Despite Brownback's snowflake stunt and Santorum's insistence that zygotes are persons, the House stem cell bill, HR810, has passed, as have the two inconsequential smokescreen bills that Santorum tossed up. It's going to be interesting to hear Bush's stammered excuses when he vetos it; I'd figure he'd be reluctant to do the veto because it would mean taking undeniable responsibility for an action, something he doesn't like to do, but then I realized he has another out. He's going to blame God for telling him to kill the bill.
I predict that he will make some pious excuse like that when he vetoes it. That's our George: he didn't do it, it's not his fault, the buck stops somewhere else, he's a delegater, not a responsibility-taker.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
On the 29th of June, the Senate finally announced an upcoming vote on HR 810, a bill which would overturn President Bush's current prohibitions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. As I reported before, the announcement has been anticipated for some time, and many were disappointed…
Here we are, five and a half years into George W. Bush's Presidency, and he's not yet vetoed a bill. Not even a single bill. All sorts of bad legislation have been passed, from the bankruptcy reform legislation that makes it harder for people to start again after declaring bankruptcy, to budgets…
I'm taking it easy here in the fabulous Van Dusen mansion, a bed and breakfast where I'm staying tonight, and I thought I'd browse through the stem cell legislation that's being considered in the senate right now. It's strange: one substantive bill has come up from the House, and all of a sudden…
When Karl Rove told a Denver newspaper that Bush would exercise his first veto of the stem cell bill a couple weeks ago, he included one big whopper in his claim:
Recent studies, he said, show that researchers "have far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."
This is a…
Alternatively, he could sign it and then attach one of of his infamous "signing statements", indicating that he didn't have to enforce any part of the law that he personally disagreed with...
I thought he was 'The Decider'
he could sign this bill (which says that federal moneys can be used for stem cells) and then threaten his veto on any bill that actually allocates such spending.
not that he's vetoed anything up 'til now...
I suspect another signing statement, myself. Maybe they will use this as opportunity to declare the NSF or something unconstutional. (That's apparently the point of the signing statements, officially. Unofficially, of course, we all know ...)
Bush will solidify his base, but only for today. When it comes to the fundies there's always that fealing that they haven't done enough to please god so even while Bush is vetoing this bill(if he chooses to do so) he'll satisfy the base of dominionists today but they will be back tomorrow asking for something else and if Bush doesn't give it to them they'll forget all about the stem cell veto and accuse him of being anti-christian. That's how it works. They'll cry that christian values are being discriminated against, that the country is earning the wrath of god(as if they weren't already from the way these people have talked since the 1800's)
But I'm betting that Bush's corporate whore side will win out on this one. I'm betting that corporate CEO who is looking to make a few billion on research projects on his shoulder has a louder voice(and a bottle of Jim Beam to boot) than the republican jesus on the other shoulder wh offers nothing substantial. Bush's atheistic true nature will win out on this one.
MYOB'
.
Bush really has nothing to lose vetoing the legislation since he's a lame duck. In doing so, he throws a bone to Dobson, Robertson and their ilk without personally losing anything. The fact that he "had" to veto it may be just one more issue to energize the Repug lunatic base for the congressional races this fall.
"See!!! We need more wingnuts...uh, I mean conservative Republicans in Congress and the Senate to stop such wicked legislation! If not for our dear leader, those nasty ole scientists would be murdering snowflake babies with impunity!!"
Depending on who voted against it, the Bushies may feel there isn't much downside for the no vote Repugs and possibly some upside.
Just shows how bizarre politics has become in Jebusland...I, I mean the United States. Voting against or vetoing said legislation should be viewed as morally repugnant by any thinking person. But the morality misters are the ones opposed. Just shows how warped their sense of "morality" really is.
How utterly depressing to read such idiotic statements as those made by Brownback and Santorum. What's even more depressing is the fact that someone obviously voted for these morons.
No, silly D, he's "The Dunce-ider"
QUOTE: "...Just shows how warped their sense of "morality" really is."
Yes, like when Hovind in that news story earlier said the guns the feds found were property of the church. Last I heard only terrorists kept guns in their houses of worship. I wonder if Hovind is subject to the same laws that brought justice to Waco.
Religion + chip on shoulder + state of denial about one's propensity towards dictatorial rule = widespread human suffering
PZ, you're a prophet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5193998.stm
Oh, and his reason for the veto is
Tony Snow says the veto is because bush is against murder. So what would he rather do with the 400,000 frozen embryos that will never be implanted? It's the Ted Williams theory of death.
PZ, unlike Rick I think your prediction failed. GWB didn't say that God told him to do it, nor any variant like "the Bible forbids it". He said he would veto the bill because what it called for was morally wrong, because deliberate destruction of embryos is morally wrong. The nearest he got to bringing God into it was his little semiquotation from the Declaration of Independence about men (which apparently includes embryos now) being equally endowed with the right to life by their creator: pretty silly, but it's no more shifting the responsibility onto God than the Declaration of Independence was.
There's plenty to dislike there (what else is he proposing be done with all those embryos? does the possibility of weighing good consequences against bad ever occur to him? how come he cares sooooo deeply about those poor defenceless embryos but doesn't appear to give a damn if his foreign policy kills thousands?) but I think he did at least take responsibility.
Oh well. So much for my prediction. Now, can enough votes to overturn (is that the correct term?) the veto be mustered?