Reply
Tue 21 Feb, 2006 10:08 am
Bill Robinson didn't include many things in this article about Barbara's past, including those of her family (such as supporting the Nazis) but this is a good start for a woman who deserves being despised. To understand George W. you have to realize that he takes after his mother, not is father.---BBB
Addicted to Fear? Blame Barbara!
by Bill Robinson
02.20.2006
On this Presidents' Day, it may be appropriate to stop and thank the people who shape the men who shape our lives: their mothers. Where would we be if Barbara hadn't scared the living crap out of little George W.? We might not have Code Oranges and preemptive wars and the endless promotion of bird flu and duct tape.
It's not hard to imagine how little George learned to live with fear. Curled up in his bed in Midland, Texas, he had his only-child status ripped away as Barbara brought home a seemingly endless string of newborns from the hospital. He had to learn to share with the five others -- especially that awful Jeb, who always thought he was smarter. Then there were those terrible nightmares (or were they?) when the bedroom door would fly open and Barbara would loom in the doorway, ice clinking in her highball, as she played with her pearls. "Is that pot smoke?" she would bark. "Where's the vodka, you nitwit? I just bought a new bottle!" while rummaging under his bed. He just wished she'd leave him alone. And where was dad to save him from this nightly ritual? The answers were always the same: "He's in Saudi." "He's in China." "He's laundering money for the Carlyle Group."
Still, he couldn't stay mad at Barbara. Like all mannish, withholding WASP mothers, she had her hidden pain. Her father had driven into a brick wall, killing her mother. Maybe that's why she liked his girlfriend Laura, who had blown through a stop sign and killed her friend Michael Dutton Douglas. Babs, like the church, taught him the power of inflicting fear unto others -- and of denying it to oneself. Years later, on Good Morning America, she would say something so priceless about the invasion of Iraq, he thought he'd inscribe it on her tombstone:
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
Who could not be influenced by such a mother? Like when she was faced with the Hurricane Katrina victims in her hometown, and she pulled out her best Sue Ellen Ewing (minus the looks and style):
"Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality, and so many of the people in the arenas here, you know, were underprivileged anyway. This is working very well for them."
With a mother like this, is it any wonder our president tries to rule -- not just us, but the world -- as a cranky Church Lady? When Clinton was a kid, someone was always taking away his Big Mac or fries, and we as a nation paid the price years later, in the psychic drama of "The Boy Who Couldn't Get Enough." So now the legacy of Barbara Bush plays itself out, as the chain of abuse continues, and fear rules the world.
That reads like some kind of bad novel.
Why is this necessary? Why is this relavant?
Are all children responsible for any and all sins of their parents?
Come on Woiyo, you know the drill. Those who have an irrational hatred of a man will do anything and everything to justify that hatred. After all, they need you to think they have valid reasons for their hatred. Wouldn't want you thinking there is something wrong with them.
You see this toward lots of political people, whether the name is Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Reagan, etc. Just the nature of some people.
I always thought that going after family is a bit extreme. When rightwingers went after Chelsea Clinton for her looks, I thought that was over the top. Likewise, going after Bush's mother, when there are so many better targets and legitimate complaints, is just a really, really, bad novel.
FreeDuck wrote:I always thought that going after family is a bit extreme. When rightwingers went after Chelsea Clinton for her looks, I thought that was over the top. Likewise, going after Bush's mother, when there are so many better targets and legitimate complaints, is just a really, really, bad novel.
Fully agree here Freeduck. Attack a politician's policies, but leave his family out of it. Attacking them for perceived failures/mistakes is just childish.
FreeDuck wrote:I always thought that going after family is a bit extreme. When rightwingers went after Chelsea Clinton for her looks, I thought that was over the top. Likewise, going after Bush's mother, when there are so many better targets and legitimate complaints, is just a really, really, bad novel.
Wait a second, Chelsea Clinton was a child at the time. First Ladies are fair game and certainly this especially despicable excuse for a human being, not only a former First Lady but responsible for bringing one of the worst political leaders in modern times into the world, is fair game. No criticism of this disgusting old bitch is beyond the pale.
CoastalRat wrote:Come on Woiyo, you know the drill. Those who have an irrational hatred of a man will do anything and everything to justify that hatred. After all, they need you to think they have valid reasons for their hatred.
Oh gosh, do you ever have anything but the Republican talking points to re-gurgitate. I guess you were on Mars during the Clinton years. Why that was just a real love fest for Bill and Hill, wasn't it?
I'm bemused that most look at considering Barbara Bush and her public comments as out of of line.
