Posted on 05/22/2006 8:11:56 AM PDT by Daniel T. Zanoza
It was well-noted Hillary Clinton played a significant role concerning policy decisions during the eight years of her husband's administration. In fact, Bill Clinton gave his wife the daunting task of formulating a national health care plan, during the first term of Clinton's presidency. The First Lady's elaborate bureaucracy-creating strategies for national health care ushered on one of the early defeats of the Clinton administration and she was never again given such a role in governmental policy-making.
Although Hillary Clinton had to take a back seat regarding the actual workings of government, it was believed she played a major role in the philosophical direction taken by Bill Clinton's White House. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton was said to have exerted dynamic force upon her husband's policy-making and her legacy as First Lady cannot be denied--whether you agree with her or not.
While it is thought Hillary Clinton tried to pull a liberal administration even further to the left, it is becoming clear her successor, Laura Bush, has worked to put a more liberal face on a conservative presidency.
It is becoming evident Laura Bush may also be influencing White House policy on a myriad of social issues facing the nation. From the beginning of the Bush administration, it was said the First Lady was not online with G.W.'s stand on abortion. A number of early interviews, where Laura Bush was questioned on the issue of abortion, seemed to indicate her beliefs were more in line with those who support abortion rights. The mainstream media often pointed to Mrs. Bush's pro-choice position on the right to life issue which aggravated some social conservatives to no end. But it appears though Laura Bush has never been given a formal task in government, like creating a national health care strategy, it is obvious she has substantial influence on her husband's policy-making.
Shortly after the attacks on 9/11, George Bush made many statements concerning his plans to fight terrorism. In a famous sound byte, Bush said, "In the American west, we used to have posters, which said 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'" Bush was referring to the hunt for 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden. The President's statement was a big hit across the country. Many believed it was time America stood up to terrorism after the passive years of the Clinton administration. But Mrs. Bush had a different idea about her husband's language. It was reported she told the President to tone down his rhetoric regarding the pursuit of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda operatives. To some, it seemed like a bow to political correctness that many Americans did not want to hear after the murder of three thousand countrymen.
Apparently, Laura Bush's counsel is not being well received by many social conservatives. In a recent interview with FOX television, Mrs. Bush said the debate over same-sex "marriage" should not be used as a campaign tool. This language has infuriated some of the President's conservative base. Mrs. Bush's comments infer the effort to define marriage as a union solely between one man and one woman is somehow only driven by political expedience. Indeed, the President himself has seemed to back off of his call for a Constitutional Amendment regarding the issue. It is obvious Mrs. Bush has a much more liberal take of the world than her husband. Some are beginning to say Bush himself may not have the courage to stand up to his wife and to stand up for conservative family values.
Suddenly, administration officials are playing down the need for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage, saying the issue should be decided by individual states. Of course, this is a ridiculous premise. Activist judges in two states have recently struck down DOMA laws (Defense of Marriage Act) and it is clear national legislation must be enacted on the subject--if the institution of marriage is to be protected.
Perhaps George Bush's position on illegal immigration becomes more clear--after witnessing the First Lady's influence on the President's social agenda. The administration has been blasted by Americans regarding Bush's call for amnesty concerning the 12 million illegal immigrants who currently reside in the United States. Is it possible President Bush's tin ear on the subject results from the counsel of Laura Bush?
The First Lady's influence on the Bush presidency may be a futile effort to fashion the administration as being more mainstream. The only problem is, a vast majority of Americans--besides social conservatives--support things like: a crackdown on illegal immigration, the protection of the marital institution, and a tough no-holds barred approach to terrorism. The truth is, if Laura Bush has an inordinate influence on administration policy, it is also true this is hurting the Bush presidency.
More and more Republican legislators may be deciding to run against George Bush's stand on issues like illegal immigration. However, in reality, these Republicans may find themselves running against the policies of Laura Bush.
Snugs view was a narrowly stated one...you broadened it to call it her view of representative democracy. Her point was that he stated his positions when he ran and that to go beyond that and demand he toe your every line because you voted for him is not fair.
In the case of Laura, even though she has come off as less than enthusiastically supportive of some of his socially conservative positions (said guardedly, because she's so diplomatic its hard to tell), Laura is not the President and she will not call the shots on socially conservative positions he has taken.
