Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
This is no surprise. In the near future there will be no discernible difference between Republican and Democrat; politics is now a zero-sum game, with government control as the Total.
Laura is pro choice because it is the cornerstone of the feminist agenda. If feminism were pro life, Laura would be pro life.
Yay! How can the Democrats continue insisting that Republicans = Taliban after this. You have to know Jeremy will.
Lem - being pro-abortion rights is just being decent. It has nothing to do with the "feminist agenda".
I have never knew what Laura Bush's political leanings are so this doesn't exactly blow my skirt up.
Laura Bush is a Libertarian.I kind of knew that already. But, it's nice to hear it confirmed.
The politics of the first spouse only become important or relevant if the first spouse attempts to take an active role in the office of the president (i.e. Hillary). Mrs. Bush took no such role. Thus, this maybe the most irrelevant thing ever posted on this site.
Lem - being pro-abortion rights is just being decent. IF you define "decent" as acquiescing to the death of a million to one million and one-half babies a year. (Not to spark a debate about Abortion, but merely to point out that it is FACILE to simply say that this controversial procedure is "decent.")It has nothing to do with the "feminist agenda".Absolutely not, and that's why 90%-plus of "Feminists" are Pro-Choice, and the few Pro-Life Female politicians are variously known as "a Shiksa B*thces" or "Not Womyn." Or a man who has an affair with a womon who could be his daughter and who in any other situation would be considered a sexual harasser, can get a pass, because that male politician is Pro-Choice. But you're right Pro-Choice has NOTHNG to do with Feminism or a Feminist or a Progressive Agenda...Be Pro-Life OR Pro-Choice, but don’t strain your credulity with silly statements like that.
Republicans have always been more open-minded than they've been given credit for. This is not a surprise.
Are they voting on this in Texas?
Echoing what was already said - supporting abortions is "being decent?" WHAT? Is this another "be polite and don't have opinions that contradict mine" example?
Somehow, I thought we already knew this.
It's Book Season!She doesn't look like what I remember her looking like.
I don't believe it's pro-abortion; it's being for a woman's right to choose and not the State's. It's not about being pro-gay marriage; it's supporting every person's right to marry the person he/she loves. Courageous woman to openly answer with her own thoughtful opinions.
She doesn't look like what I remember her looking like.The horns tend to recede when back in private life. I was never fooled by her. Bush and Cheney were only fronts. Behind that motherly smile she was really running the show.
and she smokes!She is right, it needs to remain legal.I thought y'all were for less government around here.
Game, set, match. Laura has gotten hers, and to get theirs the coming generations will have to do historical research to find out what they are missing in the new world without strong marriage vows and primarily served by immigrant labor needed to do all the jobs that Americans cannot do since, with the Governments help, they died shortly before their birth certificates were issued for them.
"It's not about being pro-gay marriage; it's supporting every person's right to marry the person he/she loves. Courageous woman to openly answer with her own thoughtful opinions."I think it's just as courageous to oppose same-sex marriage and be called a hater and a homophobe.
I thought y'all were for less government around here.All political ideologies break down to "more of the government I like" and "less of the government I don't."
Certainly the current crop of Democrats and Republicans, Beth, but not "all political ideologies". As Carrie said, Laura could be consistent as a small-government Libertarian.
She had to say this. Now maybe the left wing hyena assholes will finally shut up about the car wreck she had when she was seventeen.
I watched the entire interview though I tried to turn my face when Larry was on screen. Laura Bush was not jumping for joy at the thought of legal abortion. She was quite clear that she thought it should be legal but sparingly used. She has the views of most Americans who are routinely vilified by sneering lefties. The difference is that, unlike lefties, abortion is not the single most important tenet of her belief system. After thinking that conservatives are racists, of course.
I'm not surprised. It's consistent with some of her unpublished diary excerpts that I've read on line somewhere.
"All political ideologies break down to "more of the government I like" and "less of the government I don't.""Mighty broad brush there, Beth.
She's married to a Bush, so she'd probably be fairly center-left on this sort of thing, although, given that she's always presented herself as something of a fundamentalist Protestant, I am a bit surprised.Guy Average said... This is no surprise. In the near future there will be no discernible difference between Republican and DemocratThis is why the Tea Partiers are working within the Republican Party. Some people would like to see a real opposition to the small c communists.
We always knew Laura Bush was a liberal -- this really shouldn't be news.Same way Teresa Heinz was a conservative.People just get caught up in the assumption that people in marriages have the same politics. 'Tisn't true; never was.
". . . given that she's always presented herself as something of a fundamentalist Protestant, I am a bit surprised."Fundamentalist? As in no drinking, no dancing? I don't think she has ever tried to present herself as anything other than a mainline Protestant (Methodist, in her case). George W. is more of an evangelical.
Alex: being pro-abortion rights is just being decent.Being pro-abortion rights means supporting Roe v. Wade, which means forcing your legal views down the throats of the electorate via non-democratic means—the diametric opposite of being decent.Want to really be decent? Spend your spare time fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would return the issue to the state legislatures, exactly as capital punishment is today. Then your fellow citizens could vote their consciences and, if they felt strongly enough about the issue, move to a state that more closely reflects their values. That would be decent.
Kristin, I would agree with you on the courage part -- but whose rights are you fighting for to oppose same-sex marriage? What is it that people are afraid of for the State to recognize same-sex unions? It doesn't have to fit your idea of a marriage any more than one in which you know people who cheat on one another and ultimately divorce. I see no more of a sacrilege in gay marriage than in many straight people's marriages -- with an almost 50% divorce rate, do you? To me, it's real courage to fight for someone else's rights, not just to oppose what you fear or don't understand. Just saying.
Better yet -- for every straight marriage that fails in America, or for every straight marriage that ends because of adultery, I say that one gay couple be allowed to marry. WHY should straights get the second, third, fourth, unlimited chance(s) when they don't get at least one? I hope that didn't offend, but it would make sense -- that is, if the consensus is still that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
for every straight marriage that ends because of adultery, I say that one gay couple be allowed to marry.And after, say, 20 years we can see who f**ked up marriage more.Cool....when do we start?
Being pro-abortion rights means supporting Roe v. Wade, which means forcing your legal views down the throats of the electorate via non-democratic means—the diametric opposite of being decent.1. You write this as if Roe v. Wade is the first Constitutionally-based limitation placed on states, ever. It's not. 2. The front part of your statement is false anyway. A legally discerning mind can agree that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but still be pro-abortion rights. One such: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.3. Nobody has ever passed a law under Roe v. Wade that forced anybody to do anything. All you are "forced" to do is abide with the knowledge that somewhere in America, someone is doing something you don't approve of. It's not you who's doing it, and you don't have to pay for it. 4. It's unfortunate that Obamacare has muddied what used to be a pretty clear and fair compromise, to wit: Abortion is legal to anyone who wants one, at least for the first trimester, however no tax dollars will go toward any abortion expenses. If you take Obama's executive order seriously, as not a disingenuous political gesture to give cover to a quivering politician, however, then the distinction still exists. The reason Laura Bush is pro-choice is because we don't live in country where individual moral choices are codified into law. If you don't like abortion, you are free to preach against it, and if you are articulate enough, you will probably convert many. Freely, of their own will. But not by law. I think it's more significant and encouraging that she supports gay marriage. It would even better if Obama made the same statement. Maybe this will give him cover.
You would have already know this if you were following Laura Bush's Diary like all the cool people do!
we don't live in country where individual moral choices are codified into law.Depending on how "individual" is supposed to modify "moral choices", this statement is either tautological or preposterous. There's no third possibility.
The real mystery is why Larry King refrained from any wrestling midgets questions.
Well Larry King is not well read after all. Plus there is a story about Larry King and Barbara that is yet to be told.Or so I hear.
What Beth said.
Wow Ben. How many comments did it take until the ignorami had to wait for yours to inform them that Laura was a always Democrat?Watch the Oliver Stone movie.
Yes, there's no better source of facts than an Oliver Stone movie.I'm very anti-"First Lady", no matter who is in office. The spouse of an elected official should have absolutely no role in the government whatsoever. I think it's outrageous that the "First Lady" has a staff and an agenda and the ear of the media. We didn't fight the Revolution to mimic to establish a King and Queen in America. I don't care if she's advocating literacy, health care, anti-obesity or whatever. We don't elect "co-Presidents" in the US. Or at least I wish we wouldn't.
meanwhile, the current first lady would rather wear frocks from all of the leading young gay designers today than wear her support, if it exist, for their right to marry on her sleeve.
"To me, it's real courage to fight for someone else's rights, not just to oppose what you fear or don't understand. Just saying."That "Just saying" thing is so annoying. I don't believe that every person who opposes same-sex marriage fears it or does not understand it or both. In my state, Proposition 8 supporters "courageously" harassed Mormons who voted to oppose same-sex marriage, although blacks voted the same way in high numbers. Elite opinion in this country supports same-sex marriage. I don't think it takes courage to swim with the tide.
Proposition 8 supporters "courageously" harassed Mormons who voted to oppose same-sex marriage, although blacks voted the same way in high numbers.Yes, it would have been interesting to have seen those protestors go out to the 'hood and try some of their bullying tactics.It's too bad for gays that they've allowed the Leftists to completely co-opt the narrative.
I don't think anyone on earth was in favor of gay marriage fifty years ago. It truly is a generational thing.....Forty years ago a great many enlightened people considered abortion a birth control method. That's changed with the generations also......We like to think that rights and morals are self evident but for the most part they are lessons learned and lessons for further study.
She's so likable there! Much more interesting too than as first lady. Kirsten I agree about the stand regarding gay marriage, completely. Also, yeah, something's been done looking at the vid posted on this site, but when i had it up on the tv with the sound turned down, the difference was not so striking.
Proposition 8 supporters "courageously" harassed Mormons who voted to oppose same-sex marriage, although blacks voted the same way in high numbers.That would be prop 8 opponents.
Kristin, I don't consider intimidators to be courageous. But neither do I consider people to be in the right who would vote to restrict others' choices that do not even remotely relate to them. This is a civil rights issue and one of oppression, not an elitist movement at all; it's a matter of more influential and learned people realizing what's right and learning from history. I think that all of us Christians had many years to offer acceptance and respect to homosexuals before they felt the need to come out, create an organized gay culture, and force an agenda, so shame on us. And I think the Lord had much, much more to say about other more important issues such as divorce and adultery than homosexuality. And I don't think that God listed "homosexuality" as one of the seven things He hates, although he did list haughtiness -- as in "you" (who adultered/divorced) are accepted by society/the church to remarry, but "you" (who are homosexual and an otherwise upstanding in the community) are NOT accepted and are damned. Who made us Christians the gatekeepers of our entire American culture. It's part of the hijacking of my faith and foray into politics, and I resent it. Law is not religion. When did people decide to pick and choose what sins they will accept in society and what sins they would not? The answer is that it had to do with who were fewer -- say, 10% of the population of homosexuals. It makes them easier to bully, doesn't it -- and less of a majority. However, the majority is now waking up, and the oppressors are upset about it. I would think that true Christians would hold their arms out to everyone as Christ instructed, since we are all sinners. And I notice that you put a lot of effort in calling my diction annoying but didn't address my second post about the failure of straight marriages on a large scale, nearly half; I find that very interesting because it's a logical point that you ignored. And I find your condescending and almost hostile tone the norm among closed-minded right-wingers that needs to change.
So where are the tea bagging wing nuts who spend their days here opposing a woman's "choice" or whining about gays...screaming for Laura's head?Hypocritical weasels.
Kirstin said..."I guess I'm not surprised. What has she had done? She looks so different."Brain implant?Got away from spotlight on President G.W. Dooofus and is finally able to speak for herself?Duh.
So where are the tea bagging wing nuts who spend their days here opposing a woman's "choice" or whining about gays...screaming for Laura's head?The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with the social-conservative agenda. It is about economic issues. In fact, all the people I personally know who have attended rallies are pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage. :)Anyway, I'm not surprised Laura Bush feels this way. I never got the impression her husband was all that enthusiastic about banning gay marriage either, to be honest. It felt like red meat for the bible thumpers.
But neither do I consider people to be in the right who would vote to restrict others' choices that do not even remotely relate to them.But that argument only makes sense if you assume the fetus has no rights of its own. If it does, your argument falls apart.For example, if I said I was against letting Asian people own black people as slaves would you say "neither do I consider people to be in the right who would vote to restrict others' choices that do not even remotely relate to them"? After all, I'm not Asian or black, so what business is it of mine if Asians own black slaves?Well, the answer is that black people have certain rights, and those rights should be defended by any decent person. That's how the pro-life crowd thinks about abortion: they don't think the mother's rights trump the rights they feel the fetus has, just as I don't think an Asian person's property rights trump the human rights of black people.
This is a civil rights issue and one of oppression, not an elitist movement at all; it's a matter of more influential and learned people realizing what's right and learning from history.If you'd separated these clauses with a period instead of a semicolon you would at least have spared yourself the embarrassment of contradicting yourself within a single sentence.
We like to think that rights and morals are self evident but for the most part they are lessons learned and lessons for further study.Unless you have some standard other than what people believe at a given moment, you'll never be in a position to say whether lessons have been learned or unlearned.
It was common knowledge that Laura Bush was a liberal long before Oliver Stone's film came out.It's okay to be a liberal. Most of my friends are -- I don't hold it against them that their policy views would lead, over the long run, to the fall of Western Civilization.Political differences aren't unusual -- the way they're dealt with is the non-elected spouse just keeps his or her mouth shut about politics in public (so as not to get the elected spouse in trouble), and does apolitical things in his/her official role. As Laura Bush did while she was First Lady.***Me, I lean pro-life (when in doubt, err on the side of life) and pro-gay marriage (if two people want to unite, let them live their lives).I think the latter is the proper libertarian position, and the former depends entirely on your premises (i.e., the standing of the fetus; I'm not sure, therefore I err on the side of assuming it does have standing).
Eric, you are right. I meant opponents of Proposition 8 (who were for the California Supreme Court's decision).
Paul Zrimsek, no embarrassment on my part. I get what elitist is. What I wrote is correct -- "more influential and learned people," not "THE more influential and learned people" -- "more" as in greater numbers, as in the majority, not "more" as in "THE more influential and learned people." Perhaps you should spare yourself embarrassment and read more carefully next time, instead paying attention to the points being made than in tearing them apart.
Paul Zrimsek, no embarrassment on my part.Not ever, I imagine.
Not ever, I imagine.That's rarely, sir. I am a thoughtful commenter.
Post a Comment