Sunday, December 12, 2004

Nannies, and more...!

Ah, yes, the nanny thing, Bush… Too bad about your Kerik. It's happened to many a good man--and woman--on their way to serve their president and country. It does seem like a peccadillo, too. I mean, how many of us are guilty of slipping, unknowing perhaps, into the crime of hiring an illegal, and them somehow forgetting to pay their taxes? A good many of us, I bet. It does bring to mind some faintly disturbing echoes of indentured servitude, of course. The old slavery issue. Our country was founded on it. It's almost "American". But all in all it does seem like a small offense. Unless, of course, the guy was diddling her on the side, which would raise much larger moral issues. I'm sure your born-agains would find that to be definitely non-kosher.

Which brings me to another subject I've been meaning to raise, though with a certain reticence because the last thing I would want to do is cause offense: I've been worrying a bit about you and Laura, whether you're both getting what you need. If you know what I mean. In the intimacy department. Because I know you're a busy man with all the weighty issues of the world on your mind and--just based on my own limited experience--I know that this kind of distraction can be a disaster for the old libido. But then again, if he's not able to take care of these things in the marital bed, so to speak, a man's attention does begin to wander. It's only natural.

I wonder, for example, if things come up unexpectedly in the course of a cabinet meeting, say, when you're looking across the table at your Condi. Does Nature sometimes present you with a certain, possibly embarrassing challenge? And if so--which would be perfectly understandable--does the non-dominant presidential hand (the one that's not holding the pencil) wander casually beneath the table to check up on His Excellency's well-being? Understandable, of course--and surely not much greater a sin that Jimmy Carter's lusting after women "in his heart"--even though it does involve some minimal action.

And while we're on this somewhat delicate subject, Bush, do you sometimes find yourself taking things, so to speak, into your own hand? That too would be absolutely understandable. I've had occasion to speak to numerous men on precisely this subject--we could maybe talk about the context on another occasion--and I know that almost to a man, if pressed, they will admit to resorting, at least from time to time, to this particular masculine practice. I know that you Biblical folk refer to it as Onanism. That's as user-friendly a term as any. I'm honestly not sure where it rates on your sin scale, but I imagine that it's a good deal further down the list than your predecessor's infamous predilection. Am I right?

Anyway, forgive me for teasing you a bit about these things. Maybe it was rude of me to bring it up, especially on a Sunday. It's just that I'm curious, and anxious for us to get to know each other better. Let me know what you think.


brain jones said...

Dear Sugar Buns, I don’t think I can go on like this. My desire for you is more that I can bear. As I sit across the conference table I see your eyes searching, wanting, pleading. I imagine to myself the coupling of the leader of the free world and the most powerful woman in the free world. My dreams are a blur of cowboy boots, backless chaps and a hearty High-Ho Silver! My knees tremble and go weak at the sight of the little Emperor. Take me with your missile of love!

Damn these feelings! Damn the frustration! Damn the terrorists! You are right, as always, my little hawk, someone must pay for our deep, deep secret . . . and pay they will. If we must sublimate then let the sands of Iraq grow red as a symbol of our unfulfilled passion.

I remain, your faithful servant, Condi

Anonymous said...

kd said...
this is the best web site ever

Jackson said...

Peter is at the very least an honerable man. Not very patriotic (for his "rooting for the insurgents" remark), but honerable. He called me after reading my reply to his very first blog.

It was a nice talk, and he seemed concerned about our friendship. He didn't "uninvite" me from posting. In fact he invited me to read further. So, today I did. But where to start?

Yesterday Peter told me his blog was pretty active, so I decided to see who had replied to any of Peter's blogs. Well, the first one I found was "deleted by Blog Master." Wow, someone must have gotten really out of line. Then I kept scrolling and came across "Nannies, and More...," and bingo, another reply.

But what a vile piece of garbage that reply was. Supposedly coming from Condi Rice. I had heard some Liberals had shown a lack of class with some of their remarks about Condi. But, it's not this igrorant reply that astounds me. No, it's the fact that Peter left it in. Man, that one he deleted must have been way past the line for Peter to remove it and leave this type of tripe in.

I can see right away, that some of the people who post here must start being held accountable for their words.

In the words of my esteemed Govenor....

I'll be back!