighten up" case there but pretty much got consigned to hell along with the Bushes.

I actually like their forums but it's especially nice when I'm feeling a bit uptight in the real world; I go there and I feel like Pat O'Brien after three grams of toot.

Laura Bush just strikes me as the kind of wife/mother every guy wishes for. Pretty, smart, funny, kind, and obviously a loving and faithful wife. She's not a "stepford wife" because you can tell she doesn't take crap offa old G.W. I find myself unable to take (or tolerate) cheap shots at her expense because I find her so wholly agreeable.

Laura Bush is the best first lady since Elanor Roosevelt, and the best lookin' one so far.

Michelle is quite right. Without repeating the same arguments, at the very least it cannot be denied that Laura has given Liberal pundits, columists and comedians lots of ammo to use against the Bush's for a long time to come.

72 Drunken Virgins : ACE no matter how you may feel about the jokes, as MM said: Laura gave Liberal columists years worth of material to be used against George and the whole family.

This was really not very smart.

I disagree. It showed Laura Bush as an intelligent, witty, fun-loving woman....who in this venue had two huge attributes going for her that wow'ed the crowd: Her timing was near perfect and she played against type. No one is likely to think of her as the perfect, plastic Stepford Wife again.

After the Schiavo fiasco, Bush needed to put some distance between himself and the Religious Theocrats. Laura Bush's jokes were a great way to subtly say he is a normal person not co-opted by Religious zealots...and so am I.

This is a small thing, one night of jokes....but it was a very effective vehicle for humanizing the Bushs and showing they like a little risque secular humor.

A big political plus.

Megan, hate to say this, but thanks for the Kathleen Parker link. Good article.

Here's the video:

http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/04/video_president_1.html

(The MPEG version is incomplete, I think, but the lower-quality WMV file worked fine for me.)

SD -

Jonah Goldberg? Are you kidding? If you think he's funny, I don't even know where to start with you. For the record, I think Michelle's a much better writer than Goldberg - he comes across as a snotty brat 90% of the time, and she only comes across as a tight-assed prig 75% of the time. And I can tolerate prigs more easily than brats.

Krauthammer gets you back in my good books, though, as he's far better than the best of both Malkin and Goldberg combined. He's a very polished writer with superb ear for language and an acerbic pen. He's almost in the same league as the late, great, and very much missed Michael Kelly.

As for the site you mentioned, thanks, but no thanks. I read over 600 pages every day - doesn't sound like I need to add "twiggery" to that. :)

Personally, I think that some of the joking was over the line. (Not the horse one, but some of the mockery of the Bush family.) But that's my opinion; I wouldn't have told jokes quite as out there as Laura did.

All the same, it's simply a matter of taste. Laura obviously means well, she's a decent and classy woman, and she's the best first lady I can remember. (Thanks, George and Laura, for restoring some friggin' dignity to the White House, seriously.) What's more, a lot of the jokes were hilarious.

I really liked her mockery of George for mispronouncing "nuclear". Not only was it funny (because let's face it, George is an easy guy to poke some fun at), it also confirms my suspicion that George knows full well how liberals view him; he just doesn't care.

I think people need to lighten up. She may have miscalibrated the taste a little, but it really was just good-natured joking from a great woman.

Krauthammer is awesome and while both Goldberg and Malkin have skills enough to make them a living, Chuck is in another league entirely.

It is like comparing Ashton Kutcher to Sir Lawrence Olivier. Both have their place in the business, but no mistaking they are different places.

Oh good Lord, Cedarford and I are on the same side on this one. :) I hate it when these things happen.

Welcome, old thing. And totally agreed on your interpretation.

72: "Laura has given Liberal pundits, columists and comedians lots of ammo to use against the Bush's for a long time to come."

Yeah, 'cause they really needed "ammo" to bash the President before.

Look. This is like the filibuster crap - the President and his family were going to get bashed even if the First Lady hadn't made those jokes. The Democrats, if they get into power (please God forbid), are going to change the Senate rules if they need to, even if we don't now. Why?

BECAUSE THEY'RE LIBERALS. And that is what they do.

So get a fuckin' grip and suck up the hits you're going to take no matter what you do. And stop bitching.

Got to love it. You don't agree with Malkin on one or more things and she becomes the devil incarnate.

I don't give a shit that it gave the left something to yap about. The jokes were funny. And if the left couldn't bitch, moan, and finger point about this, they would make something up.

And, I still like and respect Ms. Malkin.

That Goldberg thing was more a reference to tone than quality, Megan. I could have said Mark Steyn. The point is that there's a almost a glut of sardonic puckery among right wing columnists. Which is good, both because it's fun to read and because it gets the good word out.

at May -

Yeah, I think she's the devil incarnate because I think her writing's amateurish. What nonsense.

