a friend of mine, a very liberal friend, posted this to her facebook and was so pleased to hear that one Bush was more tolerant than the other Bush. This same person, finds the Arizona enforcement of the Federal law unfathomable. Wait, you want abortion to be legal cause it’s already the law of the land and it’s a womans right. You want gay marriage legalized even tho it is not the law of the land in most states. And you want the Arizona law abolished, even though it is an enforcment of long standing federal law. They want it both ways all the time.
Beyond the fact that Hillary Clinton is an outspoken proponent of certain social policies, while Laura Bush seems to be not as open, is there really any difference between two of them?
We’ve know for a long time that Laura wasn’t a true conservative. That can probably be said about GW too.
This really isn’t surprising at all.
The disappointing thing about this is that she was not asked the more important question of procedure, or in other words of how she thinks the issue should be decided. The media is so biased and unoriginal that they almost never get to this, and this question really is more important than one’s actual views on gay marriage.
While it is absurd to claim that support for gay marriage is conservative (as some have tried, like newly activist Ted Olson), I don’t have a problem with an otherwise-conservative Republican supporting gay marriage IF they are steadfast on the role of the judiciary and of who gets to decide this issue. Anyone who supports the ludicrous idea that the Constitution demands state recognition of same-sex unions, and that courts should impose it should have no place in the conservative movement, or GOP. Anyone who supports this idea is a champion of the ‘living Constitution’ and judicial supremacy, and as such have no right to complain about any activist court decision. The same goes for abortion. We should at least be able to agree on the proper role of the Courts. If anything can be a dividing line it is this. I don’t mind having more ‘moderate’ Republicans from deep blue states, but if they are not good on the proper role of the courts, then I have no use for them.
So that should have been the follow-up for Laura Bush. She should have been asked; ‘okay, but do you think there is a Constitutional right for state recognition of same-sex unions that should be imposed by the courts, or do you think this is an issue properly left to the democratic process? Do you, Mrs Bush, think that the decision made by over 70% of Texans to ban gay marriage should stand, or do you think 5 judges on the Sup Court should disregard that and impose gay marriage/civil unions?’
This is a question that should be put to people like David Frum too, who pretty much recommend that conservatives unconditionally surrender on this issue in order to avoid being on ‘the wrong side of history.’ Well, California might vote the other way a few years down the road. A few states may be close to the point where majorities would support gay marriage, but in many states (probably most) the people will not support gay marriage any time soon, and maybe never...and their decision should stand, and not be subject to overrule by 5 judges.
How about this : “ .... and please tell Laura Bush not to state her true views on abortion, homosexuality or anything else in public anymore and especially not on all those liberal shows she has been pitching her book on. Please let her stick to her country school-marm apple-pie love-the-children routine so we can all cry again when we read her next book and not think about this embarrassing anti-conservative stuff. ”
BTW : This is all GHs fault AGAIN. He had to make that funny comment early in the thread and get me started. He is a bad influence.
Agree? Disagree with this argument?
Please don't call me a Laura-bot. Some of you have been mean to me :)
The disgusting idolatry that was practiced toward Laura Bush for YEARS here on FR was frankly: sinful.
There. I said it, and I’ll stand by it.
Is there no one, even here, who understands how agreeing to use the euphemism “gay” to describe sodomites is a significant defeat in the culture war?
It is an axiom on the left: If you want to change what people think, first change the words they use.
Resist, people, resist!
*snip*
[I]n her memoir, she admits asking her husband during the 2004 presidential campaign not to make gay "marriage" a significant issue.
*snip*
Laura Bush isn’t a true-blue conservative? SHOCKA!
Rush just said that it doesn’t matter if the next supreme court justice is a lesbian.
After I heard this woman on Chris Wallace’s show. I lost all respect for her. She is an unabashed lib. Glad she kept her ignorant piehole shut during her husbands screwed up tenure.
SIGH.
Mental, spiritual pollution seems so pervasive in our era.
This information doesn’t surprise me. She hasn’t been forthcoming with her opinions on subjects that disagreed with her husband’s positions as POTUS for eight years; but, she wasn’t dishonest.
I disagree very much with Laura Bush’s views. I wouldn’t be surprised if her daughters share them. To her credit, she showed respect for her husband and for the presidency by fulfilling her role as First Lady without making an issue of the fact that her views differed with his political stance.
I’m thankful every day that this nation had GWB, and Laura, for eight years instead of Al Gore, and Tipper. I just pray that we can survive Barry and Michelle, and rectify some of the damage done on Capitol Hill.