I would remind everyone who thinks her words rule the day as if the President himself said them that they are very mistaken.
That's technically true, but I have a hard time believing that Laura is the kind of wife who would stray from her husbands positions in such an openly political way. They are close enough (Bush and Laura) to warrant suspicion that her words are a reflection of his position. But you are correct, perhaps she was just being a wayward wife for a day, or they have some kind of agreement that she can actively promote ideas contrary to his when interviewed by the press. I just doubt it.
Well, then, I suppose Dubya will just have to fire her and appoint another wife.
[/sarcasm][If you really need the disclaimer, you're an idiot.]
No, seriously, I'm just waiting to see how long it is before somebody goes after the twins, the dogs and the cat.
;o)
I owe President Bush a debt of gratitude.
Are you married? Is it a good marriage?
Do you agree down the line with everything that your wife thinks, or she with you? And do you stifle her free speech if she disagrees with you? Do you control her and keep her in line?
If so, I understand why you believe that Laura Bush has no freedom to state her own views.
It has been previously stated that we elected HIM, and not her. And yet with him, we got a First Lady who is pure class and the most dignified First Lady we have ever had.
But the petty, small minded among us still make an effort, as you have right here on this thread, to diss her.
It says alot about you, Ghost..............and not a single thing about Laura Bush .......or her husband.
God bless them both! We may never see such a fine couple in the White House ever again.
I believe a President and First Lady are in a very different situation than your average married couple. When the wife is being interviewed by the liberal media about poltical issues, I would think she would be more like Barbara Bush on the abortion issue. BB differed with her husband but refused to say so until after he was out of office. After all, she was not elected to any poltical office. Her job was to support her husband. I thought that was the right call. I suspect Laura Bush feels the same way. Even Hillary kept it pretty close to the Stainmaster, and consider what marital offenses she was putting up with.
So.........if I read you correctly, you are saying that Laura Bush is 'telling the truth' and that her husband is lying about social issues?
Even when Bush gave lip-service to it, he was hedging. Change the name and he's for it.
These days I think many voters just expect their candidate to lie a little. Note how some McCain supporters are thinking he's lying just to win the Republican primary -- and they are perfectly okay with it.
We get just the kind of candidates we deserve.
This is crap. If anything, she strengthens it.
The President is, and has been consistently pro-life and pro-marriage. (And even the hostile attitude of this article toward Laura is based on 'INFERENCE' and not 'FACT.' She has only talked about marriage relative to it's being a 'campaign issue' and has never said she approves of gay 'marriage.' They're guessing about Laura, and drawing conclusions based on their guesswork.......which is dishonest at best. It's an absurd article).
And your accusation that President Bush is a liar of any kind says much about you, Ghost.........and none of it is good.
The fact is that she DOES strengthen it...........which is why she's on the road so much campaigning for Republican candidates.
Is Bush for or against civil unions? Being for civil unions is hardly a pro-marriage position. He hedged. I'm sorry that your affection for him makes it difficult for you to see that, but it is what it is.
This article is talking about marriage. It is insinuating that Laura, because she doesn't think it should be a campaign issue, has a view different from her husband, and therefore will 'hurt' his stand among social conservatives.......stupid speculation in the first place.
But you have even taken it a step farther by accusing him of lying, and accusing them both of not believing that marriage is between a man and a woman........even more stupid speculation. You have no proof with which to make the accusation, so you changed the subject. But the fact of the matter is, that if the President came out in favor of civil unions, it would lessen your accusation that he is a liar even more, because if he were just trying to pull the wool over our stupid social conservatives' eyes.......why would he do such a thing?
It is not 'affection' for the President that makes me argue this point. It is a keen interest in having the truth be told about what he has said and done............and you have an unfortunate habit of neglecting to do that.
Your premise is based on your complete lack of respect for President Bush. You could learn a lot about honor if you paid closer attention to him.
Might I suggest that you join the newly formed Freeper Natalie Maines Fan Club? She feels the same way that you do about him.......
What a waste of broad band!
If this is what it takes to be a "conservative," I want no part of it. The First Lady has a right to her views, and a right to discuss them with her husband.
Civil unions are marriage by another name. Anyone claiming to be for gay civil unions but not gay marriage is dishonest.
Thanks ever so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.