I rarely disagree with Malkin on substance. This is one of those times. She's not the devil; she's just plain wrong.

Yeah, this seems like the right place to post this: Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers.

I dunno, Slub, it was either here, or in the threads about zombies and chickens.

SD-

Mark Steyn isn't bad; he's definitely better than Goldberg. And I see what you mean about the tonal glut - I just don't think Malkin's "I'm outraged!" treatment of nearly every issue under the sun is much of an improvement.

Come on now, folks. Can't we all just get along?

And please, don't pick on Jonah Goldberg. I'm sure the man could defend himself if he ever visited, but in his stead, I'll vouch for any writer who can immanentize the eschaton while making beer, porn & Simpsons jokes.

Good lord, the man is like everything I would ever hope to be.

Until I met Ace, of course.

Now, where did I put my bourbon. . .

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

"Can't we all just get along?"

No.

"I'm sure the man could defend himself if he ever visited"

Probably. I've met him twice, and he's a thousand times more tolerable in person than he is in writing.

Or, as Yakov Smirnov once said, "Once you've milked a bull, you've got a friend for life ! "

This is what I'd already posted about this over at Jen's site. Tis paraphrased for here...

Hmm, I don’t have a problem with Malkin so much. She just has her Morality Meter set higher than a good many of us, and as long as she’s consistent I can respect that. I may not agree with her, but I can respect it.

I don’t agree with her in this case. The Correspondent’s Dinner is an Adult group, and so a few PG-13 jokes aren’t inappropriate. The Kvetch-up Queen Terri Kerrey would have made those remarks in front of ANY audience.

As for the Horse Joke: Geez, there used to be a CEREAL COMMERCIAL with the same joke in it. (A guy wants some milk for his cereal and goes out to the “cow” to get some, and someone comments, “Does he know that’s a bull?” The reply, “He’ll figure it out.”) Now, how is telling a variation of that in an adult group wrong when you can turn on the TV any time of day and see it?

If this was a school or something I would not have liked Laura telling a couple of those jokes…similar to how I didn’t think it was right for Kid Rock to perform for kids at the inaugural, and I agreed with Malkin on that. But it wasn’t a bunch of kids and I don’t think they’re airing this stuff on C-SPAN in our schools. But even if they WERE, they’re not showing it to 4-year-olds, as some panicked reporter whimpered. If my 7th grader heard the joke she wouldn’t really “get” it but she would laugh at the visual.

Anyway, this is Much Ado About Nothing, AKA par for the liberal course, and it’s just a shame that some conservatives can’t place this stuff in proper context. I thought we were the ones who DIDN’T advocate a Zero Tolerance Policy.

And linking this humor into ANYTHING South Park simply shows how few people actually WATCH South Park. The two types of humor aren't even on the same planet.

But you know what, this "controversy" is just out of hand. Folks need to stop making the proverbial mountain out of said molehill.

Later,
bbeck

Megan, I've met Jonah just once, and I'd say he's only ten times more tolerable. Fifty-six times, *tops*.

Oh well, to each their own, I guess, Ms. Wrong.

BTW, as long as we're on-topic, who here wants to venture forth their opinions on the most overrated/insufferable right-wing columnist?

I ain't going first, I have a blog people can find me at (well, everyone but Glenn Reynolds).

Discuss.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Slightly offcolor country humor sample from Minnie Pearl (yes, that Minnie Pearl):

A young reporter was interviewing the oldest living resident of a small Mississippi town, a 95 year old woman. The young reporter asked her, "Ma'am, you seem to be in very good shape for someone over 90 years old. Tell me, have you ever been bedridden?" She replied, "Oh yes, many times. And once in the back of a Ford, but I'd rather not talk about that."

which one, dave? There are so many.

Dave-

I can go with 56. He is pretty short and chubby, and his hair doesn't help.

"who here wants to venture forth their opinions on the most overrated/insufferable right-wing columnist?"

Easy. George F Will and William F Buckley, in that order. Doug Giles would run a close third, but no one thinks enough of that submoronic assclown for him to qualify as "overrated."

David Brooks is pretty godawful most days, too.

BTW, as long as we're on-topic, who here wants to venture forth their opinions on the most overrated/insufferable right-wing columnist?

That guy from Garfield Ridge who looks like Neil Diamond bugs the living crap out of me.

Later,
bbeck

"David Brooks is pretty godawful most days, too."

He asked for right-leaning columnists, Megan.

