Ye shall know the extremist by the Necco wafer clothing
By Darleen Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As is usual, when the high priests of the Church of the One Wing Media issue an edict about how to treat an offender (and if you can't get him, get his wife, his kids and his little dog, too) to their beliefs, they don't leave it just on the editorial pages. Such a mantra is to be taken up in all sections...worked into movie reviews, features and even Fashion pages.
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.
Whoa! Wifey and kidlets appeared in pubic, in pastel colors! And the kids are BLONDE too!
Earl, get out the tar and feathers.
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.
Nope. Cannot have people dressing in what was, at one time, called "Sunday best." Surely, we'll just add this to Roberts' list of disqualifying qualities..you know, he and his family :::gasp::: attend church on a regular basis. The clothing proves it! Shocking.
They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi....the Roberts family went too far.
There it is. I'd say Fashion Editor Robin Givhan certainly has taken up the cue from those editorial board meetings. Can't attack the nominee on his education, or work or even experience as a appellate judge ... so let's go after his religion, his church, his wife and his kids.
"the Roberts family went too far." Get it? Extremists. Who knows what a man who takes his kids to church and allows saddle shoes and mary janes on his little kids will do??
Of course, Ms Givhan has her own issues when dressing appropriately -- Here is the poor woman bravely smiling after some one stole her dress and left her standing in her slip and underwear.
they can come up with to hang Roberts with, then the man is all but confirmed.
So far we have the French Fry case, and the family in their Sunday best.
I honestly think the media is dissappointed with Roberts' nomination-I think they want a fight, and they want a filibuster or at least an almost filibuster. I think in the end, while Roberts is a good choice for the country, the media would have rather seen Janice Rogers Brown or similar so they could have joined in the fun-they have been deprived of the Borking they would much rather cover.
The thing that Darleen hits on in this post, that we hardly ever talk about, is how the liberal bias just pervades the newspapers. It's not just the editorials. It isn't even just the news. It's everywhere in the newspaper. It's in the sports section. It's in the style section. It's in the frigging TV listings. The snark about Republicans and conservatives seeps from every pore.
Half the people in the country vote Republican. They just do not want to hear this everywhere they turn. And the newspapers wonder why they're losing readers.
like that's the case here, rather than a question of taste per se; if you read further down in the article, she's castigating the lacrosse team for wearing flip-flops to the White House. So it's not that this is some ingrained prejudice of hers against "dressing up" in general. It's like what somebody (Nick?) was saying here yesterday, quoting Steve Jobs about the "bozo bit", where the default interpretation of anyone's behavior is the least charitable one.
Why, that Roberts, he's a conservative, laden with reactionary values! Surely, there's some sinister subtext about the clothing...wait! Remniscent of the '50s! Reaction, indeed! Just dressing the children appropriately for their father's nomination to the Supreme Court? Oh, no. Ms. Givens is on to your little games, Mr. Roberts, you and your patriarchal values and your fancy-dress. Aaaalll over them.
Oh, does anyone still remember the "Dick Cheney in down jacket" flap? Remember who got it rolling? No? Want to guess?
That looks pastel! With pumps! SHE HAS GONE TOO FAR!!!!
Is her husband trying out for SCOTUS??
See, this is why I won't subscribe to the Washington Post. They got fifty stories in there about Valerie Plame, and not one of them has a picture of her in her underwear. Instead we get Robin Givhan in her underwear.
So what I want to know, speaking to you as a representative of the female species, is whether, having seen that picture, you would ever again take fashion advice from someone who went outside looking like that?