Althouse: "You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 —

May 8, 2007

"You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 —— "

President Bush gets in a dig at the Queen about the Revolution... or bumbles his speech. Which is it?

18 comments:

George M. Spencer said...: US Constitution: Article 1, Section 9:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

How glad I am that we have no royalty in America.; 5/8/07, 7:49 AM
Fritz said...: Perhaps John Murtha will criticize the President for making light of the dead patriots that fought to free us form this British Monarch. Planned remark.; 5/8/07, 7:49 AM
zdwyatt said...: Given the look he gave her after he said it, I'd say it was scripted.; 5/8/07, 7:53 AM
The Bearded Professor said...: How glad I am that we have no royalty in America.

But...but...you mean...wait a second...what about...I mean...isn't Paris Hilton...yea...I though she was...a princess.; 5/8/07, 7:54 AM
Balfegor said...: Not sure on the remarks, but the President's tailcoat and trousers don't seem to be particularly well tailored. Compare with Prince Phillip on the left there in the NYT photo -- the trousers don't bag at the bottom the way they do on Bush, and the jacket comes down far enough to cover the vest. You'd think his wife (and Dr. Rice) would have made sure he looked presentable, and made him rent an ensemble that fit, as long as they were pushing for white-tie.; 5/8/07, 7:56 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I thought it was pretty funny myself particularly how he recovered. I have nothing against the Royals but screw em if they can't take a joke.; 5/8/07, 8:00 AM
Kevin Lomax said...: "but the President's tailcoat and trousers don't seem to be particularly well tailored. Compare with Prince Phillip on the left there in the NYT photo -- the trousers don't bag at the bottom the way they do on Bush, and the jacket comes down far enough to cover the vest."

Take a closer look at the picture. Prince Phillip has a blue sash that covers up the white vest extending below his jacket on the one side and he is turned slightly so you don't see the gap on the other. As for the pants, Bush appears to be shifting his leg and excepting for that, the fit appears to be about the same. I do hope you're not one of those people who just looks for any way to get a dig in against Bush. That would be irrational.; 5/8/07, 8:10 AM
The Bearded Professor said...: I do hope you're not one of those people who just looks for any way to get a dig in against Bush. That would be irrational.

About as irrational as grown adults sitting around talking about the fit of vests and trousers.; 5/8/07, 8:19 AM
Roost on the Moon said...: I think it was just one of those now-familiar Bush verbal flubs. What was new about it though, was the graceful exit. In one sentence, he thwarted any attempts to take offense regarding either the queen's age (by associating her with wise motherhood) or the revolution (by implying that America is the child of Britain.)

It sounds like he kind of stumbled on to it, but it was remarkably quick-witted.; 5/8/07, 9:18 AM
hdhouse said...: Christ sake, this President WooWoo has no idea what day it is let alone what century. Frankly I think the word bicentennial confused him...his mind flashed to a confused sexual state sometime in the last 100 years.; 5/8/07, 9:20 AM
Balfegor said...: Re: Roost:

About as irrational as grown adults sitting around talking about the fit of vests and trousers.

Bah! Come on -- we get posts on that one WaPo fashion writer all the time. Haha.

Re: Kevin Lomax:

Take a closer look at the picture. Prince Phillip has a blue sash that covers up the white vest extending below his jacket on the one side and he is turned slightly so you don't see the gap on the other.

No, the sash isn't covering the vest -- you can see the angle the waistcoat is making and the angle the tailcoat is making. The tailcoat would cover the white even if the sash weren't there.

I do hope you're not one of those people who just looks for any way to get a dig in against Bush. That would be irrational.

If you've read my other comments on this blog, you should realise I am, in fact, a bit of Bush II booster. But approving of Bush as a politician is completely irrelevant to thinking he looks awkward in tails.; 5/8/07, 9:23 AM
Balfegor said...: Sorry that's StephenB, not Roost, above.; 5/8/07, 9:24 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I was hoping the word "sexual" would turn up in the comments. Thanks, hd.; 5/8/07, 9:43 AM
Wade Garrett said...: Knowing Bush, it was a screw-up.; 5/8/07, 10:37 AM
Revenant said...: It could have been a mistake, but then again it fits Bush's sense of humor, too. Maybe a Freudian slip?

Either way, it was funny.; 5/8/07, 12:20 PM
reader_iam said...: If you haven't seen the actual video of this, you're probably missing something.; 5/8/07, 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: No royalty in the United States?

Hmmmm - Like our President would have been where he is if he didn't share his father's name???; 5/8/07, 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: And it was probably Bush's attempt at a joke.

Whatever. He's done worse.; 5/8/07, 8:15 PM