From an August 1 Democratic National Committee media fact sheet issued by DNC spokesman Josh Earnest:
The White House this weekend announced that President Bush received good news during his annual physical. Doctors pronounced the President to be in “superior” physical condition, which media reports attributed to his rigorous, six day a week exercise routine. While President Bush has made physical fitness a personal priority, his cuts to education funding have forced schools to roll back physical education classes and his Administration’s efforts to undermine Title IX sports programs have threatened thousands of women’s college sports programs.
“President Bush’s [sic] has dropped the ball when it comes to fully funding physical education in public schools and women’s athletic programs at the college level,” said Democratic National Committee spokesman Josh Earnest. “His personal habits indicate that physical fitness is not just fun and games for him. Don’t our kids deserve the same opportunities to be physically fit? President Bush should stop running from his responsibility and make sure that all American children have access to physical fitness programs.”
Well now. A serious person might respond that the President, while he has no Constitutional responsibility to “make sure that all American children have access to physical fitness”, has nevertheless done so by keeping America free under his extended stewardship, allowing each and every citizen who wishes to do so the opportunity to pick up, say, a Frisbee or baseball mitt. A serious person might further respond that by NOT forcing women who don’t wish to do so to play sport anyway as part of some symbolic and socially-engineered proportional contrivance designed to appease a largely cosmetic brand of feminism, the President is indeed acting in the best interest of the liberty of the individual—which is something we have every right to expect from our elected leaders.
But then, I’m not a serious person, so I’ll simply respond by expanding on Lorie Byrd’s remarks about Democratic desperation and divisiveness, and add that, were George Bush to pull a child out of burning library, the DNC would issue a release saying, “BUSH ALLOWS MASSIVE BOOK BURNING; FORCES TRANSIENTS OUT ON THE STREET.”
****
update: more here and here. And Michelle Malkin has a roundup of other reaction here.
****
update 2: In an email circulated to its activist base, the DNC offerred this conveniently pre-written protest slogan as an example of what dedicated progressives might publicize in an effort to help fight the scourge of Republican control of our bodies: “ONE TWO THREE FOUR, WE DON’T WANT YOUR UNBLEACHED FLOUR – LADEN TREATS THAT FILL US WITH EMPTY CALORIES AND MAKE US SLOW AND FAT SO THAT YOU CAN GIVE TAX BREAKS TO THE RICH!”
Okay, not really.
****
update 3: Further comment from James Joyner, Captain Ed, the Anchoress, Blogs for Bush, Pardon My English, and Jay Reding.
I saw that blurb float by over at Drudge and about pissed my Spidey Underoos. Josh Earnest, captain of the DNC spin team and champion-level straw grasper strikes again. His logic makes my brain hurt.
The best comment I’ve seen was, “If Bush walked on water, the statement from the DNC would be, “BUSH CAN’T SWIM!!!””
And yet I tried anyway!
Sorry, not every line can match the Helen Thomas Incontinentia Buttocks level.
Why are they laughing, Centuwion?
Josh Easton – Exploring the outermost reaches of partisan hackery. So you don’t have to.
Josh Easton’s new book “Proximate Cause and the ‘But For’ Rule: An Idiot’s Guide on How to Blame Anything on Anyone” coming to a bookstore near you.
Easton, Earnest, whatever.
A question: how do you parody a parody dressed up like seriousness?
Jeff, you’ll soon be reduced to reproducing DNC press releases as even you will be unable to produce funnier satiric material.
A serious person might further respond that by NOT forcing women who don’t wish to do so to play sport anyway as part of some symbolic and socially-engineered proportional contrivance designed to appease a largely cosmetic brand of feminism…
You do have a way with words. Pithy, yes?
Can Oliver Willis blame Bush for the lack of physical education classes that has made him, er, slightly out of shape?
If they are “transients,” doesn’t that pretty much presuppose they are already out on the street?