Megan...not a NR fan huh? I think they have a rule there that you have to throw some kind of "WFB" tribute into every article

He has monkey issues

SD -

Right you are. My bad. :)

I request we put Sean Hannity in the columnist classification just so I can name him as the most overrated. Thanks for your consideration.

Brak -

I used to like NR a lot more than I do now. I still support them but only halfheartedly. The Corner is a bloody abomination and all their terribly cutesy "Derbs" and "K-Los" (give me a fucking break, okay?) have started to give me cavities.

It's less the energetic conservative clearing-house it used to be (or that I used to think it was) than an overfurnished, overheated drawing-room where limpwristed pansies jerk off over all the pretty, pretty flower arrangements while oohhhing and ahhhing over each others' 2-3 inch cocks.

(Yeah, that last probably includes "K-Lo.")

Dman -

I didn't think Deliver Us from Evil was all that bad a book. Plus, he does a great Bill Clinton impression.

More of a Weekly Standard type, are you Megan?

RE: National Review

Forgot to mention that they do have one excellent writer on their staff: Byron York. A light but quiet style, understated rhetoric, and a fine, fine ear for the English language. He's not high profile but that's by design, and his technical skills are outstanding. He's definitely the one to watch in that stable - pretty much the only one, unfortunately.

DEFINITE monkey issues, Jen.

Later,
bbeck

I still read NR, but just skim it really. A lot of fluff. Pretty much agree about the Corner. Megan, you truly have a way with words.

SD -

Sometimes. I like Hewitt's writing, and they have a couple of other decent people there - Noemie Emery did a great piece a few months ago.

Thanks, brak. :)

Megan--

You're kidding, right? You *have* met Jonah Goldberg, right? Not like, Jonah Goldstein or Jonah Jameson or Jenna Jameson, right? 'Cause short is not a word I would ever use to describe the man. . . he's a frickin' wonk-Wookie.

Or else I missed the sarcasm. You'll have to excuse me, I'm free-basing Haitian zombie dust at the moment.

As for NR, I'm a huge fan, not just literally. But even I get burned out by some of their schtick. It pains me to say it, but Kathryn Jean Lopez, as nice as she is in person, is, well, a major-league yawn in The Corner. Very repetitive, and her one-dimensional sense of humor consists of denying/grouching about everyone else's sense of humor in The Corner.

Plus the constant hawking for NR subscriptions and such rot drives me up the wall. Hard sell sucks.

I like a few of the Weakly (pun intended) Standard's columnists. Jonathan Last, Matt Labash, and the brilliant Larry Miller are always worth a read. The rest of them make me want to slit my wrists with a rubber chicken, like I'm trapped at a CPAC convention while the rest of my friends are pounding pints at the Dubliner.

Plus they need a blog. It *is* the 21st Century, after all.

Krauthammer is great. I enjoy Mark Steyn, although he's a little all over the map with the expat thing. Lileks constructs sentences better than Shakespeare, if not exactly on the same topics.

George Will is still an outstanding writer, but he cares too much about inside baseball (of the politics variety). He's rarely on the cutting edge of trends anymore. Shame, for he was essential reading back in the 80s/90s.

I really miss Mike Kelly.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. Jen, why you hatin'?

Bbeck, if that is a desperate attempt to get me to acknowledge your existence. . . it worked.

*THIS* time. . .

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

OK, I just knew the jokes couldn't possibly be as scandalous as they were being made to sound. "What's more, it was a male horse," does not a sex joke make.

Someone out there is desperate for material. Michelle Malkin usually has better sense, but I suppose everyone has her off days.

No, nonsense is you saying Malkin's writing lacks humor (ignoring the fact it is only your opinion and that she is not writing to be humorous), therefore her writing is amateurish.

Hey, Dave this is for you...

http://www.mcphee.com/pixlarge/10613.gif

Enjoy!

Later,
bbeck

Dave -

Granted I was drinking pretty heavily both times, but I'll be damned if Jonah cracks 5'10. I was in heels and I towered over him. Lopez seemed to be barely 4'6 - I had to bend at the hips to shake her hand. (She does make up for it horizontally.) Kate O'Beirne, of course, made me look like a dwarf in turn, so I guess it all worked out.

I still disagree with you on George Will. He's a terrible writer, but I've never met him so I have no idea what he's like in person. I have met Buckley, though, and he's great.

As I was recounting to Ace one night, Buckley took it completely in stride when I told him (after several glasses of a very nice single malt) exactly how much I loathed his writing. He just smiled and asked if I agreed with his ideas. When I said yes, he kissed my hand and said he was glad, and that in the end that's what really mattered, wasn't it?

I have to admit he took the wind out of my sails on that one. Doesn't happen often - especially not when I'm sauced. But no matter how badly he writes, I have to admit that he's a gentleman born and bred, with absolutely impeccable manners.

Very much agreed on the "hard sell" thing at NR - the worst was probably when Goldberg published, approvingly, an email calling everyone who read The Corner but didn't contribute to the magazine's then-current fundraiser a "thief." Way to win people over, pal.

Lileks is all right (but Shakespeare? C'mon) though I can't stand his daddy stuff. That "Gnat" shit drives me up the fucking wall. Could you be more of a fucking dope, James?

Some anonymous coward blubbered: "No, nonsense is you saying Malkin's writing lacks humor (ignoring the fact it is only your opinion and that she is not writing to be humorous), therefore her writing is amateurish."

There's a gigantic gulf between writing which contains a sense of humor and writing which is written as humor. I'm not criticizing her for not doing something she (obviously) isn't interested in doing. I'm criticizing her for being an insufferable holier-than-thou prig who tries to turn every damn column into the Revelation of St Michelle the Divine, Eagle of Maryland.

It's a pity, because she has a lot of potential, she's almost always correct, and she's very cute. We need more people like her - but they need some of their unearned ego and manufactured outrage slapped out of them every once in a while.

I think the best "find" I ever got from NR was Theodore Dalrymple, who has written extensively for City Journal. Derbyshire is always a hoot. Lileks is probably the best humorist at work today, and he's a fellow Minnesotan to boot ("oop de norden!"). Den Beste of the U.S.S. Clueless was great, and I lament the day he quit blogging. Luckily The Belmont Club is still in business, because if you're a military-history wonk, it just doesn't get any better. Krauthammer is probably the best print columnist around, but I refuse to buy the WaPo, so I often miss his columns.

Michelle has been very naughty and needs a good spanking!

Agreed on Dalrymple. The only polical guy I'll make any sort of effort to find and read.

Lighten up, LIGHTEN UP, LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE! Or I'll give you all a wedgy!

That's it? That's it? Those are the dreadful risque jokes that are going to send the nation down the toilet? Damn. I guess what's really needed in the White House is for the president to have a chubby intern grease up his "pour spout" and then tell the nation that it "wasn't sex, it was milk for my cheerios." That'll get him the love.

Not. Let's face it, Democratic presidents are either the nation's funny uncles who keep "forgetting" to zip their pants when coming out of the bathroom at family gatherings but whose jokes are so amusing (and whose wallet always has a spare ten or twenty for a good little nephew or neice with the ability to be discreet) that you forgive his "mistakes," or the big brothers whose scandalous escapades you publically deplore but secretly envy and admire, and the spouses of both are either like our big bitchy sisters or our crazy alcoholic aunts; but Republican presidents and their spouses are always Mom and Dad. And you know what the thought of Mom and Dad even in the same room with someone talking about ESS EE EX makes people feel like.

Are we ever going to escape from the fucking Baby Boomer Way of Thought? Die, Boomers, Die. (Sorry, all you people -- like me -- who happen to be Boomer age. But our generation sucks.)

For anyone who hasn't read Michael Kelly:

A lot of his columns are archived here. Mike's Nice Column is one of his best, as are part 1 and part 2 of his evisceration of pacifism.

Perfectly Modulated Voice of Reason skewered, brilliantly, the media coverage of our Afghanistan campaign, and Stories You Wish Would Happen is pure unadulterated genius from beginning to end.

Our country lost a very great man on April 3rd, 2003.

God bless and keep you, sir. Your words will always be read, your life will always be remembered, and your memory will always be honored. Requiescat in pace.

If you like Theodore Dalrymple, try The Spectator (the British version). That's where I first read him.

Monty -

Agreed on den Beste, though with a small reservation - he could be a bit too circuitous and, well, nuanced on occasion. It wasn't a huge problem, but it did detract from the impact of some of his pieces.

With more self-confidence and research, and less hand-wringing, he could've been head and shoulders above the vast majority of bloggers.

Michael Kelly (agreed, THE BEST)

Mark Steyn (great, most of the time)

Bill Whittle

Ace

IMAO

They made a "baseball card" memorializing the Laura Bush desperate housewife bit. Link @ BostonIrish

Five or so Megan posts towards the end of this thread, and I agree with each one.
Shit!

I have a problem with the First Lady's comments. First of all- both the President and his wife had no business being at that liberal lovefest.

Second of all, conservatives who do not subscribe to the South Park way of life object to her behavior for the crudeness of the jokes, not religion.

Why must religion be constantly thrusted into every argument?

Is it possible that some people simply go about their lives without resorting to crudeness or publicly mocking their spouses, joking or not?

Please consider that he is the Commander in Chief during a time of war. I know that phrase is losing its luster with many of you-- but not with me.

