John Roberts and the media...
 

Did anyone else see Judge Roberts' precious children on tv when he was nominated to the Supreme Court? I made the comment to my husband about how cute they looked in their dress up clothes and how that is exactly like I would dress mine if they were going to the White House.

Well....the left-wing, Bush-hating, hypocritical Washington Post criticized the clothes the Roberts children were wearing!!!!! I guess they should be wearing jeans and jellies to the White House to be on national tv. I guess if they can't dig up anything on Roberts they think they have to attack his family. The Post has sunk to a new low!

I wouldn't line a bird cage with the WP, the NY Times, or most other newspapers! Thank God for radio and Fox on tv! here is the article:

An Image A Little Too Carefully Coordinated

By Robin Givhan

Friday, July 22, 2005; Page C02

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes.


Even the clothes are conservative: Judge John G. Roberts, left, and his wife Jane, right, with their children Jack and Josie listen to President Bush's announcement.
Even the clothes are conservative: Judge John G. Roberts, left, and his wife Jane, right, with their children Jack and Josie listen to President Bush's announcement. (Pool Photo By Shawn Thew)
Also In Style



(Who among us did a double take? Two cute blond children with a boyish-looking father getting ready to take the lectern -- Jack Edwards? Emma Claire? Is that you? Are all little boys now named Jack?)

The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection. The children, of course, are innocents. They are dressed by their parents. And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings "to you and yours" from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape.

In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. "John-John" Kennedy Jr.

Separate the child from the clothes, which do not acknowledge trends, popular culture or the passing of time. They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi.

The Northwestern women's lacrosse team raised eyebrows when several players wore flip-flops to their visit with President Bush.
The Northwestern women's lacrosse team raised eyebrows when several players wore flip-flops to their visit with President Bush.(David Bohrer - White House via Associated Press)
The clothes also reflect a bit of the aesthetic havoc that often occurs when people visit the White House. (What should I wear? How do I look? Take my picture!) The usual advice is to dress appropriately. In this case, an addendum would have been helpful: Please select all attire from the commonly accepted styles of this century. (And someone should have given notice to the flip-flop-wearing women of Northwestern University's lacrosse team, who visited the White House on July 12 for a meet-and-greet with the president: proper footwear required. Flip-flops, modeled after shoes meant to be worn into a public shower or on the beach, have no business anywhere in the vicinity of the president and his place of residence.)

Dressing appropriately is a somewhat selfless act. It's not about catering to personal comfort. One can't give in fully to private aesthetic preferences. Instead, one asks what would make other people feel respected? What would mark the occasion as noteworthy? What signifies that the moment is bigger than the individual?

But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual -- and his family -- to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it.

I bet that class was an eye-opener!

I tottally agree :eek:

I am a "Bush-hating" "left wing" crazy person I guess, but I don't think I would insult someone's family in public.

I know conservatives hate those papers, but Fox is the most biased, horrible media outlet I have ever encountered. I don't even watch the news on ANY STATION anymore because I don't believe anything that ANY station has to say. I don't like biased news - even if it is biased my way. I just watch C-SPAN and the actual hearings (like the John Roberts one) either replayed or in realtime. Its the only way to get real news without the commentary. I prefer to make my own decisions and interpretations of the subject matter.

I have visited the WP. The only thing I read on their paper is the horoscopes. ;) Its horrible.

I know what you mean I am an independent and I get so sick of both sides. My husband is a fox news watcher and believes only what they say and I have to listen to him all the time. Aagh!

I can't believe they would even comment on what the children wore. I happened to see them and think, gee, it sure is nice to see kids dressed so well. Believe me, my daughter is a GAP, Abercrombie and American Eagle supporter, so don't mistake me when I say this, but sometimes I wish we did dress young children like young children instead of tiny teenagers. There is something so sweet and innocent to see a child dressed like they were. It does remind me of an older time, but sometimes I wish things were more like the "used" to be. Simpler, less hectic, family oriented, more conservative, Church on Sunday, (not just at Easter and Christmas), families eating meals together at the table, not in front of the TV. Sometimes I feel like we are losing touch with important things.
PS- Can you tell that I am a conservative Texan?

Amen Kim! As for some of the previous posters being "Bush-haters," I think that is a principle difference between liberals and conservatives. We don't generally "hate" liberal candidates, we just think they are stupid or wrong. I can certainly disagree with a politician without hating him/her. Just a thought!

Elizabeth - I only idenitified myself as a "Bush-Hater" because YOU said the WP writers who made fun of John Roberts' kids' clothes were Bush-Haters. I think that everyone who disagrees with Bush's policies and LIES are often lumped together as "haters" when that is not always true. I don't hate anyone who was elected in a popular manner in this country and I don't appreciate when conservatives call liberals stupid or make them "haters" (or vice versa). Its simply a conflict of interest that I am willing to accept.

I am not a bush hater either. I am just not a bush lover. Hes done nothing for our Country domestically. I voted for him but I also expected more out of him.

Unless you are one of the WP writers, I obviously wasn't referring to you in the original post.You put yourself into that category. I'd also like to clarify that I was referring to SOME politicians that I think are stupid on some of the issues. Certainly, I don't think you are stupid!

Friends? Elizabeth

Of course! I am not angry or upset. Just a little friendly debate :p

Good! Lexy wuvs Stewie!!!!!!!

Not only that, but he has put our country and our people at great risk by taking us to war against a sovereign nation that was no threat to us, and he lied when he said it was a threat because he always knew the truth, ....he has put us in tremendous debt, he has hurt our public education system, and he has taken away our freedoms and our civil rights by keeping us in constant fear and enacting the "socalled Patirot Act". We are no longer a democracy since he declared his "mandate" after the election. Never has a President been so arrogant and never has a President taken so much vacation time. In a time of War, I think that is obscene.

right on kim!!!!whether were going here or not it's the truth! imo

Clinton didn't vacation as much--he just had sex in the oval office with the intern....

And then LIED about it under oath........where is the PROOF that President Bush lied about WMD?

Who cares? He still did much more than Bush and took the country out of Bush, Sr's debt.

Have we seen any "weapons of mass destruction"? He SAID that there weren't any.

Just say you want to go to Iraq to spread Christianity and Democracy - don't make up another reason to scare U.S. citizens and secure their support.

Just have to say this, then I'm done...

Yes, Clinton did that. People do stupid things all the time. BUT HE DIDN't kill thousands of people in a war against Iraq. I don't see the point in bringing this up. Bush could easily get in trouble for LYING about weapons in Iraq, but since he has a "mandate" and an authoritarian government, nothing will be done to him. Just thousands more innocent Iraqi's in their sovereign country will be killed and people like Jesscruz's husband will be sent there to "defend freedom" that isn't even in jeopardy. The only person putting our freedom in jeopardy is George W. Bush.

The Downing Street memo

The Downing Street memo happened before Blair and Bush appealed to the UN the last time so it is irrelevant. Even the ultra-liberal Washington Post editors said so.

How 'bout those Orioles? ...........

I liked what they were wearing, kinda reminded me of the Kennedy's. John, John's son, had me laughing with his little dance too.

I thought they were precious too!

Insulting someone's children is wrong! Insulting this administration and everything it stands for well I can think of nothing more right!!! GW is a horrible man and no amount of scarring the public., preaching about the lord, or smiling like a monkey on roller skates is going to change that!

