posted on April 27, 2001 06:44:39 PM new
I just saw a preview for the 11 pm news on TV saying that "President Bush's underage daughter faces liquor violations." Anybody know what that's about?
posted on April 28, 2001 12:11:51 PM new
Nah, she'll just have Daddy Pres do it for her as her GrandDaddy did for other sons when he was Pres ... it's a family thing, you know.
posted on April 28, 2001 01:26:00 PM new
Agreed, Helen!
Except, Jenna W. Bush, one of President Bush's 19-year-old twin daughters cited is an adult, and therefore, fair game. Just as newphews of famous politicans are, or the brothers of past presidents.
posted on April 28, 2001 01:48:07 PM new
Where were her Secret Service Agents? Aren't they supposed to have her in visual all the times? Couldn't they see her drinking?
"President Bush's 19-year-old daughter, Jenna, was cited early Friday for
alcohol possession by a minor,
police said.
The ticket was issued by Austin police who were checking for minors in possession of alcohol at nightclubs along the city's popular East Sixth Street."
From the viewpoint of the police, she is a minor.
From my viewpoint she is too young to be the focus of a major
news story and the attending publicity over possession of alcohol.
Don't you think that this is heavy handed, Borillar?
Or, do you think, well, that just goes with the territory...this kind of surveilance... Therefore it is ok?
It's either right or wrong, no matter who
your father is and in my opinion this is
wrong
posted on April 28, 2001 05:24:57 PM new
I hope she gets some professional help. I saw tabloid pics on the Net of her supposedly intoxicated and on the floor with an intoxicated friend, and her "boyfriend" was picked up for intoxication.
Between the public spotlight and the drinking, she could be heading for disaster. I wouldn't wish that on anybody's kids.
Continuing to allow her to skirt the issues because of her status will only prolong and make matters worse.
posted on April 28, 2001 05:57:41 PM new
Underage drinking is not a new issue. I'm sure most parents who have raised a teenager have had to confront this problem/issue at some time. I'm only glad I'm was not raising a teenager while under the watchful eye of the press. OR that I wasn't *the* teenager who's every action was reported to the nation/world.
posted on April 28, 2001 06:11:57 PM newHelen, the girl is over 18 - and is legally an adult, except that the legal drinking age in any state is 21. Nobody conciders 19-year olds as "minors" except in this one special circumstance - drinking alchohol. If she had been cited for any other offence, no matter how trivial, she would have been treated as an adult. This one thing does not make her a child. So she is fair game, just like brothers, nephews, and wifes as the Republicans did during the Clinton administration. They only let Clinton's daughter Chealsey alone because she was under 18 most of the time. Once she turned 18 and was in college, the media ran stories on her too -- because she was an adult and was famous.
posted on April 28, 2001 06:47:24 PM new
Borrilar,
I'm not looking at this as a political issue.
I understand that it's impossible to have any family privacy in such situations. But
nevertheless, I think that it is wrong to
use children...even those who are 19 years old to sell newspapers and promote other
agendas.
Like Reamond suggested, I hope that she will get the help that she needs without skirting the issue because of concern for their political image.
posted on April 28, 2001 08:41:30 PM new
The function of the strong-man's body guards for him and his family are never to impose morality.
I suppose you folks think JFK's guards should have told him he couldn't run around on Jackie?
Ol' Bush could sit in the Oval office and snort lines of coke off the desk and the Secret Service men would say - not my business to judge.
posted on April 28, 2001 09:47:43 PM new
Yeah, or screw interns. But I agree, the young lady is leagally an adult. Let her deal with it. In Canada, she would have been legal to drink, so what's the point. She does not deserve any special treatment, cause she isn't a child. If 19 is a child, then 19 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. After all what's potentially more damaging to this country - underage drinking or underage voting.
They shouldn't be allowed to go put their ass on the line for the country in a war either with that logic.
Bottom line...19 is considered an adult in everything else, so let her deal with it. She's fair game. Besides, if that's the worst thing any of my kids ever do, I'll be quite pleased.
posted on April 29, 2001 01:53:23 AM new
For all of you who are condemning her I would like to know which of you can say that you never did anything similar in your youth?
posted on April 29, 2001 09:06:32 AM new
Oh, I did similar and WORSE. I actually went and got a driver's license under another name, with an older birthdate, just so I could get into the bars to drink and dance. All my friends were doing it, but of course I was the only one to get caught. That cost some money in lawyer fees and fines.
