1
   

Bush pauses to comfort teen

 
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 09:51 am
McGentrix wrote:
It's a stressful position and it takes it's toll on every president.


Not totally correct.

I remember the quote in a book I read a while back. One character made a similar comment about how all the Presidents seem to age because of the stress of the job.

His then added; "Except for Nixon, he seemed to thrive on it like some kind of damned vampire"

Made me chuckle.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 04:31 pm
http://www.arts-america.com/images/bush_bottle.jpg
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 05:40 pm
Re: Bush pauses to comfort teen
Tarantulas wrote:
'This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11'

By Kristina Goetz
The Cincinnati Enquirer

In a moment largely unnoticed by the throngs of people in Lebanon waiting for autographs from the president of the United States, George W. Bush stopped to hold a teenager's head close to his heart.

Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."

Bush stopped and turned back.

"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.

"I could hear her say, 'I'm OK,' " he said. "That's more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, 'I can see you have a father who loves you very much.' "

"And I said, 'I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.' It was a special moment."

Special for Lynn Faulkner because the Golden Lamb was the place he and his wife, Wendy Faulkner, celebrated their anniversary every year until she died in the south tower of the World Trade Center, where she had traveled for business.

The day was also special for Ashley, a 15-year-old Mason High School student, because the visit was reminiscent of a trip she took four years ago with her mother and Prince. They spent all afternoon in the rain waiting to see Bush on the campaign trail. Ashley remembers holding her mother's hand, eating Triscuits she packed and bringing along a book in case she got bored.

But this time was different. She understood what the president was saying, and she got close enough to see him face to face.

"The way he was holding me, with my head against his chest, it felt like he was trying to protect me," Ashley said. "I thought, 'Here is the most powerful guy in the world, and he wants to make sure I'm safe.' I definitely had a couple of tears in my eyes, which is pretty unusual for me."

The photo has been circulating across the country, Faulkner said. Relatives have passed it on to friends, bosses and acquaintances. As they tell the story, they also share in Wendy Faulkner's legacy, which her family continues through the Wendy Faulkner Memorial Children's Foundation.

"I'm a pretty cynical and jaded guy at this point in my life," Faulkner said of the moment with the president. "But this was the real deal. I was really impressed. It was genuine and from the heart."

Link


Clearly, this changes everything.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 06:01 pm
LOL! Nobody ever, I think, said a bad president ccannot hug people - probably often with genuine emotion. Who would not feel genuinely for all victims of September 11?

I cannot see why this is an especially noteworthy photo or story?

As ILZ said - "this changes everything"?

Well - perhaps it is helpful for the demonizers - on both sides - to see someone on whom they play out their emotions in a human gesture......

Can we have a nice emotional one of Clinton, or Kerry too? I am sure there would be many.

However, I doubt the demonizers are affected by such shots - and the rest of base our beliefs about presidents on other standards than these.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 06:40 pm
PDiddie! That's priceless.....
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 07:23 pm
I actually don't find those sorts of pictures amusing at all - but I think my "thing" about criticising the politics, not making gibes at the person is becoming an obsession - I hate it from both sides.....
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 08:21 pm
Using this for Bush Bashing sort of cheapens the girl's loss.

I guess I don't have a sense of humor about things like this.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 09:54 pm
Sofia wrote:
Using this for Bush Bashing sort of cheapens the girl's loss.

I guess I don't have a sense of humor about things like this.


sofia

Well, that's deb's point. Using it for either purpose is a meaningless exercise that tells us nothing.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 10:07 pm
Well, Bush Jr. is a Cancer, sign-wise, so no bashing going on here, and could have very well been genuinely moved in that photo. It would also explain his constant vacations to Camp David, whenever a crisis comes up (too sensitive to face reality). It's not his fault, it's all in the stars. Astrology was good enough for the Reagans, perhaps we should accept that it's good for Bush as well.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 May, 2004 11:28 pm
MyOwnUsername wrote:
to remind you about some of my claims - this is exactly thing communistic leader would do, and exactly article communistic papers would print.

This reminds me of a Yakov Smirnoff joke.

"In America, you can always find President. In Soviet Russia, President finds YOU. What a country!"
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 01:18 am
yeah, something like that Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 06:30 am
Relevant...

Quote:
Picture of compassion

Lawrence Weschler, head of the New York Institute for the Humanities at NYU, was cruising around the official Bush/Cheney '04 reelection website and found something rather curious. Wechsler wrote about his journeys through GeorgeWBush.com on the Los Angeles Times op-ed page. Here's an excerpt:

"OK, now notice how running horizontally along the top there's a row of file tabs: Economy, Compassion, Health Care, Education, Homeland Security and so forth. So, hmmm: Compassion. What could that mean? What might that involve, thematically speaking? Click the tab, and there you are on the Compassion page."

"Nice big picture of Bush merrily shooting the breeze with two black teenage girls. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll find a quadrant labeled Compassion Photos, with the invitation, 'Click here for the Compassion Photo Album.' Do so."

"And let's see, what have we got? First one up: short-sleeved Bush, holding a black kid in his arms, a bleacher full of black kids behind him, and he's merrily waving to the crowd. Click 'next.' And it's Bush at a Waco Habitat for Humanity building site, his arm draped around a black woman, his other hand tapping the shoulder of another of the black construction volunteers. Next: Bush waving to the Urban League. Next: Bush working a crowd, a black -- or maybe, in this case, South Indian -- kid prominently featured in the foreground, gazing on in amazement. Bush in an African thatch-roofed schoolroom."

"… It's like Ben Hur among the lepers -- the guy doesn't hesitate, he just goes and does it! Why, the Compassion page even includes a photo of him standing next to his own secretary of State, Colin Powell!"

"I mean, bracket for a moment some of the actual facts concerning the fate of blacks and other people of color across the years of the Bush administration. How, for instance, tax cuts massively skewed toward the wealthy favor whites, while the huge resultant deficits necessitate service cuts massively disfavoring the poor, a group that includes proportionally more blacks. My question is, for whom is this photo gallery intended? Does anybody seriously think blacks are going to be swayed by one staged photo op after another, in which time and again their confederates are cast as the pitiable recipients of an ostentatious display of kingly compassion? Maybe it's for the president's white supporters, anxious lest they be visited by tinges of self-doubt over their own arguable racism in continuing to support such a state of affairs. Maybe it's all just a mistake -- some staffer messed up."
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 03:41 pm
Quote:
Sofia wrote:
Using this for Bush Bashing sort of cheapens the girl's loss.

I guess I don't have a sense of humor about things like this.

sofia

Blatham's quote--
Quote:
Well, that's deb's point. Using it for either purpose is a meaningless exercise that tells us nothing.


The thread starter merely forwarded the article. If you will read all the posts following, they are from detractors of the story. No one said this changes anything for Bush. He seems to have simply responded in a nice way to the girl.

So, if no one is crowing about it, or trying to make political hay from it--why all the detractors? Can't they simply see it for what it is? The Salon article reeks, from my standpoint. So someone culled a bunch of pictures showing Bush taking time with blacks.... It seems the only uses of these type pictures is by detractors for defamation purposes.

Are blacks the ONLY ones featured on the Compassion Page? Or was the article skewed to make it appear so? (Still, a poor idea to show 'photos of compassion', but the opposition acts as though Bush and the GOP hate blacks. It may be a defensive act... I remember when people denied Bush had made contact with dead soldiers' families... With so many spreading lies, they may have felt they HAD to show pictures.)

That people can continue to speak of Bush as though he is a one-dimensional creature, devoid of human emotion, mayhap requires a few pictures.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 05:34 pm
sofia

I have read the posts from start on down.

