(Page 3 of 20)
The comments on the comments of Laura? Enlightening, indeed!
First, the ultra-right zealots vent their collective spleens; much gnashing of teeth by the Fun-Challenged, then great stuff from John Hess, David Broadus, Gene Wright (the bassman with Brubeck, et al?), and Laurel's astute "it was only a dinner" said it all.
But contrary to my perception of most readers, noted that there's a kook element as well -- dementia personified.....
Oh, and loved Sandy's reference to Teresa H. Kerry too.
Your letters section is "must" reading, usually the first thing I turn to, and often (not all the time, but often) contains even better information than many/most columns.
p>A pleasure to read -- I thank you. br> -- Geoff Brandt br> Quintana, Texas /p> p> Mr. Pleszczynski, I agree with you. I was embarrassed for the President and Mrs. Bush, and for those who stand up and defend them as moral role models. It was Clintonesque. Worse than their daughters' lame standup last year. That classy image is tarnished. What was gained? The libs still don't like the Bushes, and the conservatives are probably disappointed in them. I wonder who thought her presentation was a good idea? My ex-wife would make funny jokes like that when she drank. br> -- John Duckett /p> p> The responses to your column on Laura Bush's
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.