Leave her alone. She's a kid. It's about the process of growing up and making mistakes and hopefully learning from them. We all went through it, but our stupid mistakes weren't plastered all over the news. Thank heavens!
posted on April 29, 2001 09:19:00 AM new
Ha, KatyD...isn't it the truth? I remember diving out a bathroom window once, when a really rambunctious party I was at got raided. I was maybe 15, at the time. It was a small window, too. I had friends that didn't make it through... Close one.
posted on April 29, 2001 09:46:21 AM new
I agree - I don't care if she wants a drink or five. I just wanted to say the Secret Service has stated they won't do anything that might make a person they are protecting seek to "lose" their protection. If they start turning her in they know she is going to try to sneak off to get some privacy.
posted on April 29, 2001 11:02:34 AM new"nevertheless, I think that it is wrong to use children...even those who are 19 years old to sell newspapers and promote other agendas. "
I agree with you, Helen - not only should direct family members be off-limits, but the relatives too. At least, that's the way it used to be.
But the Republicans have broken that convention of civilitity as far back as Jimmy Carter, who had a brother that drank too much. This had nothing at all to do with the presidency or running the country, but the Republican politicans screamed, yelled, and howled, splashing news of Carter's brother's latest incident -- all to do just one thing: humiliate Carter.
With Clinton, the Republican Politicians hit closer to home. It had ALWAYS been more than a Gentlemen's Agreement to not bash the wives of presidents, but the Republican politicans didn't have a shred of decency when they attacked Mrs. Clinton for nearly the eight years that her husband was in office. And it wasn't just the politicians either! Right here on AW or the rest of the Internet you could read some nasty remarks - well before she announced her intention to get into politics. Clinton slammed his foot down when it came to his underage daughter when the Republican politicians began to attack her publically too!
Helen, the Republican party could care less about civility, decency, sensibility, kindess and least of all their voters. They are nothing more than a bully. The only way to stop a bully is to punch the bully as hard as possible in the nose where it hurts the most.
There is no line of decency that the Republican politicians won't stoop below in order to acheive some minute policial agenda. The only way to hurt them back is to give them a ROYAL SHARE of what they've been dishing out to others and BRAGGING about for the last several decades. I dislike it as much as you do, but unless we can hurt the Republican politicians enough to the point to where they'll adopt some Conservative Values of old-time decency and mutual respect for adversaries, then its war and a dirty one!
posted on April 30, 2001 01:28:28 PM new
Borillar if Al Gore can get over it, then why can't you? Come on, you can do it!!!!!! Remember the little choo choo????? I think I can, I think I can.........
posted on April 30, 2001 01:47:01 PM new
I agree on the point, Borillar, and it's pretty sickening now to see the republican touting of a new atmosphere in which finger pointing and dirty tricks are less prevelant. Certainly they are, now that the republicans have stopped for a time.
But have they stopped? I think that the recent 'expose' of ex-senator Kerry's wartime episode was a designed ploy in the beginning of a campaign to discredit him in case he might bee a democratic candidate for the presidency. They guy had already given all of that information out in 1991 while he considered running on the primary ticket. It was old news.
I think that we'll see an increasing amount of such stuff as the next presidential election approaches. Dumbya's fight for reelection will very likely be the dirtiest in history.
posted on April 30, 2001 05:17:07 PM newbatman4ever: "Borillar if Al Gore can get over it, then why can't you?"
I couldn't care less about what Al Gore thinks, since I'm not a Democrat nor have I been one since the mid-1980's. So what's your point?
As far as "getting over it", you drastically misunderstand what the conversation has been has been about and in reading my post you were unable to comprehend that I was answering a question. Your derisive comments also point to a mentality befitting your commentary.
"or are you still a SORELOSERMAN???"
Here's a cheerful URL for you to go look at. That'll explain your question:
posted on April 30, 2001 10:51:06 PM new
I din't see anybody go after Chelsea. The only reason some went after Hillary and not other first ladies might have a little to do with the fact that Hillary was the only first lady to be questioned in more crimes than any of us can probably count. Going in front of grand juries and mysteriously reappearing files with her fingerprints on them probably didn't help much. Then she buys a house in New York just in time for the election (Hmm) and once elected, puts it up for sale and moves out. The people of New York got what they voted for, but how they expect their interests and concerns to be represented by someone who lived there for about 90 days is beyond me.
The problem with some of you is that you will blindly defend somebody no matter how wrong they are. You might find it alot easier to defend your views when you statr showing some consistency. It's not hard to point out someone's mistakes no matter how much oyu like them, after all, nobody is perfect. But to ignore so much just because you have noone else to support is senseless. There are good Democrats out there... you just have to do your research to find them. And when you do, support them, because they are the one's who deserve it.
Me personally, I thought Bush and Gore were both losers, and so I didn't vote for either. It wasn't too hard. I tend to think more conservative on some issues, but if the guy is a bum, he's a bum - I won't waste my time defending him. If he makes a good decision more power to him (and us). In the mean time, it makes things alot clearer when you don't blind yourself with this unquechable desire to defend the indefensible.
That cost some money in lawyer fees and fines.
