Friday, February 20, 2004
Hey, Hey Laura...
We at 201k are still talking about this business of Laura Bush defending George's military record. Some readers have emailed to say, hey, she has a right to defend her husband. Fair enough.
But we'd draw a distinction here. Everyone has a right to defend his or her spouse (and we'd hope they would). But Laura Bush didn't say "my husband is a man of great integrity--I trust him and so should all Americans". That would be her opinion, and she's entitled to it.
What she said, essentially, was that he was there, he served--and that goes right to the heart of a factual dispute at the center of a current political controversy. No one else from the White House could say that to a reporter without being challenged on it.
And she went further than that, attributing motives to those who are asking question about the president's record. And again it went unchallenged.
Comparisons to Hillary Clinton, who as first lady had a great deal to say about both politics and policy, make our case. Hillary officially dove into the swamp, and took plenty of lumps for it. She put herself in play, and was fair game.
Laura Bush has not put herself in play. She has chosen the far more common path of detached political spouse--a speech on children or education here and there, and not a controversial policy statement in sight. And for that she has rightly been off-limits.
But in commenting on her husband's military service, she has ventured into a political red zone--one in which the ball is very much up in the air, with lots of hands grabbing at it. It is no place for someone who expects to be considered above the fray.
She cannot fairly expect to both jump into the scrum, and not be in the game. She can't have it both ways.
And there's something else. What if it turns out that George Bush's National Guard service is not what he's claimed all these years? We're not saying we know one way or the other, obviously. But it is a question we think is still very much up in the air.
And that being the case we think someone in the White House should have made sure that the first lady didn't take a public stand on it.
But we'd draw a distinction here. Everyone has a right to defend his or her spouse (and we'd hope they would). But Laura Bush didn't say "my husband is a man of great integrity--I trust him and so should all Americans". That would be her opinion, and she's entitled to it.
What she said, essentially, was that he was there, he served--and that goes right to the heart of a factual dispute at the center of a current political controversy. No one else from the White House could say that to a reporter without being challenged on it.
And she went further than that, attributing motives to those who are asking question about the president's record. And again it went unchallenged.
Comparisons to Hillary Clinton, who as first lady had a great deal to say about both politics and policy, make our case. Hillary officially dove into the swamp, and took plenty of lumps for it. She put herself in play, and was fair game.
Laura Bush has not put herself in play. She has chosen the far more common path of detached political spouse--a speech on children or education here and there, and not a controversial policy statement in sight. And for that she has rightly been off-limits.
But in commenting on her husband's military service, she has ventured into a political red zone--one in which the ball is very much up in the air, with lots of hands grabbing at it. It is no place for someone who expects to be considered above the fray.
She cannot fairly expect to both jump into the scrum, and not be in the game. She can't have it both ways.
And there's something else. What if it turns out that George Bush's National Guard service is not what he's claimed all these years? We're not saying we know one way or the other, obviously. But it is a question we think is still very much up in the air.
And that being the case we think someone in the White House should have made sure that the first lady didn't take a public stand on it.
