Unlike, I sometimes feel, practically every gay or lesbian person in the country, I'm doing my best not to make up my mind about President Obama before he's been in office, say, a week. Given the scope of the economic and foreign-policy problems he's facing, I think it's silly to expect quick action on gay issues. In fact, our side should be hoping he remembers the lesson of Bill Clinton and takes time to build credibility and lay groundwork before tackling, say, gays in the military. I'm cautiously optimistic that having Rick Warren give the inaugural invocation was a shrewd way of reassuring the cultural center-right that subsequent gay-friendly policy changes won't augur a sharp left turn.
Still, it's useful to remember that, once upon a time, George W. Bush looked like a different kind of Republican, one who might bring gays into the Republican big tent. Remember the Republican Unity Coalition? It sought to make homosexuality a "non-issue" within the Republican Party, and Bush seemed receptive-until, as coalition founder and (former) Bush family friend and fan Charles Francis puts it in a Washington Blade article, the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in 2003. Then Bush's head spun faster than Linda Blair's and all bets were off. Writes Francis, who shuttered the RUC and wrote off Bush:
This was the beginning of a years-long failure and squandered opportunity for the Republicans, who sure lost me, and now, most important, wonder how they could have lost a whole new generation of Americans.
Bush never came to office expecting to slam the GOP's door on gay Americans for a generation. Events forced him to choose and he chose wrong. As former Bushie Pete Wehner points out, governing is harder than promising. We'll see.
17 Comments for “Where Bush Went Wrong…”
posted by BobN on
“Events forced him to choose”
Cough, cough. What events forced him to chose? Karl laying out the path to a “permanent GOP majority”?
As for the RUC, is there any evidence at all that it was anything but a sham?
posted by Bobby on
IF Bush is such a bigot, how come he didn’t try to pass a constitutional amendment against sodomy once the Supreme Court struck down those laws? Gee, I guess he’s not such a bigot.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I suspect that President Bush recognized a dead horse when he smelled it, and decided not waste any political capital on a losing proposition.
Nonetheless, Governor Bush supported the Texas sodomy law overturned in the Lawrence case.
Governor Bush’s support for the Texas sodomy law might have reflected a personal belief or it might have simply been a way to send a politician’s “I’m with you …” to the hard-core religious right. I don’t know.
Although he steadfastly opposed the cause of gay and lesbian equality, as Jonathan Rauch points out, George Bush did not, either as Governor Bush or President Bush, it seems to me, demonstrate the level of personal antipathy toward gays and lesbians that is indicated of a “bigot”. It appears, for example, that his personal relationships with gays and lesbians within his circle, both as Governor and as President, were cordial and even friendly.
For that reason, I think your use of the term “bigot” in his case is overdrawn, as is use of the term in the case of most Republican politicians.
Instead, I think, George Bush, both as Governor and President, as was the case with Senator McCain, are good examples of the dog being wagged by the tail.
It was the opportunity for the more moderate voices within the Republican Party, George Bush among them I think, to stand up to the religious right and say “No, we are not going there …” that was the opportunity missed, as the article Jonathan Rauch points to suggests. The opportunity discussed by Rauch was one of many missed opportunities over the years.
A political party that wishes to remain in the mainstream of American political thought has to sometimes say “No, we are not going there …” to the fringes within the party.
President Bush had a good opportunity, and he blew it.
posted by Jorge on
Was it really the 2003 Supreme Court decision? I place the turning point–for Bush–at the Massachussets high court’s decision. I remember President Bush’s reaction being distant from former Sen. Santorum’s strong denunciation. Late in his term, President Bush even suggested he didn’t have a problem with civil unions, which isn’t very consistent with a notion that gay couples should be arrested for having sex.
I understand the notion that Bush may have been forced to pander to the conservative right on gay issues, but I do not think he would have taken his stand on gay marriage without that he really believed it in the core of his being. It was not about political gain–everyone knew it was a lost cause.
posted by Jim on
The RUC agenda is hopeless. “Homosexuality” will never be a “non-issue” for Republicans so long as: (1) Christian fundamentalists remain an important part of the Republican base and (2) gay people continue to believe they are entitled to equal treatment under the law. I don’t see either circumstance changing anytime soon. The whole gay thing is going to remain a very big “issue” for Republicans so long as gay people insist on things like the right to marry, the right to adopt children, and the right not to be put in prison for having sex (the radical holding of Lawrence). Thinking that this can ever be a “non-issue” for Republicans is just another example of gay and gay-friendly Republicans deluding themselves about the kind of people they have chosen to associate with.
posted by Amicus on
What went wrong?
How audacious to presume that there was something ‘on track’ …
For myself, I see few reasons why the UCMJ couldn’t be taken up with this years endless war supplemental.
Obama shouldn’t plan for eight years in office. He should do whatever he wants/can with the majority he has and then leave, even a giant mess if he has to. If anything, that’s the Bush-Cheney legacy.
posted by Carl on
I’m not really sure if Bush did much to chase away gay voters. On Election Day, McCain got around the same amount of gay support Bush got in 2000 and 2004. That may be thanks to McCain having a slightly more moderate record on gay issues than many other Republicans, I don’t know. I guess we’ll see what the next 4 years will bring. The Republicans don’t seem any more interested in supporting us (they may move even further to the right, especially on adoption and foster care), and the Democrats are the same or worse than their previous support. Obama seems like the type of President who isn’t going to lift a finger to help us.
My guess is that Democrats will continue to pat us on the head, and get about 75% of our vote. Republicans will continue to keep us at arms length, and get about 25% of our vote.
And neither party will do anything much beyond what they already do.
posted by Pat on
McCain was okay regarding gay rights. He was only about 10-15 years behind. I think he may have lost some gay voters with his selection of Palin. She was about 30-40 years behind on gay rights.
As for Obama, we’ll have to wait and see. At the very least, his administration needs to sign the UN Resolution on decriminalizing homosexuality. And he needs to push some of his agenda on gay rights to Congress, even if Congress doesn’t pass it.
Bush may have really been gay-friendly. But it was a slap in the face that he supported sodomy laws while governor of Texas, and used his leadership to push for FMA twice during his SOTU addresses, while not bothering to push for civil unions. And then, in a disgraceful move, failed to sign the UN Resolution and instead, sided with Iran and Saudi Arabia.
If Obama doesn’t do what I mentioned above, then he is no better than Bush on gay rights, and he won’t get my vote in 2012. What I find refreshing is that gay Democrats, who have blindly supported Democratic candidates in recent past, are now holding Obama responsible, and even have criticized some of his actions concerning gay rights already.
posted by Bobby on
“At the very least, his administration needs to sign the UN Resolution on decriminalizing homosexuality”
—Why do we need a stupid UN resolution? I’m not a citizen of the world, I don’t have a global passport. Those resolutions can’t even be enforced, they’re strictly symbolic. If Obama wants to help gays, he should lower taxes for single people since we don’t have the benefits of marriage, and he should issue an executive order ending DADT.
“but it was a slap in the face that he supported sodomy laws while governor of Texas,”
—Billy Clinton did the same thing in Arkansas. He even met with Fred Phelps. Politicians tend to do what’s popular, Bush wasn’t going to be hated by millions of Texans just to please a few gays.
Don’t expect much of Obama, he can ignore us and still be loved by every liberal breeder in the world.
posted by Pat on
Why do we need a stupid UN resolution? I’m not a citizen of the world, I don’t have a global passport. Those resolutions can’t even be enforced, they’re strictly symbolic. If Obama wants to help gays, he should lower taxes for single people since we don’t have the benefits of marriage, and he should issue an executive order ending DADT.
Bobby, that’s fine if Obama does those things. The resolution is non-binding, granted. So, obviously, it’s not going to change the laws in these countries. And I personally don’t need it. But it’s more than symbolic to stand up and say that crimes against homosexuals are wrong. Bush had a choice. Either sign it, or don’t. Why on Earth wouldn’t he sign it?
Billy Clinton did the same thing in Arkansas. He even met with Fred Phelps. Politicians tend to do what’s popular, Bush wasn’t going to be hated by millions of Texans just to please a few gays.
I was never a big fan of Clinton. So I certainly condemn his support for sodomy laws (until he was a candidate for president) like I did his signing of DOMA. It doesn’t bother me that Clinton met with some loon. It’s not about pleasing a few gays (including his own friends), it’s about leadership. Clinton and Bush both failed in that regard. Sometimes leadership means telling your citizenry that it’s not the 1300s anymore. And if that means being voted out, so be it.
Don’t expect much of Obama, he can ignore us and still be loved by every liberal breeder in the world.
I don’t expect much of many politicians, so I’m usually not disappointed. I have no problem voting for someone else in 2012 if Obama doesn’t pan out.
posted by Bobby on
“But it’s more than symbolic to stand up and say that crimes against homosexuals are wrong. Bush had a choice. Either sign it, or don’t. Why on Earth wouldn’t he sign it?”
—Because republicans rarely deal with symbolism, feelings, proclamations and all that sensitive stuff. Bill Clinton issued many pride proclamations, what did it cost him? It’s easier to say that you like a group than to do something for that group.
For example, most republicans/conservatives don’t like hate crime laws. It would be easier to convince them to punish assault with harsher sentences than to punish hate itself. To a republican, it doens’t matter why you got beat up, they just want whoever beat you up to be punished regardless of motivations.
On the other hand, republicans judge people by their actions. Bush showed that he doesn’t hate gays by appointing a gay man and his partner as ambassador in Romania. Bush also showed that by employing gays in his administration.
It’s the difference between having a friend that says he likes you vs. a friend that actually spends time with you.
Recently, Obama told republicans that they shouldn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh. Do you remember Bush ever telling anyone not to read the New York Times, not to listen to Keith Olberman, not to watch Fahrenheit 911? Obama is obviously a liar, he’s not bringing the country together, he has just insulted millions of people who didn’t vote for him, who do listen to Rush.
What a shameful president, Obama won’t meet with Rush. Bush on the other hand, met with that shrill nutcake Cindy Sheehan, he met with her TWICE. That’s the kind of man Bush was, he had the balls to face that bitch. And why? Because he was a real friend vs. that charlatan in the white house.
posted by Pat on
Because republicans rarely deal with symbolism, feelings, proclamations and all that sensitive stuff. Bill Clinton issued many pride proclamations, what did it cost him? It’s easier to say that you like a group than to do something for that group.
Bobby, if signing that proclamation was all about symbolism and feelings, I’d almost agree with you. It was more than that. It would be a clear message that we do not support the criminalization of homosexuality. That Iran and Saudi Arabia are on the wrong side of this issue. As for Bill Clinton, I agree. Proclamations are fine, but actions need to follow up the proclamations. Too bad Clinton and Bush didn’t follow up with real actions.
Also, I’m not sure I agree with you about Republicans rarely dealing with symbolism, and feelings. It was the Republicans that stated that if you didn’t support the Iraq War or not wear a flag pin on your suit, that you weren’t patriotic and/or didn’t support the troops. And it’s the Republicans that want the Ten Commandments plastered all over the place.
For example, most republicans/conservatives don’t like hate crime laws. It would be easier to convince them to punish assault with harsher sentences than to punish hate itself. To a republican, it doens’t matter why you got beat up, they just want whoever beat you up to be punished regardless of motivations.
Bobby, I would personally be okay with getting rid of all hate crime laws, while having harsher sentences for assaults and other violent crimes, since they almost always involve hate at some level anyway. The problem is that many conservatives/Republicans support hate crime laws for classes other than sexual orientation. The rest, who don’t support them, aren’t as fervent to getting rid of these statutes as they are for making a big stink about keeping sexual orientation out of protective classes.
In any case, hate crime laws are not (at least not supposed to be) about punishing hate. We should protect the rights of persons who choose to hate. It’s about punishing those who use that hate to undermine the rights of others. Sometimes we forget that criminals aren’t the only ones with rights.
On the other hand, republicans judge people by their actions. Bush showed that he doesn’t hate gays by appointing a gay man and his partner as ambassador in Romania. Bush also showed that by employing gays in his administration.
And I’m judging Bush by his actions. While I applaud his appointing a gay man in his administration and employing gay men in his administration, he still supported the sodomy laws while pushing for FMA twice, and not pushing for civil unions, which he allegedly supported.
It’s the difference between having a friend that says he likes you vs. a friend that actually spends time with you.
And I’m sure Bush is friends with plenty of gay persons. And even spends time with them. But what did he do to his friends? He basically told the country that his gay friends don’t deserve the same rights as his straight friends, that statutes should still be on the books criminalizing behavior between consenting adults. With friends like that…
Obama, thus far, believes that, except for calling civil unions marriage, he openly supports equal rights for gay persons. Now that’s only words, and won’t mean anything until he pushes this agenda forward. And I’ll give him four years to do so. If he doesn’t, then like you, I will believe that he is a charlatan as well. But I don’t think I could ever agree that Bush is a “real friend.”
Recently, Obama told republicans that they shouldn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh. Do you remember Bush ever telling anyone not to read the New York Times, not to listen to Keith Olberman, not to watch Fahrenheit 911? Obama is obviously a liar, he’s not bringing the country together, he has just insulted millions of people who didn’t vote for him, who do listen to Rush.
I certainly don’t agree with Obama regarding that statement. I personally don’t listen to Limbaugh anymore, because IMO, he’s a blowhard and an idiot. I like listening to different points of view, but his reasoning sucks, so I can’t bother. In many ways, he’s like Olbermann, even though I may agree with his viewpoints more than Limbaugh (but far from all, as he is a bit to the left of me), I hardly listen to him either, because his reasoning sucks too.
I don’t know if Obama not meeting with Limbaugh makes Obama shameful. Just as Bush not meeting Olbermann or some other liberal media hog would make Bush shameful. Sheehan, as shrill as she was, was still a mother of a soldier that died in the war.
In any case, I’ll still give Obama plenty of time to see how he does. It took me about four years to realize Bush was worse than Clinton. So I’ll give Obama four years before I decide he sucks just as bad or worse than Bush.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, if signing that proclamation was all about symbolism and feelings, I’d almost agree with you. It was more than that. It would be a clear message that we do not support the criminalization of homosexuality.”
—My point is that everything the UN does is symbolic. Saudi Arabia and Iran will do what they want. World government is not there yet, and I hope it never gets there. I believe in the sovereignty of nations.
The reason the republicans supported the 10 Commandments is because certain traditions that we used to take for granted in this country are eroding. Now it’s more important not to offend 10% of the people that don’t believe in God than to respect 90% of the people that do. So wearing a flag pin, supporting the war, supporting the pledge of allegiance with “under God” has become a way to resist the cultural attacks from the secular-progressives. And those attacks are real, the ACLU loves to sue cities that allow a nativity scene, even if it’s paid with private dollars.
“Sheehan, as shrill as she was, was still a mother of a soldier that died in the war.”
—Yes, and she got all the media attention. Thousands of mothers support the war effort, but the lib media doesn’t care about them. It’s like their Iraq war documentaries, they’re never gonna interview those that where happy to serve and volunteered again and again. No, they’ll look for the anti-socials, the fuckups, the bitchers.
“I don’t know if Obama not meeting with Limbaugh makes Obama shameful. Just as Bush not meeting Olbermann or some other liberal media hog would make Bush shameful.”
—It’s not the same, Olberman is a hateful SOB. I saw the way he ripped Hillary a new a-hole after she said something “insensitive.” Limbaugh attacks you with facts, Olberman uses personal attacks. Limbaugh proves your radicalism by pointing out all your past associations, Olberman simply calls you “Worst person of the world.” Bush talking to Olberman is like Obama talking to David Duke.
Understand this, Rush Limbaugh hates socialism, Olberman hates George W. Bush.
That’s why Bush didn’t bother to meet with him and other media members, you can’t debate ideology with people who hate who you are.
posted by Pat on
My point is that everything the UN does is symbolic. Saudi Arabia and Iran will do what they want. World government is not there yet, and I hope it never gets there. I believe in the sovereignty of nations.
Bobby, I agree about the UN. But the US is another story. The US signing that “symbolic” resolution would have meant something. Unfortunately, not signing it meant something as well.
The reason the republicans supported the 10 Commandments is because certain traditions that we used to take for granted in this country are eroding. Now it’s more important not to offend 10% of the people that don’t believe in God than to respect 90% of the people that do. So wearing a flag pin, supporting the war, supporting the pledge of allegiance with “under God” has become a way to resist the cultural attacks from the secular-progressives. And those attacks are real, the ACLU loves to sue cities that allow a nativity scene, even if it’s paid with private dollars.
That’s fine. But my point is that both liberals and conservatives are all for symbolism. It’s just that each think their symbolism is important and meaningful while their opponents is faux.
Yes, and she got all the media attention. Thousands of mothers support the war effort, but the lib media doesn’t care about them. It’s like their Iraq war documentaries, they’re never gonna interview those that where happy to serve and volunteered again and again. No, they’ll look for the anti-socials, the fuckups, the bitchers.
Yes, she did get all the media attention. The media may be biased and all. But they tend to show things that they think people will watch. There have been interviews with other parents who have supported the war. But people didn’t watch them, and preferred to watch Ms. Sheehan. Go figure.
It’s not the same, Olberman is a hateful SOB. I saw the way he ripped Hillary a new a-hole after she said something “insensitive.” Limbaugh attacks you with facts, Olberman uses personal attacks. Limbaugh proves your radicalism by pointing out all your past associations, Olberman simply calls you “Worst person of the world.” Bush talking to Olberman is like Obama talking to David Duke.
I don’t know. I guess we just look at things differently. I used to listen to Limbaugh somewhat when Clinton was president. Maybe Limbaugh didn’t hate Clinton the way Olbermann hates Bush, but he did a pretty damn good imitation of it. I’ve heard only little what Limbaugh has said about Obama. I just remember it wasn’t pretty. I sometimes think that “truth” and “hate” are almost synonyms, it just depends on the perspective. Now, you may be right about Olbermann. Maybe he crosses way over the line than Limbaugh has. Like I said, I rarely listen to him.
posted by Bobby on
Pat,
“The US signing that “symbolic” resolution would have meant something.”
—Who would have read about it? Who would have cared? Who would have known other than us? Compare that to making a gay film that millions of people watch. I’m telling you, In & Out probably did more for gay rights than any UN resolution can do.
“That’s fine. But my point is that both liberals and conservatives are all for symbolism. It’s just that each think their symbolism is important and meaningful while their opponents is faux.”
—Well, maybe I was mistaken. I guess I didn’t notice the symbols in my side of the ring. And I admit they don’t offend me all that much. For example, I like seeing confederate flags, progressives don’t, so they sue against those symbols. In Florida there’s even a lawsuit because of a high school named after General Lee. Like holocaust revisionists, they want to erase our history. How would progressives feel if whites sued the city of Detroit because of Malcom X Blvd.? Unlike General Lee, Malcom X was a racist who hated whites, jews and gays.
“I don’t know. I guess we just look at things differently. I used to listen to Limbaugh somewhat when Clinton was president. Maybe Limbaugh didn’t hate Clinton the way Olbermann hates Bush, but he did a pretty damn good imitation of it.”
—You’re right, we do see things differently. When I hear Limbaugh talking about Obama, I don’t see the hate. I see honest criticism. When I watch anything other than Fox or Rush, all I see is “We love Obama, rah rah rah.”
“I’ve heard only little what Limbaugh has said about Obama. I just remember it wasn’t pretty. I sometimes think that “truth” and “hate” are almost synonyms, it just depends on the perspective.”
—Maybe that’s true.
“Now, you may be right about Olbermann. Maybe he crosses way over the line than Limbaugh has. Like I said, I rarely listen to him.”
—You should, you might agree with Rush on many many things,and you’ll get the other side of the coin without the filters. I hate to admit it, but I visit huffingtonpost everyday.
posted by Pat on
You’re right, we do see things differently. When I hear Limbaugh talking about Obama, I don’t see the hate. I see honest criticism. When I watch anything other than Fox or Rush, all I see is “We love Obama, rah rah rah.”
Well, I’m in total agreement with your last point. I don’t get the total lovefest with Obama.
You should, you might agree with Rush on many many things,and you’ll get the other side of the coin without the filters. I hate to admit it, but I visit huffingtonpost everyday.
I always like to get the perspective of the conservative side, or simply views that I don’t agree with. I just prefer not to get it from Limbaugh. One thing I will say is that when I listened to him, he was always respectful to callers, even the ones that disagreed with him.
posted by YOUSHOW92 on
Hard to say. But there is no doubt more more people come to understand gay and show support. That is why there is a huge number of LGBT coming out to be who they are. I often come to my favorite lgbt club Bimingle com which is a good place for us to meet each other at the first time. see more lgbt there, look for similar things.