Full Version: Madam President Laura Bush?
QUOTE(Fox News)
"I think Mrs. Bush ought to run for president," [Lynne] Cheney joked during a TV interview scheduled to air Monday. "If we want to have a Bush dynasty, let's get Laura Bush."
(source)
Topics for debate:
- Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
- Would you suport her if she did?
I like First Lady Laura Bush. And it might just be refreshing to hear her say what she really thought, even those times when she must be at odds with the man she is pledged to support.
1. Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket? While she is far better credentialed to speak on educational policy, she deferred to her husband, who doesn't even like to read books. For her to be sitting at his side silently while he would expound and reveal his lack of experience and insight with professional educators would require either soft teeth or an iron lip when they bit into it, not to mention a Valium possibly being helpful. While patience and likability are virtues, there is something called legislative experience that trumps them both.
2. Would you support her if she did? No way; see above. Just because she isn't as abrasive or maybe scary as Hillary Clinton doesn't mean that she would be good for the job. And as far as Republicans go, why didn't Liddy Dole make it in her Presidential bid?
I remember the great hue and cry raised by the Republicans at the prospect of "two for the price of one" when William Jefferson Clinton touted his spouse for her brains and competence. But Hillary Clinton had one more thing that Laura Bush has not demonstrated: ambition. Laura Bush's charm for many lies in the fact that she wants to be a wife and mother, and she is happy doing it.
Let's see how well Mrs. Bush "cleans up the gangs," since that is what her beloved spouse wants her to do when she's not trying to patch up the diplomatic holes he's torn around the world.
1. Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket? While she is far better credentialed to speak on educational policy, she deferred to her husband, who doesn't even like to read books. For her to be sitting at his side silently while he would expound and reveal his lack of experience and insight with professional educators would require either soft teeth or an iron lip when they bit into it, not to mention a Valium possibly being helpful. While patience and likability are virtues, there is something called legislative experience that trumps them both.
2. Would you support her if she did? No way; see above. Just because she isn't as abrasive or maybe scary as Hillary Clinton doesn't mean that she would be good for the job. And as far as Republicans go, why didn't Liddy Dole make it in her Presidential bid?
I remember the great hue and cry raised by the Republicans at the prospect of "two for the price of one" when William Jefferson Clinton touted his spouse for her brains and competence. But Hillary Clinton had one more thing that Laura Bush has not demonstrated: ambition. Laura Bush's charm for many lies in the fact that she wants to be a wife and mother, and she is happy doing it.
Let's see how well Mrs. Bush "cleans up the gangs," since that is what her beloved spouse wants her to do when she's not trying to patch up the diplomatic holes he's torn around the world.
QUOTE
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
Absolutely. She is a family woman with strong opinions and important views on issues. I don't see any reason why she should not. Not only would she be a pioneer to help pave the way for future woman presidents, she could also bring truth back to the White House. She has always told the blunt truth and has never apologized for her opinions or morals. She'd do wonderful things for America and do it with grace and dignity.
QUOTE
Would you suport her if she did?
Of course. As I said she's a family woman with a get-go attitude. We don't need a president with a "live and let live" philosophy. She would be the one to help reaffirm international ties and help usher in a better age of cooperation for everyone.
Laura Bush for president.
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
Would you suport her if she did?
She seems like a very nice person. I voted for a very nice person presidential candidate once, Jimmy Carter. Too nice. He was like a guppy in a shark tank once he went to the White House. We don't need guppies running for president of the USA.
Not sure we need a shark either, but certainly not a guppy.
Would you suport her if she did?
She seems like a very nice person. I voted for a very nice person presidential candidate once, Jimmy Carter. Too nice. He was like a guppy in a shark tank once he went to the White House. We don't need guppies running for president of the USA.
Not sure we need a shark either, but certainly not a guppy.
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president?
No, she shouldn't. I do not see her as a qualified candidate. What
can she bring to the White House? A demure, unabrasive disposition?
That's not enough to run the country.
(not that her other half
is doing any better)
Would you suport her if she did?
Not in a million years. She may be likable and sweet, but she still chose
GWB as her life partner. What kind of sensible woman would do that!
(that's no joke, I'm 100% serious
)
Hillary Clinton is much better suited. She's strong and assertive, which seems
to be a huge turn-off to men who don't like strong or assertive women.
Unfortunately, in the arena of politics, a Laura Bush would be torn to pieces
before her inauguration.
I'm a family woman with strong opinions and important views on "issues".
I guess that means I'm also qualified.
Truth!! She couldn't handle the truth!!
With all due respect, how do you know that Mrs. Bush has always told the blunt
truth? Do you have proof of that? Or is it that everything you've heard her say
has been to your liking, and because of that you consider it to be the blunt truth?
What is wrong with live and let live? Shouldn't every human being have the
right to choose his path, so long as it does not harm or impede another human?
No, she shouldn't. I do not see her as a qualified candidate. What
can she bring to the White House? A demure, unabrasive disposition?
That's not enough to run the country.
(not that her other halfis doing any better)
Would you suport her if she did?
Not in a million years. She may be likable and sweet, but she still chose
GWB as her life partner. What kind of sensible woman would do that!
(that's no joke, I'm 100% serious
)QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ May 30 2005, 05:12 PM)
While patience and likability are virtues, there is something called legislative
experience that trumps them both.
experience that trumps them both.
Hillary Clinton is much better suited. She's strong and assertive, which seems
to be a huge turn-off to men who don't like strong or assertive women.
Unfortunately, in the arena of politics, a Laura Bush would be torn to pieces
before her inauguration.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ May 30 2005, 05:39 PM)
Absolutely. She is a family woman with strong opinions and important views on issues. I don't see any reason why she should not.
I'm a family woman with strong opinions and important views on "issues".
I guess that means I'm also qualified.
QUOTE
Not only would she be a pioneer to help pave the way for future woman
presidents, she could also bring truth back to the White House.
presidents, she could also bring truth back to the White House.
Truth!! She couldn't handle the truth!!
QUOTE
She has always told the blunt truth and has never apologized for her
opinions or morals. She'd do wonderful things for America and do it with grace
and dignity.
opinions or morals. She'd do wonderful things for America and do it with grace
and dignity.
With all due respect, how do you know that Mrs. Bush has always told the blunt
truth? Do you have proof of that? Or is it that everything you've heard her say
has been to your liking, and because of that you consider it to be the blunt truth?
QUOTE
We don't need a president with a "live and let live" philosophy.
What is wrong with live and let live? Shouldn't every human being have the
right to choose his path, so long as it does not harm or impede another human?
doomed_planet:
Yes that pretty much sums it all up. Call me a puppet of politics but I agree with most of the G.O.P's stances, including the First Ladies.
When the person with a live and let live regard towards life is sitting in the office of the most powerful position on the (doomed) planet I would say that could harm a lot of more people than you would think. Laura Bush is not a person to legalize drugs, legalize prostitution, etc., she knows that regulations are for the safety of people. The personal opinion of the president effects the entire nation and the helm of the country would be best served to be trusted to a lady like Mrs. Bush because she knows that there are things that both cannot and should not be done.
When the leader of the free world say's "oh the heck with it" there would be major problems on the western front. I'd support Laura Bush because she has structure and consistency. Physical harm is not the only kind of harm a live and let live regard may have. Scandal and mistrust could run down and harm the nation all because of a candidates personal regards towards life. Mrs. Bush is not perfect but she certainly is not so imperfect as to allow something to maar her ability to perform her duty.
QUOTE
Or is it that everything you've heard her say
has been to your liking, and because of that you consider it to be the blunt truth?
has been to your liking, and because of that you consider it to be the blunt truth?
Yes that pretty much sums it all up. Call me a puppet of politics but I agree with most of the G.O.P's stances, including the First Ladies.
QUOTE
What is wrong with live and let live? Shouldn't every human being have the
right to choose his path, so long as it does not harm or impede another human?
right to choose his path, so long as it does not harm or impede another human?
When the person with a live and let live regard towards life is sitting in the office of the most powerful position on the (doomed) planet I would say that could harm a lot of more people than you would think. Laura Bush is not a person to legalize drugs, legalize prostitution, etc., she knows that regulations are for the safety of people. The personal opinion of the president effects the entire nation and the helm of the country would be best served to be trusted to a lady like Mrs. Bush because she knows that there are things that both cannot and should not be done.
When the leader of the free world say's "oh the heck with it" there would be major problems on the western front. I'd support Laura Bush because she has structure and consistency. Physical harm is not the only kind of harm a live and let live regard may have. Scandal and mistrust could run down and harm the nation all because of a candidates personal regards towards life. Mrs. Bush is not perfect but she certainly is not so imperfect as to allow something to maar her ability to perform her duty.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ May 30 2005, 09:55 PM)
Call me a puppet of politics but I agree with most of the G.O.P's stances,
including the First Ladies.?
including the First Ladies.?
That is your right as an American.
QUOTE
When the person with a live and let live regard towards life is sitting in
the office of the most powerful position on the (doomed) planet I would say that
could harm a lot of more people than you would think.
the office of the most powerful position on the (doomed) planet I would say that
could harm a lot of more people than you would think.
It depends on your definition of "live and let live" . I personally believe that
a planet is doomed to the degree that its inhabitants do not live and let live.
That's not to say that there should be no rules, laws, self-defense, etc. It's
the concept of allowing each individual, from any and all walks of life, to choose
his path (even if that path isn't, for example, a Christian, conservative one).
Furthermore, if Laura Bush wants to follow in her husband's footprints down a
path of helping the powerful gain more power and segregating a religiously
diverse country, well, I do not consider that a good thing.
QUOTE
When the leader of the free world say's "oh the heck with it" there would
be major problems on the western front. I'd support Laura Bush because she has
structure and consistency.
be major problems on the western front. I'd support Laura Bush because she has
structure and consistency.
There have been many leaders in the past who have had structure and
consistency, who managed to do great harm to mankind. She may be a woman
who fits your mold of decency and virtue, but that doesn't necessarily mean
she would be an effective leader with the ability to affect positive change.
1.Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
I feel better about Lynne Cheney. Not that I’m about to jump on the “Laura for President” bandwagon. No, I’d got this picture of Mrs. Cheney being some stick-in-the-mud, who acted like she’d just swallowed some sour milk. Now I find she has a sense of humor—almost rising to the level of farce in this case.
Laura Bush earned a B.A. in education from Southern Methodist University in 1969. She taught school from 1969-1972 and earned a M.L.S. from the University of Texas in 1973. She then worked as a public and school librarian until 1977 when married George W. Bush. I would submit that Laura Bush’s educational experience is minimal, especially when considering thatbone must work about thirty years to retire. Still, that’s more than the non-experience of Bush’s current Secretary of Education—Margaret Spellings.
After marrying George, she dropped off the professional radar. She raise a family, but had her hands full with a husband, who by his own admission was a drunk until his 40th birth day and a perennial failure in business until the tax payers of Arlington gifted him a nifty $14,000,000.00 profit on sale of the Texas Rangers.
Laura’s choice of husbands, at least for the first nine years, says little for her ability to judge character. I’ll pass on discussing Bush’s character since the famed walk in Kennebunport in 1985 when Bush accepted Billy Graham as his political savior (it's late and I can't remember the details, but it was something like that) and his tossing the bottle a year later. Let’s just say I've not been impressed with Bush as Governor of Texas or President of the United States.
While she may never have articulated Dr. Laura’s bit about being the “mother of my children” she’s essentially been the wife of George for 28 years and the mother of Jenna and Barbara for 22 years.
I will submit that were not looking at a hefty resume, especially when we’re hunting down a potential president.
Laura Bush Biography
I don’t see being a family woman or man as being a big qualification. It certainly isn’t mentioned in The Constitution of the United States. In fact, Dan Quayle ranted and raved about “family values” and his presidential aspirations went nowhere. Quayle, of course, had experience as both a Senator from Indiana and as George H. W. Bush’s Vice President. On the other hand, I’ll bet Laura could take Danny Boy down any day in a spelling bee, especially if it came down to the word “potatoe” or is that “potato.”
Now this is a strange statement VDemosthenes. It seems George has messed nearly everything up as far as international relations goes, yet you want to elect his wife to tidy up th mess?
2. Would you support her if she did?
No! Chris Matthews has said on more than one occasion that "everyone likes Laura Bush." As with any absolute statement, this is a stretch. Laura Bush, however, is quite popular and I have nothing against her personally. As some have pointed out, she seems to be a nice person. Being a nice person does not make one presidential. I think I’ll keep looking. That said VDemosthenes it wouldn't surprise me if Laura isn't a bit more liberal than George. She might actually disappoint you.
Edited to add sarcasm.
I feel better about Lynne Cheney. Not that I’m about to jump on the “Laura for President” bandwagon. No, I’d got this picture of Mrs. Cheney being some stick-in-the-mud, who acted like she’d just swallowed some sour milk. Now I find she has a sense of humor—almost rising to the level of farce in this case.
Laura Bush earned a B.A. in education from Southern Methodist University in 1969. She taught school from 1969-1972 and earned a M.L.S. from the University of Texas in 1973. She then worked as a public and school librarian until 1977 when married George W. Bush. I would submit that Laura Bush’s educational experience is minimal, especially when considering thatbone must work about thirty years to retire. Still, that’s more than the non-experience of Bush’s current Secretary of Education—Margaret Spellings.
After marrying George, she dropped off the professional radar. She raise a family, but had her hands full with a husband, who by his own admission was a drunk until his 40th birth day and a perennial failure in business until the tax payers of Arlington gifted him a nifty $14,000,000.00 profit on sale of the Texas Rangers.
Laura’s choice of husbands, at least for the first nine years, says little for her ability to judge character. I’ll pass on discussing Bush’s character since the famed walk in Kennebunport in 1985 when Bush accepted Billy Graham as his political savior (it's late and I can't remember the details, but it was something like that) and his tossing the bottle a year later. Let’s just say I've not been impressed with Bush as Governor of Texas or President of the United States.
While she may never have articulated Dr. Laura’s bit about being the “mother of my children” she’s essentially been the wife of George for 28 years and the mother of Jenna and Barbara for 22 years.
I will submit that were not looking at a hefty resume, especially when we’re hunting down a potential president.
Laura Bush Biography
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ May 30 2005, 06:39 PM)
She is a family woman
I don’t see being a family woman or man as being a big qualification. It certainly isn’t mentioned in The Constitution of the United States. In fact, Dan Quayle ranted and raved about “family values” and his presidential aspirations went nowhere. Quayle, of course, had experience as both a Senator from Indiana and as George H. W. Bush’s Vice President. On the other hand, I’ll bet Laura could take Danny Boy down any day in a spelling bee, especially if it came down to the word “potatoe” or is that “potato.”
QUOTE
She would be the one to help reaffirm international ties and help usher in a better age of cooperation for everyone.
Now this is a strange statement VDemosthenes. It seems George has messed nearly everything up as far as international relations goes, yet you want to elect his wife to tidy up th mess?
2. Would you support her if she did?
No! Chris Matthews has said on more than one occasion that "everyone likes Laura Bush." As with any absolute statement, this is a stretch. Laura Bush, however, is quite popular and I have nothing against her personally. As some have pointed out, she seems to be a nice person. Being a nice person does not make one presidential. I think I’ll keep looking. That said VDemosthenes it wouldn't surprise me if Laura isn't a bit more liberal than George. She might actually disappoint you.
Edited to add sarcasm.
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
She has a right to do that as a female American. For many years, females had no such right in this country. I don't think Mrs. Bush has any clue as to what that means, and I don't think she would be in favor of supporting women's rights, minority rights, the rights of workers, or really any citizen not born or married into wealth and influence.
So no, she should not run.
Would you suport her if she did?
I do not support Republicans, so unless she ran as a Democrat, I'd not support her. However, if she ran for the local school board as a Demo or Libertarian, I'd support that, i.e., vote for her.
Her strongest qualifications are for being a school board member. Stand up comedy might be another good career path, if she should ever need one. Her nest appears well feathered though, and I don't think she worries at all about career. It's not an important part of her life, being supported by her husband.
Most women don't have that luxury. Well, maybe her path, should she choose to take one, should not be representing working people. I don't think she can grasp what it is like to work for money, to compete in a world economy for jobs, to keep quiet at work due to the chances of losing the job, and to be controlled in right-to-work states both on and off the job.
Also, I know she doesn't have an inkling into what it is like to be hungry for a job, any job, and watch illegal immigrants get hired into positions ahead of citizens. Then when you do get a job without health care insurance, you pay taxes so the illegals can get health care.
Mrs. Bush doesn't know what it is like to be an average American citizen in today's political and economic climate. Upon second thought, she does not get my vote for anything.
I suppose she's a nice lady. With little to worry about, people tend to be nice. The rest of us get a little pissy when the street looms ahead.
She has a right to do that as a female American. For many years, females had no such right in this country. I don't think Mrs. Bush has any clue as to what that means, and I don't think she would be in favor of supporting women's rights, minority rights, the rights of workers, or really any citizen not born or married into wealth and influence.
So no, she should not run.
Would you suport her if she did?
I do not support Republicans, so unless she ran as a Democrat, I'd not support her. However, if she ran for the local school board as a Demo or Libertarian, I'd support that, i.e., vote for her.
Her strongest qualifications are for being a school board member. Stand up comedy might be another good career path, if she should ever need one. Her nest appears well feathered though, and I don't think she worries at all about career. It's not an important part of her life, being supported by her husband.
Most women don't have that luxury. Well, maybe her path, should she choose to take one, should not be representing working people. I don't think she can grasp what it is like to work for money, to compete in a world economy for jobs, to keep quiet at work due to the chances of losing the job, and to be controlled in right-to-work states both on and off the job.
Also, I know she doesn't have an inkling into what it is like to be hungry for a job, any job, and watch illegal immigrants get hired into positions ahead of citizens. Then when you do get a job without health care insurance, you pay taxes so the illegals can get health care.
Mrs. Bush doesn't know what it is like to be an average American citizen in today's political and economic climate. Upon second thought, she does not get my vote for anything.
I suppose she's a nice lady. With little to worry about, people tend to be nice. The rest of us get a little pissy when the street looms ahead.
QUOTE(crashfourit @ May 30 2005, 04:34 PM)
QUOTE(Fox News)
"I think Mrs. Bush ought to run for president," [Lynne] Cheney joked during a TV interview scheduled to air Monday. "If we want to have a Bush dynasty, let's get Laura Bush."
(source)
Topics for debate:
- Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
- Would you suport her if she did?
No and No.
Laura Bush is a fine woman. But she's not qualified to be the president. Neither is Hillary Clinton come to think of it.
If you want a "Bush dynasty", vote for Jeb. He's more qualified than his brother who is a twice elected US President.
If Jeb decides to run, he'll be tough to beat. McCain thinks that he has the inside track, but he's wrong. He's alienated too many people in the GOP base. I look for Senator George Allen from VA as the dark horse candidate who could win and beat Hillary in a landslide. Rudy would be my choice but also don't think he could get the nomination. Its Jebs if he wants it.
I adore Laura Bush! She is an absolutely perfect first lady. In fact, I think she is the best we have ever had: graceful, poised, charming, honest, intelligent etc.
But as far as her being president-- NOT. I have no idea where she comes down on the issues. She has no real experience IMO that would make her a good president. Being a perfect first lady, does not a good president make!
On the other hand, Hillary, when she was first lady, made it very clear where she came down on the issues. I had the impression that she was running the show in a lot of ways. Hillary might be president one day-- but not Laura.
But as far as her being president-- NOT. I have no idea where she comes down on the issues. She has no real experience IMO that would make her a good president. Being a perfect first lady, does not a good president make!
On the other hand, Hillary, when she was first lady, made it very clear where she came down on the issues. I had the impression that she was running the show in a lot of ways. Hillary might be president one day-- but not Laura.
1. Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
While I think she’s a charming and intelligent first lady (she was a hoot on Leno a few weeks ago) and handled herself well on the recent internation tour, I don’t know where she stands on issues. You could assume she would share the same vision as her husband which means she would probably veto anything related to stem cell research and that’s where she’d lose my vote.
I couldn’t imagine anything but the Republican ticket if she ran for office.
2. Would you suport her if she did?
It would depend on her opposition and where they stood on issues.
While I think she’s a charming and intelligent first lady (she was a hoot on Leno a few weeks ago) and handled herself well on the recent internation tour, I don’t know where she stands on issues. You could assume she would share the same vision as her husband which means she would probably veto anything related to stem cell research and that’s where she’d lose my vote.
I couldn’t imagine anything but the Republican ticket if she ran for office.
2. Would you suport her if she did?
It would depend on her opposition and where they stood on issues.
The way I see it, being First Lady of the US is a little like being the Queen of Britain.....(now don't all start shouting, I'm not equating the Monarchy with the Presidency or anything daft like that).
The point about being the Queen of Britain is NOT to have political power - or even be a skilled politician (although it may help when the UK budget comes around and we look at where we can make savings...the Royal budget is always a good place to start).
To paraphrase Hayleyanne the Queen is meant to show a face of Britain to both Britain and the world that is:
(Now I'm not saying whether she does this well or not - but it is the role of the Monarch in a constitutional monarchy).
I.E. Being first lady (or first husband ? should it arise) is about showing good human qualities, to support the President - 'any President who has a wife like that can't be ALL bad! ' and to show the friendly face of Americans in general.
Just as being the Queen is to make the British (Government and people) look good on the world stage
BUT these aren't necessarily good political qualities. They are useful for other reasons.
The point about being the Queen of Britain is NOT to have political power - or even be a skilled politician (although it may help when the UK budget comes around and we look at where we can make savings...the Royal budget is always a good place to start).
To paraphrase Hayleyanne the Queen is meant to show a face of Britain to both Britain and the world that is:
QUOTE
graceful, poised, charming, honest, intelligent etc.
(Now I'm not saying whether she does this well or not - but it is the role of the Monarch in a constitutional monarchy).
I.E. Being first lady (or first husband ? should it arise) is about showing good human qualities, to support the President - 'any President who has a wife like that can't be ALL bad! ' and to show the friendly face of Americans in general.
Just as being the Queen is to make the British (Government and people) look good on the world stage
BUT these aren't necessarily good political qualities. They are useful for other reasons.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ May 31 2005, 06:54 AM)
I adore Laura Bush! She is an absolutely perfect first lady. In fact, I think she is the best we have ever had: graceful, poised, charming, honest, intelligent etc.
As I posted previously, I don't dislike Laura Bush. Style wise she doesn't hold a candle to Jacqueline Kennedy. Oddly, my favorite First Lady was a Republican--Betty Ford. I like the way she bucked her husband on the equal rights amendment, faced the demons of her addiction and founded the Betty Ford Center.
Laura Bush doesn't measure up to either Mrs. Kennedy or Mrs. Ford.
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
Holy Secret Weapon, Batman! The Joker for prez? 
Seriously – no. Not on any ticket…please. Even though she shows more intelligence and wit than her husband (hardly difficult), she is merely an accessory in the Bush administration. I don’t believe she has, or wants to have, the position as president. What, she’s going to whack foreign leaders over the head with a cookie spatula or give them a time out to make them behave? All she is is a creepy smile in a tasteful suit - even when she tries to be off-the-cuff funny, it comes off as awkward and staged (omigawd, the milk the bull joke...yeesh
).
The last thing this country needs is a Bush dynasty - heaven he'p us…
Would you suport her if she did?
See above.
Holy Secret Weapon, Batman! The Joker for prez?
Seriously – no. Not on any ticket…please. Even though she shows more intelligence and wit than her husband (hardly difficult), she is merely an accessory in the Bush administration. I don’t believe she has, or wants to have, the position as president. What, she’s going to whack foreign leaders over the head with a cookie spatula or give them a time out to make them behave? All she is is a creepy smile in a tasteful suit - even when she tries to be off-the-cuff funny, it comes off as awkward and staged (omigawd, the milk the bull joke...yeesh
). The last thing this country needs is a Bush dynasty - heaven he'p us…
Would you suport her if she did?
See above.
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
Though I like Mrs. Bush more than her husband (at least from her spoken word, I don't think any of us know her personally), I don't believe that she is qualified by the public's standard to be president. Nor is any first lady for that matter. Picking out the white house china, having a 'cause' and entertaining the wives of other heads of state does not fill out the resume required to lead the world's superpower.
Nor does being a one term carpetbagging Senator....but that's another topic altogether.
Fortunately, I believe clear thinkers will agree that the Cheney's were being tongue-in-cheek when making those remarks. Clearly Mrs. Bush does not have the desire or motivation to be the president.
Would you support her if she did?
It would strongly depend on who the Libertarian Party was running during the election. But boiling down between Laura and Hillary, I'd pick the educator of moderate temperament over the shrill lawyer.
Though I like Mrs. Bush more than her husband (at least from her spoken word, I don't think any of us know her personally), I don't believe that she is qualified by the public's standard to be president. Nor is any first lady for that matter. Picking out the white house china, having a 'cause' and entertaining the wives of other heads of state does not fill out the resume required to lead the world's superpower.
Nor does being a one term carpetbagging Senator....but that's another topic altogether.
Fortunately, I believe clear thinkers will agree that the Cheney's were being tongue-in-cheek when making those remarks. Clearly Mrs. Bush does not have the desire or motivation to be the president.
Would you support her if she did?
It would strongly depend on who the Libertarian Party was running during the election. But boiling down between Laura and Hillary, I'd pick the educator of moderate temperament over the shrill lawyer.
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
No, and I don't think she will. She is a fine first lady, much better than the last one we had as first "lady" (a term I use loosely in the case of St Hillary the Beekeeper). But, I don't think she should or will even contemplate running for President. She doesn't need the kind of crap that entails from the angry and childish left like we've seen even here in this forum. She's above that sort of thing.
Would you suport her if she did?
Darn right I would.
No, and I don't think she will. She is a fine first lady, much better than the last one we had as first "lady" (a term I use loosely in the case of St Hillary the Beekeeper). But, I don't think she should or will even contemplate running for President. She doesn't need the kind of crap that entails from the angry and childish left like we've seen even here in this forum. She's above that sort of thing.
Would you suport her if she did?
Darn right I would.
QUOTE(BoF @ May 31 2005, 05:08 PM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ May 31 2005, 06:54 AM)
I adore Laura Bush! She is an absolutely perfect first lady. In fact, I think she is the best we have ever had: graceful, poised, charming, honest, intelligent etc.
As I posted previously, I don't dislike Laura Bush. Style wise she doesn't hold a candle to Jacqueline Kennedy. Oddly, my favorite First Lady was a Republican--Betty Ford. I like the way she bucked her husband on the equal rights amendment, faced the demons of her addiction and founded the Betty Ford Center.
Laura Bush doesn't measure up to either Mrs. Kennedy or Mrs. Ford.
Good points Bof. Who can beat out Jackie Kennedy for class? And I too have enormous respect for Betty Ford. I just really like Laura Bush too though-- so pretty and sweet etc. Barbara Bush was wonderful with her down to earth nature too.
Some of you here are not being constructive. Keep your sarcastic comments to a minimum and always be civil.
TOPICS:
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
Would you suport her if she did?
TOPICS:
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
Would you suport her if she did?
She is the only person living in the white house right now I still have faith in that cares about humanity in general. She seems to care about education deeply. Overall she seems like a descent person. But she has not held any political office before. She has no experience. Plus, it will take a genius and great leader to get us out of the mess where in right now.
QUOTE(SirAjh @ May 31 2005, 10:46 PM)
She is the only person living in the white house right now I still have faith in that cares about humanity in general. She seems to care about education deeply. Overall she seems like a descent person. But she has not held any political office before. She has no experience. Plus, it will take a genius and great leader to get us out of the mess where in right now.
Out of curiousity, is a deep held conviction that freedom is a cause worth supporting in order to increase the long-term security of the US AND the world the sign of someone who "cares about humanity in general"??
Or, is the more "humane" view one that favors isolationism, pacifism in the face of a growing threat, and the condemning of millions of people to slavery and genocide?
You're right that Laura Bush has no political experience and thus has zero practical chance of an office like POTUS.
She has no chance of getting the GOP nomination. But, her brother in law sure does if he wants it.
It doesn't take a "genius" to move us forward. Just someone with a solid set of core principles and the backbone to stick to those principles if and when events make that course uncomfortable. In other words, someone like George W. Bush. Genius is not something that many president have had.... least of all the previous president who 's inaction toward the growing threat of Al Qaeda and Iraq (and Iran, N. Korea and China) set the stage of the "mess" that erupted on 9/11/01.
QUOTE(crashfourit @ May 30 2005, 04:34 PM)
[*]Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
[*]Would you suport her if she did?
[*]Would you suport her if she did?
Should Laura Bush run for president? Based on what? Meeting the minimum qualifications for the job like her husband? Sure, if being a nice and charismatic person who actually seems fairly intelligent and can read doesn't over-qualify her for the job.
Would I support her? In words of one syllable: NO. Let's see how well she does with her "pet project" of cleaning up the gang problem in America. So far, she has done diddly-squat.
Geez, how low are we going to lower the bar anyway for future presidents? If we can't have "the best and the brightest" are we happy to settle for "the pleasant and competent?"
Yeah, we don't need a genius to move us forward. It is going to take someone with Christ-like healing powers to fix the messes our current semi-sentient Hand Puppet has gotten us into home and abroad.
And who exactly was president when almost 3000 American civilians were slaughtered on a single day in September, still hasn't hunted down Osama Bin Forgotten and has sent almost 1700 American soldiers to their deaths fighting an unwinnable war based on the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never there in a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Oh right, that would be Mr. Laura Bush. Nope. Guilt by association. That disqualifies her in my book. Better luck next time, LB. Guess she should have married the "smart" brother.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jun 1 2005, 12:19 AM)
QUOTE(crashfourit @ May 30 2005, 04:34 PM)
[*]Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
[*]Would you suport her if she did?
[*]Would you suport her if she did?
Should Laura Bush run for president? Based on what? Meeting the minimum qualifications for the job like her husband? Sure, if being a nice and charismatic person who actually seems fairly intelligent and can read doesn't over-qualify her for the job.
So being a two term governor of a populous state that borders a foreign country and that has a GNP larger than many of the world's countries is a "minimum" qualification for president? How about prevailing through the grueling nomination process?
I wonder who you believe is "qualified" to be president. Certainly not a charismatic ex-governor of the po-dunk state of Arkansas? Yes? No?
QUOTE
Would I support her? In words of one syllable: NO. Let's see how well she does with her "pet project" of cleaning up the gang problem in America. So far, she has done diddly-squat.
Laura Bush is responsible for cleaning up gangs in America? When was she appointed to the law enforcement community? I guess she's responsible for that issue. We sure can't put any responsibility on the so-called "leaders" closest to that problem can we? People like Jesse, after all, are too busy extorting money from corporate America to deal with an issue like that aren't they?
QUOTE
Geez, how low are we going to lower the bar anyway for future presidents? If we can't have "the best and the brightest" are we happy to settle for "the pleasant and competent?"
Well, we could hire Hillary for the job. That would lower the bar significantly to a shady lawyer who was involved in multiple scandals as first lady and who could only get elected by carpetbagging to a state dominated by the democrat party. We'd be stepping on the bar to get it that low if we select that ex-Rose law firm luminary.
QUOTE
Yeah, we don't need a genius to move us forward. It is going to take someone with Christ-like healing powers to fix the messes our current semi-sentient Hand Puppet has gotten us into home and abroad.
Hand puppet? Bush is the boldest US president in our lifetime, bar none. What you call a "mess" is human history. How does this compare, for example to the "mess" of the US revolutionary war? Civil war? The various conflicts with Mexico, Native Americans, and Spain? How about WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam? Perhaps you just lack historical perspective. Did you come to age during the boom time of Clinton and believe that it was all just because of him?
QUOTE
And who exactly was president when almost 3000 American civilians were slaughtered on a single day in September, still hasn't hunted down Osama Bin Forgotten and has sent almost 1700 American soldiers to their deaths fighting an unwinnable war based on the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never there in a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11?
A lot of hyperbole in that paragraph but little substance. Who was president during Pearl Harbor? Did FDR, using your logic, "cause" that attack? And FDR never was able to "hunt down" Tojo nor the Japanese emperor. He died before that happened. Do you revile FDR as well? To be consistent logically, you must.
Bin Laden? He's hiding in a cave and pursued 24/7. If he shows a hair from his beard he's toast. He's not on CNN like he was when Bubba was ignoring him for 8 years while he conducted a series of escalating attacks on our country and our interests. WMD's? Bush sure thought Iraq had them. But so did nearly every country in the western world, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary, etc., etc. I guess Bush really should have been able to ignore all that intelligence pointing in that direction not to mention the actual behavior of Saddam?
QUOTE
Oh right, that would be Mr. Laura Bush. Nope. Guilt by association. That disqualifies her in my book. Better luck next time, LB. Guess she should have married the "smart" brother.
No, the "smart" brother married another woman. And someday, you may also refer to her as "first lady".
FINAL WARNING. Drop the sarcastic comments and stay on topic or we close this thread.
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
Would you suport her if she did?
Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
Would you suport her if she did?
1. No.
2. I would support her if she were the Republican nominee but not until then. It's HIGHLY UNLIKELY she'll be the Republican nominee in 2008.
2. I would support her if she were the Republican nominee but not until then. It's HIGHLY UNLIKELY she'll be the Republican nominee in 2008.
EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACK
Laura Bush could never, will never, most likely does not want ever be considered for nomination or be President.
Laura Bush would so be eaten alive in he first month of consideration. Shes a guppy in a tank full of Betas, besides, Ive often wondered what does she do all day even as First Lady? An Eleanor Roosevelt she is far from.
She is the epitomy of what Hilary said when she asked if she was expected to sit at home and make cookies all day, which is how I see Laura. Very nice, quiet, stand by your man type. Good Bushie family type as Barbara did little either. Republican women follow their men with few exceptions, they dont get in front of them, and Republican men over 35 are unlikely to vote for a woman President when it comes down to the nitty gritty, no matter who. It comes down to the status quo.
Arent women supposed to be subservient by religious right viewpoint? --
A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. Southern Baptist decree
June 5, 2005
Fifty eight percent of evangelical protestant husbands – including Southern Baptists, Pentecostals and non-denomination evangelicals – said they believe men should focus on breadwinning while women should focus on homemaking. Comparatively, only thirty seven percent of unchurched men said they believe the same. http://news.crossmap.com/story/studies-fin...others/1268.htm
Laura Bush would so be eaten alive in he first month of consideration. Shes a guppy in a tank full of Betas, besides, Ive often wondered what does she do all day even as First Lady? An Eleanor Roosevelt she is far from.
She is the epitomy of what Hilary said when she asked if she was expected to sit at home and make cookies all day, which is how I see Laura. Very nice, quiet, stand by your man type. Good Bushie family type as Barbara did little either. Republican women follow their men with few exceptions, they dont get in front of them, and Republican men over 35 are unlikely to vote for a woman President when it comes down to the nitty gritty, no matter who. It comes down to the status quo.
Arent women supposed to be subservient by religious right viewpoint? --
A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. Southern Baptist decree
June 5, 2005
Fifty eight percent of evangelical protestant husbands – including Southern Baptists, Pentecostals and non-denomination evangelicals – said they believe men should focus on breadwinning while women should focus on homemaking. Comparatively, only thirty seven percent of unchurched men said they believe the same. http://news.crossmap.com/story/studies-fin...others/1268.htm
Topics for debate:[list=1]
QUOTE
[*]Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
I really don't believe she should. Previous comments have included the phrase: "she's really nice," but I don't think you want a "nice" candidate in the middle of a close campaign in a debate. I don't think she has enough moxy to survive a campaign. If the president can't handle hecklers at a political rally, what is she going to do?
QUOTE
[*]Would you suport her if she did?
I most definitely would not. Unless she morphed into an Arianna Huffington and came out for universal health care, was for a card-check union program, as well as changing a few elements of the NCLB act, I wouldn't even consider it. I don't think she really understands the life that most American's live. She is rather "sheltered" IMHO.
History is repleat with bad guys married to "nice" women- Hitler had Eva Braun, etc etc. Doesn't make them qualified to run the country, and you must consider the horrible person they chose to marry, and take that judgement into major consideration. The very fact that she married into the Bush family makes me wonder about how nice a person she really is.
For the record, I met Bill and Hillary Clinton on one of thier fueling stop overs here in Alaska (my Uncle is a big dem supporter, got us passes) - Hillary was very nice and gracious, made a point of talking to me about working in the canneries as a teenager, the "slime line"-very hard and "real" work- something no Bush could atest too LOL
For the record, I met Bill and Hillary Clinton on one of thier fueling stop overs here in Alaska (my Uncle is a big dem supporter, got us passes) - Hillary was very nice and gracious, made a point of talking to me about working in the canneries as a teenager, the "slime line"-very hard and "real" work- something no Bush could atest too LOL
[*]Should the First Lady, Laura Bush, run for president? For the Republican ticket?
[*]Would you suport her if she did?
No, I don't think she should run and I certainly wouldn't support her. Two things strike me about this discussion:
1. Dynastic politics. The very fact that we are seriously discussing a candidate merely because she is the wife of the President suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the way politics is done in this country. Why should we even consider her marital status? Is our body politic so utterly devoid of substance that our political deliberations can be affected by the likes of People Magazine? Is celebrity a signficant factor in choosing a candidate for the presidency? Why not Paris Hilton? Martin Sheen could argue that he is qualified to be President because he played one on television. Consider the following list of serious candidates for the Presidency who had a claim to fame (at some point) based on celebrity or a family relationship:
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
Jeb Bush
Laura Bush
Hillary Clinton
Al Gore
What future can we have if we choose our leaders based on their family ties? Are we drifting towards a democratically established aristocracy?
2. I note many comments that cite Ms. Bush's charm, graciousness, and so forth. While these are undeniably positive factors, the fact that people mention them first suggests that we choose a President on non-political factors. This too should give us all pause for sober contemplation on the future of the Republic.
[*]Would you suport her if she did?
No, I don't think she should run and I certainly wouldn't support her. Two things strike me about this discussion:
1. Dynastic politics. The very fact that we are seriously discussing a candidate merely because she is the wife of the President suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the way politics is done in this country. Why should we even consider her marital status? Is our body politic so utterly devoid of substance that our political deliberations can be affected by the likes of People Magazine? Is celebrity a signficant factor in choosing a candidate for the presidency? Why not Paris Hilton? Martin Sheen could argue that he is qualified to be President because he played one on television. Consider the following list of serious candidates for the Presidency who had a claim to fame (at some point) based on celebrity or a family relationship:
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
Jeb Bush
Laura Bush
Hillary Clinton
Al Gore
What future can we have if we choose our leaders based on their family ties? Are we drifting towards a democratically established aristocracy?
2. I note many comments that cite Ms. Bush's charm, graciousness, and so forth. While these are undeniably positive factors, the fact that people mention them first suggests that we choose a President on non-political factors. This too should give us all pause for sober contemplation on the future of the Republic.
You know, now that i think about it, I would like to retract my "too nice" argument against her. After all, ther is another woman who like her, is "nice" to a stepford-like fault, and she is now a senator. Click here to find out what she does now. Perhaps wit hteh right handlers, Laura could be president. Though her father in law wants Jebby to be president.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 31 2005, 11:19 PM)
Geez, how low are we going to lower the bar anyway for future presidents? If we can't have "the best and the brightest" are we happy to settle for "the pleasant and competent?"
Yeah, we don't need a genius to move us forward.
Yeah, we don't need a genius to move us forward.
nighttimer, I'm really glad that you said this. I'm thinking of a recent election between one intellectual powerhouse, and a spoiled rich kid who goofed off in college. Question - which one is which?
Today's Boston Globe
QUOTE(boston.com)
Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student
His 4-year average on par with Bush's
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | June 7, 2005
WASHINGTON -- During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences. But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.
In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.
Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.
His 4-year average on par with Bush's
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | June 7, 2005
WASHINGTON -- During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences. But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.
In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.
Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.
At least Laura Bush, by all accounts, was a better student that our last two nominees. And she was a librarian. Of course, I'm being tongue-in-cheek here, no one expects her to run or be nominated (I think). Hillary, on the other hand, was blasting away Dean-style at a fundraiser yesterday. Not sure what's up there.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.