Cannabis News Students for Sensible Drug Policy
  Media Get Mixed Signals on Family Privacy
Posted by FoM on February 18, 2002 at 21:29:11 PT
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer 
Source: Washington Post 

justice The normally strait-laced Associated Press did something very cheeky when President Bush announced his new drug-control policy last week.

In an otherwise innocuous report on the announcement – a drug-use reduction target, a $19.2 billion budget – the wire service noted: "The war on drugs has touched the Bush family. Noelle Bush, daughter of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has been admitted to a drug treatment program after being arrested Jan. 29 on charges of trying to buy Xanax with a fraudulent prescription."

Uh-oh. In the Bush White House, this challenged a sacred presidential principle: the sphere of family privacy.

Last year, when the Houston Chronicle's Bennett Roth asked about daughter Jenna Bush's underage drinking citation after the president discussed the importance of parental involvement, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer telephoned the reporter to say, ominously, that the question had been "noted in the building."

At the start of his term, Bush issued a warning in a televised interview. "I am going to be angry at people mistreating my girls in the public arena," he said. "I'm fair game. And [first lady] Laura's semi-fair game. But the girls aren't."

Yet an examination of the public uses of the Bush family by the White House indicates a more flexible approach.

On the eve of congressional probes into the collapse of Enron Corp., which was a major contributor to Bush over the years, Bush announced that his family, too, was victimized by the bankruptcy. "My own mother-in-law bought stock last summer, and it's not worth anything now," the president said.

But when other questions were raised – about other Bush family members' Enron holdings or involvement in Enron's lucrative partnerships – the White House was not forthcoming. "I don't know," Fleischer said when asked, directing people to financial disclosure laws that don't apply for most Bushes.

Similarly, Bush and his aides did not hesitate to put his children in the national spotlight during the 2000 campaign when news surfaced of Bush's long ago drunk-driving arrest. Why had he not disclosed it? "The governor has twin daughters who were at a very impressionable age," aide Karen Hughes said. "He made a decision as a father that he did not want to set that bad example for his daughters."

But while invoking his daughters to defuse a controversy, Bush and his aides took a different approach when the twins themselves were cited for underage drinking at an Austin bar. Fleischer said questions about the president's sentiments were, this time, out of bounds. "I would urge you to be very careful because any reaction of the parents is parental," he said. "It is not governmental. It is family. It's private."

Asked yesterday to explain the distinction between what the public should know about the Bush family and what invades privacy, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel declined, saying Bush "in general" urges respect for his daughters' privacy.

Stuart Stevens, an advertising consultant to Bush's campaign, said the increasing tendency of politicians to talk about their family life has created an "inevitable trend" toward less privacy. Still, he said, Bush has "found a very comfortable middle ground that places the family above all else."

The White House view of family privacy defies easy categorization. For reasons unclear, Fleischer refused to disclose what the first family ate for Thanksgiving dinner. (Word eventually leaked that they ate turkey, sweet potato puree, green beans and pumpkin pie.) But Fleischer did not hesitate to mention that the first lady sent the president a Valentine's Day cookie hanging from the collar of their dog Barney.

The White House also proved prickly on the question of whether Bush had spoken with his father, a China expert, during the standoff with China over a U.S. surveillance plane last year. "The president has asked me to keep any conversations he has with his father privileged, private," Fleischer said.

At other times, Bush has spoken of his family in a less-than-flattering light. In Orlando in December, Bush cracked: "I did eat with my family – so long as my mom wasn't cooking." Then there was the black-tie dinner where Bush flashed an indecent photo of the Florida governor as a baby. Jeb Bush retaliated at a stadium in Tampa by showing a baby-carriage photo of the future president's bottom.

Bush routinely uses speeches to praise his wife ("I married above myself"), his mother ("Always listen to your mother") and his brother ("I always enjoy coming to states which have a great governor"). Those are easy calls. But what about family actions in the gray area of the public's need to know?

Exhibit A: The president's mother went to Rio last week for Carnival, a two-day parade in which sequined and body-painted dancers wearing very little clothing writhe to a provocative beat. Exhibit B: Brother Neil Bush recently went to Saudi Arabia to offer advice. "The U.S. media campaign against the interests of Arabs and Muslims and the American public opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be influenced through a sustained lobbying and P.R. effort," he reportedly said.

The presidential privacy zone has at times extended to Fleischer's family, too. When a Washington Post story noted that Fleischer's mother had expressed the hope that her son would marry, Fleischer called the reporter to say: "Leave my mother out of it."

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer
Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2002; Page A13
Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company
Contact: letterstoed@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com

Related Articles:

Jeb Bush Urged To Reconsider Drug Law View
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11893.shtml

On Individual Rights Whither Privacy?
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11625.shtml

Why Should We Care? It's Only the Constitution
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11532.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on February 19, 2002 at 10:08:39 PT
Eeeew GROSS!
But Fleischer did not hesitate to mention that the first lady sent the president a Valentine's Day cookie hanging from the collar of their dog Barney.

Too much information!

They want to keep their contacts with Ken Lay private, but then they share information like THIS?

I would puke right now but umm... well you guys understand. ;-)



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by Tigress58 on February 19, 2002 at 07:57:31 PT
Public Servants Are Public Servants
Public servants were private citizens until they ran for and were voted into public office.

Public servants should be subject to full disclosure of past and present criminal background checks, random drug tests, and ALL charges that have ever been brought against them. It is our tax money that employees these rich brats.

Because they are rich gives them the right to hide past offenses? I think not. Their credibility would be tarnished. But they are given the right to tarnish hard working, tax paying citizens. The average annual income where I live is $10,000 - $20,000 per year. These rich bigets have no idea what it is like to live on these wages, and they vote their own pay raises. They are legal outlaws above and beyond the law. This needs to stop!

Noel Bush should get the exact same treatment that the rest of us receive; she should get jail time, community service and wear an orange uniform, probation, and regular drug testing. If this is not suitable for her, then the law needs to be changed.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by goneposthole on February 19, 2002 at 06:35:05 PT
Noelle Bush- what she will receive
She will be awarded:

A lifetime prescription of Xanax

A 'get out of jail free' card

A 100,000 acre ranch in Texas

A 100 million dollar check from the IRS for filing a 1040

A lifelong 'ruined reputation'.

An unforgiving populace, which never receives the 'luxury' of a forgivng government, should be so lucky.

All they ever get is unrelenting HELL.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by CorvallisEric on February 19, 2002 at 06:34:52 PT
Noelle
I really like Zero_G's solution to our Drug Menace, but I guess I'll bet with gloovins. Maybe a little community service in lieu of probation. She could talk to DARE groups about the horrors of Xanax ... oops, I mean marijuana.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by Zero_G on February 19, 2002 at 05:41:12 PT
One Strike and Out in Public Housing...
Aren't the Governor's Mansion in Florida, and the White House Public Housing? Obviously, the Bushes will be evicted forthwith. Of course.

0g

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by gloovins on February 19, 2002 at 03:53:27 PT
Question....
To all cannabis.news readers:

What do you think will happen, legally, to Noelle Bush for her latest forgey-perscript bust?

My bet ( Feb 5 3:50 am posted) :

I think probation, no more than 1-2 yrs & counseling (of course) & a fine.

No Jail time -- 100% certain

Anyone else care to comment/guess>?

We can have a little contest here @ C.N & compare the results when its over....

Good Luck All....

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on February 18, 2002 at 21:29:11