May 28, 2004
The Bush twins

I'm with Ted here. I see nothing good, politically or morally, coming out of an attack on Jenna and Barbara Bush. Yes, I know, they're adults now, and they've done a few things to make themselves inviting targets. They're also in the spotlight by the circumstances of their birth, not by anything over which they had control. Cut them some slack.

Now, anything they say on the campaign trail can be legitimately attacked, and if it turns out they have the same reverence for truth as every other member of the Bush team, that can be discussed as well. Just do yourself a favor and review the definition of ad hominem before you fire up your blog editor if you feel such a post coming on.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on May 28, 2004 to Other punditry | TrackBack

I strongly agree with you. Attacking the twins will just lower us to the "family dog" level of Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: sean on May 28, 2004 9:19 AM

Well, there's attacking the twins and then there's the twins arranging to appear in a fashion spread in Vogue while people at the White House are taking time away from the business of the nation to implore the press to leave them the privacy they've chosen (like what, buy Harpers instead?)

They seem like uninteresting young women, honestly, and I'd just as much rather that I don't hear about them, but the privacy they've chosen is kind of like their father's great religious faith and their mother's commitment to education. You don't see it a lot in public.

Posted by: julia on May 29, 2004 9:48 AM

If I understand correctly, the twins have gone to work for their father's campaign. In and of itself, that should not make them targets for attacks. But if the twins make public or even private statements in their capacity as campaign workers, those statements are legitimate grist for the mill. The best rule: no gratuitous maltreatment (of the sort, for example, that Chelsea Clinton experienced), but no special treatment either.

Beyond that, I would observe only that they have not signed up for military duty in Iraq. Honestly, I don't blame them for that... I wouldn't either... but if the draft is reinstituted, I will be watching their status closely.

Posted by: Steve Bates on May 29, 2004 10:28 AM

well, the White House says they've gone to work for the campaign, but their actual plans seem to involve doing volunteer work.

I would take that with a grain of salt - rumor has it neither is a huge supporter of their father's policies.

Posted by: julia on May 29, 2004 11:38 AM