Bush daughter bucks GOP, supports healthcare and SCOTUS nom

[Crossroads Inc.]

LINK

Bush women run afoul of GOP orthodoxy

Buzz up!263 votes
SendSharePrint

Getty – Barbara Bush attends the Lela Rose Spring 2010 Fashion Show at Bryant Park on September 13, 2009

She may have been born into a Republican family, but Barbara Bush, the 28-year-old daughter of former President George W. Bush, sounded more like a Democrat this weekend during an interview with Fox News. When "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace asked her whether she supports President Obama's health care reform plan, she responded: "I guess I'm glad the bill was passed." You can watch the exchange here (video courtesy of Fox News):

"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care?" she said. "Health should be a right for everyone." She is president of the Global Health Corps, an organization that champions global health equity.

No Republican in Congress voted for Obama's health care legislation.
Barbara Bush's comments come just weeks after her mother, former First Lady Laura Bush, professed views that departed sharply from the Republican majority opinion. During a Fox News interview, Laura Bush was asked to comment on Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.

"I think it's great," she responded. "I'm really glad that there will be three [women] if she's confirmed. I like to have women on the Supreme Court." And in an interview with CNN's Larry King last month, she came out in favor of abortion rights and gay marriage.

That makes at least two Bushes who probably won't be invited to headline Republican campaign rallies anytime soon.

— Rachel Rose Hartman is a politics writer for Yahoo! News.

Well this is a pleasant surprise. After calling them "the Barbie twins" for much of Bush's presidency, maybe they will surprise by showing a bit more mental independence?

[Aaron]

Unfortunately none of them have any say in how things are run, nor any power in the US Government. So while it might be a sign of changing times, it's more of a feel good thing then anything.

[Phantasee]

Did you read your own article? It's one daughter agreeing with the healthcare bill and his wife agreeing with the SCOTUS nomination.

And I understand the reason Laura Bush was so quiet during her time as First Lady was because she is to the left of her husband.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Did you read your own article? It's one daughter agreeing with the healthcare bill and his wife agreeing with the SCOTUS nomination.

And I understand the reason Laura Bush was so quiet during her time as First Lady was because she is to the left of her husband.

Evidently I misread it, and apologize for that. If a Mod wishes to rename the thread they can.

[Darth Fanboy]

OMG DAUGHTERS SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS EXCEPT FOR CHELSEA CLINTON.

Yeah I really don't see how this is news or means anything other than a headline and if her dad was still president she never would have said it.

[Starglider]

Health care is not a 'right'. It annoys me when people throw the word around like that. 'Rights' are things to be protected, which government respects largely by not infringing. Healthcare is an entitlement. I happen to think that it's a worthwhile entitlement, partly because of the economic benefits of having single-payer health care and partly because the causes of ill health are inherently so unfair. However it is not comparable with rights like free speech or democratic government. Certainly it isn't a 'natural right'; that notion is an incoherent fiction in the first place, but healthcare is particularly 'un-natural'.

[Admiral Valdemar]

"Rights" are fairly nebulous and meaningless in many respects anywaya, not that it stops people using the word for everything from their right to drive a fast car to their right to be obnoxious in public. They sure aren't universal or non-negotiable, they just happen to exist in more progressive states. As far as healthcare, it should be a "right" in every way that freedom to speak your mind is. There is nothing more important than your health, and society is impacted in infinite numbers of ways by these issues. So, as with reforming criminals, healthcare should be focused on as being another means to tackle problems in society, and fencing off those who can't afford the most basic of care is a sure fire way to dick over the country in general.

[ArmorPierce]

Health care is not a 'right'. It annoys me when people throw the word around like that. 'Rights' are things to be protected, which government respects largely by not infringing. Healthcare is an entitlement. I happen to think that it's a worthwhile entitlement, partly because of the economic benefits of having single-payer health care and partly because the causes of ill health are inherently so unfair. However it is not comparable with rights like free speech or democratic government. Certainly it isn't a 'natural right'; that notion is an incoherent fiction in the first place, but healthcare is particularly 'un-natural'.

WTF is a natural right? Quite frankly, I would quite frankly, rather have healthcare amongst other things than freedom of speech or a democratic government.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There are no natural rights, only that which society deems a right, and those aren't any more immutable than putty, even in the bastion of freedom and democracy that is the US, which constantly flouts them anyway. Regardless, healthcare should be seen as a fundamental force for good for all mankind, and as freely available as can be, since it not only benefits the recipient, but society in general. How much of our current predicament is down to simple malnutrition, for instance? That, alone, can have a significant impact on the mental and physical state of a person e.g. the problem teenagers who fed on a diet of junk and no fresh produce at all who consequently turned around in attitude when a nutritionist put them on a crash diet.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Health care is not a 'right'. It annoys me when people throw the word around like that. 'Rights' are things to be protected, which government respects largely by not infringing.

