"Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause"

[Caliga]

Hungry Heart

Great nickname for him!

[OttoVonBismarck]

Bush II was part of the short-lived "compassionate conservative" movement, which was anchored around concepts like lots of Republican-flavored handouts to old people and the poor along with being nice to Mexicans and such. It lacked any real direction on foreign policy, so when foreign policy became the issue of the first term of the Bush Presidency the neo-cons ensconced in DoD positions and other parts of his administration teamed up with the corporatists like Cheney and ran away with the football.

That's an interesting way of putting it.

I don't know how much you really paid attention to Bush before he was President or before 9/11, but this is pretty much an obvious truth. Even throughout his Presidency he pressed for a lot of "handout" type programs that really weren't part of traditional Republicanism. I don't think Bush was the imbecile he was portrayed as at all, but I do think he was a sort of a hands-off guy who preferred to select from a small set of decisions aides had prepared for him versus having strong active policy positions of his own. The only area he seemed to really take the lead on was humanitarian stuff. Since the Wolfowitz/Cheney group was far more powerful than anyone else in the executive branch in terms of having Bush's ear, it was their vision on how to respond to 9/11 that took precedence. If you followed Bush during the 2000 Presidential campaign I'd describe his positions on foreign policy to be simplistic and naive, basically a mild isolationism mixed with basic ignorance of most major foreign policy issues. Bush was more or less a blank slate on foreign policy, and a powerful faction existed in his administration that was able to shape his administration to their ends on that issue.

I don't think Bush thought of himself like some Presidents do, as the "Imperial" President, I think he saw himself as CEO of the White House and thus viewed his role as more hands off. Like a CEO of a company, when a top VP or other executive cooks up a plan you agree with, you'll implement it vigorously, but he was the sort of CEO that liked to relax in the executive suite and not be bothering himself with coming up with his own plans. So yeah, Bush was a vigorous advocate of stuff once it was administration policy, but on many issues I think his role in shaping administration policy was in reviewing the proposals of aides and saying "yea/nay" and on some issues we have basically clear cut proof Cheney and to a lesser degree other big names had such strong influence that theirs was the only voice heard on a given issue. In one important incident, Cheney's staff drafted an executive order without informing anyone else in the executive branch. Cheney had an understanding with the President that they'd have a regular lunch privately, and also that Cheney would always be the "last man in the room" with Bush. Basically, that anytime a debate was happening between staff, once Bush was ready to make a decision it was just him and Cheney in the room at the end. This obvously put Cheney in a very powerful position. Anyway, in this case Cheney meets for lunch privately with Bush with a drafted executive order that no one else in the White House had seen outside of Cheney's people. When they come back from lunch Bush had signed the executive order--basically an unprecedented level of influence for any Presisdential advisor (and especially a man holding the office most likely to be irrelevant in any given administration.)

[Razgovory]

I don't think the party ever regarded Bush as a conservative within the framework of the party's ideological spectrum.

I bet I can look at videos GOP conventions were they say he is in fact a conservative.

Of course they said that. He had to win a GOP primary. 

There must be something really obvious that I'm missing here.  Why don't you spell it out for me.

Even if you're not a conservative, you have to say you are if you're going to be elected as a republican.

Other people at the convention were saying as well.  You know, the guys in the Republican party.

[Razgovory]

Global warming isn't a religious issue, or even a social issue--it's an economic issue.

It has an economic piece to it, certainly, but really it's an ecological issue.

So are you suggesting that people who are Christians are less likely to be in favor of protecting the environment, or more likely, or are you getting at something else entirely?

Well, if you think you are going to get raptured up within your life time, long term environmental issues aren't a big priority.

[MadImmortalMan]

Other people at the convention were saying as well.  You know, the guys in the Republican party.

Sure, especially the ones in his campaign.

[mongers]

That's an interesting way of putting it.

I don't know how much you really paid attention to Bush before he was President or before 9/11, but this is pretty much an obvious truth. Even throughout his Presidency he pressed for a lot of "handout" type programs that really weren't part of traditional Republicanism. I don't think Bush was the imbecile he was portrayed as at all, but I do think he was a sort of a hands-off guy who preferred to select from a small set of decisions aides had prepared for him versus having strong active policy positions of his own. The only area he seemed to really take the lead on was humanitarian stuff. Since the Wolfowitz/Cheney group was far more powerful than anyone else in the executive branch in terms of having Bush's ear, it was their vision on how to respond to 9/11 that took precedence. If you followed Bush during the 2000 Presidential campaign I'd describe his positions on foreign policy to be simplistic and naive, basically a mild isolationism mixed with basic ignorance of most major foreign policy issues. Bush was more or less a blank slate on foreign policy, and a powerful faction existed in his administration that was able to shape his administration to their ends on that issue.

I don't think Bush thought of himself like some Presidents do, as the "Imperial" President, I think he saw himself as CEO of the White House and thus viewed his role as more hands off. Like a CEO of a company, when a top VP or other executive cooks up a plan you agree with, you'll implement it vigorously, but he was the sort of CEO that liked to relax in the executive suite and not be bothering himself with coming up with his own plans. So yeah, Bush was a vigorous advocate of stuff once it was administration policy, but on many issues I think his role in shaping administration policy was in reviewing the proposals of aides and saying "yea/nay" and on some issues we have basically clear cut proof Cheney and to a lesser degree other big names had such strong influence that theirs was the only voice heard on a given issue. In one important incident, Cheney's staff drafted an executive order without informing anyone else in the executive branch. Cheney had an understanding with the President that they'd have a regular lunch privately, and also that Cheney would always be the "last man in the room" with Bush. Basically, that anytime a debate was happening between staff, once Bush was ready to make a decision it was just him and Cheney in the room at the end. This obvously put Cheney in a very powerful position. Anyway, in this case Cheney meets for lunch privately with Bush with a drafted executive order that no one else in the White House had seen outside of Cheney's people. When they come back from lunch Bush had signed the executive order--basically an unprecedented level of influence for any Presisdential advisor (and especially a man holding the office most likely to be irrelevant in any given administration.)

Thanks for the effort involved in elaborating on you observation, appreciated.

[dps]

Global warming isn't a religious issue, or even a social issue--it's an economic issue.

It has an economic piece to it, certainly, but really it's an ecological issue.

So are you suggesting that people who are Christians are less likely to be in favor of protecting the environment, or more likely, or are you getting at something else entirely?

Well, if you think you are going to get raptured up within your life time, long term environmental issues aren't a big priority.

Most Christians don't think that the rapture is going to happen within their lifetime.

[Eddie Teach]

No, but there may be a feeling that God rather than humans is controlling what happens to the environment.

So why is this locked?

[Martinus]

This is the same attitude the Polish prime minister (he is a conservative with centrist/centre-right views) expressed recently.

He was originally against civil partnerships for gay couples, but over the last 6 or 7 years his views evolved. He is now saying this is not a matter of ideological or religious grandstanding - as this is not the government's job to make one - but about the most basic job of the government, which is to make lifes easier for people in response to their needs.

He is still against full marriage equality or adoptions, though, but I think we will get there - but it illustrates that, when one is a conservative (as opposed to a homophobe), this evolution is quite natural.

[Martinus]

What's weird to me is that many conservative Christians I've spoken with actually believe in evolution (though inevitably they say God guided it) and global warming.  So I'm not sure why GOP politicians trying to shore up the hardcore fundamentalist base are REQUIRED to pretend that they don't believe in either one of them.

I think to us, non-USAians, the fact that so many conservative Christians in the US are actually creationist is the "weird" part.

[Martinus]

I would have voted for Huntsman.

He was also the guy who had the right positions on global warming and evolution (both are happening and are real)

Why the fuck would it matter what someone's position on evolution is? 

Blindly rejecting what pretty much is the universal scientific consensus on one aspect of reality may suggest one's connection to other aspects of reality is equally tenuous.

Or to put it in other words - letting a batshit crazy person near nuclear codes can have bad consequences.

[Martinus]

I read an article the other day from the Washington Post about how Bush was actually one of the best humanitarian presidents the US ever had due to an anti-aids bill and various whatnot.

Yeah, it's actually funny how these things go. For all his rhetoric, when it comes to various "gay interest" policies, Bush's only solid legacy was the increased anti-HIV funding, whereas Clinton's was DOMA and DADT. 

[Razgovory]

Other people at the convention were saying as well.  You know, the guys in the Republican party.

Sure, especially the ones in his campaign.

And nearly all the ones at the GOP convention.  In fact, I'm having a hard time seeing how you can back up your statement.

[sbr]

This is a strange one to latch onto.  If the GOP wanted to get Michael Moore elected for some reason, they would likely tout him as a conservative of some sort.

[Razgovory]

Unless MiM has some secret in the cabal that run the GOP I'm going to have to take statements by GOP members at the time at face value.