Betsy's Page

Friday, July 22, 2005

The Washington Post has a profile of John Roberts' wife. She sounds like a smart, good woman who has achieved a lot professionally in her life and is now devoting more of her time to her young children. Of course, the whole peg for the article is her work at Feminists for Life. Hmmmm. I wonder why they make such a big thing out of that....

But that is not the only light that the Washington Post Style section casts on the Roberts family. Robin Givhan, who must be one catty witch, finds a lot to criticize in the clothes that Mrs. Roberts and the two children wore to witness one of the proudest moments in Judge Roberts' life.
It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes.

(Who among us did a double take? Two cute blond children with a boyish-looking father getting ready to take the lectern -- Jack Edwards? Emma Claire? Is that you? Are all little boys now named Jack?)

The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection. The children, of course, are innocents. They are dressed by their parents. And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings "to you and yours" from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape.

....But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual -- and his family -- to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it.
Give me a break! Have we gone beyond the level of attacking a nominee's children on lefty websites to doing so in the Washington Post? How kind of Robin Givhan to do the lefty bloggers' work for them. Isn't there a point when an editor says, "Robin, we're just not going to go there." Apparently not. For shame.

I guess the only Republican woman's fashions she approves are Condi Rice's "sexy" boots. Geesh. Is this really what she dreamed of doing when she was in college: writing catty comments about the clothes and hairstyles of people who have actually accomplished things in their own lives?

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reminds us of some of Robin Givhan's other tasteless fashion reviews and has some ideas of how the Roberts familiy might have dressed.

UPDATE II: Meanwhile the rumors seem to be gathering implying that John Roberts is or was gay. Gee, some people like the ever-tasteful Wonkette will feed into every gay stereotype they can just to smirk and spread unfounded rumors. Charmaine Yoest has the goods. We knew that the attacks would be fierce no matter whom Bush nominated, and if they couldn't find any dirt on Roberts, hey, they'll just make it up and throw in some attacks on the family while they're at it. (link via Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE III: Q and O has some more examples of liberal hate speech aimed at Mrs. Roberts. What slime these people are. Can't we just agree that children and wives are out of bounds?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:17 AM 0 comments

Comments:

The Washington Post has a profile of John Roberts' wife. She sounds like a smart, good woman who has achieved a lot professionally in her life and is now devoting more of her time to her young children. Of course, the whole peg for the article is her work at Feminists for Life. Hmmmm. I wonder why they make such a big thing out of that....

But that is not the only light that the Washington Post Style section casts on the Roberts family. Robin Givhan, who must be one catty witch, finds a lot to criticize in the clothes that Mrs. Roberts and the two children wore to witness one of the proudest moments in Judge Roberts' life.

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes.

(Who among us did a double take? Two cute blond children with a boyish-looking father getting ready to take the lectern -- Jack Edwards? Emma Claire? Is that you? Are all little boys now named Jack?)

The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection. The children, of course, are innocents. They are dressed by their parents. And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings "to you and yours" from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape.

....But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual -- and his family -- to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it.

Give me a break! Have we gone beyond the level of attacking a nominee's children on lefty websites to doing so in the Washington Post? How kind of Robin Givhan to do the lefty bloggers' work for them. Isn't there a point when an editor says, "Robin, we're just not going to go there." Apparently not. For shame.

I guess the only Republican woman's fashions she approves are Condi Rice's "sexy" boots. Geesh. Is this really what she dreamed of doing when she was in college: writing catty comments about the clothes and hairstyles of people who have actually accomplished things in their own lives?

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reminds us of some of Robin Givhan's other tasteless fashion reviews and has some ideas of how the Roberts familiy might have dressed.