Libertarian bullshit. Both are social conventions; human creations to express certain ideas. There can be positive rights in the same artificial sense we agree there are negative rights.

Healthcare is an entitlement.

Ditto as above. If one can have a right to decent wage, one can have a right to health care. Its not like there's some absolute standard of philosophical rigor by which negative rights qualify but positive ones do not. Don't waste time with tenured sophistry about people "throwing around words". These conventions are taken uncritically outside of the United States.

And how is "democratic government" a right which is not positive? A government doesn't step outside its way, it provides education, electoral mechanisms, funds legislatures and all the extra trappings of functional electoralism. How is that not a positive right? The government must expend contemplative effort and resources to provide it.

[Molyneux]

WTF is a natural right? Quite frankly, I would quite frankly, rather have healthcare amongst other things than freedom of speech or a democratic government.

Then you are either very, very naive, or very stupid.
If you would like an example of a nation with healthcare but no guarantee of free speech or representative government, look at the example of, say, Cuba.

[ArmorPierce]

WTF is a natural right? Quite frankly, I would quite frankly, rather have healthcare amongst other things than freedom of speech or a democratic government.

Then you are either very, very naive, or very stupid.
If you would like an example of a nation with healthcare but no guarantee of free speech or representative government, look at the example of, say, Cuba.

No you're an idiot. If I had to choose between my health and being able to vote I'd choose my health and well being dumb ass. What good is a vote if I'm dead? Do you think the people of Iraq were better off when they were relatively secured under saddam hussein as long as they kept their head down or immediately after the toppling of the regime which numbers have put casualties at least a hundred thousand (body count) and other sources have several times that amount.

You say look at cuba, what does that mean? Back up you argument you twit. Look at it in what way? How does that invalidate me preferring healthcare (along with other things) over freedom of speech or a democratic government?

[Molyneux]

WTF is a natural right? Quite frankly, I would quite frankly, rather have healthcare amongst other things than freedom of speech or a democratic government.

Then you are either very, very naive, or very stupid.
If you would like an example of a nation with healthcare but no guarantee of free speech or representative government, look at the example of, say, Cuba.

No you're an idiot. If I had to choose between my health and being able to vote I'd choose my health and well being dumb ass. What good is a vote if I'm dead? Do you think the people of Iraq were better off when they were relatively secured under saddam hussein as long as they kept their head down or immediately after the toppling of the regime which numbers have put casualties at least a hundred thousand (body count) and other sources have several times that amount.

You say look at cuba, what does that mean? Back up you argument you twit. Look at it in what way? How does that invalidate me preferring healthcare (along with other things) over freedom of speech or a democratic government?

Way to move the goalposts. Lack of government-ensured healthcare is hardly the same thing as complete and utter anarchy, you nitwit.

[ArmorPierce]

Check yourself when making a claim of moving a goal post. Where did I make a claim of supporting anarchy retard? The only one strawmanning here is you.

I would quite frankly, rather have healthcare amongst other things than freedom of speech or a democratic government.

Please demonstrate where I am moving the goal post. My position remains the same, you're just an idiot.

You still as of yet to support your argument which consists of 'look at cuba.' What about Cuba? Hey look I can do the same, I am right because, for example look at that dog.

[Molyneux]

Check yourself when making a claim of moving a goal post. Where did I make a claim of supporting anarchy retard? The only one strawmanning here is you.

I would quite frankly, rather have healthcare amongst other things than freedom of speech or a democratic government.

Please demonstrate where I am moving the goal post. My position remains the same, you're just an idiot.

You still as of yet to support your argument which consists of 'look at cuba.' What about Cuba? Hey look I can do the same, I am right because, for example look at that dog.

You idiot.
Your argument is: healthcare is more important than freedom of speech/democratic government.
I pointed you at a country that has government-run healthcare, but neither freedom of speech nor a democratically elected government.
It is not a nice place in which to live.

You attempted to counter by acting as though the choice was between freedom of speech/democratic government and life:

If I had to choose between my health and being able to vote I'd choose my health and well being dumb ass. What good is a vote if I'm dead?

That is completely moving the goalposts, you asshole, and obviously so. You cannot change the terms of an argument mid-statement, you scummy little pus-bag, and then get pissy when someone calls you on it!

[anybody_mcc]

Check yourself when making a claim of moving a goal post. Where did I make a claim of supporting anarchy retard? The only one strawmanning here is you.

I would quite frankly, rather have healthcare amongst other things than freedom of speech or a democratic government.

Please demonstrate where I am moving the goal post. My position remains the same, you're just an idiot.

You still as of yet to support your argument which consists of 'look at cuba.' What about Cuba? Hey look I can do the same, I am right because, for example look at that dog.

You idiot.
Your argument is: healthcare is more important than freedom of speech/democratic government.
I pointed you at a country that has government-run healthcare, but neither freedom of speech nor a democratically elected government.
It is not a nice place in which to live.

You attempted to counter by acting as though the choice was between freedom of speech/democratic government and life:

I lived in a country where there was no "free speech" and "democratic goverment" but reasonable healthcare system and I would definitely prefer it over country that has both but no healthcare. I prefer how it is now since we now have all of them, although the freedom of speech is often more theoretical concept in all western democracies and the democracies vary greatly in their usefullness. Also your example is quite dishonest, I would not want to live in Cuba but not because of lack of free speech or democracy, but because of economic reasons that cause great poverty and affect their healthcare to the point where you can get better healthcare as a poor in US then in Cuba(although you may go bankrupt in US). Also I do not think I am the only one, most people (and by that I mean most not all) would in my opinion prefer all other things being equal healthcare over those freedoms, it is just human nature to want stability and only after that some more advanced concepts.

[ArmorPierce]

You idiot.
Your argument is: healthcare is more important than freedom of speech/democratic government.
I pointed you at a country that has government-run healthcare, but neither freedom of speech nor a democratically elected government.
It is not a nice place in which to live.

Thank you, now that you stated your position I can actually respond. You're argument, firstly, is fucking stupid. I can point to a number of democractic countries that are not a nice place to live. Iraq, Afghanistan and Benin for example. Further, I did mention that there'd have to be qualifiers for me to prefer it. If the country is enough of a shit hole to offset universal health care, obviously I would not prefer to live there. If I had a somewhat equal day-to-day standard of living, I would prefer not having the right to vote and access to health care.

You attempted to counter by acting as though the choice was between freedom of speech/democratic government and life:

No I didn't you fucking piece of useless shit. I argued that if I had to choose between one or the other, I would choose access to health care (with certain qualifiers). Please stop strawmanning the shit out of my posts, you just look like a dishonest piece of shit.

That is completely moving the goalposts, you asshole, and obviously so. You cannot change the terms of an argument mid-statement, you scummy little pus-bag, and then get pissy when someone calls you on it!

Wow you're so fucking stupid it hurts talking you piece of shit. That quote is from my first post you fucking retard. Please point where I changed the terms of argument (argument? It's my preference idiot).

Really, either you are a really dishonest piece of shit, or you are a illiterate little fuck.

[Elfdart]

I'm not surprised. William Miller's daughter is a liberal radio host, Reagan's youngest daughter did a shoot for Playboy (which her dad's Justice Department had tried to put out of business) and she supports gay marriage, too. Being a college-educated single woman can be a real eye-opener, no matter how right-wing daddy might be.

[Molyneux]

You idiot.
Your argument is: healthcare is more important than freedom of speech/democratic government.
I pointed you at a country that has government-run healthcare, but neither freedom of speech nor a democratically elected government.
It is not a nice place in which to live.

Thank you, now that you stated your position I can actually respond. You're argument, firstly, is fucking stupid. I can point to a number of democractic countries that are not a nice place to live. Iraq, Afghanistan and Benin for example.

All of which are shitholes for reasons that have nothing to do with free speech or democratic government, and are thus irrelevant. Cuba is a bad place to live because of the lack of free speech rights and democratic government, which is why I mentioned it in the first place.

Further, I did mention that there'd have to be qualifiers for me to prefer it. If the country is enough of a shit hole to offset universal health care, obviously I would not prefer to live there. If I had a somewhat equal day-to-day standard of living, I would prefer not having the right to vote and access to health care.

So you want to live somewhere that has health-care, but doesn't give you freedom of speech - but only if you also don't have to deal with the consequences of lack of freedom of speech. Nice position, there.

You attempted to counter by acting as though the choice was between freedom of speech/democratic government and life:

No I didn't you fucking piece of useless shit. I argued that if I had to choose between one or the other, I would choose access to health care (with certain qualifiers). Please stop strawmanning the shit out of my posts, you just look like a dishonest piece of shit.

Ahem:

Do you think the people of Iraq were better off when they were relatively secured under saddam hussein as long as they kept their head down or immediately after the toppling of the regime which numbers have put casualties at least a hundred thousand (body count) and other sources have several times that amount.

Iraq is a hellhole now because it is in anarchy. Iraq was a hellhole before because it was under a dictatorial government (that, coincidentally, provided government-run health care until the last decade of Saddam's reign). Pointing to Iraq as an example of "healthcare is better than voting!" is an invalid argument, jackass.

That is completely moving the goalposts, you asshole, and obviously so. You cannot change the terms of an argument mid-statement, you scummy little pus-bag, and then get pissy when someone calls you on it!

Wow you're so fucking stupid it hurts talking you piece of shit. That quote is from my first post you fucking retard. Please point where I changed the terms of argument (argument? It's my preference idiot).

No, actually, it's from your second post. Look at the thread. Your first post was, in its entirety:

WTF is a natural right? Quite frankly, I would quite frankly, rather have healthcare amongst other things than freedom of speech or a democratic government.

Learn to read. Oh, and on a side note, you used "you're" where "your" is the correct word.

[Terralthra]

I love it when one flamer tries to correct another flamer's already-correct grammar.

[Serafina]

Health care is not a 'right'. It annoys me when people throw the word around like that. 'Rights' are things to be protected, which government respects largely by not infringing. Healthcare is an entitlement. I happen to think that it's a worthwhile entitlement, partly because of the economic benefits of having single-payer health care and partly because the causes of ill health are inherently so unfair. However it is not comparable with rights like free speech or democratic government. Certainly it isn't a 'natural right'; that notion is an incoherent fiction in the first place, but healthcare is particularly 'un-natural'.

You have the right to be bodily (and mentally) unharmed. IIRC, it's somewhere in the declaration of human rights, and it is in the german constitution.
For that, you NEED clean food, water and shelter as a bare minimum - and you also NEED health care.
Thus, health care is a human right.

Now, that doesn't translate into "the state has to provide it in all cases" - but unlike food, shelter and water, health care does evidently not work well in a free market (of course, the first three are regulated by the goverment as well).

[ArmorPierce]

All of which are shitholes for reasons that have nothing to do with free speech or democratic government, and are thus irrelevant. Cuba is a bad place to live because of the lack of free speech rights and democratic government, which is why I mentioned it in the first place.

Right, and the economic sanctions against Cuba has nothing to do with Cuba's current living conditions . Democratic countries can be shit holes to live in. A non-democratic government does not necessarily = shit hole to live in (although pretty inevitable to lead to that). If I had the option to live in a semi-benevolent dictatorship that made sure that my bare minimum needs were met if needed, I would choose that over "Freedom to vote, Freedom of speach, Freedom to rot and die in the street."

Ahem:

What?

Iraq is a hellhole now because it is in anarchy. Iraq was a hellhole before because it was under a dictatorial government (that, coincidentally, provided government-run health care until the last decade of Saddam's reign). Pointing to Iraq as an example of "health care is better than voting!" is an invalid argument, jackass.

I pointed it out since you pointed to Cuba which is related to national health care in just about the same level if not more in this context. It is merely an example of choosing stability rather than freedom to vote or democracy which resulted in death to a number of people. Me preferring health care (albeit, an extreme example) and stability has nothing to do with Iraq (and I can't imagine why would think so). It's the same in the sense that it has resulted in death like how not having healthcare can and has resulted in death.

No, actually, it's from your second post. Look at the thread. Your first post was, in its entirety:

Took me a while to figure out that you were talking about the Iraq comment rather than what I've actually been talking about for the past few days. Explained above, now get off it because it was never what my argument was about.

Oh, and on a side note, you used "you're" where "your" is the correct word.

You got me there.

[ArmorPierce]

"Freedom to vote, Freedom of speach, Freedom to rot and die in the street."

speech instead of speach.

[Instant Sunrise]

I'm not surprised. William Miller's daughter is a liberal radio host, Reagan's youngest daughter did a shoot for Playboy (which her dad's Justice Department had tried to put out of business) and she supports gay marriage, too. Being a college-educated single woman can be a real eye-opener, no matter how right-wing daddy might be.

Even Laura Bush is not as conservative as her husband, being in support of gay marriage and being pro-choice.