There are so many horrible things that he is done aside from the war I do not even know where to begin, but I guess I will list a little sampling of my favorites:
(1) October 2003 Bush declares national marriage protection week, a whole week to openly bash and discriminate against our countrymen. Is the institution of marriage in danger? Because as far as I can tell, people are still getting married. But President Bush apparently thinks marriage is in dire need of protection, and hops into action by declaring "Marriage Protection Week." Bush, of course, thinks that marriage needs protection from gay couples, who want to attack marriage by, uh, getting married. I'm not quite sure how that works, but Bush must know what he's doing, right?
(2) September 2003 he dicloses the identity of a CIA agent to get back at her husband: When Joseph Wilson revealed that the Bush administration had used false intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, a smear campaign against him was predictable. But it was impossible to predict that the White House would reveal that Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA agent who worked on weapons of mass destruction -- supposedly the reason we went to war in the first place -- just to get back at Wilson.
(3) To afford his precious war Bush cut the combat pay of the soldiers actually fighting it as far back as August of 2003: Bush constantly expresses gratitute to these young men & women, people my age, my friends, dying everyday for nothing. He sure has a funny way of showing his gratitute Under Bush, the Pentagon cuts imminent danger pay as soldiers die every day in Iraq and family separation pay as soldiers are separated from their families for months.
(4) In 2002 Bush asks the court to seal the record on research and cases of children that developed autism as a result of vaccinations. After making sure the drug companies had protection from these suits built into the homeland security bill (see 11-19-2002 below), President Bush undermines those lawsuits again by fighting to make sure that important information connecting vaccinations to autism never sees the light of day. Again and again, we see that Bush considers an uninformed public to be his greatest asset.
(5) In 2002 he backed off an important population treaty: Imagine being so enslaved to an ideology that avoiding the slightest offense to your beliefs is more important to you than the health of poor women all over the world. If you can imagine what that's like, then you have an insight into the mind of President Bush, who has removed U.S. support for an international agreement to curb population growth, because the agreement's support for reproductive services for women implies that some of them might get abortions. Because the phrase "reproductive services" reminds Bush of "abortion," poor women worldwide won't have access to the kinds of services that actually prevent abortions, like adequate health care and birth control.

I could name at least 300 more things he has done that have a real impact on the daily lives of real people all over the world that are morally indefensible. I am not particularly interested in arguing about it, but what I really cannot comprehend is how in light of things like this he represents the so-called "moral-majority." If this country's collective morality is one that says it is okay to turn our backs to people in need, it is okay to use of law the very thing that is supposed to ensure equality to discriminate against entire classes of citizens, and it is okay to diregard world health because a small fraction of this country have religious beliefs that dictate such a course of action, well then I am ashamed!

YT is probably NOT a good place to *discuss* politics. Things just tend to get real ugly.

Anyone agree?

i agree 150%!!!!with all your comments!

Well written. I would just like to add that the traitor who outed the CIA agent is almost certainly Carl Rove, and he is still a major player in the administration! That my friends is treason.

I also do not really relish the thought of turning this forum into a political debate either but, I did not start this thread, and if we can make just one person question this administration enough to go do the research, educate themselves, and "wake up" about what is happening to this country at the hands of these anarchists then it is worth it.

And there is no news on the television anymore with the exception if C-span so you best start reading. If you think FOX has news, you are sadly mistaken. It is nothing more than entertainment. Those people are not true journalists free to report real stories! They can only report what the corporate interests allow them to report. This administration has actually used our tax dollars to hire so called "journalists" to spread their proaganda and then they "planted" Bush "reporters" in the white house press conferences to ask the soft ball questions and make the President look good. Both these practices are illegal!!

There is very little free press in this country anymore.

And...the fact that the Downing Street memos occurred prior to the administration going to the UN is precisely the point!!! He planned (way before 911) to go to Iraq with or without the support of the UN and indeed he did!! There were inspectors on the ground in Iraq doing what the UN had ordered when Bush decided to go to war. He didn't even give them a chance to do their job!

Haliburton and the Carlyle Group are the big winners in this effort and therefore Bush and Cheney and their "friends" profit. There should be no "profiteering" in a time of war...period. It is unconscionable.

Where is Bin Laden?

Lying about sex with an intern? Not good.
Lying about the reasons we are going to war? Treasonous!!!

Wow, we have some extremely bright people on this forum, on both sides of the aisle. That's why I'm gonna stay in the aisle, lol! If there's anything I've learned in my 40 *cough cough* years, it's that I'm nowhere smart enough on political issues to debate anyone on any issue. The thing that has disappointed and disillusioned me with the whole process is that I've seen absolutely no progress on the issues that I care about in the last 25+ years. I hear politicians promise things, Republican, Democrat and Independent and time after time, I'm left wondering why on earth we can't break these stalemates and get something accomplished.
So... don't blast me. Sadly, I'm not smart enough to come up with a snappy comeback. And I guess my point is, why don't we put our brilliant (and not so brilliant minds - mine) to work doing what this forum is here to do, what it reeealllly does a great job of ... learn from each other, laugh with each other, agree to disagree, and fight those **** puppy millers!!!! What ya say????