Posted by Charity on May 20th, 2006

This morning, I was reading the Free Press coverage of the protesters of the Laura Bush fund-raiser visit and I read the funniest quote:

“I couldn’t believe that she would actually have the audacity to come to a state that does not want her,” said Ericka Reil, an advocacy specialist for the Vermont Center for Independent Living.

Okay, first of all, there were like 220 people who not only wanted her here, but paid $200 – or $5,000 for some – to see her. To say that the whole state does not want her here is a pretty big stretch, but thank you for thinking you speak for an entire state.

Another point worth noting is that two paragraphs later, we see this quote:

“When Ann called me to come, I jumped for joy,” Ferland said. “I have disabilities, so can’t go to New York or Washington to protest, but I can come here.”

It sounds to me like even Ms. Reil’s fellow protesters wanted First Lady Bush here.

She’s not really fooling anyone; these people live to protest and if Mrs. Bush hadn’t the audacity to come, it would have been just another boring, rainy day.

11 Responses to “Everybody loves a good protest”

  1. People who hate the Governator don’t protest Maria Shriver when she speaks publicly. Do people hate Mary Matlin because of James Carville? Or vice versa? No. Why? Because they realize that a married couple is comprised of TWO individual people – not one. If If people hate Bush, they should protest against him, not his wife. That’s such a cheap shot. She’s the WIFE of the president (She has nothing to do with US policy – she’s just married to the guy who does). They are not the same person. Not to mention that she seems like a pretty benign figure as far as public figures go.

  2. She’s not benign if she’s raising money for Republicans. Besides, she killed Michael Douglas.

  3. You’re right, Haik. We should judge people by their mistakes and hold them accountable years after the fact. Luckily people like you and me have never done ANYTHING we’re not proud of. Right? Because by this logic, if you ever did anything wrong in your life, we should all still be talking about it and judging you.

  4. You should make that speech Rush Limbaugh every time he mentions Chappaquiddick.

  5. Bob the Optimizer
    May 22nd, 2006 at 5:23 pm

    “Besides, she killed Michael Douglas.”
    & ” You should make that speech Rush Limbaugh every time he mentions Chappaquiddick.”

    Let’s compare the two: Sober high-school girl runs a stop sign, gets into an accident, kills the other driver. The police are notified and find her at the scene of the accident. No charges filed.

    Drunken married US Senator driving single secretary home from party, drives off a bridge into 8ft of water, leaves her there, doesn’t contact police, goes back to hotel, sleeps, wakes up, still doesn’t contact police, pays off family to drop the whole affair. Charged with leaving the scene of an accident.

    They’re totally different. Grown men should be held accountable for leaving someone to die in order to protect their careers. It’s not the kind of thing that should be forgotten. Even men like Ken Lay should be marked for life. And he didn’t kill anybody.

  6. Well then Bob, you must agree that Laura’s husband should have been held accountable for his violations of insider trading laws, for going AWOL in from the National Guard, for driving drunk, and for violating the FISA law and the 4th Ammendment, and for lying the nation into an illegal war causing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Yes. Grown men should be held accountable.

    Hillary Clinton made some money on a land deal and the right wouldn’t leave her alone for eight years. I can just imagine what your pundits would have done to her if she had a vehicular manslaughter in her past.

    The point I was responding to was that Laura Bush shouldn’t be protested because she herself doesn’t make policy. I disagree. She’s a political operative a representative of her husband. She’s a totally fair target for protesters.

    She isn’t benign. She’s an apologist and a fundraiser for a fascist, undemocratic, un-American regime, and she, like her husband must be fought and defeated for the good of the country. She also killed somebody with her car and got away with it scott-free. People have a right to know that.

  7. “She also killed somebody with her car and got away with it scott-free.”

    The article doesn’t mention anyone protesting her “killing somebody with her car.” So, given that she doesn’t actually make policy, people were essentially protesting her as if she were a cardboard cutout of her husband. Obviously they have the right to do this, but the original post is correct: it was another silly, pointless Vermont protest that no one except the protesters will ever care about.

  8. That’s fine.

  9. “Obviously they have the right to do this, but the original post is correct: it was another silly, pointless Vermont protest that no one except the protesters will ever care about.”

    Hear hear. (Not to be mistaken with “har har.” ALthough that would also be applicable in this case)

  10. What’s more pointless- the pointless or the pointless post about the pointlessness?

  11. “What’s more pointless- the pointless or the pointless post about the pointlessness?”

    I would say your comment trumps them both.