Originally Posted By Dabob2 FWIW, Laura Bush "says she supports gay marriage and a woman's right to choose, and thinks a law allowing the former "will come" in due time." <a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/419986_tvgif13.html" target="_blank">http://www.seattlepi.com/tvgui...f13.html</a> Not a huge shock for me - she always seemed like she had a better head on her shoulders than her husband - but there may be a few fundies whose heads will explode upon learning this about a woman they semi-idealized for 8 years. Always fun to watch. After they pick up the explosion debris, let's see how viciously they turn on her.
Originally Posted By fkurucz What do you wanna bet that W has similar feelings about those issues? I have to admit that the GOP did a great job of fooling Evangs and Fundies into believing that both W and his father were "one of them".
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Agreed. Shortly after Bush took office in 2001, Laura disclosed her pro-choice beliefs during a television interview. Soon after that, she basically disappeared from the media. No more interviews or guest appearances basically anywhere. And she remained in the WH shadows after that. We knew she was First Lady, but she didn't have nearly the same media coverage given to Barbara Bush or Michelle Obama.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I can believe George was anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. Laura says they disagreed on these things, and there's no real reason for her to say that any more if it weren't true. I don't think they consumed his every waking thought as they seem to with some people, no. I think maybe George was pro-life in the same way Obama is pro-choice; legitimately so, but kind of wishes the whole issue would go away so he could focus on other things. Same with gay marriage on opposite sides, although Obama still feels he needs to make the distinction between civil unions and marriage (and thus officially oppose gay marriage) so as not to alienate a certain voting demographic. <We knew she was First Lady, but she didn't have nearly the same media coverage given to Barbara Bush or Michelle Obama.> I noticed that too. And you didn't even mention her immediate predecessor. I think Laura decided (or it was decided for her) early on that she would be the "anti-Hillary" - out of the news, nearly apolitical, "acceptably" traditional.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Laura Bush was vocal on educational issues. I'm not sure if anyone on the conservative side of the aisle really "idolized" or "idealized" her at all. So far I would say that Michelle Obama has taken a similar approach as Laura Bush when it comes to choosing and agenda and being public. And, I applaud her for that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 First ladies have (at least for the last 50 years or so) traditionally gotten a couple of safe "issues" that they can push without being particular controversial (literacy, "just say no," foster grandparents, Lady Bird's beautification projects and now fighting childhood obesity). So it was pretty much a given that Laura Bush would choose one, and with her teacher's background, hers was a natural fit. But Hillary got far more involved in politics per se, and got slammed for it. It was clear early on that Laura Bush would not do that. And quite a few evangelicals DID idolize Laura, especially as they credited her for "bringing George to Jesus," getting him to stop drinking, etc. There was this whole narrative of George ending his misspent youth, turning to Jesus, sobering up, and "the good wife" was given lots of credit for that (probably quite rightly). This narrative wasn't talked about much outside of evangelical circles (which I have some access to through relatives) but it was BIG within them. It was sort of "proof" that God had chosen George to be our leader. And Laura was the good wife who led him there and then was "keeping her place" as first lady as she should. Trust me, this is how she was viewed by a lot of evangelicals.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I'm happy that Laura has "come out" so to speak on this issue. It saddens me though that she never mentioned her views while in the White House or in the midst of the wild Prop 8 debate. I guess doing what right is secondary to political agendas.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///It saddens me though that she never mentioned her views while in the White House or in the midst of the wild Prop 8 debate./// She did the right thing---- hanging on the sidelines showed wisdom and consideration to her husband. Look, I probably wanted the guy dethroned more than anyone on this board but that's not the point. Laura Bush took the high road. It's not that I agree(nor disagree) with W. but upstaging or contradicting one's spouse in a public setting is not a cool thing to do.
Originally Posted By Labuda "upstaging or contradicting one's spouse in a public setting is not a cool thing to do." If your spouse is Shrub, then I think it's a very cool thing to do. Or if your spouse is the evil Cheney.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I'm going to say that I feel one of the only reason that republicans are so big on anti-abortion laws and anti-gay marriage is not because they give two flying flips about abortion or marriage, it's because they see that as a means to gaining support for their overall position and gaining votes for candidacies. They pick these issues because they know they will be popular with religious less financially well off people. So it doesn't matter if those people will be less financially well off with a republican candidate in office because they can use religion to eclipse all other points. Along the lines of, it doesn't matter if we will make the rich richer and the poor poorer because we are against abortion and god wants you to be against abortion so you better vote for us. They could careless about abortion, they just want the religious vote.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I came in for some criticism here years ago when I refered to her as a 'doormat'. But the years have only that I was right. Yet again. She spent the entirety of both Bush administrations fading into the wallpaper whenever possible. She never asserted herself in any way. She was always unfailingly polite, sensibly dressed, and three steps behind everybody else whenever possible. Honestly, I have no animosity towards Laura Bush, and probably even have empathy for her - a little bit anyway. I don't think she enjoyed the her husband's time in the white house any more than I did. And I tend to believe the tabloid reports about them living separately - she's in the new Dallas house, and W is at the ranch in Crawford. They also say she's smoking, and who am I to say they're wrong?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> the only reason that republicans are so big on anti-abortion laws and anti-gay marriage is because they see that as a means to gaining support for their overall position and gaining votes for candidacies. << This worked for a long time, but I'm not sure it does anymore, at least not enough to swing national elections. But in it's heyday they were able to convince millions of red state voters that they were the "values" voters and their number one concern for america was militant gays. Meanwhile we had been attacked on 9/11, were engaged in two wars of dubious provence, our economics were being hijacked by corporatists, our constitutional rights to privacy were being hacked away wholesale, our electical grid was being gamed for fun and profit, the white house was handing over the keys to the kingdom to military/industrial/energy conglomerates, our domestic programs were being systematically gutted, and we were committing atrocities against our POWs. The "god guns and gays" style of campaigning can only work if enough voters are so easily manipulated and who are gullible enough to fall for their stupid tricks. So they went for the churches. Bingo! One part of me wants to hand it to the GOP for doing such an effective job of 'fooling some of the people all of the time' as a famous republican once said. But I saw it all happening at the time and it would seem like anybody could see right through it for exactly what it was. They weren't particularly clever or artful about it, but it seemed to work anyway. But whether they can pull the same rabbit outta the hat again and again? I'd sure like to see them try.
Originally Posted By mele <<It's not that I agree(nor disagree) with W. but upstaging or contradicting one's spouse in a public setting is not a cool thing to do. >> Why is this? I don't expect every couple to have the exact same opinions on everything. Each person has the right to have their own opinions. I wouldn't respect a person for pretending to agree with their spouse just because they're married. That's ridiculous, especially when it comes to political beliefs. Laura has/had every right to have her individual opinion. Granted, it would be creep if one spouse was always ranting to the press with the opposite opinion of their spouse, as if it were some sort of game but to say that a spouse shouldn't ever voice contradicting opinions is pretty silly.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Who here has ever voted for the President of the United States because of the views of his wife? If their opinion on matters is that important then why don't they hold debates? Not for nothing, but it is true. My wife does not way in on matters in my office...nor I her's. We might talk about it privately but that is the extent of it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It saddens me though that she never mentioned her views while in the White House or in the midst of the wild Prop 8 debate.> I understand what you're saying, but in the world of realpolitik, barboy is right; no first lady is going to publicly contradict her husband on such a hot button issue. Whether she should or shouldn't is another question; practically speaking, it's not going to happen. That said, by the Fall of 2008 when the Prop 8 battle was raging, Bush was a lame duck. Laura Bush could have spoken out at that time without any real political damage to her husband. And in a very close contest, she might have made a real difference with some Republican voters.
Originally Posted By DAR She was on Oprah last week and it was mentioned she's a Bob Marley fan. You like Bob Marley you get a positive mark in my book.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'm going to say that I feel one of the only reason that republicans are so big on anti-abortion laws and anti-gay marriage is not because they give two flying flips about abortion or marriage, it's because they see that as a means to gaining support for their overall position and gaining votes for candidacies. << Its about hoodwinking Evangs and Fundies.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>She was on Oprah last week and it was mentioned she's a Bob Marley fan.<< Great. Now I have this mental image of Laura in dreads, smoking a fat doobie.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<But whether they can pull the same rabbit outta the hat again and again?>> If they could, the Dems would have remained the minority party after 2006 and Obama would have lost in 2008. Going after the religious vote also means going after the Latino Catholic vote. But thanks to the Nazis in Arizona and subsequent states like Utah poised to follow in their footsteps, I doubt the GOP can count on that particular demographic anymore. This mess in AZ is a big game changer for both the primaries and the general election in November. Latino citizens who didn't participate in elections are going to from here on, and they're not going to vote Republican. The racist wingnuts have decidedly shot themselves in the foot with this law. The GOP base was already out in force, voting in every single election. They have no place to go but down, as moderates continue to be disillusioned and leave the party for independents or moderate Dems.