Making jokes about the Presidents sex life should not be aired publicly like it was.

Bad speech writer- bad choice of words at the wrong time.

My 2 cents.

Cedarford glumly noted: "Five or so Megan posts towards the end of this thread, and I agree with each one. Shit!"

...shit.

Uh. Jews rule, you Nazi bastard... oh, fuck it.

Some loudmouth drunk barfed:
We need more people like her - but they need some of their unearned ego and manufactured outrage slapped out of them every once in a while.

If you want to see someone who needs their unearned ego bitched slapped out of them, take a long look at yourself. You name drop all over the place as if anybody gives a shit. And even though you need the attention you think it brings you, you insult the very people your ego depends on.

So, you walked up to Buckley and told him how much you hated his writing? You charmer you! Can anyone take you out in public and not be embarrassed?
You slam Will, Buckley, Malkin, and Lileks all in one thread. What do they have that you don't have? Oh, yeah. Careers.

Some (still) anonymous coward sniffed: "You name drop all over the place"

Name drop? What the fuck? These are people I should've been bragging about meeting? Well, damn, I had no freakin' clue, mainly because I don't think any of them are all that wonderful in the first place.

I must be a worse writer than I thought, myself, if I didn't even manage to get that point across.

Honestly, if I were going to "name drop," don't you think I'd mention people I, well, admire?

Any idiot can meet Buckley, Goldberg, Lopez, York, or O'Beirne by dropping $1500 into one of their fundraisers. That, in fact, was how I met a couple of them for the first time. I'm not exactly certain why anyone would brag about having done that - it doesn't require any great skill or accomplishment, though it seems you think differently. Peculiar.

Given that I and the people with whom I was having a productive discussion in this thread were talking about and comparing various writers we'd read, I thought my personal experiences were pertinent. Given that others shared their experiences in turn, and we got something out of it, it seemed they agreed.

And you seem to have missed the point of the Buckley story entirely - it reflected well on him.

It's rather comical how much umbrage you're taking on Buckley's behalf. He himself wasn't upset in the least by my remarks, and as I'd been seated beside him at dinner, we'd already talked for several hours by that point.

My ego doesn't depend on him or anyone else I barely know. Though if I were going to argue - well, spitball, really - at your level, I might observe that yours seems to.

"What do they have that you don't have? Oh, yeah. Careers."

It always gets personal in a nanosecond with you trolls, doesn't it? How do you know whether or not I have a career? Barging into a discussion with nothing but a chip on your shoulder and an attitude of pious outrage on someone else's behalf doesn't win you any points at this table.

How does my opinion of other people's writing threaten you in any way?

No one's attacked you. No one's really attacked Malkin, either. I (and some others) have disagreed with one of her posts, and criticized one aspect of her writing style.

I've gone out of my way to state, in so many words and for the exclusive benefit of your ulcer, that I agree with almost everything else Malkin writes.

But for some reason, that's not good enough. For some reason, you find that offensive. And so, for some reason, you start yammering about my career, something you can't possibly know anything about.

Seriously - I don't get the connection. Would you like to explain exactly how you went from one point to the other?

If you'd like to respond substantively, we could have some kind of a conversation, and your posts in this thread won't have been a complete waste of time.

Or you could just keep tossing out irrelevant and ineffective insults. So far you haven't shown you can do much more.

I miss Michael Kelly too.

I reread his columns from time to time and on occasion my eyes start stinging. I never had the chance to meet him in person or even go to a book signing, but over two years later, it still feels like I've lost one of my best friends.

I think I've probably read every obituary written for him by now, plus several other articles on his family, his mentors, and his legacy - Karen Lyon's Those Writing Kellys in the January 2005 Hill Rag was especially touching.

What a wonderful man Michael Kelly was. What a fine writer. And what a great and courageous American.

yep. can't add to that Megan.

Thanks Dave. Well, getting back to the writing critiques...

Let's examine one more thing in Michelle Malkin's column on "South Park conservatives." bbeck brought up a few good points earlier, but I want to address something specific.

Malkin writes:

My discomfort with South Park's increasingly mainstream vulgarity is not a matter of nitpicking. We're not just talking about a stray curse word here or there. As liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich points out, South Park "holds the record for the largest number of bleeped-out repetitions (162) of a single four-letter expletive in a single television half-hour."

She goes on to compare the number of "profanities" in the cited episode to Kerry's "infamous... celebrity fundraiser."

Now, for anyone who's actually seen the episode in question (502: It Hits the Fan), the point I'm about to make will be blindingly obvious. Matt and Trey were actually criticizing exactly the same phenomenon Malkin deplores: obscenity on the airwaves.

