What Fresh Hell Is This?

May 3, 2005

What Will We Tell The Children?

Did Laura Bush actually imply that her husband gave a hand job to a horse?

"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." - Laura Bush
Yep, I guess she did. Since the comment was made at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner you'd think an enterprising reporter would followup by asking if Preznit Chimpy McFlightsuit enjoyed it...or at least if the horse did.

Of course the statement was said in jest, but as the Honsberger is a Liar blog points out:

Way to go Laura! If Hillary Clinton had said the same thing 7 years ago, the right-wing guardians of our nation's fragile moral fiber would be asking with much hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing, "How do we explain this to the children?"

While the First Lady was still on the topic of their 'ranch' she also said the following:

"George didn't know much about ranches when we bought the place. Andover and Yale don't have a real strong ranching program."
There may be more truth in that statement than anything that's come out of this White House in the past four years.


xranger said...

You're just sore that she was so funny and the president is comfortable enough in his own skin to laugh at the stereotypes. You gotta lighten up and enjoy it for what it was - funny, no hidden message or agenda, just funny.

By the way, regarding "How do we explain this to the children?" during the Clinton years:

You obviously don't have children. One of Clinton's legacies was that oral sex is not really sex. Try reining in your teenage children on that issue.

Thanks, Bill.

Maria said...

I thought that she was genuinely funny, but if Hillary had made a joke about Bill jerking off My Little Pony, the Right would have had an aneurysm. Look at the flack Whoopie Goldberg got for riffing on Bush's name. You guys have a HUGE double standard.

FYI: "What will we tell the children?" has become a standard snark response from the Left to all the hypocrisy from the Right on any number of issues.

And, by the way, exactly how would one explain that joke to a kid?

xranger said...

You're missing the comedic point:

Clinton was an accused rapist and knowingly was diddling a 20-something intern in the oval office. That put all sexually-tinged jokes off limits.

Bush is obviously a good husband and family man, with no sexual peccadilos (SP?). Therefore the satire is funny.

Now, when Clinton ran that home movie about being second-fiddle to Hillary, at the end of his presidency, THAT was funny. He poked fun at the innuendo that she was the important Clinton in the White House.

Self-deprecating humor usually hits the mark.

dayvoe said...

Accused rapist? Really? But what is your evidence?

Given that anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, I GUESS your charge works.

If so, then there are some other people you should then always refer to as an "accused rapist":

In 1991, a woman named Selene Walters claimed that when she was 19 she was raped by the then 42 yr-old Ronald Reagan. She repeated her claim in an interview to People Magazine.

In 2002, a woman named Margie Schoedinger filed a lawsuit claiming she was raped by George W. Bush. The wikipedia writes that she was later killed by a gunshot wound to the head. It was ruled a suicide.

Hey, wasn't Vince Foster's death also ruled a "suicide"?

Works both ways, my friend. If Clinton was a rapist, then so were Reagan and Bush.

Maria said...

The humor lies in the fact that if Hillary Clinton (before or after Monica) or Teresa Heinz Kerry or any other DEMOCRAT had made the same joke about how her hubby jerks off horses the Christian Right and Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh, etc., would have decried "the coarsening of society, blah, blah blah..."

xranger said...

Whatever, Maria.

Dayvoe, you're smokin' bad weed. There was that incident in Arkansas with Juanita Broderick which gained ALOT of publicity.

I thought you libs claim the woman is always right in those cases.

Oh, LIBERAL women.

Never mind...

dayvoe said...


You missed my point, I think. Perhaps I should have been clearer.

Of course, I've HEARD of Juanita Broderick. I was not as clear as I should have been. Let me ask it clearer: What evidence do you have that shows that Bill Clinton was a rapist?

Note this is a different question than asking about the evidence he was an accused rapist. You're right. There were many many allegations published and republished in the late 90s.

Pope John Paul II (if I recall correctly) wondered if George W Bush was in fact the anti-Christ. By your model, he's ACCUSED of being the anti-Christ. But it doesn't say anything about whether he IS.

So I'll restate my clumsy question: What is your evidence that Bill Clinton is a rapist?

If you're using the ACCUSATION that he's a rapist as evidence for his BEING a rapist, then as I stated in my previous posting, you'd have to also assert that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are also rapists, for there are accusations there, too.

And if you made the accusation knowing that there's no evidence to support it, well, I'll let you finish that sentence yourself.

So again, once and for all. Where's your evidence?

xranger said...

This string got too long and confusing, and I regret using that example.

I did say the word accused, it was on one of the national news programs, and it caused a stir for awhile. I don't know if he committed that act, and don't care; I was attempting to make the case that sexual innuendo jokes would not go over well at that time, because of the various issues that kept cropping up.