| July 20th, 2006 |
Bush has vetoed a bill that would expand federal funding for stem-cell research. This is the first time he's pulled out the veto option in his 6 years as Commander & Theif. The only other time he almost used it was when Congress was upset about his endorsing the Dubai World takeover of many key U.S. ports. Why then since he's never found much reason to use the veto power in the past should he use it now?
Bush says of his decision {since he is 'the decider'}, "I took a position. I believe in it. So that's what I'm going to do." He sounds so quaintly simple doesn't he? Simple-minded I should say. Tony Snow, White House press secretary said of Bush's decision, "People like leadership much better than a finger in the wind..." It almost sounds noble doesn't it? But, not quite.
It's one thing to be the lone voice of opposition in a group of people deliberating about an important issue. That takes integrity, leadership perhaps if you're trying to motivate others to join your cause. But for a President, or any elected official who is supposed to represent the will of the people, to vote against what the overwhelming majority of the people he is supposed to represent wants is not to be a "leader", the more accurate term would be dictator. He decides by what he "wants" and all of the rest of us are sort of held hostage to his decision... Yeah, let's make that Dictator & Thief.
I can imagine the cries of foul over my take on this from Bush lovers, afterall they believe him to be a stand-up guy, stand-up comedian perhaps... I say the 'voting his conscience' defense is bogus and that leaders who go against the will of the people {except if it violates current laws} are dictating, not leading because elected leaders in the U.S. government are supposed to be representatives of the will of the people, not dictatating what our will should be. As such where do we draw the line on majority? When does a leader become a dictator because he ignores the will of the majority? If 2/3 say they want more funding for stem-cell research then isn't it ignoring a great deal of the will of the people for the President to deny this, even after legislators {the most direct representatives of the people} have signed on to it? What if 90% of voters approved of it. What if 99.9% of the people in this country wanted but .1%, which includes the President doesn't like it. Does that make him a leader, or a dictator? It sure as hell doesn't make him any sort of representative of the people. So then if 99% say 'yes' & the Prez says 'no' would be to cross the line, then what about less? Yes it gets slippery, but it's a fair question.
Obviously this is yet another attempt to appeal to the fanatical beliefs of Christian fundamentalists which just happens to have become the Republican base in recent history. It's not like we haven't seen that play go down umpteen times already. Most recently in the anti-gay marriage & anti-flag burning amendments which all failed, just as everyone and their brother knew it would, but it 'sent a message' and that message was 'Republican's care about socially conservative issues, they're working to protect family values.' Right, and 'those pesky Democrats mucked the whole thing up'. The Republicans already have control over three out of three branches of the government, do they need more to get their agendas passed?
Many Republicans in Congress pushed this bill through, mostly because 2 thirds of voters and thereby their constituents wanted it, in spite of the fact that Bush has talked as if he was going to veto any such bill when he signed the last one. So why pass this through if they knew their fellow Republican President was going to kill it? Maybe they were hoping for a 2/3 majority vote which would sidestep his decision {he may not be 'the decider' after all}. Then again maybe they never really cared to pass it at all. We could just put this into the window dressing category. Republican congressmen vote for it, since most voters expect it that's points for them, President Bush votes it down since he can't run for office again so he's got nothing to lose... but, plenty to gain. By voting it down those fundamentalist right-wingers get what they want and they have at least one Republican to thank for it.
So all this turns out to be a rather crafty little maneuver, also known as "politics as usual", especially since the 'Reds' came to power. It has all the hallmarks of another Karl Rove trick. That fat bastard has used his evil genius to fuck this country every which way.
Of course all this could backfire and voters may turn out against Republicans in general come November, I'm all but positive the balance of power will shift significantly. But then knowing Rove there is probably another ace card to be played between now and then, a foiled terrorist attack, high-level al-Qaida members captured, maybe even some superficial Middle East peace deal. Question is, are the masses ignorant enough to fall for it again. Only time will tell, but obviously the Republicans are going to use every play they can think of to squeeze out every last vote.Feeling like:  irritated |
|
|
| Top of Page |
Powered by GreatestJournal |