The difference is this: they didn't approach it from Malkin's typically humorless, I-am-so-outraged! perspective. Instead, South Park deliberately exaggerated the faults of our rapidly coarsening media culture (shock = ratings = profit) in order to mock it.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about which approach is more effective. But it's worth noting that Malkin has seen fit to criticize a show she neither watches nor understands. And here I thought that arguing from a position of proud, haughty ignorance was a characteristic of the other side.

No, Malkin isn't obliged to sit through 5 seasons of a show she doesn't like. She isn't obliged to sit through even the one half-hour episode she specifically attacks. But she is, at the very least, obliged to understand and acknowledge the message of the episode - a message readily discovered with even the most cursory research.

It is utterly ridiculous to attack the episode on the very grounds it's staked out for itself. When someone says "Swearing is bad," repeating the exact same sentiment back to him is not an argument. It is an agreement.

Whether Malkin likes it or not, she and South Park are of one mind on this issue. Either she just doesn't realize this fact, or she pretends she doesn't.

Her "discomfort" with South Park is thus not "a matter of nitpicking" after all. It is a matter of either her willful ignorance or deliberate duplicity.

The rest of her atypically vacuous column has been addressed already, so I won't bother.

(Normally, I would add that drawing a comparison between a deliberately raunchy comedy show and a presidential candidate's campaign event on the grounds of propriety and decorum is downright bizarre, if not positively loony, but it's hardly worth the time. It's been obvious for a while now that certain subjects leave Malkin incapable of reasoned argument.)

And now, on to my more general criticism of Michelle Malkin: that she doesn't have her own voice.

This is not in itself a crippling flaw. It does not make her unreadable. It does, however, mark her as an amateur in a field already saturated with professionals.

Mature writers can be easily identified by one simple fact: no matter what subject they address, their style is unmistakable.

Could anyone but their author have written the following lines?

This is like beating Dennis Kucinich in an untelevised presidential debate.

You can tell it was Democrats firing those guns because none of the shots ever hit anything.

How about these?

Nazi. Racist. Don't forget Florida. Here's Bill Clinton. It's not much of a message, is it? And, if the party's short of ideas, it's even shorter of stars. The fact that in the most populous state in the nation the two leading Democrats are Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante is as telling as anything.

Or these?

Constrained by the ruling Democratic dogma that everyone, even your rebel-yelling racist redneck, is a victim, Dean absolved these yahoos of responsibility by explaining that responsibility really lies with those nasty Republicans who taught them their racism...

These?

Now, in our time of crisis, helpfully comes former President Jimmy Carter to pronounce that the current president - this would be the president who actually has the job at the moment as opposed to the president who set a record for incompetence that will stand until the seas run dry when he did have the job, and has been tediously nattering away at his infinitely superior successors ever since - has erred.

No, of course not. Whether or not you'd ever read the particular articles from which those lines were taken, if you didn't instantly recognize the authors' voices, it's because you're not sufficiently familiar with them.

For someone who's read them for years, each turn of phrase, each rhetorical device, each calibrated punctuation mark is as telling as a childhood friend's accent. The way a mature writer constructs a sentence is as unmistakable to me as the way my wife makes love to me.

I've been reading Malkin for three years now. She doesn't have that quality yet, and I would have picked it up long ago if she had - recognizing that kind of thing is part of my job. For the most part, Malkin's writing is characterized only by being topical and timely, or for having a regrettably shrill tone (NB: tone =! voice). This is almost worse than being completely unremarkable.

Unlike many other writers, Malkin has the potential to acquire her own voice at some point in the future. That's a lot more than I can say for most people.

So, to once more address the issue of my supposed hostility to Michelle: it's nothing of the sort. If the biggest guns I can bring to bear on her are an occasional shrillness, a lack of technical maturity, and one glaringly flawed column, it suggests that she's in pretty good shape.

After all, these criticisms aren't made in a vacuum: she gets ample credit for being right far, far more often than not; her clear and concise style is worth several points as well, and her present command of the language hints at better things to come.

I'm not an easy grader, and I don't use a curve: if Michelle only gets off with a low B-minus, she has plenty of company, and on the whole, it's much more of a compliment than a criticism.

What the hell is wrong with you people? Laura has made W the laughingstock of the world and ya'll are trying to say that it's all the world's fault? Or those mean Social-cons and Theo-cons?

Have you all lost your minds?

Of course Michelle Malkin is right about this!

The whole thing made W look bad, and horse joke was so crude and stupid that if Terezza had said it ya'll would be making jokes over it till doomsday at Kerry's expense and never let them forget it.