Hey, that chant in update #2 would be kinda catchy, especially if bra-less 60-something Berkely womyn alums were the ones chanting it.
Democrats blah blah blah self-parody yada yada
So then, the question I would have is, considering that:
a) The Republican Party is “conservative”
b) One kinda important tenet of “conservatism” is that “traditional values” should be “conserved”
c) One particular “traditional value” in this society and most others is that women belong in the home and not on the playing field / in the workforce
… why is it so silly for the Democrats to believe that Bush would try to undermine Title IX? Even if “traditional values” aren’t a credible motivator, then shouldn’t the Republicans’ longstanding and principled commitment to individual freedom be enough to provide a sound basis for believing that they would work to reverse such a prime example of the slow creep of the proto-fascist nanny state? Or maybe we can look to a different faction of The Party for our guiding principle du jour: the Christian right must, of necessity, view any promotion of female involvement in sports as both destructive to the family and objectively pro-abortion, and so would naturally oppose any sort of government involvement in ensuring women have that opportunity.
In summary, Bush has three plausible motives for working to reverse the advances codified by Title IX:
1) His deep religious faith and love of family
2) His enduring devotion to individual liberty
3) His adherence to traditional values
So why shouldn’t the Democrats believe what was written in the press release you cite? Seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw from the empirical evidence – or at least, as reasonable as, say, concluding that Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy hate America (or whatever euphemistic passive-aggressive term you choose) because they frequently criticize our foreign policy.
Frankly, I’m just not sure what you think is so unreasonable about this position. Unless you’re just saying that the Democrats are wrong a priori – BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!, perhaps? – and must therefore be subjected to more intense, unforgiving, and hyperbolic criticism than, y’know, the guy who’s in charge of the country.
But I know that’s not where you’re coming from.
At all.
So what is it?
You mean besides wondering what any of that has to do with the results of the President’s physical…?
Well, yeah… obviously it was a weak segue. But c’mon, man, those e-mails are a joke. I mean, I laugh at them. Literally. They’re intended for the Party faithful, just like, I’m sure, the Republican party mailing lists are.
Don’t you think you’re being just a tad nitpicky – grasping at a few straws of your own just for any reason to make the Dems look bad (and before any “clever” reader says it – yes, I know, they do that well enough on their own. Ha. Ha. Ha.), even though their red meat is no more unreasonable than your own party’s?
I’m not on any Republican party email list. But if you find something especially silly in one of those Republican releases, I encourage you to publicize it in a public forum so that it can be laughed at with the heartiness I’m currently reserving for laughing at this particular piece of strained partisan spin.
But… but… Dems are only angry BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!
Oh damn, someone beat me to it.
Mine was more succinct though.
By God, people really do take this shit seriously. Honestly though, I think that’s one seriously paranoid CITIZEN JOURNALIST, and I think that mocking this little press release is hardly grasping at straws just to get a laugh. I mean, it was a press release!
strained partisan spin
Is that anything like strained peas? You know, mushy, intended for infant consumption, lacking any hard substance?
Re Update #2: So, if the Democrats return to power, does this mean no more pie? Especially of the fried Hostess cherry variety?
So then, the question I would have is, considering that:
a) The Republican Party is “conservativeâ€Â
b) One kinda important tenet of “conservatism†is that “traditional values†should be “conservedâ€Â
c) One particular “traditional value†in this society and most others is that women belong in the home and not on the playing field / in the workforce
Awesome syllogism, dude.
<objectively pro-abortion, and so would naturally oppose any sort of government involvement in ensuring women have that opportunity.</i>
My wife would be offended by that remark except my “Christian Right” mother- and father-in-law kept her under lock and key with no formal education and, as an aside, NO exercise until the moment I pulled into their driveway (in a 1969 Dodge Charger with a 440 and glassbacks; think Dukes of Hazzard) to pick up my portly, uneducate bride for the shotgun wedding. Translation: she cain’t read. But I did get a couple of Charlois and a cattle creep for my trouble. Only trouble is, being unable to read makes it hard for her to memorize her daily Bible verse or read the directions for my favorite meatloaf recipe. Not to mention my golfing stories go right over her head ‘cause she never played or watched any sports at that Kristiun skool she graduated from.
“… and add that, were George Bush to pull a child out of burning library, the DNC would issue a release saying, “BUSH ALLOWS MASSIVE BOOK BURNING; FORCES TRANSIENTS OUT ON THE STREET.†“
Treasure this brief moment of innocence, Jeff; by this time next year it’ll be “BUSH SETS FIRE TO DENY MINORITY EDUCATION”.
c) One particular “traditional value†in this society and most others is that women belong in the home and not on the playing field / in the workforce
Hello CJ—I was going to wisecrack on you but I try to take what you and other lib visitors post seriously. So, let me ask you—do you really believe that most Republican voters believe “c” above? Really. Do you really believe that? I’m curious. And if you do believe that, what do you see among Republicans that leads you to that conclusion?
My favorite part was where the Citizen Journalist said that he laughed at them too. So if CJ laughs at them, why can’t Jeff?
Also, The Far Side (or, “The Impotence of Being Earnest”) is the best line I’ve seen written on this. It gets just the right blend of surreality and hilarity of it all.
Geez CJ
I guess the fact that Title IX has caused a lot of male types to have NO opportunity for sports because Colleges have CUT their programs because the colleges can’t even bribe enough women to come out for team sports has not a THING to do with trying to loosen up the draconian interpretations…
naw…gotta be that Xtian misogyny thang.
Then I could point out that even during the Great Depression school districts never cut recess or high school sports..but that might reflect a little reality on the grossly admin-top heaviness of most gubmint schools with their teachers and curriculum that ooze out of Schools of Education dedicated to indoctrination rather than education and learning.
naw…don’t want to cause CJ too much mental pain in bouncing up against reality.
And the Party of No is just too unintentially funny to try to hard to rescue them from their own psychosis.
tongueboy, they gradiate gurls frum them kristiun skoolz? lol
jeez cj, get a life
Let’s see if we can come up with other “Reverse Bushisms”—or, if he does something right, how we might see the Dems try to spin the story.
Me next!
“President George W. Bush sends his mother in Houston a wonderful bouquet of roses for Mother’s Day.”
Auto-Democratic-spin (ASP):
“BUSH SENDS COLOMBIAN ROSE INDUSTRY SPIRALLING, CROP FAILURE IMMINENT”
“President George W. Bush attends Boy Scout jamboree next summer, to commemorate the fallen Boy Scouts of 2005.”
Auto-Democratic-spin (ASP):
“BUSH A NO-SHOW AT FRENCH EMBASSY FOR BASTILLE DAY CEREMONIES, PRESIDENT SARKOZY FURIOUS, FRANCO-AMERICAN RELATIONS REACH NADIR”
“President George W. Bush recipient of the new SARS virus vaccine, news cameras rolling, as cold season approaches”
Auto-Democratic-Spin (ASP):
“BUSH ROLLS UP SLEEVES, WHILST AMERICAN WORKERS ROLL DOWN THEIRS DUE TO CAFTA/NAFTA MAYHEM”
Your turn.
Cheers,
Victoria
tongueboy, they gradiate gurls frum them kristiun skoolz? lol
For Kristiun gurls, reading is NOT fundumentul. Pun intended.
A serious person might further respond that by NOT forcing women who don’t wish to do so to play sport anyway as part of some symbolic and socially-engineered proportional contrivance designed to appease a largely cosmetic brand of feminism, the President is…
A “cosmetic brand of feminism”…wait, I know! You’re saying Title IX sports is a recruiting ground for lipstick lesbians, aren’t you?
Hah. I’m getting better at this.
TW: for. I have no idea what ‘for’.