You've been away a bit, so I'll fill you in that posters here are responding to the originator of the post as well as the content. We are all pretty clear he wouldn't be likely to post a similar photo of John Kerry. He was trying to make some political hay here.

As to the other note on Bush not making contact with deceased soldiers' families, the main criticism was that he hadn't attended a funeral...which I believe is still the case. The regard for PR over other more compassionate considerations is morally questionable, at least.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 06:00 pm
<kind word to blatham>

Each thread in the political forum begins with a thought, picture, opinion. Most are anti-Bush. Some are startlingly anti-Bush, delving into the personally defamatory... We're all used to these, and they hardly raise an eyebrow.

I think it shouldn't be deemed as making political hay to merely show a positive picture. If the originator had said, "SEE!!! He's wonderful! You are all wrong about him! He is obviously definably good, and you should vote for him." Then, you would be right.

When I saw a few accuse of using it as an issue, I read back to see who had. It was only youse lefties.

Smile

Restated: Why can't Bush hug a child without all the negatives? PS--If you can find a pic of Kerry hugging....anything, I shall not speak ill.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 06:36 pm
kind word back...kindly intended at least

I earlier said that the photo, or any like it of a politician holding a child, was essentially meaningless. Rather like saying "this candidate breathes oxygen".

But on reflection, I've realized that's not the best way to understand the image. The reason it isn't relates to my link above, and what is posted on the Bush site under the "Compassion" tab.
As the writer describes, there is hardly a white person to be seen anywhere. Again, the writer says...
Quote:
"I mean, bracket for a moment some of the actual facts concerning the fate of blacks and other people of color across the years of the Bush administration. How, for instance, tax cuts massively skewed toward the wealthy favor whites, while the huge resultant deficits necessitate service cuts massively disfavoring the poor, a group that includes proportionally more blacks. My question is, for whom is this photo gallery intended? Does anybody seriously think blacks are going to be swayed by one staged photo op after another, in which time and again their confederates are cast as the pitiable recipients of an ostentatious display of kingly compassion? Maybe it's for the president's white supporters, anxious lest they be visited by tinges of self-doubt over their own arguable racism in continuing to support such a state of affairs. Maybe it's all just a mistake -- some staffer messed up."


So, what is that pisses me off, and that writer, and others here? It is a perception that the picture that leads this thread (and the pictures on his site) are not entirely meaningless. They have meaning in the same way that a photo of Ted Kennedy at a MADD meeting might have for you.

What is portrayed is a falsehood.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2004 06:51 pm
So, hugging blacks is off-limits to Bush...?

<Again, a photo album of Compassion...ugh>

I still disagree that the tax cuts were massively skewed to the rich. They helped families with children, and lower income families.

The author is in effect saying all conservatives are racists? That's just <borrowing from the genius IZL's extensive volcabulary> retarded.

Doesn't it seem the party who believes blacks are not in need of special, race-based considerations, indeed the party who holds them in greater esteem? Aren't blacks, as a group, making strides in annual income?

It seems to me the racist is the author of the article. Poverty is an equal opportunity scourge. Blacks aren't genetically predisposed.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 12:37 am
The big difference, as I see it, is that the "Compassion" page comes from the group that's trying to get the President reelected, while the picture of him hugging the girl was taken by the girl's father and is completely spontaneous. Posed pictures are one thing, but it's what you do when no one is looking that really shows your character.

Since this is the politics forum after all, it's expected for one side to make the other side look bad, or make their own side look good. Sometimes it's good to post a topic that's not blatantly political to see what people say about it. And there are some who are so full of hatred of our President that just the mention of his name brings an avalanche of hatred. It's too bad people have to be like that, but I guess it's understandable. And as you noticed, Sofia, all of it does come from the lefties.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 06:47 am
Quote:
Since this is the politics forum after all, it's expected for one side to make the other side look bad, or make their own side look good.

Well, when it becomes just that, we get threads like this one. Less than valuable.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 02:04:19