Respond To This
So President Bush has finally found something worth vetoing, embryonic stem cell research. I don't agree with him, but I was surprised at the Democrats' response in their weekly radio address.
Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado, who co-sponsored the bill, said "the President’s veto had nothing to do with morals" but was motivated by “cold, calculated, cynical political gain.”
I was taken aback. Bush has dealt with this issue before and it's pretty clear he feels strongly about it. Why else would he veto a bill that's so popular? For "political gain"? DeGette may hate how Bush voted but that's no reason to insult our intelligence.
In fact, I wish Bush were more cyncial. Then he might have voted the way I want.
I know it's too much to ask, but I'd like to see a higher level of debate among politicians, i.e., arguments about policy instead of name-calling.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:09 AM
2 Comments:
There's always an argument that taking either side of a controversial issue has political advantage. In this particular case, the legislation is highly popular with the public at large. I'd guess it's even favored by people who vote Republican. If Bush's main consideration were cynically currying political favor, he'd have signed the bill. (Banning gay marriage is a different issue. Whether you think Bush was cynical or not, it's--at present--a popular issue with the public.)
My bigger point is I consider discussion of political motivation and other mindreading tricks, generally speaking, a waste of time. I want to hear arguments about why a policy is good or not, not accusations as to what's the "real" reason behind the vote.
Though I oppose Bush's veto, I don't see the hypocrisy. Right or wrong, there's a clear moral argument that even research that may save shouldn't be done. The Iraq war is a separate issue (and, for all we know, has saved or may save millions of lives).
I'm pro-life myself, and have often gotten into debates about whether Bush's views on this issue are sincere.
[A related question, that I have also gotten into discussions about, is whether Bush's religious views are sincere. Of course that's not the same question -- there are many religious pro-choicers and nonreligious pro-lifers. Yet there's obviously a correlation between views on abortion and certain religious groups. And in my experience, folks who think Bush's religiosity is a false front usually think the same about his pro-life views.]
Anyway, I think it's impossible to be certain, but I consider it very likely that Bush is sincere about his views on abortion, including stem cells.
Here is one piece of evidence from last week. Bush's own public statements about embryonic stem-cells stressed the fact that these embryos are people. But Tony Snow's comments stressed the fact that Bush isn't against all embryonic stem-cell research, and that he has in fact sponsored more embryonic stem-cell research "than any president in history."
If this is part of a strategy to get votes, I would think the whole White House would be using the same "talking points". Instead, the president and his spokesman are giving justifications that are almost 180 degrees apart.
Post a Comment
<< Home