UPDATE II: Meanwhile the rumors seem to be gathering implying that John Roberts is or was gay. Gee, some people like the ever-tasteful Wonkette will feed into every gay stereotype they can just to smirk and spread unfounded rumors. Charmaine Yoest has the goods. We knew that the attacks would be fierce no matter whom Bush nominated, and if they couldn't find any dirt on Roberts, hey, they'll just make it up and throw in some attacks on the family while they're at it. (link via Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE III: Q and O has some more examples of liberal hate speech aimed at Mrs. Roberts. What slime these people are. Can't we just agree that children and wives are out of bounds?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:17 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Friday, July 22, 2005

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Friday, July 22, 2005 The Washington Post has a profile of John Roberts' wife. She sounds like a smart, good woman who has achieved a lot professionally in her life and is now devoting more of her time to her young children. Of course, the whole peg for the article is her work at Feminists for Life. Hmmmm. I wonder why they make such a big thing out of that.... But that is not the only light that the Washington Post Style section casts on the Roberts family. Robin Givhan, who must be one catty witch, finds a lot to criticize in the clothes that Mrs. Roberts and the two children wore to witness one of the proudest moments in Judge Roberts' life. It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family. There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes. (Who among us did a double take? Two cute blond children with a boyish-looking father getting ready to take the lectern -- Jack Edwards? Emma Claire? Is that you? Are all little boys now named Jack?) The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection. The children, of course, are innocents. They are dressed by their parents. And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings "to you and yours" from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape. ....But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual -- and his family -- to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it. Give me a break! Have we gone beyond the level of attacking a nominee's children on lefty websites to doing so in the Washington Post? How kind of Robin Givhan to do the lefty bloggers' work for them. Isn't there a point when an editor says, "Robin, we're just not going to go there." Apparently not. For shame. I guess the only Republican woman's fashions she approves are Condi Rice's "sexy" boots. Geesh. Is this really what she dreamed of doing when she was in college: writing catty comments about the clothes and hairstyles of people who have actually accomplished things in their own lives? UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reminds us of some of Robin Givhan's other tasteless fashion reviews and has some ideas of how the Roberts familiy might have dressed. UPDATE II: Meanwhile the rumors seem to be gathering implying that John Roberts is or was gay. Gee, some people like the ever-tasteful Wonkette will feed into every gay stereotype they can just to smirk and spread unfounded rumors. Charmaine Yoest has the goods. We knew that the attacks would be fierce no matter whom Bush nominated, and if they couldn't find any dirt on Roberts, hey, they'll just make it up and throw in some attacks on the family while they're at it. (link via Michelle Malkin) UPDATE III: Q and O has some more examples of liberal hate speech aimed at Mrs. Roberts. What slime these people are. Can't we just agree that children and wives are out of bounds? posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:17 AM 0 comments Comments: The Washington Post has a profile of John Roberts' wife. She sounds like a smart, good woman who has achieved a lot professionally in her life and is now devoting more of her time to her young children. Of course, the whole peg for the article is her work at Feminists for Life. Hmmmm. I wonder why they make such a big thing out of that.... But that is not the only light that the Washington Post Style section casts on the Roberts family. Robin Givhan, who must be one catty witch, finds a lot to criticize in the clothes that Mrs. Roberts and the two children wore to witness one of the proudest moments in Judge Roberts' life. It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family. There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes. (Who among us did a double take? Two cute blond children with a boyish-looking father getting ready to take the lectern -- Jack Edwards? Emma Claire? Is that you? Are all little boys now named Jack?) The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection. The children, of course, are innocents. They are dressed by their parents. And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings "to you and yours" from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape. ....But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual -- and his family -- to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it. Give me a break! Have we gone beyond the level of attacking a nominee's children on lefty websites to doing so in the Washington Post? How kind of Robin Givhan to do the lefty bloggers' work for them. Isn't there a point when an editor says, "Robin, we're just not going to go there." Apparently not. For shame. I guess the only Republican woman's fashions she approves are Condi Rice's "sexy" boots. Geesh. Is this really what she dreamed of doing when she was in college: writing catty comments about the clothes and hairstyles of people who have actually accomplished things in their own lives? UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reminds us of some of Robin Givhan's other tasteless fashion reviews and has some ideas of how the Roberts familiy might have dressed. UPDATE II: Meanwhile the rumors seem to be gathering implying that John Roberts is or was gay. Gee, some people like the ever-tasteful Wonkette will feed into every gay stereotype they can just to smirk and spread unfounded rumors. Charmaine Yoest has the goods. We knew that the attacks would be fierce no matter whom Bush nominated, and if they couldn't find any dirt on Roberts, hey, they'll just make it up and throw in some attacks on the family while they're at it. (link via Michelle Malkin) UPDATE III: Q and O has some more examples of liberal hate speech aimed at Mrs. Roberts. What slime these people are. Can't we just agree that children and wives are out of bounds? posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:17 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment