Re: Doonesbury- August 31- Out of Bounds?

Recklessly refusing to invoke the Fifth Amendment, on Thu, 31 Aug 2006
16:52:34 +0000 (UTC), INVALID_SEE_SIG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J.D.
Baldwin) wrote:


In the previous article, Ted Kerin <tf.kerin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Um, no, I don't think I was making that comparison. I was
questioning the alleged "tacit media agreement" that was one basis
of Blinky's post, by citing evidence that it doesn't exist. Ronnie
recalled similar jibes about Amy Carter.

Were these jibes before or after Miss Carter embarked on her career of
"activism"? Because, as far as I'm concerned, once you start trading
on your famous name, all those agreements (tacit or otherwise) about
leaving you alone are null and void.

I agree with what you say here.

The caricatures I am recalling were when Amy Carter was an adolescent,
so pre-public career. I am dimly remembering there being the kind of
public discussion that there was about Chelsea Clinton later, when she
was the same age. (People kind of saying, "C'mon, she's gangly and
awkward and going through a rough time for anyone, lay off the
big-teeth/frizzy hair caricatures".)

All this is pre-Google, of course, so I doubt I could find the kinds
of images I'm remembering or cites to back up my recollection. (A Mort
Drucker caricature of A.C. seems to stand out in my mind. Mad,
perhaps?) Anyway, as I noted, caricature is not the same as going
after a Presidential kid's actions, anyway. As a rule I don't think
it's really fair game, until the kid chooses to make him or herself a
public person.

It's very easy to want to go after the Bush girls for their underage
drinking, etc. because their parents and their parents' party plays
the Christian family values/morality card so often; but let's be fair
here - have the Bush twins held ***themselves*** up as bastions of
young Christian womanhood? Are they making public proclamations about
morality? If not, it's unfair to criticize *them* as hypocrits.

ronnie
.