Elizabeth Lauten, communications director for Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher, decided that she is authorized to give parental advice to First Offspring Sasha (13) and Malia (16) Obama. She was deeply troubled by the young ladies looking bored in photographs she saw online, so she posted this jaw-dropper on Facebook:
Wow. What a Thanksgiving feast of unethical features! Let’s see:
- Lauten wasn’t there. She just saw some photos. She has no idea how the girls comported themselves.
- This is a stupid annual stunt that would bore a rock. And exactly how dressed up should a bystander be for a turkey pardoning? The whole silly charade is undignified: if a President decided to handle the chore in a straw hat, overalls and chewing on a piece of grass, it wouldn’t be inappropriate. The girls dress was appropriate, but whether it was or not, this is the Obamas’decision, not Lauten’s.
- Obviously, it is not her place to admonish the President’s children, in public, on social media, anywhere. If she wants to criticize how the Obamas involve their kids in official functions, at least the adults are fair game; even that, however, is really none of her business. This is presumptuousness at its worst.
- It is hard enough living in the White House fishbowl for a Presidential family member without strangers taking cheap potshots at you for your facial expressions at a turkey pardoning stunt. How could Lauten be so devoid of compassion, fairness and decency to attack children like this. on such a flimsy charge?
- The accusation that Sasha and Malia have somehow let the nation down by not mastering the Washington adult’s skill of pretending to be engaged and interested when an event is excruciatingly stupid and you would prefer watching a Pauley Shore Marathon on the Hell Cable Channel is unfair in the extreme, and could only be the product of such mindless dislike of the President Obama that all proportion and rationalization have fled the coop.
- This is proved by the gratuitous side swipe at the adult Obamas, the real objective of the post. Thus Lauten is using the Obama’s children to attack their powerful parents: how nauseating—cowardly, irresponsible, mean, and a breach of the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule simultaneously.
After being properly flamed in the social media, Lauten apologized and took down the post. I’m not thrilled with her apology, either; in fact, it’s terrible:
“After many hours of prayer, talking to my parents, and re-reading my words online I can see more clearly just how hurtful my words were. I’d like to apologize to all of those who I have hurt and offended with my words, and I pledge to learn and grow (and I assure you I have)from this experience.”
1. Oh, she was praying. Now we know she’s a good person. Yechh.
2. Oh, she has parents. She’s a kid too! What, does this Congressman have a 12-year old spokeswoman? She needs to talk to her parents to figure out that the post was spectacularly unethical, when anyone with an atom of decency and the IQ of a scallop should know that intuitively?
3. Don’t kid yourself, Liz: this hasn’t hurt anyone but you and your boss. The problem with the post isn’t that it’s true but mean; the problem is that it’s presumptuous, dishonest, insulting, unfair, disrespectful, nasty, manipulative, an abuse of position, and wrong, wrong, wrong.
4. The only pledge we want to hear from Lauten is a pledge to stop picking on children, stop parenting other people’s kids, and to stop using Malia and Sasha to get at their parents. She doesn’t need to “grow,” she needs a good judgment transfusion.
5. She doesn’t apologize to the people she attacked by name, the Obamas!!!! This is a #9 apology on the Ethics Alarms Apology Scale:
9. Deceitful apologies, in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not (“if my words offended, I am sorry”). Another variation: apologizing for a tangential matter other than the act or words that warranted an apology.
The tangential matter, of course, is “hurting” anyone other than the people she attacked.
Any member of Congress who employs a communications director this foolish is untrustworthy himself. People are calling for Lauten to be fired.
I’m not calling for it; if the Congressman keeps her on his staff, that’s useful information: he’s an idiot. But she should be fired.
_______________________________
Facts: ABC News
Ethics Alarms 
She said many of the things I thought when I saw the pictures.
She shouldn’t have said them. Voicing every mean unworthy thought is part of the problem she’s trying to point out. We all need to be more civil.
I’m not a particular fan of stupid political stunts, but the “plastic” family members of previous presidents presented less of a target for incivility and that’s a part of being a child of a public figure. Certainly, not the best part, but appearing to be gracious even when you’re bored out of your mind is a small thing to ask in return for all the perks of living in the White House.
BTW: She did post an apology that seemed pretty genuine.
Right, she really wants to keep that job. Don’t think so.
Jack’s right. The spokesperson acted as a twelve year old.
To anyone who might be a congressional staffer in the future….
Take notes.
Try to learn from others’ mistakes.
What a dummy.
Aren’t we taking this whole incident just a tad too seriously? The woman- a staffer for a congressman- made a critical remark about the deportment of Obama’s two adolescent daughters as he made a TV address to the nation. That it was basically a “nothing” speech was irrelevant. They were on national TV. While they may well have been bored with it, they owed their father the small courtesy of dressing appropriately and not looking like spoiled, pampered teens who are having their “selfie” time cut into. I’m sure that if President Bush’s two daughters had looked and behaved in that manner in front of the country, Mrs. Lauten would have been inclined to make a remark then as well. I would have, myself. In any case, Mrs. Lauten has made what sounds like a pretty sincere apology to me. Anything more on this?!
No, were not, for all the reasons I cited. His children’s deportment is his and Michelle’s to correct if correction is needed. They are children, and not to be attacked by political operatives for being children. You, of all people, should be sensitive to that.
I think that children- teen or preteen- need to learn to behave properly in public. Not only for their own good, but out of respect or those around them; their own parents in particular. When their father is the president of a nation and they’re sharing a TV spot with him, they owe not just him their best behavior, but to that entire nation for whom a president is representative. They might not have asked for being in the First Family… but there they are. Maturity can be adequately described as the willingness to pick up the cards you are dealt and play them well without complaint. And adolescence is the final stage of life before the onset of adulthood. Maybe those two girls needed to know that their White House experience is not all about them. Frankly, their parents might take a notice as well. Somebody outside the circle of sycophants needed to say something, I’m thinking.
Then wouldn’t proper public criticism be directed at the parents?
Them, too. But if kids are going ton appear on national television in any capacity, they need to be prepared to take criticism on their own. As I saw it, Mrs. Lauen’s admonition might have been the same that any parent or teacher might have made… and should have, for that matter.
Typo: “Lauren”.
She’s neither their teacher, nor their parent; she was the employee of a political foe, and her real purpose was to use them to attack their mother and father, Steven.
Probably if they had a choice they wouldnt have appeared at the ceremony.
Which makes a huge difference in levelling criticism.
She is reportedly offering her resignation:
http://news.yahoo.com/congressional-aide-resign-criticizing-obama-children-report-160258746.html
Good.
Won’t some Right winger please knee-jerkedly rise to this poor Republican politicians defense? Please!!!
Crickets…
The point being made here is still statistically valid.
Best part about this is I thibk MSM has covered this more than fast and furious. Give it 2 more days of coverage and it will beat out IRS.