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.
It's certainly nothing that I have ever considered to be conservative...........and I have been one my entire life, and was raised by two strong moral and political conservatives.
It's like we are traveling in a foreign land. These people are nothing like us..........and it is WE who are the conservatives, and who have not changed.
Make that another planet. These people are NOTHING like us.
Sigh. I know what you mean. I fear they are taking us right over a cliff, and only hope that the voters this fall don't do what these so-called conservatives actually want.
As far as I'm concerned, they are agitating for the destruction of this country.
I agree. The hard Right and hard Left often seem to wind up with common objectives, even if they come at them from different perspectives.
Time and time again here in California, I've seen the "I'm a real, principled conservative" crowd sabotage any chance Republicans have of defeating Dims. So we get Boxer and Feinstein in the senate, and Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and their ilk in the house. Plus we get bona fide Marxists in our state legislature.
Now the "real" conservatives are doing it on a national level.
And there's no talking to them. No reasoning with them. They are so cock sure of their rightness. Gag!
That's because they are social liberals, just like the Democrats, but they don't like big government, so when moral Republicans spend too much money, they become the most hated politicians out there (like President Bush......hated by them far more than xlinton).
The result of having Republicans in power for them is constant anger and bitterness, and what, IMO, they desire in calling for the Rats to take power, is a perverse satisfaction in making the country suffer for never being what they want it to be........... morally loose and fiscally tight.
Whatever their motivations, I fear you are right.
I'm not sure that THEY know what their motivations are........it's all emotion, and no reason. Hard to 'analyze' that.
Take it over to DU - they'll love you there.
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.