Ya'll sound just like a bunch of Liberals trying to
show how sohpisticated and "open minded" they are.

You're a rather silly person, but I'll give you a smiley face for your singularly appropriate nickname.

:)

There you go!

100%-R - Please consider that he is the Commander in Chief during a time of war. I know that phrase is losing its luster with many of you-- but not with me.

Making jokes about the Presidents sex life should not be aired publicly like it was.

Guess he's saying: "There's a War on! Revere your President! As this war could last 20-30 years we should get in the habit of devotedly following the Great Leader, from either Party he or she comes from, accepting whatever they want - and never, ever making fun of them. For The Stakes Are Too High!"

If only LBJ and Nixon, with casualties 10 times higher than in this smaller conflict....could have gotten away with such a Maximum Beloved War Leader Dictat.

This, BTW, is a guns and butter war. We use the guns we paid for under Reagan, we give the butter to the corporations and the individuals of highest wealth, and borrow the difference from China and Japan as our due, expected reciprocity from letting them gut our industries.

We have actually suffered losses so far in nearly 4 years that are consistent with a bad day in the Civil War, a bad week in WWII, a bad month in Vietnam.

Megan

I guess Michelle Malkin is a "silly person too?" Your lame answer is not an argument and only proves how foolish you can be.

As I wrote to Michelle M: I for one am astounded at conservative bloggers excusing all this and telling others to get-a-life and the jokes were fine. But as one wrote: I love bawdy jokes at the pub, but if I hear them coming from the pulpit, I want a new minister.

I guess its the thick-headedness of the critics that really surprises me. It's like talking to a wall, they're as impervious and impenetrable as four feet of cement and sound about as intelligent.

And the cracks about Christians and "social-cons" are disturbing. You'd think they were a bunch of Hollywood Liberals defending Whoopi! Very disconerting.

Megan,

I'm just curious

You've posted both these sentences

"The way a mature writer constructs a sentence is as unmistakable to me as the way my wife makes love to me."

and

"I was in heels and I towered over him. " and "When I said yes, he kissed my hand and said he was glad,"

Do you use the Little Girls room or the Little Boys room? or am I missing something here?

Wretched Refuse -

Sorry if I was too flippant and you were making an earnest point, but it sounded like you simply hadn't read any of the previous replies in the thread. Your concerns have been sufficiently addressed by people other than me, in my opinion, and you offered no new arguments. I didn't, and still don't, consider it necessary to reiterate the excellent and conclusive counter-arguments bbeck, brak, Monty, and others have already made.

Master of None, Megan is a female. A Rugmun- WHOA!!
Look what I almost said! Jesus.

She is into chicks. Leave it at that.

Shinola -

Hardly. The First Lady wasn't standing at a pulpit - she was addressing a specific gathering at a specific occasion, and her jokes were absolutely unexceptionable. People who objected to them either had an overt political motivation, or were unaware of the character of the occasion. Others still didn't know the absolutely ancient provenance of the jokes themselves.

That's fine. They didn't comprise any of the intended audiences.

I repeat: unexceptionable. And very well done.

Laura, hon, it's hardly an insult.

Thanks Lauraw, I was thrown by the word "wife". Not that there's anything wrong with that.

TOP TEN REASONS WHY CONSERVATIVES DEFEND LAURAS DUMB REMARKS:

1) pure partisianship

2) not wanting to appear too conservative, i.e., uncool, unhip, stodgy, old, unhappy, sexually frustrated, mean, and repressed, in short, all of the stereotypes that Hollywod has so sucessfully used to make it uncool to be a conservative.

3) not wanting to appear to be too "Christain" which contains all of the above Liberal Stereotypes and a whole lot more about "intolerantance," ignorance, meaness, pettiness and all the rest of the ignorant, mean, petty and intolerant things Liberals always say about The Christian Right.

4) you actually believe it is acceptable for the president's wife to make a joke about her husband mastrubating a horse in front of the national press corp and the world.

5) you actually believe its ok to make W the laughingstock of comedians and pundits for a long time to come.

6) you actually don't see anything wrong with the presidents wife making a joke of him mastrbating a horse.

7) you are what they call in Kentucky horse circles a "handler," the guy who "handles" the stud horse to get him ready for him to mate with the female and don't understand what all the fuss is about.

8) you are into bestiality

9) all of the above

10) THERE'S A FUCKING WAR ON!

No, but it is pretty crude. 'Fuck' has become just another word. But some of the marginal swear-words can sound disgusting. Best just to hint at them.

I tried to be nice in my last post. Kindly return the favor, or get the fuck over your bathetic, anodyne outrage.

Meh. Obviously, my last post was directed at Wretched Refuse and not Laura.