From my own pov, I don't think every word needs leaping on - who of us needs spotlights for our every sentence.
I do agree that looking at mom may shine a light on a son.
Roxxxanne wrote:CoastalRat wrote:Come on Woiyo, you know the drill. Those who have an irrational hatred of a man will do anything and everything to justify that hatred. After all, they need you to think they have valid reasons for their hatred.
Oh gosh, do you ever have anything but the Republican talking points to re-gurgitate. I guess you were on Mars during the Clinton years. Why that was just a real love fest for Bill and Hill, wasn't it?
And where have I ever said that attacking them in this same manner was justified or ok? I haven't. So why don't you just shut up when you have no idea what you are talking about Chrissee, Roxxanne, or whatever you are calling yourself these days.
Roxxxanne wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I always thought that going after family is a bit extreme. When rightwingers went after Chelsea Clinton for her looks, I thought that was over the top. Likewise, going after Bush's mother, when there are so many better targets and legitimate complaints, is just a really, really, bad novel.
Wait a second, Chelsea Clinton was a child at the time. First Ladies are fair game and certainly this especially despicable excuse for a human being, not only a former First Lady but responsible for bringing one of the worst political leaders in modern times into the world, is fair game.
No criticism of this disgusting old bitch is beyond the pale.
Nice. Has she done anything specific wrong, other than give birth to someone you don't like?
Frankly, I've always thought that Barbara Bush was a mean-spirited old battleaxe, but I can't stomach the kind of dimestore psychoanalyzing in the original post. If Bush is a bad president, the fault does not lie with his mom.
Well, of course, the story that George takes after his mean-ass-bitch-from-hell mother is nothing more than gossip and speculation (Kitty Kelley I believe was the originator of the George takes after mom theory) but criticism of the despicable Barbara Bush is fair game and justified.
Brandon9000 wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I always thought that going after family is a bit extreme. When rightwingers went after Chelsea Clinton for her looks, I thought that was over the top. Likewise, going after Bush's mother, when there are so many better targets and legitimate complaints, is just a really, really, bad novel.
Wait a second, Chelsea Clinton was a child at the time. First Ladies are fair game and certainly this especially despicable excuse for a human being, not only a former First Lady but responsible for bringing one of the worst political leaders in modern times into the world, is fair game.
No criticism of this disgusting old bitch is beyond the pale.
Nice. Has she done anything specific wrong, other than give birth to someone you don't like?
How's about actually keeping up on current events? That would be unique, a well-informed Bush apologist.
Roxxxanne wrote:Well, of course, the story that George takes after his mean-ass-bitch-from-hell mother is nothing more than gossip and speculation (Kitty Kelley I believe was the originator of the George takes after mom theory) but criticism of the despicable Barbara Bush is fair game and justified.
Throwing curses and made up scenarios at a politician's mother is fair game and justified? According to you maybe. I don't remember any Republicans saying this kind of thing about Clinton's mother.
Roxxxanne wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I always thought that going after family is a bit extreme. When rightwingers went after Chelsea Clinton for her looks, I thought that was over the top. Likewise, going after Bush's mother, when there are so many better targets and legitimate complaints, is just a really, really, bad novel.
Wait a second, Chelsea Clinton was a child at the time. First Ladies are fair game and certainly this especially despicable excuse for a human being, not only a former First Lady but responsible for bringing one of the worst political leaders in modern times into the world, is fair game.
No criticism of this disgusting old bitch is beyond the pale.
Nice. Has she done anything specific wrong, other than give birth to someone you don't like?
How's about actually keeping up on current events? That would be unique, a well-informed Bush apologist.
Which current event, for example?
Google "Barbara Bush" Do your own homework.
Brandon9000 wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:Well, of course, the story that George takes after his mean-ass-bitch-from-hell mother is nothing more than gossip and speculation (Kitty Kelley I believe was the originator of the George takes after mom theory) but criticism of the despicable Barbara Bush is fair game and justified.
Throwing curses and made up scenarios at a politician's mother is fair game and justified? According to you maybe. I don't remember any Republicans saying this kind of thing about Clinton's mother.
Throwing curses? Look up nasty old bitch in the dictionary and you will se Barbara Bush's name next to it. Clinton's mother wasn't a desipicable bitch besides they had Hillary and Chelsea to pick on. You amaze me with your denials and double standards.
Roxxxanne wrote:Google "Barbara Bush" Do your own homework.
In other words, as usual, you don't know. You imply that she's done wicked things, and then, when asked to mention just one, become indignant. What an ignoramoramus.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace