{"id":4101,"date":"2010-05-18T11:55:01","date_gmt":"2010-05-18T15:55:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=4101"},"modified":"2010-05-18T14:59:31","modified_gmt":"2010-05-18T18:59:31","slug":"a-truthsayer-named-bush","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/05\/18\/a-truthsayer-named-bush\/","title":{"rendered":"a truthsayer named Bush&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\"><em>It&#8217;s disappointing to hear <span class=\"DL-topic-highlighted\">Laura Bush<\/span>,  who is a well respected and admired former first lady, espouse  positions on marriage and the value of human life that are contrary not  only to her husband&#8217;s but arguably, according to polls, in conflict with  the majority of Americans.<\/em><\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<div align=\"right\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\"> Carrie Gordon Earll, <em>spokeswoman for Focus on  the Family<\/em><\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"88\" hspace=\"4\" height=\"131\" border=\"1\" align=\"right\" src=\"http:\/\/t1.gstatic.com\/images?q=tbn:XoCRlMqt5C3glM:http:\/\/admatch-syndication.mochila.com\/pimg\/APInc\/APNewsFeatures\/2010\/03\/01\/Books_Laura_Bush-04451.largeslideshow.jpg\" \/>It&#8217;s unlikely that either George Bush or Dick Cheney ever gave much thought to either Gay Marriage or Abortion. They were political positions that put votes in the Republican column &#8211; little more. I&#8217;m not slightly surprised to hear Laura Bush saying these things. She seems a sensible person and these are sensible things to say. Frankly, I would doubt that there&#8217;s any conflict in the Bush home about such things. The Religious Agenda was an expedient to riding the Religious Right&#8217;s vote gathering machine. And during the Bush years, the Religious Right was no better off at the end than the beginning &#8211; except for some gratuitous &#8216;faith based initiative&#8217; money and the absurdity of the &#8216;abstinence only&#8217; approach to sexuality.<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">It is delusional, in retrospect, for a spokesperson for Focus on the Family to speak as if any of the Religious Mumbo Jumbo of the Bush years was anything other than just that &#8211; Mumbo Jumbo. Bush, Cheney, Rove &#8211; I doubt that any of them cared much about it except as fodder for their Talking Points. Remember David Kuo? Kuo wrote a book about the Bush Administration&#8217;s attitude towards the Religious Right after leaving the office in charge of the largely symbolic Faith Based Initiatives:              <\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.everydaycitizen.com\/2007\/06\/tempting_faith_by_david_kuo.html\" target=\"_blank\">Tempting Faith, by David Kuo<\/a><br \/>              Everyday Citizen<\/strong><br \/>              Book Review<br \/>              June  1, 2007<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\"><sup>David Kuo went to Washington wanting to  use his Christian faith to end abortion, strengthen marriage, and help  the poor. He reached the heights of political power, ultimately serving  in the White House under George W. Bush, after being policy adviser to  John Ashcroft and speechwriter for Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and Bob  Dole. It was a dream come true: the chance to fuse his politics and his  faith, and an opportunity for Christians not just to gain a seat at the  proverbial table but to plan the entire meal.<\/sup><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><sup>Instead of following the teachings of Jesus to serve the needy, Kuo  explains that he found himself helping to manipulate religious faith for  political gain. <strong><font color=\"#200020\">Kuo spent nearly three years as second in command at the president&#8217;s  Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.<\/font><\/strong> Yet his experience was  deeply troubling. It took both the Bush White House and a severe health  crisis to show him how his own Christian values, and those of millions  of Americans, were being corrupted by politics.<\/sup><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><sup>Instead of following the teachings of Jesus to serve the needy, Kuo  found himself helping to manipulate religious faith for political gain.  Public funds were used in battleground states, for Republican campaign  events. The legislative process was used as a football, not to pass laws  but to deepen purely symbolic fault lines. Grants were incestuously  recycled to political cronies. Both before and after 9\/11, despite lofty  rhetoric from the president claiming that his faith-based program was  one of his most important initiatives, there was no serious attempt to  fund valuable charities.<\/sup><\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Worst of all was the prevailing attitude in the White House and  throughout Washington toward Christian leaders. Key Bush aides and  Republican operatives spoke of them with contempt and treated them as  useful idiots. It became clear, during regular conference calls arranged  from the White House with a key group of Christian leaders, that many  of these religious leaders had themselves been utterly seduced by  politics. It is time, Kuo argues, for Christians to take a temporary step back  from politics, to turn away from its seductions.<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">The amalgam of Church and State during the Bush years was mostly illusion. Christianity was represented by evangelists from the mega-churches rather than the more traditional denominations. The religious issues were idiosyncratic [abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality], things to oppose, in the behavior of others or society rather than standards for personal conduct. While the Religious Right had come into itself during the Reagan\/Bush era of the 1980&#8217;s, it was going to explode with George W. Bush in 2000. Patrick Buchanan <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Culture_war\" target=\"_blank\">set the stage<\/a><\/strong> in 1992:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>In 1990 paleoconservative  commentator Pat Buchanan mounted a campaign for the Republican nomination for President of the United States  against incumbent George H. W. Bush in 1992. He received  a prime time speech slot at the 1992 Republican National  Convention, which is sometimes dubbed the &quot;&#8217;culture war&#8217; speech&quot;. During his speech, he said: &quot;There is a religious war going on in our  country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to  the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.&quot; In addition to criticizing  &quot;environmental extremists&quot; and &quot;radical feminism,&quot; he said public morality was a defining issue:<\/sup><\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on  America &mdash; abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court,  homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in  combat &mdash; that&#8217;s change, all right. But it is not the kind of change  America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not  the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God&#8217;s  country.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>A month later, Buchanan elaborated that this conflict was about power  over society&#8217;s definition of right and wrong. He named abortion, sexual  orientation and popular culture as major fronts &ndash; and mentioned other  controversies, including clashes over the Confederate Flag, Christmas and  taxpayer-funded art. He also said that the negative attention his talk  of a culture war received was itself evidence of America&rsquo;s polarization. When Buchanan ran for President in 1996, he promised to fight for the  conservative side of the culture war:<\/sup><\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency of the United  States, to the full extent of my power and ability, to defend American  traditions and the values of faith, family, and country, from any and  all directions. And, together, we will chase the purveyors of sex and  violence back beneath the rocks whence they came.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">The Bush era has been a period of unparalleled corruption in both government and religion &#8211; not simply individual greed [the usual], but general erosion of the very values that they promised to uphold. The Machiavellian principle [religion in the service of the Prince] found a rhythm more reminiscent of&nbsp; medieval&nbsp; than modern history.<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">Scandal, it seems, is a powerful force in shaping our political landscape. Without Bill Clinton&#8217;s sexcapades and his subsequent impeachment, I think it&#8217;s unlikely that George W. Bush would have ever been elected in the first place. The recurrent scandals in the Bush Administration and the Religious Right&#8217;s hierarchy took a similar toll in the 2008 election. Now, the message of the Religious Right is being carried by the conservative media, obstructionist Republicans, whatever the TEA Baggers are, and a weakened group of evangelicals who are past their prime. The Separation of Church and State is not yet firmly re-established, but considering where we&#8217;ve been, the road to recovery is at least visible again.<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.realclearpolitics.com\/articles\/2010\/05\/11\/laura_bush_on_larry_king_live_105556.html\" target=\"_blank\">So what did Laura Bush say [Larry King]<\/a>?<\/font><\/strong>     <\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>KING:<\/strong> &#8230; Gay marriage, you tell us in the book that  during the 2004 campaign you talked to George about not making it a  significant issue.  Do you think we should have it?<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>BUSH:<\/strong>  Well, I  think we ought to definitely look at it and debate it.  I think there  are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because  they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman.  But I  also know that when couples are committed to each other and  love each other, that they ought to have I think the same sort of rights  that everyone has.<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>KING:<\/strong>  So would that be an area where  you disagreed?<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>BUSH:<\/strong>  I guess that would be an area that  we disagree.  I mean, I understand totally what George thinks and what  other people think about marriage being between a man and a woman.  And  it&#8217;s a real, you know, reversal really for that to accept gay marriage.<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>KING:<\/strong>  But you do?<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>BUSH:<\/strong>  But I think we  could, yeah.  I think it&#8217;s also a generational thing.<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>KING:<\/strong>  You think it&#8217;s coming?<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>BUSH:<\/strong>  Yeah, that will  come, I think.<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>KING:<\/strong>  How about choice?<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>BUSH:<\/strong>  That was &#8230; about the very first question  I got on the morning of George&#8217;s inauguration, from Katie Couric, who  asked me two questions about abortion.  That was the social issue in  2000 that everyone got asked about.  And then I think gay marriage was  the social issue in 2004.  And I was say probably in the more recent  election as well. She asked me &#8230; two  questions about abortion, and then she asked me if I was for the  overturn of Roe versus Wade.  And sort of everything went through my  mind.  This was the very morning my husband was about to be inaugurated.   And I thought, do I really want to start my husband&#8217;s presidency, you  know, suggesting that a Supreme Court rule being overturned.  And I said  no. And I think it&#8217;s important that it remain legal,  because I think it&#8217;s important for people, for medical reasons and other  reasons.<\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<p>  <strong><font color=\"#200020\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/story\/0,2933,592992,00.html\" target=\"_blank\">So what did Laura Bush say [Chris Wallace]<\/a>? <\/font><\/strong><em><sub>added later<\/sub><\/em>  <\/p>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>WALLACE:<\/strong> Should gays be allowed to marry?<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>BUSH:<\/strong> Well, I think what I really believe is that it&#8217;s something that is so difficult. It&#8217;s a very, very difficult issue for very many people, because the marriage between a man and a woman is so fundamental to our civic life, for all of our history, for the history of humans.  And it&#8217;s a debate that I think people want to have. But I hope they have it in a way that protects people. And in many ways, I think it&#8217;s generational and that gay marriage will come. WALLACE: Gay marriage will come?<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>BUSH:<\/strong> Yeah.<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>WALLACE:<\/strong> And are you OK with that?<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>BUSH:<\/strong> I&#8217;m okay with that.<\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">Laura Bush spoke as any thoughtful person should speak. I&#8217;ll paraphrase it for her more directly. &#8216;<strong><font color=\"#200020\">If I were a gay person in love with someone, I would want the option of formally committing to a long-term shared life &#8211; marriage. If I were a woman who had gotten pregnant but didn&#8217;t want a child, I would like to have the option of terminating the pregnancy &#8211; abortion.<\/font><\/strong>&#8216;<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">Compare that to Pat Buchanan, &quot;<strong><font color=\"#200020\">I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency of the United  States, to  the full extent of my power and ability, to defend American  traditions  and the values of faith, family, and country, from any and  all  directions. And, together, we will chase the purveyors of sex and   violence back beneath the rocks whence they came.<\/font><\/strong>&quot;<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Laura Bush is a <em>kind<\/em> person. That means she treats others as if they are the same <em>kind<\/em> of person she is. Her husband would like to see himself as a <em>kind<\/em> person too, a compassionate conservative, as he liked to put it. But he didn&#8217;t establish an Administration that embraced anything like <em>kindness<\/em>. His alliance with the subgroup of the Christians called the Religious Right was a pact with the Devil. Like many before him, he established a government claiming to fight evil and corruption [Buchanan&#8217;s &quot;purveyors of sex and   violence&quot;], and in the process, he ushered in an era of corruption and deceit unparalleled in our history.    <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">And there&#8217;s something remarkable in the quote above from Focus on the Family:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\"><em>It&#8217;s disappointing to  hear Laura Bush,  who is a  well respected and admired former first lady, espouse  positions on  marriage and the value of human life that are contrary not  only to her  husband&#8217;s but arguably, according to polls, in conflict with  the  majority of Americans.<\/em><\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">Laura&#8217;s saying something she actually thinks rather than some tired old Talking Point from her husband&#8217;s presidency. I guess Focus on the Family focuses on the patriarchal version of the family. Carrie Gordon Earll might as well have said, &#8216;It&#8217;s disappointing to hear Laura Bush thinking for herself.&#8217; I think the rest of us find it refreshing. Maybe Laura&#8217;s helping us put a closing parenthesis on the dark chapter in our history where Talking Points replaced the truth&#8230;  <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It&#8217;s disappointing to hear Laura Bush, who is a well respected and admired former first lady, espouse positions on marriage and the value of human life that are contrary not only to her husband&#8217;s but arguably, according to polls, in conflict with the majority of Americans. Carrie Gordon Earll, spokeswoman for Focus on the Family [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4101","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4101","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4101"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4101\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}