Update below (11:26): ThinkProgress responds.
NonPartyPolitics has picked up on how the liberal ThinkProgress blog smells something fishy in presidential daughter Jenna Bush's engagement to beau Henry Hager. Basically the lefty blog suggests that first lady Laura Bush lied to the press -- in 2005.
That's right, there's got to be something sinister and mendacious in Laura Bush's 2005 prediction that Jenna and Henry were "not serious." I mean, it's not like true love can blossom in a courtship in two years. Not for someone that close to President Bush!
Fortunately, even this lunacy was too much for the readers at TP. Here's an excerpt from NonParty Politics:
There's moral decency out there, somewhere.
Two years is a long time for things to change. With all the important things that Bush Co. is lying about these days, why is TP wasting it’s time with this?
Comment by Andrew M — August 16, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
I agree… this is trashy reporting… I expect better thing coming from thinkprogress. 2 YEARS IS PLENTY OF TIME FOR THINGS TO GET SERIOUS.Time for THINK PROGRESS to get SERIOUS about their reporting!
Comment by gldsndz — August 16, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Don’t we have more important things to have our hair on fire about?
Comment by Karen — August 16, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
This is lame. I don’t care. Think Progress, focus on substantial things, please.
Comment by Jim — August 16, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
This is lame and has no bearing on politics. I expect to hear about these types of “news” issues on Digg or Reddit.
Comment by Whocares — August 16, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
I agree with the above comments. Who cares about this?
Comment by Eric the Political Hack — August 16, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Not to say some weren't harsh:
May happiness elude them…
…and tragedy befall them…
…at every turn…
Comment by big papa — August 16, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
Update: Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress just sent along an e-mail. He protests that we (and Ace, NonParty Politics) are misconstruing the tone of the blog post.:
Ken, I just read your post regarding our write-up of Laura Bush's 2005 comments on Jenna's fiance. You write, "Basically the lefty blog suggests that first lady Laura Bush lied to the press -- in 2005."
That's incorrect. Not everything we do is an attack on the Bushes. In this case, we thought it was an entertaining news item that was rather interesting -- that's all. It's something that Laura should chuckle at as well.
Our critics have ascribed motives to us that are simply wrong. We weren't playing "gotcha" or calling her a liar. We were pointing out, in joking fashion, that Laura never predicted this relationship going as far as it has.
What do you think?
Update II/Semi-related item (11:38): Speaking of lame attempts at humor, Time's Swampland blog took a brief swipe at Jenna Bush's "arranged marriage" with the headline for an August 17 news digest entitled "Daily Jumble: Jenna's Arranged Marriage-Free Edition."