This from the McPaper but none the less telling:
A question asked of Therese Heinz Kerry:
Q: You’d be different from Laura Bush?
A: Well, you know, I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up.
Between this and the “Cheney’s daughter a lesbian, pass it on!” comments, I am just left with one thought:
The democrat ticket and their spouses have no class.
13 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Is spending your late husband’s billion considered a real job now?
Nice put down of stay at home moms everywhere—by the way—when will Teresa grow up?
Also–Laaura was a teacher & librarian
Mrs. Kerry doesn’t seem to know that Mrs. Bush worked as a public-school teacher and librarian.
AMEN TO THAT!!! They really don’t have any class… which is another reason why we shouldn’t vote for Kerry!
Update: I saw on FOX News this evening that she apologized for forgetting that Laura had been a teacher and a school librarian. But, as Karen Hughes noted, that’s not enough, since it wasn’t simply that she was wrong about Laura, it was also that she suggested there’s something wrong with being a full-time mom.
Who do you think T H-K holds in more contempt? Stay-at-home moms or stay-at-home moms who homeschool that prodigious progeny? I mean prodigious in numbers, of course, not net worth.
Of course, THK has no class. The one think I would look forward to in a Kerry presidency is watching her wife make a fool of herself. Even when she’s trying to be nice and make sense she says outrageous things. Pure comedy.
Is it true that THK is the missing Gabor sister?
Mrs. Heinz-Kerry certainly does need to learn to have a little more control of her tongue, I don’t think you’d find many who would disagree with you there. However, most Democrats just don’t like President Bush and his family, and with good reason — they’ve all lied to us for four years, and told us our lives are getting better when they’ve actually been getting worse. Mrs. Bush strikes many, myself included, as a Stepford wife — the scary kind from the original movie.
It doesn’t mean Democrats have more class, it means we’re opinionated. What’s worse, John, saying that Mrs. Bush has never had a real job or saying that a war veteran doesn’t deserve his medals?
And by the way, I think everyone knew Mary Cheney was a lesbian long before the debates, so please don’t try to use that as a wedge issue to get your moron candidate elected. If his campaign had any substance, they wouldn’t have to look for ways to make Kerry look bad.
OH, Nathan . . .
(rolling eyes)
. . . that’s just so sad. Resorting to juvenile name-calling and to the darling of the intellectually and morally bankrupt: the ad hominem non-argument.
Please! It’s all just so tired. I can barely wait for the election to be over, just so I don’t have to listen to this sort of bilge any more, at least for a few years.
As for Ad hominem attacks, I have only this to say:
Nathan, you’re a tool.
You guys did catch the part where a supposedly respectable canon lawyer referred to the other party as “demoncrats,” right? How about going and talking to him about ad hominem attacks — or are they only not okay when they’re directed at Bush?
Nathan:
Please listen to this, as this is not a political rebuttal. This is not my site and I have no standing with those whose site it is. And my apologies to the owners if they think this to be beyond my station.
But let me say to you, Nathan, it is only by the grace of Pete Vere’s forbearance (with whatever role God may be playing there) that you are not banned from this site. You would certainly be banned from mine for that last post, and I’m not the first person to have said this to you in the last few days.
It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with a blog host, even to do so vigorously on certain sites and in certain contexts. It is boorish and rude to constantly bring up personal points against your host on unrelated topics, as your last post does. It is even worse blog etiquette (plus terrible basic human manners) to use such sarcastic monikers as “a supposedly respectable canon lawyer.” WTF does “supposedly” mean in this context? One doesn’t stick that word in there except to say that what comes after (“respectable” in this case) is a disputable issue or to express one’s own doubt on that matter.
You are acting like a rude asshole, Nathan. To express doubt about your host’s respectability is not acceptable behavior, whether it’s on his blog or in his living room. Knock it off. For your own protection, if nothing else.