Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

The first veto

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The first veto

    So now we know that Bush does know how to use his power of veto. Of course, he uses it to kill legislation that would open federal money for stem cell research.

    For all of his talk about keeping the US at the cutting edge of science and technology, he would rather frame stem cell research in terms of "fetal farming" instead of biotechnology, biomedicine, or even pharmaceutical research.

    In my wildest dreams, I hope this signals some kind of change in the relationship between the administration and Congress--maybe Congress will actually engage in oversight in retaliation for the veto. Oh well, I did say my wildest dreams...

  • #2
    Let's ignore that Bush is basing his beliefs on religious opinion which is not supported by facts. Let's forget that he lacks a fundamental understanding of what it is he's vetoing. Indeed, let's just forget he's a simpleton twit for a moment.

    What I find fascinating is that there is overwhelming support for stem cell research, even from Republicans, yet Bush ignorantly opposes it. So, if scientific fact doesn't convince him, and his own constituents don't convince him, what is he basing his veto on?

    Well, Bush says stem cell research is tantamount to murder. This is a vastly ignorant belief which shows us just how uneducated the most powerful man in the world is.

    Opponents say stem cell research is murder because it creating and then destroying a human embryo. But, um, an embryo is not a person. In fact, the very definition of embryo is: "The prefetal product of conception". It is also defined as "An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form".

    We're talking about cells, not human beings. Cells.

    You know, karmic justice would be for Dubya to become deeply debilitated by Parkinson's or, better yet, fall off his mountain bike and become a quadriplegic. I wonder if his beliefs regarding stem cell research would change then?
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

    Comment


    • #3
      From Skys Impeach Bush Now Thread
      Voilodian Wrote
      Skys "impeach Bush" link has been vetoed similar to stem cell research. Stem cell research can be used to save lives and impregnate women that would otherwise not be able to have children. If the developmental stage of the embryo is minimal, is stem cell research a blasphemy? I myself dont know where the line should be drawn between the sciences and playing God. Are Bush's motives ethical or are they simply to secure christian votes? I am sure that some time in the future S.C.R. will be acceptable. I personally would say that if it is a positive advancement for mankind..go for it ..no holes barred. And I do see it as an advancing step in medicine.

      Comment


      • #4
        Not to defend him, but is Bush's use of the veto any different to what other presidents in the past have done?

        My understanding that the veto was essentially an emergency power that has been successively misused as a political perk.
        Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

        Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

        Comment


        • #5
          The veto is part of the checks and balance system, of course, but six years is an exceptionally long period for any veto, let alone the first one.


          Bush has displayed his odd penchant for digging in his heels on issues that seem to matter only to him. This shows how out of step he is with much of America--Republican, Democrat, Independent, or apolitical--as well as how little involvement he seems to have in setting an administrative agenda. In every decision that has been left (mostly) to him, his choices always cause friction. Harriet Miers? Immigration reform? Black eyes for him, his party, and his administration.

          Regarding this veto-
          He has engaged in the worst kind of political pandering. He is convinced that this is an abortion-related issue, so he makes a stand for the party fringe that keeps his coalition together, instead of the over 70% of the American public that disagrees with him, as well as the near entirety of the scientific community.

          As he has said, he is the decider.

          Comment


          • #6
            Granted but has any other presidential candidate used the veto for selfish political purposes?

            The BBC article I read about this included a comparative chart of the number of times the veto was used by previous presidents.
            • George W Bush: 0
            • Bill Clinton: 38
            • George Bush Snr: 44
            • Ronald Reagan: 78
            • FD Roosevelt: 635
            • Thomas Jefferson: 0

            Again I don't like Bush, or his use of executive power, but I just wonder what the historical context is for the use of the veto.
            Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

            Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by devilchicken
              Granted but has any other presidential candidate used the veto for selfish political purposes?

