Via the Washington Post: “Former President George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara served as an official witnesses Saturday at the Maine wedding of Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, co-owners of a Kennebunk general store.”
A Nice Indication of Changing Times
ADVERTISEMENT
22 Comments for “A Nice Indication of Changing Times”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that it is an indication of “one family member, one friend, one neighbor, one co-worker at a time”. As President Bush’s spokesman, Jim McGrath, put it, the wedding was a “private ceremony for two friends”.
Private, personal relationships with family members, neighbors, friends and co-workers have been our strongest tool for changing Americans’ minds about gays and lesbians.
McGrath also declined to politicize the wedding by discussing whether or not President Bush or his wife support marriage equality.
To my mind, that’s a decent thing to do. What was important is that President Bush and his wife support this marriage, this couple, these friends.
posted by Houndentenor on
This misses the point. The Bushes have always had gay friends and I’ve never heard of any story of them being rude or even unkind to any gay people. They are not PERSONALLY anti-gay. That was never the problem with the country club Republicans. The problem is that they are perfectly happy to exploit and pander to other people’s anti-gay prejudices in order to win elections. And they did that unashamedly. So did his son. I don’t think W was personally anti-gay. I’ve heard too many anecdotes to the contrary. But it didn’t bother his conscience one little bit to exploit anti-gay bigotry on the right to win an election. This story doesn’t impress me in the least, nor does it surprise me or give me any reason to believe that there has been any change on their part.
Let me know when a serious GOP presidential candidate comes out for full gay rights. That will be a news story. (By serious I mean someone polling above 10%.)
posted by Doug on
Therein is the problem I have with conservatives. They are anti-gay until their son or daughter is LGBT and it’s ok for their children but not ‘other gay kids’. They are anti-abortion until their daughter gets pregnant and then it’s ok for their daughter only but not others. They are anti-stemcell research until aunt Mabel could benefit, then it’s ok. They are anti everything until it hits home. The problem with conservatives is that they have no empathy for other people, it’s all about them.
posted by Jorge on
The problem is that they are perfectly happy to exploit and pander to other people’s anti-gay prejudices in order to win elections.
Possibly true of Bush Sr.
Not Bush Jr.
posted by Houndentenor on
What? Are you serious? A central campaign issue in 2004 was Bush’s proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. That wasn’t pandering to anti-gay bigots? Really?
posted by Doug on
This is just demonstratively untrue. Bush Jr. pandered at every campaign stop throughout the midwest and it was all sanctioned by Ken Mehlman who later came out. Even he has admitted that Bush used anti-gay campaigning.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Not Bush Jr.
Huh? The “faggot, faggot” strategy might not have worked out as well to convert religious conservative votes into Bush votes as Rove hoped it would and claimed it did, but it was a central strategy of the 2004 Presidential election strategy.
posted by Jorge on
We’ve been through this before, Tom. Neither President Bush nor any of his surrogates (or indeed anyone in 2004) campaigned on the slogan or premise that gays are faggots. So you are, once again, lying.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Neither President Bush nor any of his surrogates (or indeed anyone in 2004) campaigned on the slogan or premise that gays are faggots.
“Faggot, Faggot” is a historical allusion to George Wallace’s shift from the politics of good government to the politics of race in order to get the segregationist vote (“Seymore, I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I’ll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again.“).
I realize that you don’t get the allusion. Other people do get the allusion, and the analogy is apt, politically and historically. Same game, different name.
Would it help if I just called the Bush/Rove strategy the “Jorge, Jorge” strategy, with a link to this comment as an explanation?
Let me explain something that you’re not quite getting: BEING AGAINST ROE V. WADE DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN ANTI-GAY BIGOT. Do you get it, or do I have to spell it out for you a little more?
Your response to Houndentenor is interesting. So you think that the Bush/Rove 2004 reelection strategy was aimed at Roe v. Wade rather than leveraging fearing and loathing about gays and lesbians and/or marriage equality? If so, why wasn’t abortion the focus, rather anti-marriage amendments?
posted by Jim Michaud on
Jorge, Tom has explained what he means by “faggot, faggot” over and over and over again to you. Are you really that slow on the uptake or are you just being willfully ignorant and a pain in the hindquarters? Sheesh!
posted by Jorge on
What? Are you serious? A central campaign issue in 2004 was Bush’s proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. That wasn’t pandering to anti-gay bigots? Really?
I can’t believe you’re serious. Are you telling me Bush didn’t really believe what he said what activist judges being a harm to the nation? After he’d been making rumblings to that effect?
Let me explain something that you’re not quite getting:
BEING AGAINST ROE V. WADE DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN ANTI-GAY BIGOT.
Do you get it, or do I have to spell it out for you a little more?
posted by Houndentenor on
What does Roe v Wade have to do with this? He was campaigning on the promise of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Yes, I think he didn’t really care much about it one way or the other. If he had, he’d have put forth more effort to get the Amendment through Congress.
As for “activist judges”, that’s just right wing propaganda. Sorry but no I don’t think Bush and company give a damn about gay rights or abortion except to bring out the religious right vote, voters who would benefit more from Democratic economic policies than Republican ones. It’s the same thing the homocons claim Democrats do with gays. They promise yet never seem to manage to deliver at the federal level. It’s simply a wedge issue, not something the establishment really cares about. (Teavangelicals of recent vintage are another story on both issues.)
posted by Doug on
For god’s sake, Ken Mehlman has apologized for being anti-gay in Bush’s campaign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/ken-mehlman-i-am-sorry-fo_n_1316199.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ken-mehlman-apologizing-for-role-in-bush-campaign/2012/03/02/gIQAPNSjmR_blog.html
posted by Jorge on
Anyway, this is interesting. Ten years ago they would have gone with real confused looks on their faces–and even then probably only for their own family.
posted by Don on
Jorge believes W was the best president ever. That’s his prerogative. He also believes that W was not anti-gay. I believe he wasn’t anti-gay either. But he was willing to throw gay people to the wolves to get re-elected and Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman believed they needed to do it in order to get re-elected. Neither of them would have done it if they didn’t think they needed it.
I’m of the mind that you can’t be personally pro-gay and publicly destroy other people’s lives by fanning the flames of prejudice. I’ve been hopeful that politicians like W will stop being anti-gay when the incentives to be so are removed. But at least I can admit that may be naïve.
Jorge has repeatedly said the amendments were a necessary move to stop activist judges. It is probably the most twisted piece of logic I’ve seen in a long time, but it’s his deeply held belief. I’m of the mind that judges’ jobs are to protect the rights of minorities against mob rule of the majority. It’s rarely popular, but it is one of their key functions and precisely why the framers made judges free of political interference. Let’s just say they saw this kind of thing coming and built our foundation accordingly.
It’s just that not everybody is happy with it. Some of us love the idea of the constitution, but hate what’s actually in it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I believe [Bush] wasn’t anti-gay either. But he was willing to throw gay people to the wolves to get re-elected and Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman believed they needed to do it in order to get re-elected. Neither of them would have done it if they didn’t think they needed it.
The 2004 election strategy is well documented by reputable academics and acknowledged by two of the three principles (Rove, Mehlman) themselves. It was not about abortion or “activist judges”. It was about leveraging social conservative hysteria about marriage equality into votes for Bush and other Republicans at state and federal level. Mehlman has apologized for his role. Rove has not, and probably won’t, because it is his stated opinion that the strategy worked.
Because Bush has not spoken directly about his role in the strategy, or his motivations, it remains an open question whether he was an anti-equality social conservative “believer” in 2004 or not.
I think not, based on my reading of the indirect evidence that we now have, but I think that we should remain open to the possibility that Bush was/is as hard core an anti-equality social conservative as Rick Santorum, although hiding it under the guise of “c0mpassionate conservative”.
Bush’s motivations will come out in the wash as the memoirs are written, I suppose, but his motivations irrelevant to us. Whether Bush was a knight or a knave, the strategy was concocted and implemented. The results of the strategy and its aftermath are the anti-marriage amendments that we now must dismantle on our road to equality.
The damage has been done, and we have a lot to do to set things right. Between now and the end of the year, marriage equality will be before the legislators in Hawaii and Illinois, and a veto override will be before the legislators in New Jersey. We are almost certain to have an anti-marriage amendment to fight in Indiana next year.
If we work hard and smart, we can win equality in three more states before the new year and blunt the Republican anti-equality thrust in a red state next year.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… acknowledged by two of the three principles (Rove, Mehlman) themselves …
Whoops. Grammar alert. It should read “principals”, not “principles”. G-d forbid that I should suggest that there was anything principled about the 2004 Bush/Rove/Mehlman strategy.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yes, it is certainly nice. I would echo Tom’s sentiment about that. However, I am not sure how much of a larger policy shift it represents — within the Bush’s policy views or the GOP –.
posted by Mark on
And it’s worth noting that today, the new leader of the “moderate” Republicans, Gov. Christie, announced in light of the court decision that he’ll still do everything in his power to prevent gays and lesbians in his state from marrying. “A nice indication of changing times” of the party.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Governor Christie is a bag of wind, every bit as slippery in New Jersey as Governor Schwarzenegger was in California.
I don’t think that he has a choice, politically, however dishonest and illogical his “the people must decide” stance might be. If he gives in to marriage equality, even one inch, he is dead meat for a presidential nod in 2016 and 2020.
Marriage equality is a dead cert in New Jersey no matter how hard Governor Christie stands in the door, scoring points with social conservatives at the expense of equality. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling mandating either marriage or civil unions required equal treatment under the law, and that is no longer possible with civil unions.
The worst that happens is that Governor Christie delays things a year, and we are treated to a year’s worth of bombast while the case works its way through the New Jersey courts.
There is always the possibility that the legislature will overturn his veto, which, to date, is the sole reason that New Jersey does not now have marriage equality. As I understand it, the count is currently 9 votes short.
posted by Houndentenor on
Republicans are only for gay rights once they aren’t going to run for office again. I’m hoping the NJ state legislature can come up with the votes to override his veto. Now is the time for LCR and every gay Republican in NJ to contact their state rep or senator and make the conservative case for gay marriage. It won’t take that many Republican votes to get to 66%. This is doable. Do it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
However, I am not sure how much of a larger policy shift it represents — within the Bush’s policy views or the GOP.
I don’t think that it represents any policy shift in the GOP, and we have no idea what President Bush thinks about the larger issue.
But we do know what he thinks of this marriage in particular — he supports it. If he supports this marriage, then he will support the next friend or family member who is marrying.
I’ve thought about this over the last couple of days, and I think that this is the beginning of political water torture for social conservatives, being marginalized in the Republican Party, one drip at a time.
President Bush supports a same-sex marriage. His support causes other Republicans who are not hard core social conservatives to think a bit. A few of them feel like they’ve been given “permission” to support marriage equality and remain Republican.
So a few more Republicans lend support to a particular marriage, or to marriage equality in general. That causes others to think a bit.
Then a few more. Little by slowly, the hard core social conservatives are boxed in, becoming more and more marginalized, shrill and irrational. We’re seeing that happen already.
And then, when enough drips have fallen, the dam cracks and bursts wide open.
That’s how it is going to go down, I think.