Laura said: "it is pretty crude"

True enough. I just meant that I wouldn't have taken it as an insult coming from you.

Megan - OK, but what really surprises me about Laura defenders is that they just keep insisting the jokes are ok and anyone who doesn't think so is mean, uncool, "silly" or needs-to-get-a-life. They ignore the fact that this can and will be used in the Liberal press to make W (and the Bush's in general) look foolish in the eyes of the world. I live in Texas and though it may be acceptable here, it refinforces all the stereotypes from Liberals about W and Texas in general.

To say that we should rally round the first family and support them against their enemies is an entirely different matter, but I've yet to hear them say that. Stopped reading yeaterday at 6:00 PM in case there's something I missed.

WR -

At 05:22 yesterday, in response to someone else who was saying exactly what you just did, I made the following observation:

Yeah, 'cause they really needed "ammo" to bash the President before.
Look. This is like the filibuster crap - the President and his family were going to get bashed even if the First Lady hadn't made those jokes. The Democrats, if they get into power (please God forbid), are going to change the Senate rules if they need to, even if we don't now. Why?
BECAUSE THEY'RE LIBERALS. And that is what they do.

Like I said then: we are going to take these kinds of hits no matter what we do. Playing defense doesn't help us. Trying to justify ourselves doesn't help us. Bitching at the First Lady for being attacked by people who hate her and her husband is beyond absurd.

Also, the "horse masturbation" meme was entirely an invention. Trying to milk a horse - funny, because you don't milk horses. Trying to milk a male horse - funnier, because you don't milk male anythings. Yes, there are more ribald jokes which go on to horse masturbation, but those aren't the jokes the First Lady told. So I'm not going to rag on her for something she did not do.

I do think conservatives who are criticizing the President, the First Lady, or anyone else for "giving ammo" to our enemies are being downright silly. By making the charge, they are forced to assume that neither the President nor the First Lady would have been attacked if it had not been for the jokes.

And after Michael Moore, MoveOn, Soros, the CBS memos, and all the rest of it, there is simply no excuse for being so blind. Yeah, we're called the Stupid Party - but do we really need to live up to that nickname every goddamn day?

The most evenly balanced and thoughtful post here (besides mine, of course) Posted by SJKevin is:

Personally, I think that some of the joking was over the line. (Not the horse one, but some of the mockery of the Bush family.) But that's my opinion; I wouldn't have told jokes quite as out there as Laura did.

All the same, it's simply a matter of taste. Laura obviously means well, she's a decent and classy woman, and she's the best first lady I can remember. (Thanks, George and Laura, for restoring some friggin' dignity to the White House, seriously.) What's more, a lot of the jokes were hilarious. (TRUE)
I really liked her mockery of George for mispronouncing "nuclear". Not only was it funny (because let's face it, George is an easy guy to poke some fun at), it also confirms my suspicion that George knows full well how liberals view him; he just doesn't care.

I think people need to lighten up. She may have miscalibrated the taste a little, but it really was just good-natured joking from a great woman.

Posted by SJKevin at May 4, 2005 05:18 PM

I never had a major problem with what Kevin said.

It would add a refreshing breeze to this thread if any one besides the guy above would admit:

1) that some of the jokes were over the line to a lot of people

2) that doesn't make them evil incarnate

3) and that much of it was hilarious.

3) Liberals will use this against Bush

WR -

1) Never been disputed by anyone - tautology
2) Convince Malkin et al
3) Yes
4) Big surprise there?

Since I don't want to be accused of "beating a dead horse"

hasta la vista, baby.

"beating a dead horse" -- Combining animal masturbation with necrophellia is just way over the line.

Don't you know there's a fucking war on?

This thread is running on fumes ...

"This thread is running on fumes ..." Is that some kind of fart joke?

He who smelt it ...

Hopefully, mercifully, please Lord let it be. - FINI

And school's out early and soon we'll be learning
The lesson today is how to die

And then the bullhorn cackles and the captain tackles
With the problems and the hows and whys
And he can see no reasons 'cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to die?

die

Oh, tell me why I don't like Mondays
Tell me why I don't like Mondays
I don't like...
I don't like...
I don't like Mondays, tell me why
I don't like Mondays
Tell me why I don't like Mondays
I don't like, I don't like,
I don't like Mondays...

Oh, I don't like Mondays...

http://bankruptcy.caclbca.org/5417929/ bucketfortyidentify

http://bank.acholipeace.org/gdyx0g/ bowelsswitchboardturns

http://www.therealitycheck.net/snowreport1/messages/582.shtml comfortabletubwatchit

http://mazzjazz.com/wwwboard/messages/6000.html complimentwhosewondered