              The BBC article I read about this included a comparative chart of the number of times the veto was used by previous presidents.
              • George W Bush: 0
              • Bill Clinton: 38
              • George Bush Snr: 44
              • Ronald Reagan: 78
              • FD Roosevelt: 635
              • Thomas Jefferson: 0
              Again I don't like Bush, or his use of executive power, but I just wonder what the historical context is for the use of the veto.
              A good place to start is looking at what kind of Congress each of those presidents had. Dubya has been fortunate to have a Republican-controlled Congress.

              I'd love to say I know so much about US history that I can give you that data off the top of my head, but no... I'll have to do a bit of research...
              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, I think you see the political and historical context of the veto in those BBC numbers.

                Jefferson and Roosevelt are the anomolies. Jefferson used it little, but had relatively little legislation pass his desk to veto or sign into law. Roosevelt, in establishing the New Deal, overseeing WWII, and a politically divided Congress that was trying to grab some power from the Administrative branch of the government would have much more legislation to veto, and would be more likely to exercise its power.

                If you look at the Congressional make-up at the time of a Presidency, and the relationship that a President has with Congress, you will have a better context to think of the other Presidents' actions.

                However, to address the first question (did other Presidents use the veto for selfish political purposes): Of course. The power of veto allows the President to take a stand based on ideals, but that power doesn't demand an explanation. What I'm saying is that veto power is a power that is easily exploited for political grandstanding.

                Of course, you are looking for something specific...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
                  Let's ignore that Bush is basing his beliefs on religious opinion which is not supported by facts.
                  Originally posted by Doc
                  Bush has displayed his odd penchant for digging in his heels on issues that seem to matter only to him. This shows how out of step he is with much of America
                  I think B'oosh worships only the Profit, is not concerned about most citizens and is using this veto to pander to his hood-winked voting-mobilized (not so)fun, damn mental constituents.
                  Last edited by Talisant; 07-21-2006, 12:42 PM.
                  "A man is no man who cannot have a fried mackerel when he has set his mind on it; and more especially when he has money in his pocket to pay for it." - E.A. Poe's NICHOLAS DUNKS; OR, FRIED MACKEREL FOR DINNER

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bush's financial power, when he leaves office, will probably ONLY come from the fundamentalist right. He's lost much of his credibility with the old Republicans of his father's stripe and isn't likely to convince many people that he's the best person to have a seat on the board of a powergen company, for instance. What else can he fall back to but the position provided by his fundamentalism, convenient or sincere as it is ?
                    He has shown remarkably bad judgement as a president, in almost every field of politics, including his 'gut reaction' judgements of the likes of Putin (into whose 'soul' he looked and found a guy he could like...).

                    Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in Europe:
                    The Whispering Swarm: Book One of the Sanctuary of the White Friars - The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction
                    Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles - Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - Modem Times 2.0 - The Sunday Books - The Sundered Worlds


                    Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in the USA:
                    The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction - The Sunday Books - Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles
                    Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - The Sundered Worlds - The Winds of Limbo - Modem Times 2.0 - Elric: Swords and Roses

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes, the Bush's are "juiced" in to all thse special interest groups.

                      I'm sure "W" has more than a few things lined up for him when he leaves the Presidency, granted not as prestigious or important as what some of hi dad's friends might have set him up in.

                      There is so much stuff the Bush family were tied to, like that Savings and Loan scandal and one of the son's did not have to pay $100,000 back for his college. He was "forgiven."


                      -------------

                      wow! what all did FDR veto?

                      "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                      - Michael Moorcock

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Many people in the conservative movement--social, fiscal, and small government--are finally beginning to come out of the woodwork to criticize W's definition of conservative. His first veto seems to be a warning shot to those people, which shows the extent to which he is left pandering to his most ferverent supporters. They are true believers in more than one way.

                        Bush may be in for a surprise after his presidency, as these aren't his supporters with deep pockets.

                        Ahem. The cynical side of me thinks that this veto give Republican congress people--especially those running for re-election in November--political cover. They can show how they are not simply Bush's rubber stamps. I'm truly interested to see how many Republican's use their support of this bill to distance themselves from the president.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X